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.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

I'm pointing this snippet out just because we're both on the same page of different editions of a book. Also, to enforce your avoidance of gnoll-related tangents, I only used gnolls in the example because they happened to be fresh in my mind from an adventure I was reading last night.

As GMs we are controlling those monsters, using the rules provided for them and adhering to those rules. When we try to "defeat" the PCs, we are playing those monsters exactly as you pointed out "intelligently" and "capable". We're not pulling punches or fudging dice rolls. It's those funny-shaped dice that are getting in our way.

I consider myself as the type of GM he's referring to as having the goal to defeat the PCs. If we're in a situation and the PCs have opened an opportunity for the monsters to get the upper-hand, I will absolutely take it. When the monsters are in position to strike, I am praying (yes, seriously muttering under my breath) that the roll is unsuccessful, especially if it would do serious harm.

Isn't there a book or two titled something along the lines of monsters knowing what they are doing?

 

[Imaro]

There are going to be a variety of levels of goals, some immediate, some longer term and there should be challenges, some immediate, some cumulative, that should be capable of foiling those goals and leading to a fail state. Exactly how they do so is going to be complex, and what exactly constitutes a fail state could vary.

So you're saying there will be challenges that the PC's may not successfully overcome but also do not result in a fail state of the PC's goals... is that a correct reading? Because if so, you are agreeing with what I claimed in my previous post which I honestly don't think is all that contentious a statement

Suppose the goal is to beat the BBEG at the end of the dungeon - the challenge of getting to that BBEG and defeat them should be one that ends in some kind of failure state - mainly that they failed at that goal. But it wouldn't need to be a single trial with a binary result. Intermediate challenges along the way might setback or otherwise divert, but the cumulative effect of those intermediates and the final challenge probably should be a failure state - TPK, BBEG escape, party capture/imprisonment, whatever.

well you've defined a specific challenge with a specific fail state... which anyone can do... and which i already admitted was one possibility... but which also lacks nuance...

What if the BBEG is defeated but half the party is lost in doing so... What if they are lost before even reaching him... is that a success? Is it a success for those characters that were killed?

Better yet what if they find an NPC in the dungeon and discover she has knowledge of a nearby Keep they could clear our and claim... would their failure or success to socially maneuver and achieve this information create a ffail state orr even influence their progrees toward their goal? I would say no, though it's still a challenge they could succeed or fail at in the dungeonl..

If the challenge is just sneaking past a sentry, then yeah, I would think the failure to overcome the challenge means being spotted by the sentry - a failure state. Exactly what happens then... would still vary.

Yes but failing at ones goal (a fail state) is different from failing a single action...does it cause a fail state of the PC's goal? That's what's being discussed. It's sort of like hit points... you're not dead/unconscious till that final one is taken... thats a fail state IMO.

Ultimately, I'm not sure that a setback isn't also some kind of failure state. It's just not what I would consider a critical failure state in which all forward progress toward the bigger end goal, of which this current challenge was a component, is thwarted.

This feels like defining failure state as any negative... To me when you hit a failure state, you have reached a state in which you can no longer attain your goal.

 

[mamba]

If that's what you want to believe, that's within your prerogative. I know at least that I've gone back several times to reread what Mearls said earlier in this thread so I can try and keep all my ducks in a row.

and yet all you quoted was that one sentence and you are apparently seeing everything else in the post through the lens of that one sentence

 

[Jensaarai]

and yet all you quoted was that one sentence and you are apparently seeing everything else in the post through the lens of that one sentence

Yes, that specific part was more directly quoted because... I was specifically talking about how that fit into the greater whole. I've also referenced other parts of his post, but I guess those were just selectively ignored because it's inconvenient for you?

 

[mamba]

Yes, that specific part was more directly quoted because... I was specifically talking about how that fit into the greater whole. I've also referenced other parts of his post, but I guess those were just selectively ignored because it's inconvenient for you?

Actually you did not reference anything else in the post I responded to…

ok, let's try another route... let's say a DM reads this post, reads it the way you do, thinks this is the greatest revelation ever and says to themselves 'I will totally do exactly that in my next campaign, my goal is to defeat the players now'.

Pick a game for that which meets Mearls' criteria

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).

If you accept all that, then the purpose of TTRPG design is threefold:

1. Create a mechanism to establish the stakes of the game (what are we risking?)
2. Provide the obstacles to put those stakes into question (how do we risk it?)
3. Create rules to allow players and the GM to apply themselves in opposition to the resolve the stakes (what happens?)

