WotC Mike Mearls: "D&D Is Uncool Again"

In Mike Mearls' recent interview with Ben Riggs, he talks about how he feels that Dungeons & Dragons has had its moment, and is now uncool again. Mearls was one of the lead designers of D&D 5E and became the franchise's Creative Director in 2018. He worked at WotC until he was laid off in 2023. He is now EP of roleplaying games at Chaosium, the publisher of Call of Chulhu.

My theory is that when you look back at the OGL, the real impact of it is that it made D&D uncool again. D&D was cool, right? You had Joe Manganiello and people like that openly talking about playing D&D. D&D was something that was interesting, creative, fun, and different. And I think what the OGL did was take that concept—that Wizards and this idea of creativity that is inherent in the D&D brand because it's a roleplaying game, and I think those two things were sundered. And I don’t know if you can ever put them back together.

I think, essentially, it’s like that phrase: The Mandate of Heaven. I think fundamentally what happened was that Wizards has lost the Mandate of Heaven—and I don’t see them even trying to get it back.

What I find fascinating is that it was Charlie Hall who wrote that article. This is the same Charlie Hall who wrote glowing reviews of the 5.5 rulebooks. And then, at the same time, he’s now writing, "This is your chance because D&D seems to be stumbling." How do you square that? How do I go out and say, "Here are the two new Star Wars movies. They’re the best, the most amazing, the greatest Star Wars movies ever made. By the way, Star Wars has never been weaker. Now is the time for other sci-fi properties", like, to me that doesn’t make any sense! To me, it’s a context thing again.

Maybe this is the best Player’s Handbook ever written—but the vibes, the audience, the people playing these games—they don’t seem excited about it. We’re not seeing a groundswell of support and excitement. Where are the third-party products? That’s what I'd ask. Because that's what you’d think, "oh, there’s a gap", I mean remember before the OGL even came up, back when 3.0 launched, White Wolf had a monster book. There were multiple adventures at Gen Con. The license wasn’t even official yet, and there were already adventures showing up in stores. We're not seeing that, what’s ostensibly the new standard going forward? If anything, we’re seeing the opposite—creators are running in the opposite direction. I mean, that’s where I’m going.

And hey—to plug my Patreon—patreon.com/mikemearls (one word). This time last year, when I was looking at my post-Wizards options, I thought, "Well, maybe I could start doing 5E-compatible stuff." And now what I’m finding is…I just don’t want to. Like—it just seems boring. It’s like trying to start a hair metal band in 1992. Like—No, no, no. Everyone’s mopey and we're wearing flannel. It's Seattle and rain. It’s Nirvana now, man. It’s not like Poison. And that’s the vibe I get right now, yeah, Poison was still releasing albums in the ’90s. They were still selling hundreds of thousands or a million copies. But they didn’t have any of the energy. It's moved on. But what’s interesting to me is that roleplaying game culture is still there. And that’s what I find fascinating about gaming in general—especially TTRPGs. I don’t think we’ve ever had a period where TTRPGs were flourishing, and had a lot of energy and excitement around them, and D&D wasn’t on the upswing. Because I do think that’s what’s happening now. We’re in very strange waters where I think D&D is now uncool.

 

[SteveC]

Nothing is permanent, though, so hypotheticals about how long D&D Beyond will be around aren't really relevant

I'm looking in my office at my first edition AD&D PHB. It's survived from the 70s. I think the odds of it surviving 10 years from now (and it's in my will to a friend who would appreciate it) are better than the odds of D&D Beyond being around in 10 years. I don't even know if I will be around in 10 years, but if I am, I'll definitely check into D&D Beyond and see if it still exists.

 

[Umbran]

I understand that this feels better to read, but to me it sounds like a request to refrain from expressing yourself if you're unhappy about something. That can be a tall order, particularly if social pressure to conform to a prevailing opinion is high.

Oh, no, sir, you have missed the point.

This is not about "feeling better to read". This is about our relationship to games, and our communities.

 

[Mercurius]

A few thoughts on sense of risk. I'm reminded of what goes on in my mind when I'm searching for something to watch. Fiction or non-fiction? What genre? Series or movie? Sometimes it comes down to what feelings do I want to experience? That often guides my choice.

Sometimes I want something familiar, warm and fuzzy - where it isn't about what surprises are around the corner, but more about being in a pleasant mind space. I think this relates to what people sometimes call "guilty pleasures." For me this might be a well-made rom-com (e.g. Notting Hill) or it might be a childhood favorite I've seen many times (e.g. Donner's Superman).

Other times I want to feel my senses heightened with a feeling of risk, that I don't know how things will turn out. This might be a horror film, in what seems to be a new golden age of horror cinema. Or it might simply be a new film that I don't know much about.

I also have favorite types of experiences that are harder to find: the sense of wonder, of experiencing something that opens my mind up; or a well-made gnostic thriller that explores existential questions.

My point being, there is no one-size-fits-all for what I want to watch - and it really comes down to how I feel in the moment, what I want to experience. No singular cinematic experience that I go to, or that I "should" go to (unless I'm a pretentious wannabe auteur, in which every film I watch must have some kind of import to cinematic history).

What Mearls might be missing is that different people engage with RPGs for different reasons. I think he's talking about a specific type of RPG, one that is connected to what we could call "traditional D&D." In that regard, I think he's expressing a valid perspective: that to facilitate that sort of traditional approach to gaming, a sense of risk is necessary. But this doesn't mean that there aren't other ways to play games, or other types of games to play.

This is something that some folks, myself included, sometimes miss. I don't go to RPGs for as broad a spectrum of experiences as I might to cinema or music. For me, RPGs is about adventure and exploration and the Quest. There is a wide variety of experiences within that range, but there is also a lot of stuff that I don't care to experience in an RPG context, that I get elsewhere (e.g. "Notting Hill"). But I don't think it is inherently an invalid approach to look for different things from RPGs, and sometimes folks like Mearls and myself forget that.

