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

Monster_Manual_Traditional_Cover_Art_copy.webp


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

From one of his tweets:



Clearly he was calling someone’s game time-wasting slop.
He's saying that removing meaning from play makes playing a waste of time.
It doesn't seem like anyone read the whole thing, only the part they want to not like.
Removing meaning from anything any one does makes it a waste of time.
Even if what your doing doesn't mean anything to anyone else, it means something to you.
 

Personally I wouldn't say that a lack of risk or death or failure in the game makes it time wasting slop. I would say for me the game loses something when that isn't present and it feels like there has been an evolution away from risk that is worth examining. But a post saying that is never going to generate discussion on social media so I get why he spiced it up
For me it loses enough that I wouldn't play it any longer. I agree that it's not slop, but it's also not for me. Death and/or failure aren't everything, but they do need to be present as potential outcomes in order for me to enjoy the game.
 

You missed a perfect opportunity to make a @kayakingpoodle DID IT AGAIN!!!!!!! post
Speaking of @kayakingpoodle, several years ago my wife and I were eating at Duke's in Malibu and we saw a kayaking Golden Retriever. It sat on the front of its owner's kayak and jumped off in an attempt to catch a seal, which of course it didn't. Then it had to swim back and climb back up onto the kayak. As soon as it was on the kayak, the seal would pop its head up again right next to the retriever and it jumped off again to try and catch it. Rinse and repeat from the moment the kayak came into view until the kayak left view in the other direction. That poor dog was lured off the kayak by the seal at least a dozen times that we saw.
 

He's saying that removing meaning from play makes playing a waste of time.
It doesn't seem like anyone read the whole thing, only the part they want to not like.
Removing meaning from anything any one does makes it a waste of time.
Even if what your doing doesn't mean anything to anyone else, it means something to you.
Yes. The point of contention, though, is that a lot of folks find meaning in things other than death and failure, so removing those two things doesn't necessarily remove meaning.
 

He's saying that removing meaning from play makes playing a waste of time.
It doesn't seem like anyone read the whole thing, only the part they want to not like.
Removing meaning from anything any one does makes it a waste of time.
Even if what you’re doing doesn't mean anything to anyone else, it means something to you.
I agree. People are definitely not getting the full context of his posts.
 

Yes. The point of contention, though, is that a lot of folks find meaning in things other than death and failure, so removing those two things doesn't necessarily remove meaning.

It's like a good pizza. It's not just the crust, the sauce, the cheese or the toppings. It's all of those things together that make a good pizza. He also appears to be saying that if you don't have ham and pineapple it's a total waste of time.

And now I want a pizza.
 

It's like a good pizza. It's not just the crust, the sauce, the cheese or the toppings. It's all of those things together that make a good pizza. He also appears to be saying that if you don't have ham and pineapple it's a total waste of time.

And now I want a pizza.
Yeah. It's a good metaphor, and now I want pizza, too, but there's not a chance in hell pineapple will be on it.
 

It's like a good pizza. It's not just the crust, the sauce, the cheese or the toppings. It's all of those things together that make a good pizza. He also appears to be saying that if you don't have ham and pineapple it's a total waste of time.

And now I want a pizza.
Pizza and D&D are a lot alike.
Not everyone that likes pizza likes the same pizza, and very few things(toppings and rules) can't be picked off to get that slice / game you want!
 

Yes. The point of contention, though, is that a lot of folks find meaning in things other than death and failure, so removing those two things doesn't necessarily remove meaning.
I think what's being said is that death and failure are what make HIS play experience have meaning and if you remove those things for HIM then playing has no meaning any longer for HIM. Which in turn would mean that if anyone removes the part of the game that has meaning to YOU, then you are wasting time.
It seems to me that everyone is up in arms because they think he is saying that the thing they love is "slop". The focus is not on the overall point he is trying to make, but on the thing that they feel is offensive in the term "slop".

I have no skin in this on any level. I barely know who Mearls is, i'm not offended by...well...anything, and it really seemed like there would be a third thing when I started this thought.

The moral of the story (to me) it would seem (and many will tell me I'm wrong and that's ok) is that enjoy what you enjoy and if someone takes the part of the thing you enjoy away, find something else to enjoy.

I am no one and I approve this message.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top