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

not sure where I misrepresented what you said. As to defending him, because I do not like the misinformation I see in here about what he wrote, plain and simple.


then I am not sure where you disagree with him in your post, because that part is what followed your 'I disagree' and sounded like the explanation for it


yes, and? Is that the goal of the BBEG, I'd say it should be. Does that mean the BBEG always wins, no


instead you take things literally, ignoring the context and that doing so arrives at a nonsensical interpretation / conclusion. As we both know (and so does Mearls), if the DM truly were intent on foiling the players, there is nothing they could do to stop it. So whatever he might mean by this, it is not the literal interpretation you are using
What I know is that I was talking about what he posted. Not what he does in his home game, not what he "really" meant because we all "know" we can't take his word literally.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

What I know is that I was talking about what he posted. Not what he does in his home game, not what he "really" meant because we all "know" we can't take his word literally.
I'd love some clarification on this statement and would be OK if it was via PM if you feel it might violate any rules if posted publicly.
 


So am I, I just do not ignore everything but a single sentence on its own when doing so, even when (esp. when...) that results in a nonsensical conclusion like the one you arrive at.
Feel free to include any other text from the posts that clearly changes the meaning of his words due to their context.

Barring that I don't have anything else to add.
 


Feel free to include any other text from the posts that clearly changes the meaning of his words due to their context.
how about basically everything from that post… I’ll limit it to

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.
and
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
note that these are the sentences right after the one you focused on
 




I don't get why you feel compelled to defend of what he stated or to misrepresent what I was saying. Obviously he never stated anything about every monster or NPC, I was talking about my opinion of the GM's responsibility. His goal for the GM? "The GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players".

Maybe that's not what he is really means but I am not going to put words into his mouth to make it sound like he said something I would agree with. I personally do not like the approach as stated in these posts. It does not matter what else he may or may not think, I am talking about what he posted, nothing more nothing less. He responded on this forum and had plenty of opportunity to add some nuance and he did not.
He meant it, and in the context that it was written, all it means is that the DM has the job of putting challenges into the game world to challenge the players, and that the DM should do so in relation to the players' goals, which is correct. He did not say that the DM should be adversarial, despite that one poorly worded sentence that makes it seem that way if you ignore the context surrounding it.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top