log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Mike Mearls is back on the D&D RPG Team

Status
Not open for further replies.
Three weeks ago, WotC's Jeremy Crawford told us that Mike Mearls was no longer working on the tabletop RPG, and hadn't since some time in 2019. Today, the (newish) D&D head Ray Winninger said on the company's Twitch livestream that Mearls is now back full-time on the tabletop game.

Mike Mearls is back full time on the RPG again. He was splitting his time working on some computer game stuff for us, but he’s back.

He still doesn't appear to be back on social media since his final tweet back in 2019.

mearls2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Russ Morrissey

Comments

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad


I work too, and I don’t engage with social media much beyond gaming forums like this. But I’m fortunate enough to have very stable employment, and I’d be willing to bet you do too. Jobs don’t necessarily require social media engagement; job markets do. Careers in which one must consistently market one’s self, such as freelance work and most creative work do not generally afford one the luxury of foregoing social media. If I wanted to start doing theater work again, for example, I would need to engage with social media to at least a cursory extent to be able to find auditions, as that’s where they’re advertised these days.
How do job marks depend on social media? Did they not exist before?

Or do you mean we depend on them now?

In either case, engaging in social media is a choice. And how one engages with it is also a choice. Following a couple of theaters is a very responsible use of social media, as is following other businesses that offer freelance work. However, when someone uses the phrase "uses social media," the intended meaning is usually different.

Anyone in those communities write or develop RPGs?
No, but I don't see how its reliant. D&D was designed and played in a time when all communities lacked internet.

If you're talking about professional work, no. I doubt any of them did. Different choices lead to different lifestyles, and each of those choices has consequences.

Now, I think Zak probably didn't have right temperament for fame and his emotions led him astray. He did something wrong. He has faced consequences. I think time to move towards redemption.

Let's imagine someone accuses me of harassment. Whether that accusation is truthful or not, I'm sure I would get emotional and wouldn't make the best choices. Personally, I don't think I should pay for those mistakes for eternity.

That’s your prerogative. Personally, I advice support for folks in need of it and consequences for those who use what influence they have to harm others, especially those with less power than them.

Such reservation tends to benefit those with power at the expense of those without.

Social consequences are often the only consequences people in power face.
I don't understand what you mean by "power." Usually, I equate it with forces of motion and authority. I don't see how either of those is relevant. Maybe you're using a different definition of power.
 

There is a large distance between being just "not infallible" and actively siding with evil.
Is there? Isn't any willful wrongdoing, no matter how small, "actively siding with evil" - at least for a short amount of time?

Isn't any any wrongdoing on account of partial or inaccurate information "actively siding with evil" when we don't take on the responsibility of validating our beliefs?
 

QuentinGeorge

Adventurer
I dunno why you find this concept of "social media" so strange and confusing, WayOfTheFourElements. This message board is a form of social media. You are posting on it, ergo you participating in social media. Just because it's not Facebook or Twitter doesn't mean it isn't the same concept.

And sheesh, yes, forgiveness should be open to all. But you need to actually own up to your mistakes and take responsibility in your behaviour! From what I've seen even Zak's defenders admit he's a jerk and massively aggressive to those who stand up to him. He's never admitted any real culpability to anything,
 


Mecheon

Explorer
Y'know, I was having a nice time doing a raid in FFXIV. But, guess we're back to here.

In either case, engaging in social media is a choice. And how one engages with it is also a choice. Following a couple of theaters is a very responsible use of social media, as is following other businesses that offer freelance work. However, when someone uses the phrase "uses social media," the intended meaning is usually different.
We're in the 21st century. This is a day and age where everyone has a phone in their pocket that is infinitely more powerful than the Windows 3.1 I first managed to get to run Doom. We engage with social media on a daily basis. Any business worth its salt is engaging with social media to get its message out there. There is no "Not engaging with social media" if you want to have an impact in the industry, you gotta go where the people and the news are. Like, say, this very forum! Or, Google Groups! Or Twitter! Or Twitch, AKA, semi part of the reason D&D is the 500 pound gorilla it is at this day and age given we're in the era of the livestream. Or Reddit!

Oh, speaking of
That is very sad and unfortunate. How were they "forced out of the industry."
Serial harassment via social media and business lines until they had to stop working in the industry

I think this thread has had about 5 pages about Mearls, and 9 pages about Zak S.
I do apologise, but there's only so long I can bite my tongue before I gotta step in. Unfortunately the two are tied to each other
 
Last edited:

Azzy

Cyclone Ranger
Isn't any willful wrongdoing, no matter how small, "actively siding with evil" - at least for a short amount of time?
No. There is wrongdoing, and then there is evil. Being casually rude is wrong. Streaking nude in public typically wrong and is illegal. Going 10 miles over the speed limit is wrong and illegal. Supporting the Holocaust is evil. It's not a wide margin, it's parsecs apart. You can waffle all you want, but there is a clear-cut distinction. No amount of wishy-washy philosiphical argument is going to change that.
 

