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.

 

[Faolyn]

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 yet you continued to do so instead of just ignoring my posts.

nope, he said the exact opposite

Really. Would you care to explain how "the GM should defeat and foil the players" means the exact opposite of "the GM should defeat and foil the players"?

Let's turn this around, would you twist his every word if it weren't Mearls?

I haven't twisted anyone's word around, because I've been quoting him directly. You're the one who insists that "defeat and foil" means "challenge" even though he hasn't used the word "challenge" even once.

You are the one who is literally twisting his words, because you are insisting they mean something other than what he says.

I don't actually know much about him as a person. I've been following him on patreon while he's been developing his "Odyssey" game (although I may stop, if he's going to turn it into a game to defeat and foil players, since that's the definition of unfun). That's literally the only interaction I've ever had with him. Therefore, the fact that he's Mearls means nothing to me, and I'd be saying the same things I currently am if anyone else posted to this board that GMs should defeat and foil their players. Because I find that to be a stupidly adversarial way to play.

 

[mamba]

Really. Would you care to explain how "the GM should defeat and foil the players" means the exact opposite of "the GM should defeat and foil the players"?

It was the opposite of the part I highlighted

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.

i.e. that the game system should work towards defeating the players. I assumed the quote with the highlighted part was self-explanatory enough

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

but I guess not, so here is some more info... If the game uses disinterested mechanics, then it is not working towards foiling the players, it is essentially neutral and simply working towards an outcome, ideally one the group considers fair and probable given the inputs. In any case, it is not working against the players, which was your claim

You are the one who is literally twisting his words, because you are insisting they mean something other than what he says.

no, you take them out of context, I read them in context. Just look a few lines up...

 

[Imaro]

but I guess not, so here is some more info... If the game uses disinterested mechanics, then it is not working towards foiling the players, it is essentially neutral and simply working towards an outcome, ideally one the group considers fair and probable given the inputs. In any case, it is not working against the players, which was your claim.

you're assuming that just because the success/failure determiner is neutral... the game doesn't include other factors to create an outcome that still favors the GM defeating or foiling the PC's.

Example: If I have unbalanced encounter guidelines but a neutral determiner the game can still push towards the PC's towards a failure state.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

you're assuming that just because the success/failure determiner is neutral... the game doesn't include other factors to create an outcome that still favors the GM defeating or foiling the PC's.

Example: If I have unbalanced encounter guidelines but a neutral determiner the game can still push towards the PC's towards a failure state.

Many cite this as a problem with the CR of monsters in both versions of 5e, along with many of the published adventures at low (read as beginner for both players and DM'S) levels.

Character death has always been a part of official D&D, though it is certainly one of many things that any table is welcome and invited to remove as they see fit.

 

[Imaro]

Many cite this as a problem with the CR of monsters in both versions of 5e, along with many of the published adventures at low (read as beginner for both players and DM'S) levels.

It's been cited as a problem in many editions of D&D

Character death has always been a part of official D&D, though it is certainly one of many things that any table is welcome and invited to remove as they see fit.

Uhm...ok. Thanks.

 

[mamba]

you're assuming that just because the success/failure determiner is neutral... the game doesn't include other factors to create an outcome that still favors the GM defeating or foiling the PC's.

that is more you assuming things that are not anywhere in the post

 

[Imaro]

that is more you assuming things that are not anywhere in the post

Lol


Riiight.

 

[Kromanjon]

I don't think Mearls have any interest in returning to this thread so let's take his last comment and make a study of it. Let us look at the words that have lead to such polarizing opinions. Grab your SCUBA gear, we're doing a deep dive.

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

Ah, that's nice.

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

Never read anything about this so I have to take his word that this is the definition Suits came up with.

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.

Here it seems like some see this example as bad taste because the death of some characters lead to what was considered a fun game.

I think it's an example of emergent storytelling. Three characters lost their heads toa vorpal sword and the remaining managed to turn a tragedy into a triumph. Had they fled it would be a story of a tragic loss. Had they retreated, regrouped and returned to exact revenge it would be a story of loss and vengeance. No matter which one of these stories was told the game had to support the fact that characters could die, otherwise none of those stories could happen.

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.

Here we see if he can hold ttrpgs to the definition stated above. Saying that ttrpgs are voluntary doesn't seem controversial at all. There might be some who feel forced to participate at times but the base idea should be that every one plays of their own free will. The second part is that the obstacles are unnecessary, something I feel comes with them being voluntary. Since we choose to face the obstacles there is also a choice not to face them making them unnecessary.

He does make some assumptions here on what players expect from AD&D and also the part about success being "far from assured" since this seems more based upon each individual obstacle where success can be more, or less, assured. The last part does seem important, him mentioning that the stakes could be character death but might also be a nebulous other thing.

