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.

 

[Maxperson]

they say what encounter is easy / medium / hard and assume you have a reasonable DM. If you do not assume the DM to be reasonable then I am not sure what rules could safeguard against that, at a minimum rule 0 has to go and everything else has to be a lot more strict

You don't even need to use rule 0, though. The rules are vague enough that an adversarial DM could use them as is and still be adversarial. That's my only point there.

I do agree that you can't write rules assuming bad DMs, though.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

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

It is harder to use than it was before the 24 rules were implemented. That doesn't mean it is hard to use, but for my groups it isn't easier than not using DDB. Given that, we find it is well worth skipping DDB and using paper sheets as we find the effort makes for a much faster, smoother and enjoyable experience for the same effort.

 

[Clint_L]

So then having the DM's actual goal be to defeat and foil the players... probably isn't a good thing.

If the DM's only goal is to defeat and foil the players, period, then they can do that. A meteor falls from the sky and squashes the party. Done. Oops, behind that door was a ray of instant death trap. Done. (Now I think about it, the original Tomb of Horrors kinda did that stuff). So obviously Mearls isn't suggesting that the DM should do whatever they want to defeat and foil the players. It only makes sense if interpreted in the context of gameplay.

When you look at what Mearls has written and contributed to, he clearly values balanced game design. When you watch actual play of him running games, he isn't a moustache-twirling super villain out to torment his players. Everyone is clearly having a good time. All he is describing is the attitude the DM should take with regards to their role as adversary. Every story needs adversaries, and when you are DMing, that is your job. In fairness to your players, you should do it as well as you can within the context of the story, a story that you have designed as a challenge, but a beatable challenge.

So you set up some adventure, like all DM's do. When you're doing it, you're taking into account party level, composition, player ability, etc. (assuming you're a good DM; Mearls is a very good and experienced DM and there is lots of video you can watch of him). At this point, you're not doing everything you can to defeat and foil the players, or all your games would be five minutes long and no one would want to play. No, you're trying for a challenge that your players will probably defeat, but you do want there to be some risk (and the degree of challenge and consequences for failure can vary widely; this is a good thing to discuss at Session 0, which Mearls strongly advocates).

So now it's time to play the game. At this point, you are the fair arbiter of the rules, and you are working with the players to build the story by roleplaying the entire rest of the world. And when combat happens, it is your job to put yourself in the shoes of the antagonists and do your best to be true to their perspective. If you're a bunch of goblins setting an ambush, be the best goblin ambushers you can be and try to take the party out! If you're an ancient dragon defending your hoard, try to catch as many of them in your breath weapon as you can! If you're a successful merchant, haggle hard! And so on.

That doesn't necessarily mean that mobs all become psychotic berserkers, though. Sometimes, foiling the party means that the BBEG does the smart thing and tries to escape once the situation goes south, and now it is up to the players to catch them. And sometimes, it means being ruthless and attacking a PC while they're down, potentially finishing them off if that is what makes sense for the BBEG in context.

I think Matt Mercer epitomizes this approach to DMing - I don't think anyone sees him as an adversarial DM, but once combat starts the gloves are off, and he plays his mobs with every bit of cleverness he can, in context. He does not take it easy on his players...and they love him for it. Because he respects their gameplay enough to know that they can handle it.

That's all Mearls is saying: when the gloves are off, respect your players by doing your best to beat them. Then when they win, as they usually do, it will feel a lot more rewarding.

 

[Kromanjon]

No. He's saying the DMs job is to challenge the players goals, which by necessity included the possibility of PC death or failure to achieve those goals. In that regard, normal DMing IS standing in opposition to player/PC goals. Placing challenges to be overcome or failed is a large part of the job of DM.

What he did not do is encourage or say adversarial DMing was how to go about it. Adversarial DMing is taking it personally and abusing your authority as DM to cause failure. Raising the DC arbitrarily in order to cause a PC to fall instead of succeed. Hitting the group with two more dragons in order to cause a death or TPK, because they beat your dragon encounter too easily.

Those sorts of adversarial methods are things he very explicitly spoke against in the same paragraph by saying the best way to do it is with disinterested mechanics, which stand in direct opposition to being an adversarial DM.

I did write a very long post so I understand if you didn’t feel like reading all of it.

 

[Maxperson]

I did write a very long post so I understand if you didn’t feel like reading all of it.

I did, but it was similarly flawed. For example.

"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."

And you said...

"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."

Your interpretation there is nowhere to be found in his words. What he was saying was that he noticed a trend and that trend was that those groups that encountered adversity used that adversity to rally around instead of allowing it to defeat them. At no point was it ever implied that he considered death of characters what made a fun game.

Your post gets a ton wrong about what he said.

 

[Kromanjon]

I did, but it was similarly flawed. For example.

"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."

And you said...

"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."

Your interpretation there is nowhere to be found in his words. What he was saying was that he noticed a trend and that trend was that those groups that encountered adversity used that adversity to rally around instead of allowing it to defeat them. At no point was it ever implied that he considered death of characters what made a fun game.

Your post gets a ton wrong about what he said.

Once again I feel you didn't read my post since the thing you quoted above was what I've seen other claim, not what I think. I think that in the end we feel the same about Mearls post and have (basically) the same take away but for some reason you still want to argue with me. Since I (mostly) agree with you I think it's pretty bad form to claim that there are "tons wrong" with my post, especially after taking two shots at it and both quotes being taken out of context.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Just popping in to say I have had a very busy week, but am trying to keep up with the discussion and will reply when I finally have time.

I suspect it is already too late to have a meaningful effect. I would advocate a clarification or follow-up on your original tweet, as there it would have impact outside this tempest in a teapot.

 

[Maxperson]

Once again I feel you didn't read my post since the thing you quoted above was what I've seen other claim, not what I think. I think that in the end we feel the same about Mearls post and have (basically) the same take away but for some reason you still want to argue with me. Since I (mostly) agree with you I think it's pretty bad form to claim that there are "tons wrong" with my post, especially after taking two shots at it and both quotes being taken out of context.

The beginning of your post contained a response to Mike that was kind of snarky, and the tone seemed to be there across the rest of the post. It made it hard to tell if you really were just repeating the words, or if you were repeating them and also on that side of side of things. It came across more as the latter.

I'm more than willing to take you at your word here, though and accept that you were just repeating other arguments.

 

[pemerton]

Mearls is not talking about character death specifically but about a ‘sense of risk’ ‘Whether it is a dead character or failure’

<snip>

Fun and emotion in a not insignificant part come from the stakes and the stakes only exist if there is risk

Maybe it is the participation trophy that gets people riled up, but I would agree that without (perceived) risk the game is not all that interesting

That sounds like a statement of personal preference. But it seems fairly clear that there are plenty of RPGers who enjoy play even when it doesn't have much risk/stakes. And inevitably, given its role in the hobby's market and ecosystem, many of those RPGers use D&D as their vehicle for play.