TLDR: I think what Mearls is saying is perfectly valid and true for what could loosely be called "traditional D&D" (or RPGing in general), for which a "sense of risk" is an intrinsic part of the adventuring experience. While that may still be the default mode of play that is implied by most RPGs, not only has the RPG space expanded beyond that with countless types and modes of play, but different people want different things from the game experience; in that sense, Mearls' view is too narrow and specific.

 

[Mercurius]

He makes it quite clear that he's complaining about younger gamers who apparently just don't know what's good for them. Say "I don't get why younger people enjoy games without significant risk" and I have no issue with it. He's also not just some random poster, he posts to sell his product and his brand as a designer. If you're in that position you should be putting some thought into how you're expressing yourself. The fact that he posted this to X and not Bluesky says to me that he knew he was denigrating other styles of play.

I hear what you're saying--see my last longish post in this thread. I will say, though, that I don't think we need to interpret what he said as a threat. Even if he's making fun of other styles of play, so what? And maybe he is selling his product and brand, for which he doesn't have to appeal to everyone, just those who jive with his product and brand.

 

[Mercurius]

Honest answer: He either didn't realize that his language could be seized upon by members of the TTRPG community who seek to exclude others for their own selfish purposes, or he absolutely knew that was who was going to see that post, and was careful to post it on Twitter which has a larger number of those people versus Bluesky, where he also posts but decided not to post there.

Hey, I'm not going to dance around this. I'm about as liberal as it gets, and I think bigotry and people who like to use dogwhistles that call out to bigots suck. And that's about all I can say because anything further gets even more political from here on out, but hopefully I've made myself clear.

Yes, but not everything needs to be funneled into culture wars (e.g. Blue Sky vs. Twitter, etc etc). It would be nice if we could just talk about RPGs here, within the context of RPGs, without not-so-subtly connecting it to larger, cultural conflicts. I mean, if for no other reason that there are perspectives that don't fit neatly into either camp, which tend to get drowned out by the "two-sideists."

 

[Imaro]

Yes, but not everything needs to be funneled into culture wars (e.g. Blue Sky vs. Twitter, etc etc). It would be nice if we could just talk about RPGs here, within the context of RPGs, without not-so-subtly connecting it to larger, cultural conflicts. I mean, if for no other reason that there are perspectives that don't fit neatly into either camp, which tend to get drowned out by the "two-sideists."

But sometimes it is about that and it should be called out...

Edit: it's one discussion among a multitude on the forum... I'd argue that hardly qualifies as everything being funneled.

 

[AlViking]

I hear what you're saying--see my last longish post in this thread. I will say, though, that I don't think we need to interpret what he said as a threat. Even if he's making fun of other styles of play, so what? And maybe he is selling his product and brand, for which he doesn't have to appeal to everyone, just those who jive with his product and brand.

Anyone that says their personal preferences are inherently better and if you don't do it their way it's a waste of time is clearly telling other people they're playing wrong. It's arrogant, false and since he's clearly calling out young people in particular it comes across as bigoted as well. I'll just repeat: if he was talking about his preferences or even clarified that he was talking about one style of play I wouldn't have an issue but that is not what he did.

 

[TiQuinn]

Yes, but not everything needs to be funneled into culture wars (e.g. Blue Sky vs. Twitter, etc etc). It would be nice if we could just talk about RPGs here, within the context of RPGs, without not-so-subtly connecting it to larger, cultural conflicts. I mean, if for no other reason that there are perspectives that don't fit neatly into either camp, which tend to get drowned out by the "two-sideists."

Sure. Mike could’ve had a lovely discussion about it here, or on Dragonsfoot, or maybe in an interview where he could have possibly explained at length what his thoughts were in a conversational way.

But Twitter and Bluesky exist, and they do carry with them distinct audiences, and I expect anyone participating in those places to know that. Frankly, Mike words invited the larger cultural conflict because he started talking about “safe” games, which he threw into quotes and then claims not to know what that meant. Well, heck, Mike, if you don’t know what that means - why are you talking about it unless it’s to create your own definition, which in the very next sentence he connects to participation trophies. The rest of his posts weren’t exactly clarifying either. They seemed very much like a rant. Well, then, what is he ranting about if not some sort of culture war? And again, why post it on Twitter but not Bluesky where he has 2500 followers? Is his message not worth posting there? Why not? (Forgive these somewhat rhetorical questions.)

Seriously, if you tire of the cultural war, you really should be at least a bit upset at Mearls because by even cursory reading, it’s difficult to say he isn’t jumping into the culture war with both feet! Again, does he do it knowingly? Or is he simply ignorant of the connotations of what he says?

Neither one’s a good look.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why do you feel the need to defend him? He has opinions he posted publicly and i have opinions on them... what's your benefit in white knighting him?

I am trying to understand why a person's stated opinions in this matter make a difference in whether or not you appreciate the content they create. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't know if I would even buy his game, but the principle I'm running into baffles me logically.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Physical books aren't permanent either. They can be damaged by fire or water. I lost half my comic book collection due to my basement flooding, so I know first hand how fragile books can be. I'd say that PDFs are actually more durable than a physical book and probably the most permanent format we currently have, due to how easily they can be backed up. Nothing is permanent, though, so hypotheticals about how long D&D Beyond will be around aren't really relevant.

I think there's a difference, in that a person could very easily decide to shut down the service for which you are paying for access at any time, with no recourse to you at all. When you subscribe you are putting your fate in the hands of people, not in, you know, fate. If people burn you I feel it hurts more.