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

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...
That's quite a strange take on that.

First, sure, if it's something you want to accomplish, it's a goal. That's true in real life, so why wouldn't it be true in the game as well?

(And trust me, for some of us, even minor things can be goals worth achieving.)

But more specifically, in an RPG, what counts as a goal is really up to each individual player to decide. There are going to be players who count every action they take as important (which is why some players get pissy when they fail even an inconsequential roll, like, they missed a Perception check and got ambushed by monsters). There are also players who only care about what they perceive to be the big picture.

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.
Perhaps... but in RPGs, individual players are not pawns (or even queens or knights) for you to sacrifice or not care about. Unless you're playing an evil character, I suppose. So, not great analogy. Also, in a less overt comparison, if you want to count things like "exploring this set of ruins" or "picking that lock" as pawns, well, maybe those things aren't actually important to the overall game, or maybe they are, or maybe the players would have engaged in a different type of RP if they had done those things.

Also, very few RPGs have actual win states in the sense of you must complete a goal. Sure, you can say "this campaign is called The Reign Of Evil McBadGuy, so the goal is to depose or kill EvilMcBadGuy," but in reality, even if the players completely fail to do so--maybe he kills them, maybe they decide to join his side--as long as everyone is having fun, it's a win.

One of the most fun times I had in a completed campaign had us losing (we failed to prevent the rise of a deity who may or may not have been evil--there was this whole point of view thing), but we lost in such a glorious manner that I count it as a win.

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?
This I agree with. Also, "because they're fun" is an acceptable answer.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I think that 1e’s deadly reputation gets really overstated. There was a tradition of very deadly tournament games, of which Tomb of Horrors is the most infamous example, but this should not be confused with normal play. To the contrary, as I explore in another thread, it was customary to have characters who superseded specific campaigns and that you played for years. Many spells in D&D remain named after some of those characters. There are people on this forum who play characters from 1e to this day.

I think D&D was generally more game and less RP oriented back then, so it was not uncommon to create characters that you didn’t much care about and might happily use to create a memorable death, but not one of your mains.

As far as trying to foil the players, my goal is to have meaningful stakes. Part of that is having antagonists who absolutely are doing everything they can to foil the PCs. Obviously I try to set the challenge at the right level so that the players are likely to win at the end…but so does Mearls! That’s just good design: set an appropriate challenge and then do your best as the antagonist. Make the players work for it.

Mearls obviously isn’t advocating for you to throw an ancient dragon at a level 1 party. But play those goblins as well as you can, and trust your players.
 

I think that tjere is a point buried in Mearls’ cloud-shouting and grognard-knicker-flashing.

The pearl in the mearls is

I can see the fun in a rpg with no or low character mortality. Other stakes are available.

I can see the fun in a complex crunchy rpg with a gazilluon combat relared options, powers, abilities, spells, monsters etc

But both at once?

Hours-long combats without real peril?

Agonising character optimisation to wring out the last plushwon when it wont really matter?
 

I can see the fun in a rpg with no or low character mortality. Other stakes are available.

I can see the fun in a complex crunchy rpg with a gazilluon combat relared options, powers, abilities, spells, monsters etc

But both at once?

Hours-long combats without real peril?
he did not distinguish the two (character death and other stakes). So how about hours long sessions without any challenges?
 

I think that tjere is a point buried in Mearls’ cloud-shouting and grognard-knicker-flashing.

The pearl in the mearls is

I can see the fun in a rpg with no or low character mortality. Other stakes are available.

I can see the fun in a complex crunchy rpg with a gazilluon combat relared options, powers, abilities, spells, monsters etc

But both at once?

Hours-long combats without real peril?

Agonising character optimisation to wring out the last plushwon when it wont really matter?
It's called fifth edition
 

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.
Quick clarification question…is the last sentence saying the dndbeyond app or website is hard to use? More curious than anything on my end since I don’t find that to be the case and I have 2 new players at the table that’s 5 sessions into dnd, although they are early to mid 20s so apps seem to come naturally to them. I tend to use the website myself as a dm and player so I don’t have to use my reading glasses :)
 



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.
Foiling or defeating the players/PCs does not equate to adversarial DMing. A huge part of the DM's job is to set up challenges for the players/PCs and those stand in opposition to player/PC goals. What Mearls described wasn't adversarial, it was simply being a DM.

Adversarial DMing involves the DM taking things personally and abusing authority. If the players say something like, "Our tactics made that dragon fight easy," the adversarial DM would take offense at that and have the dragons two older brothers show up to exact revenge. Or if the adversarial DM didn't like something one of the players did, he might just raise a DC so that player's PC fails a climb check and falls for 10d6 damage.

People here are taking what Mearls said out of context and using that to disparage him. That ain't cool.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top