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.

 

[Scribe]

Thanks for the meaningful and in-depth rebuttal.

I'm not going to reiterate a decades worth of observations, criticism, complaint and gaslighting.

Look at this thread, and the unhinged insinuations to a hyperbolic tweet.

 

[Faolyn]

I've seen swings from meat grinder to never say die in all editions of the game. Depending on the game even death wasn't permanent if you could drag the bodies back to town. Mearls is clearly and openly saying that if the game doesn't make you take risk significant risks it's a waste of time and that his preference is better because it speaks to some internal truth of humanity. I don't care how you try to spin it.

Heh, this makes me think about the 5e game I'm in. It's going to be nearly impossible for my character to die because we have a grave cleric in the party, meaning spare the dying has a 30-foot range. Plus there's an NPC follower who has some cleric levels. And this leads to me being willing to take more risks and make chancier actions than if death was a bigger risk and I felt I had to be cautious all the time. And that leads to some pretty memorable scenes.

 

[mearls]

The reaction to my thread is interesting, and I've enjoyed reading some of the commentary around it.

It stems from my reading of the philosopher Bernard Suits and his definition of a game: "The voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles".

It fascinates me, because at Gary Con I noticed something in the Founders & Legends tournament I helped run. The groups I ran for that suffered a severe setback - losing three characters in one round to a vorpal sword, for instance - each rallied and absolutely crushed the adventure with inventive, teamwork driven play. The threat of defeat rallied them, rather than deflated them.

Suits' definition interests me because I think it speaks directly to TTRPG play and why that may have happened.

A TTRPG is voluntary, in that we agree to the type of game we want to play and the stakes (the AD&D players expected a deadly event). It presents obstacles to overcome, in that success is far from assured, instead requiring engagement and participation by players to achieve victory. That obstacle could be character death, or a story-based failure.

That underscores the importance of a session 0 or similar tool that the group can use to get on the same page. Since this is voluntary, we all need to agree and actively support the stakes we want to set. If we are not on the same page here, the game is off the rails before it begins.

That then dovetails to the purpose of rules in gameplay. If the players' goal is success, the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players. A good system enables that by moving questions of success or failure to a die roll or some other disinterested mechanic rather than relying solely on GM fiat (though fiat has a very useful place in TTRPGs as a whole).

If you accept all that, then the purpose of TTRPG design is threefold:

1. Create a mechanism to establish the stakes of the game (what are we risking?)
2. Provide the obstacles to put those stakes into question (how do we risk it?)
3. Create rules to allow players and the GM to apply themselves in opposition to the resolve the stakes (what happens?)

I'll be following up more on Twitter, but the con was great. I made some tweaks to my design drafting off these thoughts and have been very happy with the results in play.

 

[mamba]

this leads to me being willing to take more risks and make chancier actions than if death was a bigger risk and I felt I had to be cautious all the time. And that leads to some pretty memorable scenes.

would it still be memorable if you knew everything you tried would work out and your character could never get seriously injured, let alone die?

You taking more risks is you reintroducing the risk the cleric took out of the game…

 

[KYRON45]

"Participation trophy" as a metaphor is always used in a derogatory manner. Does anyone dispute that?

All trophies are generally stupid, IMO. They tend to reward the wrong things, and are a bane upon education (don't even get me started on marks and reports cards, and I'm a teacher). If the purpose of education is to help people maximize their potential, trophies are generally counter-productive. And they usually aren't there for the student, they are there for the fans (the family, the people in the bleachers, whatever). There is nothing sadder than an adult with a trophy wall.

Setting that aside, the philosophy of "everyone winning and no one's feelings getting hurt" seems like a pretty good ideal for a TTRPG, specifically, doesn't it? But let's break it down:

"Everyone winning": There is no specific "win state" for most TTRPGs. The point is to work together to create a fun story, and on the way there will be trials and tribulations. I mean, "the friends we made along the way" is a meme expression at this point...but isn't it actually the whole point of these games? To hang out and entertain each other? If not, what is the point? So I would define "winning," in the specific context of TTRPGs as "a game where everyone has a good time and wants to come back for more."

"No one's feelings getting hurt." This just seems like a good design goal for any recreational activity. To me, it implies fairness and treating others with kindness and consideration. What's objectionable here?

Don't we all aspire to run games where everyone feels good about themselves and wants to come back?

I’ve never gotten a trophy for anything but occasionally a player or two says thank you. That’s good enough for me.

 

[Clint_L]

In D&D, the participation trophy is being invited back.

 

[Faolyn]

I am a younger Gen X and I remember the first time they introduced participation trophies after we had a disaster of a season and were ranked last in the league. No one wanted them and it just made everyone feel worse. I remember a few kids pitched them in the trash. There was no sense of accomplishment.

Younger Gen X here as well. I don't think I've ever seen a participation trophy in my life, let alone gotten one. Maybe I went to the wrong schools. Or maybe it was all a plot to make me feel even more excluded than I already felt. <insert spooky noises> School was pretty much hell for me. If I got a participation trophy, I might have felt less left out. Or I might have felt insulted. I don't know. I was a weird kid.

 

[Staffan]

Also if you do manage to have a PC die, being raised is super easy.

Revivify is tight.

 

[Faolyn]

would it still be memorable if you knew everything you tried would work out and your character could never get seriously injured, let alone die?

Probably not. Some of the most memorable scenes in the game have occurred after bad rolls or after I did something that got me seriously injured. I didn't know that the events would work, just that it was far less likely I would die from it. That meant I felt more free to try it.

You taking more risks is you reintroducing the risk the cleric took out of the game…

I don't think so. If death was a likely occurrence, I probably wouldn't do risky things, at least not as often, and that would lead to a somewhat less fun game overall. Or it would lead to me not character about my character quite as much, because if they die, I just make a new one.

In the post he just made, @mearls said "The groups I ran for that suffered a severe setback - losing three characters in one round to a vorpal sword, for instance - each rallied and absolutely crushed the adventure with inventive, teamwork driven play. The threat of defeat rallied them, rather than deflated them."

But those are con games, and maybe those weren't characters the players really cared all that much about.* That's different than in a long-term game where I know all the other players and we've been together for a long time. If I was in a game where I'd played a character for months or years of real time only to have them get killed by a vorpal sword in what may not be the major climactic battle, I don't think that I would just "rally." I don't think a lot of people would just rally. At least not right away, which would likely have to be the case in a con game.

*Or maybe these were characters the players had been using for years at con games. I don't know how con games work.

Of course, it also depends on the game. Which I actually think might be the problem with what Mearls was saying, because not every game is a gritty O/AD&D-alike where death should be a constant worry. Not even every D&D game is or should be like that. Larger-than-life heroic fantasy is a perfectly acceptable genre that tends to not have a lot of PC death in it, at least outside of the major climactic battles. And many games, including some D&D games, are about things other than facing constant death.

 

[mamba]

Probably not. Some of the most memorable scenes in the game have occurred after bad rolls or after I did something that got me seriously injured. I didn't know that the events would work, just that it was far less likely I would die from it. That meant I felt more free to try it.

I don't think so. If death was a likely occurrence, I probably wouldn't do risky things

but that is the point, Mike was not talking about death only, just about the possibility of failure