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.

Next he claims the importance of a session 0 or similar tool, something I could debate by saying that some groups are just so comfortable in the style of game they're playing that this is not needed. Of course this doesn't take away from the actual point that everyone in the game need to be on the same page regarding what kind of game they're playing. I'm not sure about the "actively support" when understanding and agreeing might suffice.

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).

Now we come to the nitty gritty. Is the GMs goal to defeat or foil the players? Yes. According to what he writes the GM should oppose the players. The interesting thing about this is that it actually goes against the usual OSR spiel about the GM being a neutral arbiter or referee. This is, in other words, doesn't just go against the modern GM who's a "fan of the PCs" and "makes sure everyone is having fun" but also the OSR GM who "makes rulings" and "keeps an organized timetable".

This GM wants to stop the things the players aspire to.

Mearls follows this by stating that a good system enables this with the help of "disinterested mechanics". I'm guessing (yes guessing) he's referring to a good system in that it adheres to the definition set by Suits earlier.

If you accept all that,

This is the beautiful part. If you accept all that. Maybe you don't. Well, then I guess this doesn't apply to you, does it? I could just stop here and say that I don't accept it. We all know adversarial GMs are the worst so why would anyone accept this?

Oh, I just can't help myself. Say I did accept it, what would that entail, mr. Mearls?

then the purpose of TTRPG design is threefold:

Yes, please give me some purpose. I obviously need it after writing all this.

1. Create a mechanism to establish the stakes of the game (what are we risking?)

Interesting. A mechanism (which I would presume he means game mechanic) to establish stakes. Sound almost like the oracle type mechanic from one of them solo-rpgs. So is he looking to take away GM fiat in this, creating a game that decide the stakes in a neutral, "disinterested" way. This does seem to go against the session 0 where the type of game, as well as the stakes, where decided by the group but perhaps he means something more granular while the session 0 stakes where grander in scale.

2. Provide the obstacles to put those stakes into question (how do we risk it?)

A game presenting obstacles doesn't seem to be standard fare. Monsters, trap and such. There might be more to this but there isn't much here to work with.

3. Create rules to allow players and the GM to apply themselves in opposition to the resolve the stakes (what happens?)

Ok. So the rules should be so neutral that the GM can go hog wild trying to kill the PCs but he wont have the control ordinarily attributed the GM. Basicaly it sound like the rules should hamper the GM creating more like a balanced wargame or boardgame interface where each party can use the tools presented to them to their fullest. This would create an understanding between players and GM that there is more of a no holds bared type of situation and that death could always be on the table.

Seems like an interesting idea but it also sounds more like a rules over rulings type of system and I'm wondering who would make final rulings when rules would come into question.

Honestly these three points didn't really give me all that much to work with. I'm curious what kind of game he's working on but I'd like to see more details and examples. It seems to be an interesting structure to base a game upon but I can already see some possible shortcomings that it would have to adress.

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.

I don't spend any time swimming in the cesspit that used to be called Twitter so I'll miss his follow ups. Does anyone know if he's posted anything else?

NOTE: Anything written above are my own opinions on the post written på user mearls. None of it should be considered any more or less than speculation. I have nothing invested in the success of neither WotCs or Mike Mearls' products.

 

[CellarHeroes]

Look at all the people defending him for whatever reason and deciding that he said something completely other than what he said. Would they do that for just any rando that wasn't a known game designer? That's how it's relevant.

Mearls is a gamer, who also just happens to be a designer. He's also very accessible, if you go to conventions or hang out here, so you can even ask him yourself.

What a lot of us are using to interpret his meaning is context. Context from conversations, blogs, posts, and even games he's designed.

If you're familiar with roleplaying games, let's say D&D 5e in particular (a game he did some work on), you can see what he's talking about. As a GM, I create the world with the help of the tools he helped design. The players create their characters with the tools he helped design. Depending on your GM's style, some potential goals are presented to the PCs or the PCs come up with their own goals. The adventure begins...

The PCs encounter obstacles that the GM creates using tools Mearls helped design. Some of those obstacles are monsters and NPCs who have tactics and powers. The PCs also have special abilities that he helped design. The GM uses the tactics and powers of the monsters while the PCs use tactics and powers. The GM's goal (while running the monsters) is to defeat the PCs, while the PC's goal is to defeat/overcome the monsters, all done while using the disinterested dice.

If my goal as a GM wasn't to defeat the PCs, then the pack of gnolls would just stand there and do nothing besides hand out XP and treasure. We might as well be playing Candyland.

 

[KYRON45]

If my goal as a GM wasn't to defeat the PCs, then the pack of gnolls would just stand there and do nothing besides hand out XP and treasure. We might as well be playing Candyland.

Don't give Hasbro any ides.

CANDYLAND: The RPG!!!