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

His game is closer to 5e than Shadowdark is, so if we go by his game, then you are way off base here...

He said games need to challenge the players to be interesting, unless you think 5e does not do that, 5e is also covered by his statement.


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


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).
Listen, I've been following this thread for only a little bit, but I'm already starting to come to the reasonable conclusion that nothing said will really convince either side in this.

So, agree to disagree.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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
Depends on the goals you're looking at. Failing to sneak past the guard is a fail state for the goal of infiltrating undetected. It's probably not a fail state for getting into he dungeon to kill the BBEG, though it may complicate that goal. It's probably not a fail state for the goal of reaching 20th level in your class and probably doesn't significantly complicate that goal. Lots of goals, all in motion.
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?
That may have achieved the overall party's goal for that moment (success state for defeating the BBEG), but chances are it interfered with the goals of those dead PCs - unless one of their goals was to die heroically, then that goal might be in a success state.
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.
That's because it is - for that particular goal or challenge. Not all fail states are critical for future goals, though some are. Every challenge or goal has a fail state/success state once dealt with. Some are just more significant than others and have stronger downstream implications than others.
 

Depends on the goals you're looking at. Failing to sneak past the guard is a fail state for the goal of infiltrating undetected. It's probably not a fail state for getting into he dungeon to kill the BBEG, though it may complicate that goal. It's probably not a fail state for the goal of reaching 20th level in your class and probably doesn't significantly complicate that goal. Lots of goals, all in motion.

That may have achieved the overall party's goal for that moment (success state for defeating the BBEG), but chances are it interfered with the goals of those dead PCs - unless one of their goals was to die heroically, then that goal might be in a success state.

That's because it is - for that particular goal or challenge. Not all fail states are critical for future goals, though some are. Every challenge or goal has a fail state/success state once dealt with. Some are just more significant than others and have stronger downstream implications than others.
So now it seems any minor desire is a goal? I don't agree with this, a momentary or fleeting desire isn't a goal in the sense of playing a game which is what we are talking about. I may desire a touchdown in any particular game of football I play but my goal remains wining the game... not scoring a touuchdown.

Descent, Massive Darkness and Heroquest are games that have a goal similar to the one you stated above, but every doe roll isn't considered succeeding at or failing at ones goal.

I also notice you totally ignored the example of a challenge unrelated to any goals the PC's have.
 

So now it seems any minor desire is a goal? I don't agree with this, a momentary or fleeting desire isn't a goal in the sense of playing a game which is what we are talking about. I may desire a touchdown in any particular game of football I play but my goal remains wining the game... not scoring a touuchdown.
But in order to win, the final goal of the game, you need to have intermediate goals of scoring - including scoring touchdowns. And the goal of winning the game is likely just an intermediate goal to making it to the play-offs or having a winning season. Goals at all sorts of levels.
Descent, Massive Darkness and Heroquest are games that have a goal similar to the one you stated above, but every doe roll isn't considered succeeding at or failing at ones goal.

I also notice you totally ignored the example of a challenge unrelated to any goals the PC's have.
If the challenge isn't related to a goal, why is it there?
 

But in order to win, the final goal of the game, you need to have intermediate goals of scoring - including scoring touchdowns. And the goal of winning the game is likely just an intermediate goal to making it to the play-offs or having a winning season. Goals at all sorts of levels.
so we are classifying anything that can be successful or fail as a goal... moreso that whatever that thing is, will also automatically be the goal of the PC's...well with that broad a definition I'm not sure a more nuanced discussion can even take place... everything is a goal...

No none of those listed above singularly is necessary to attain the goal of winning the game and focusing on one of those as the goal or believing it to be necessary could actually cause a loss of the game vs. winning.

Perhaps a better example would be chess... my goal is to win the match. Not capture a pawn or queen or knight and in fact making capturing one of those pieces my goal... could cause me to loose the game.

If the challenge isn't related to a goal, why is it there?

As to why a challenge is there that isn't related to a goal... to offer new choices, pathways and to facilitate the possibilities of a new goal being chosen. Or do you believe people always know exactly what they want or need, exactly the path to attaining it and nothing ever throws the best laid plans into chaos?
 

Perhaps a better example would be chess... my goal is to win the match. Not capture a pawn or queen or knight and in fact making capturing one of those pieces my goal... could cause me to loose the game.
To win at chess, depending on your approach, you may have the goal to control the center of the board, to threaten your opponent’s queen, or any number of other intermediate goals in checkmating your opponent’s king.
As to why a challenge is there that isn't related to a goal... to offer new choices, pathways and to facilitate the possibilities of a new goal being chosen. Or do you believe people always know exactly what they want or need, exactly the path to attaining it and nothing ever throws the best laid plans into chaos?
If the challenge might be there to put up the possibility of a new goal… isn’t that then related to a goal?
 

I am confused are we supposed to be upset with how Mearls plays his games, or the assumption he can tell us how to play our games, because the last time I checked if you're not sitting at the table I am you literally have no say in how we decide to play our game no matter what IP you control or how famous people think you are. This is how Wizbro is killing DDB, they think they can dictate games they aren't playing by making the tools hard to use.
 
Last edited:

To win at chess, depending on your approach, you may have the goal to control the center of the board, to threaten your opponent’s queen, or any number of other intermediate goals in checkmating your opponent’s king.

And yet focusing 9n any one of those as your goal can loose you the match... so they aren't in and of themselves your goal.

If the challenge might be there to put up the possibility of a new goal… isn’t that then related to a goal?
Only if the challenge leads to said goal, and even then it's not in pursuit of it.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top