I'd say 5e does, but if you don't think so pick an OSR game or Shadowdark or something... presumably his new game meets these criteria and that falls somewhere in this range

Do the characters survive the first session / make it to level 2? If so, how did they accomplish that / why did the DM not succeed at their goal of defeating the party? Do you think a DM cannot TPK a party if they set their mind to it (esp. one starting out)?

Ok, assuming we agree that the party did not stand a chance and is now dead, is this really what you think Mearls was advocating for?

 

[Scribe]

Ok, assuming we agree that the party did not stand a chance and is now dead, is this really what you think Mearls was advocating for?

This is the part that just doesnt track.

"If I wanted you dead, you would be." is not exactly a shocking statement for a DM to make.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Recognizing that this:

This is really getting into "who are you gonna believe; me or your lying eyes?" territory...

stems from an old aphorism does not necessarily excuse its rhetorical structure. Phrases like this will naturally evoke responses like:

he said a lot more than that too, so I guess I believe my eyes over your lying selective quote

Let’s ALL back off from using language- even respectably old pithy aphorisms, quotes and the like- that tend to inflame emotions instead of inviting or supporting civil discourse. Escalatory language makes moderation much more difficult.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
It is time for this discussion to cool down. Because more accusations of lying, making things personal, or other incivility, will get folks warning points and removed from the discussion.

 

[Jensaarai]

Actually you did not reference anything else in the post I responded to…

ok, let's try another route... let's say a DM reads this post, reads it the way you do, thinks this is the greatest revelation ever and says to themselves 'I will totally do exactly that in my next campaign, my goal is to defeat the players now'.

Pick a game for that which meets Mearls' criteria

I'd say 5e does, but if you don't think so pick an OSR game or Shadowdark or something... presumably his new game meets these criteria and that falls somewhere in this range

Do the characters survive the first session / make it to level 2? If so, how did they accomplish that / why did the DM not succeed at their goal of defeating the party? Do you think a DM cannot TPK a party if they set their mind to it (esp. one starting out)?

Ok, assuming we agree that the party did not stand a chance and is now dead, is this really what you think Mearls was advocating for?

Firstly, this current debate started because Mearls was calling a modern game philosophy of ""safe" games" (his words) a farce, alluding it to "participation trophies" (also his words). Why would he be considering those same kinds of modern games as proof of his ideal TTRPG? He didn't praise Shadowdark's design, or 5e's design, but rather "his design," something he had come up with, and is further refining as he runs it in these tournaments. The only system he actually mentioned was AD&D, how those players in particular were ready for a deadly event. There certainly seems to be a divide in what he considers more valid to that ideal way of playing.

Secondly, the onus is not on me to try and reinterpret what he said into something more reasonable. He said what he said, and then later on showed up to add clarification that just further added to the debate.

Now, I actually agree with the thrust of your argument! These modern systems aren't really designed with the idea that the GM should be adversarial to the players and actively working to defeat them. But, Mearls apparently seems to think that such a system has a higher spiritual and emotional value to it, returning that sense of danger that shouldn't have been removed in the first place.

 

[mamba]

Firstly, this current debate started because Mearls was calling a modern game philosophy of ""safe" games" (his words) a farce, alluding it to "participation trophies" (also his words). Why would he be considering those same kinds of modern games as proof of his ideal TTRPG? He didn't praise Shadowdark's design, or 5e's design, but rather "his design," something he had come up with, and is further refining as he runs it in these tournaments.

His game is closer to 5e than Shadowdark is, so if we go by his game, then you are way off base here...
EDIT: he also said nothing about his design / game or running / refining his game in the tournaments, we do not know what he ran. It was a generic statement.

He said games need to challenge the players to be interesting, which is as generic as it gets. Unless you think 5e does not do that, 5e is also covered by his statement.

Secondly, the onus is not on me to try and reinterpret what he said into something more reasonable. He said what he said, and then later on showed up to add clarification that just further added to the debate.

so you agree that your interpretation is resulting in an unreasonable / nonsensical conclusion?

Now, I actually agree with the thrust of your argument! These modern systems aren't really designed with the idea that the GM should be adversarial to the players and actively working to defeat them. But, Mearls apparently seems to think that such a system has a higher spiritual and emotional value to it, returning that sense of danger that shouldn't have been removed in the first place.

No, that is your conclusion. As you basically said above, you do not consider that a reasonable statement / conclusion. Instead of you therefore considering whether you might have misunderstood the statement you double down and insist that Mearls is not being reasonable in his goals while I believe that if your (general you) conclusion is unreasonable, then you probably misunderstood the original statement (not limited to this case either), esp. when it comes to experts in their field of expertise (I'll leave it up to you whether you think Mearls meets that for TTRPGs).