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

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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?

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And apparently, 5) the holocost is something I, WayOfTheFourElements, would have supported.

I believe you are taking my point of context. It would be cool if you didn't.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If not calmly and rationally how should they carry out their argument? Do you have better suggestion?

Did I say it was a bad way to debate?

I'm just noting a similarity in tone of voice, if not in strength of arguments.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

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.

 

[Xenonnonex]

So.
Mearls is back. Good on him.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I think I'm going to bow it. I think we've gotten too far away from the original topic.

Have a nice day everyone : )

 

[Guest 6801328]

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?