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.

 

[AlViking]

maybe you can explain why you do, because I do not understand it either...

I've never gotten upset about anything posted on this thread. A bit frustrated now and then perhaps.

 

[KYRON45]

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.

Humans are complex. Sometimes interpretation is involved.

 

[mamba]

I've never gotten upset about anything posted on this thread. A bit frustrated now and then perhaps.

In was referring to the 'twist meaning' part

 

[kayakingpoodle]

One last time. I'll just reiterate even though it doesn't really seem to matter what I say.

On his posts on X Mearls states that "the bigger the threat, the more meaning the game has to us ...".

That last word in the text you quoted is very significant even without the context he was talking about a game he played with people that enjoyed the game at the con.

Cherry picking is not a sound base for proving up an argument.

 

[AlViking]

Humans are complex. Sometimes interpretation is involved.

I think we can discuss what was said without trying to "fix", change the wording, read into things said that simply aren't there. If people want to discuss overall design philosophy that's a whole different topic.

 

[Libertad]

The real thing I'm wondering about is why Mearls is apparently paying monthly for a blue checkmark.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

The real thing I'm wondering about is why Mearls is apparently paying monthly for a blue checkmark.

He finds value in it in some way? Why does what he spends his money on concern you?

 

[KYRON45]

I think we can discuss what was said without trying to "fix", change the wording, read into things said that simply aren't there. If people want to discuss overall design philosophy that's a whole different topic.

So everyone who has ever interpreted anyone else is fixing things?
That's an interesting interpretation. Think about that for a moment.

 

[Staffan]

He very literally did, as I quoted above. "the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players. A good system enables that"

It's convenient that you decided to not quote the part of his post that actually said it, too.


Dude, you're the one who is selectively quoting him in order to pretend he said something a lot nobler than what he actually said. You're misrepresenting him in order to... what, exactly? Why is defending him so important?

Speaking of selective quoting, what he said was "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."

So if you're playing an adversarial game, the GM's job is to try to defeat the players. But in that situation you don't want the GM to be the one who decides questions of success or failure by fiat – you want the mechanics of the game to be impartial.

I would compare this to a game of Imperial Assault (a Star Wars-themed dungeoncrawler board game with some RPG-like elements). It's a game for up to five players, one of which is the Imperial Player and the others play rebels. When I am the Imperial player in Imperial Assault, I try my damnedest to stop the other players from achieving their goals. The game does put limits on what I can do – I "only" get so-and-so many points of reinforcements each round, and I have cards I can play but those are limited resources, and I have more knowledge about the scenario than the other players do. I will deploy my troops where I think they'll be most useful, and I will focus-fire players to the best of my ability because if I deal enough damage before they have a chance to recover I will significantly downgrade their abilities. And of course, the other players are doing their best to achieve their goals by thinking tactically and hopefully using their own abilities as best they can. I'm happy if the other players win, but I'm not going to throw the game in their favor to let them win. If they're going to win, they have to earn it.

(Side note if you're ever playing Imperial Assault as a rebel: your goal is almost never to kill all the Imperial troops. You usually have a goal set by the scenario, though sometimes you don't know the details before starting. But the Imperial troops are almost always an obstacle between you and the goal, not the goal itself. It is easy to lose sight of this.)

But this is a particular playing style, and it's not always appropriate for doing in an RPG. That's what he's talking about in the paragraph before the one quoted above: "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." So he's not saying "This is what all games should be like." He's saying "If you want that sort of game, this is how to do it."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Speaking of selective quoting, what he said was "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."

So if you're playing an adversarial game, the GM's job is to try to defeat the players. But in that situation you don't want the GM to be the one who decides questions of success or failure by fiat – you want the mechanics of the game to be impartial.

I would compare this to a game of Imperial Assault (a Star Wars-themed dungeoncrawler board game with some RPG-like elements). It's a game for up to five players, one of which is the Imperial Player and the others play rebels. When I am the Imperial player in Imperial Assault, I try my damnedest to stop the other players from achieving their goals. The game does put limits on what I can do – I "only" get so-and-so many points of reinforcements each round, and I have cards I can play but those are limited resources, and I have more knowledge about the scenario than the other players do. I will deploy my troops where I think they'll be most useful, and I will focus-fire players to the best of my ability because if I deal enough damage before they have a chance to recover I will significantly downgrade their abilities. And of course, the other players are doing their best to achieve their goals by thinking tactically and hopefully using their own abilities as best they can. I'm happy if the other players win, but I'm not going to throw the game in their favor to let them win. If they're going to win, they have to earn it.

(Side note if you're ever playing Imperial Assault as a rebel: your goal is almost never to kill all the Imperial troops. You usually have a goal set by the scenario, though sometimes you don't know the details before starting. But the Imperial troops are almost always an obstacle between you and the goal, not the goal itself. It is easy to lose sight of this.)

But this is a particular playing style, and it's not always appropriate for doing in an RPG. That's what he's talking about in the paragraph before the one quoted above: "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." So he's not saying "This is what all games should be like." He's saying "If you want that sort of game, this is how to do it."

I love Imperial Assault! One of my great gaming regrets is not getting all the supplements before FFG discontinued the game.