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

I think there are extenuating factors, first: 5E was a great product but the killer app was Critical Role. Second, WotC expects DnD numbers like Magic numbers and they just aren't the same thing. Third, WotC chewed up and spit out and then stopped on all of the goodwill their products and designers built up for DnD. The OGL fiasco probably killed a real chance of the latest DnD film being a bigger success and they fired the team who helped Balder's Gate 3 become a major success which they also wasted.

Daggerheart's release should be very telling and I think Shadowdark's success is also very telling as Kelsey is the complete opposite of Hasbro.
 

<sigh> And I'd really hoped you could tell the difference between the BBEG and the GM. Or the difference between "challenge" and "defeat." Do I need to pull up dictionary definitions?
guess what, I can, and can also understand context, you dictionary will not help you with that... you have consistently misrepresented what Mike said, not interested in continuing this

And here I have to wonder if you ever read Mearls' post or any of the times I directly copypasted from it because he literally said that the game should do that, not (just) the GM. Here, let me quote him again; it's in the second sentence of the first paragraph:

In his words, the GM and the players should be opposed. The GM's goal should be to defeat the players. The game system should work towards that.
nope, he said the exact opposite

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
 


On his posts on X Mearls states that "the bigger the threat, the more meaning the game has to us ...". I disagree.
I disagree too, anything taken to the extreme will be ridiculous, but you take it there when he does not. He basically says that without challenge the game is meaningless, and with that I agree. You cut away all the rest to focus on a single line, yet again
 



I find human behaviour fascinating. I'm always curious what people are interested in with these discussions.

I often can't relate with these conversations. There are like 8 billion people on earth. It's my guess that more than a few of them are going to disagree with me. Who has the time to argue with them all? 🤷‍♂️

What am I looking for? No one has ever asked me that before. :unsure:
I guess i just enjoy seeing all of the different points of view and how people react/over react to the conversation.

Really i'm here because i can't play video games at work and if i'm reading and typing at my desk, it comes off to my boss that i'm diligently working when she walks past. :oops:

I think it can be interesting to discuss what makes a good game, what the roles of a GM are. A discussion can and probably should include opinions on why people disagree. But I don't understand why people get upset, have to twist meaning, get offended or block posters simply because we disagree. If I only discussed topic with people I agree with life would be boring.

Beyond that it's not worth discussing further since people will just say "he basically said" or "what he really means" instead of what he actually wrote.

Oh, and of course I only really do it for the fake internet points. :)
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top