No. There is wrongdoing, and then there is evil. Being casually rude is wrong. Streaking nude in public typically wrong and is illegal. Going 10 miles over the speed limit is wrong and illegal. Supporting the Holocaust is evil. It's not a wide margin, it's parsecs apart. You can waffle all you want, but there is a clear-cut distinction. No amount of wishy-washy philosiphical argument is going to change that.
Would you care to support your opinion? As far as I can see, the only different is magnitude and probability, not essence.

Also, I'm not sure what is "wishy-washy" or particularly philosophical My only opinions here are: 1) let's not be hasty and judge without solid evidence, 2) everyone is imperfect, 3) no on is forced to use social media (though I agree, there are benefits), 4) a path to reasonable redemption will improve social cohesion.
 
Last edited:

Jordan Peterson has mastered the technique of responding to critics, no matter how virulently they attack, calmly and rationally. I'm not a fan of his, but I've seen some of the videos and he's very, very good at it. He's charming, erudite, and mentally quick on his feet, and when the other party keeps getting angrier and angrier it just makes them look worse. (I haven't seen the new movie about Phyllis Shlafly, but an article I read about it claimed that one of her strengths was her mastery of a similar technique.)

Maybe entirely coincidentally, recently I've noticed that people who try to undermine the MeToo movement frequently attempt to use a very similar technique. At least, in the measured tone and the (admirable) refusal to resort to personal attacks, if not so much in the erudition of the arguments. They've got 2 or 3 main arguments that they repeat in different ways. But always in a tone of voice that just makes them sound so gosh-darned reasonable. (Now the scene of Saruman on the steps of Orthanc also comes to mind.)

It makes me wonder if perhaps it's not just spreading organically, but that there is someone out there...in some private FB group or other dark corner of the Internet...actively coaching minions.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
Would you care to support your opinion? As far as I can see, the only different is magnitude and probability, not essence.

Also, I'm not sure what is "wishy-washy" or particularly philosophical My only opinions here are: 1) let's not be hasty and judge without solid evidence, 2) everyone is imperfect, 3) no on is forced to use social media (though I agree, there are benefits), 4) a path to reasonable redemption will improve social cohesion.
And apparently, 5) the holocost is something I, WayOfTheFourElements, would have supported.
 

We're in the 21st century. This is a day and age where everyone has a phone in their pocket that is infinitely more powerful than the Windows 3.1 I first managed to get to run Doom. We engage with social media on a daily basis. Any business worth its salt is engaging with social media to get its message out there. There is no "Not engaging with social media" if you want to have an impact in the industry, you gotta go where the people and the news are. Like, say, this very forum! Or, Google Groups! Or Twitter! Or Twitch, AKA, semi part of the reason D&D is the 500 pound gorilla it is at this day and age given we're in the era of the livestream. Or Reddit!
While all of that is true, I do not see how it makes social media a necessary part of life.

Serial harassment via social media and business lines until they had to stop working in the industry
Is that "forced out"?

I would probably have phrased it "They left because the social media component of their job became to unbearable."

Do you feel that qualifies as force?
 

Jordan Peterson has mastered the technique of responding to critics, no matter how virulent they attack, calmly and rationally. I'm not a fan of his, but I've seen some of the videos and he's very, very good at it. He's charming, erudite, and mentally quick on his feet, and when the other party keeps getting angrier and angrier it just makes them look worse. (I haven't seen the new movie about Phyllis Shlafly, but an article I read about it claimed that one of her strengths was her mastery of a similar technique.)

Maybe entirely coincidentally, recently I've noticed that people who try to undermine the MeToo movement frequently attempt to use a very similar technique. At least, in the measured tone and the (admirable) refusal to resort to personal attacks, if not so much in the erudition of the arguments. They've got 2 or 3 main arguments that they repeat in different ways. But always in a tone of voice that just makes them sound so gosh-darned reasonable. (Now the scene of Saruman on the steps of Orthanc also comes to mind.)
If not calmly and rationally how should they carry out their argument? Do you have better suggestion?
 

And apparently, 5) the holocost is something I, WayOfTheFourElements, would have supported.
Here's my theory: I think what he was trying to say is that humans are weak, and it's easy to cast stones from safety, and otherwise good people can be led astray. And in attempt to project humility he tried to say something along the lines of "I know that I'm not immune, and could easily be misled down the path of evil." But picked a really unfortunate way to express that.
 



Here's my theory: I think what he was trying to say is that humans are weak, and it's easy to cast stones from safety, and otherwise good people can be led astray. And in attempt to project humility he tried to say something along the lines of "I know that I'm not immune, and could easily be misled down the path of evil." But picked a really unfortunate way to express that.
No. I chose my words correctly. I believe all humans have the potential, not only for evil, but the greatest evil. That includes myself. I also think the best was to confront that evil is to know how much evil we are truly capable of, that way we do not accidentally commit it.
 



No. I chose my words correctly. I believe all humans have the potential, not only for evil, but the greatest evil. That includes myself. I also think the best was to confront that evil is to know how much evil we are truly capable of, that way we do not accidentally commit it.
Is the "No" referring to my theory, or just the last sentence about picking an unfortunate way to express yourself? Because otherwise it seems like you just confirmed what I was suggesting.

And if people are thinking that you said you would support the holocaust, do you really think those are correctly chosen words?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Advertisement1

In Our Store!

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top