WotC Ray Winninger Is Head of D&D RPG Team; Mike Mearls No Longer Works on RPG

People have been wondering where Mike Mearls has gone for quite some time. It seems that he has not been working on the D&D tabletop RPG since some time last year, and the new head of the team and Executive Producer is Ray Winninger.

Winninger is an RPG industry veteran. Amongst other things, he was co-designer of DC Heroes and Torg, and wrote the Dungeoncraft column for Dragon Magazine. He has worked at a number of RPG companies including TSR, Mayfair Games, West End Games, and more.

Winninger is Chris Perkins' and Jeremy Crawford's boss. And in further comments, Chris Perkins says that Mike Mearls has not been part of the tabletop RPG team since some time last year.


That explains why Mearls' Twitch shows, like Happy Fun Hour, have disappeared. Although he's made a couple of retweets since, his last tweet on Twitter was February 13th, 2019. He still works at WotC on the D&D brand in some capacity, but not the tabletop RPG itself (he did an interview about Baldur's Gate 3 on Polygon last year).

Ray Winninger introduces himself in the latest issue of Dragon+, WotC's online magazine. "My name is Ray Winninger and I’m the new Executive Producer in charge of the Dungeons & Dragons studio at Wizards of the Coast. In just a few months on the job, I’ve already been impressed by the skills and the passion of the designers, artists, editors, and production staff who bring you our terrific D&D products. They are a uniquely talented group, and it is an honor to work alongside them."

 

[Mistwell]

It isnt just that. Even without that, his tweets were a big problem. Stuff like this.

View attachment 121554

Which makes this somewhat ironic:

View attachment 121556

There's a blog somewhere with them all but I can't find it right now.

This is, once again, the same email referenced earlier where I said Mike sent an email people do not like. I think it's fair to not like what was said in that email but that is not what he's being accused of. He's being accused of revealing the names and email addresses of accusers to Zak. Where is the evidence of that?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

What exactly he did will never be clear, but in the absolute best-case scenario for him, he was unprofessional in public, and unacceptably careless. And that's the best-case scenario. Anything else is a lot worse and he should have been fired, so we have to hope it is the best case.

And still, "an eye for an eye" is not how things should work. And if I understand right, such a campaign was already in place against Zak and such a campaign is not helping victims as you are also an offender. What I see is a lynch mob, and that might be what Mike Mearls was seeing back then and what led to his supposed bad judgement.

 

[Waller]

This is, once again, the same email referenced earlier where I said Mike sent an email people do not like. I think it's fair to not like what was said in that email but that is not what he's being accused of. He's being accused of revealing the names and email addresses of accusers to Zak. Where is the evidence of that?

You're asking the wrong person. I haven't mentioned that stuff.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And if I understand right, such a campaign was already in place against Zak and such a campaign is not helping victims as you are also an offender.

You do not "understand right".

You seem to think people accusing someone of hurting and assaulting them or their friends is a "campaign" (presumably "of harassment"?), and that they, the victims, are not allowed to complain, and people are not allowed to voice agreement with or support for them.

This is a bizarre sentiment, frankly. As was your earlier claim that in a democracy, people shouldn't be allowed to protest things or people. On the contrary, only in a democracy can they do that.

What I see is a lynch mob, and that might be what Mike Mearls was seeing back then and what led to his supposed bad judgement.

Yeah, I get that's what you "see", just like you think democracies shouldn't allow protest or complaint against people, and that people accusing someone of hurting them are "campaigning against them" and "offenders". Not sure what to say to that, except it's... not a very reasonable position from any moral or rational or ethical perspective.

I'm sure Mike Mearls did think people were being unfair on his buddy Zak S. That doesn't excuse any of his behaviour. He isn't just some random guy talking a private Facebook group or WhatsApp chat or whatever, or in person. He used his platform as the public face of Dungeons and Dragons, and thus of Wizards of the Coast, and thus of Hasbro, to intervene in this, in favour of a man who by his own (Zak S') descriptions, is a sleazy creep (Zak S), and who Mearls certainly knew was not a savoury character.

He didn't appear to even consider the possibility that the accusations had merit, or that even if they didn't, this wasn't actually an appropriate thing for the face of D&D to get involved in. He plunged in head-first, and starting behaving unprofessionally.

It's also not like he "didn't have time to think". His behaviour occurred over the course of days, not hours. Apparently WotC's PR were "asleep at the wheel", probably because I don't think they ever had to deal with anything like this before (they would have if Tweet had stayed with WotC, given his "race science" trutherism phase, which he backed away from some months later but they got rid of him before he started talking about it publicly), and I don't anyone, least of all me, would have expected Mike Mearls to really do something like this.

Anyway I'm more interested in Winniger. This discussion has been held. Mearls got off extremely lightly given the level of unprofessionalism involved (people at his level often do, I've seen it in my own line of work). Pretending he's a "victim" as he still has a senior and likely highly remunerated position in WotC is just bizarre. Winniger is much more exciting to discuss given his background and experience. I really hope he does bring something new and fresh to 5E.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You do not "understand right".

You seem to think people accusing someone of hurting and assaulting them or their friends is a "campaign" (presumably "of harassment"?), and that they, the victims, are not allowed to complain, and people are not allowed to voice agreement with or support for them.

This is a bizarre sentiment, frankly. As was your earlier claim that in a democracy, people shouldn't be allowed to protest things or people. On the contrary, only in a democracy can they do that.



Yeah, I get that's what you "see", just like you think democracies shouldn't allow protest or complaint against people, and that people accusing someone of hurting them are "campaigning against them" and "offenders". Not sure what to say to that, except it's... not a very reasonable position from any moral or rational or ethical perspective.

I'm sure Mike Mearls did think people were being unfair on his buddy Zak S. That doesn't excuse any of his behaviour. He isn't just some random guy talking a private Facebook group or WhatsApp chat or whatever, or in person. He used his platform as the public face of Dungeons and Dragons, and thus of Wizards of the Coast, and thus of Hasbro, to intervene in this, in favour of a man who by his own (Zak S') descriptions, is a sleazy creep (Zak S), and who Mearls certainly knew was not a savoury character.

He didn't appear to even consider the possibility that the accusations had merit, or that even if they didn't, this wasn't actually an appropriate thing for the face of D&D to get involved in. He plunged in head-first, and starting behaving unprofessionally.

It's also not like he "didn't have time to think". His behaviour occurred over the course of days, not hours. Apparently WotC's PR were "asleep at the wheel", probably because I don't think they ever had to deal with anything like this before (they would have if Tweet had stayed with WotC, given his "race science" trutherism phase, which he backed away from some months later but they got rid of him before he started talking about it publicly), and I don't anyone, least of all me, would have expected Mike Mearls to really do something like this.

Anyway I'm more interested in Winniger. This discussion has been held. Mearls got off extremely lightly given the level of unprofessionalism involved (people at his level often do, I've seen it in my own line of work). Pretending he's a "victim" as he still has a senior and likely highly remunerated position in WotC is just bizarre. Winniger is much more exciting to discuss given his background and experience. I really hope he does bring something new and fresh to 5E.

I never excused Mike Mearls. I can´t, because I don´t know what he did. I really did not see any proof. I am also not sure about what Zak S did. Probably bad things. But harassing people is not OK. It is for the court to decide who did what, not the internet people.
Here in germany a respected meteorologist was accused of rape and he was proven (I know it first hand) that those accusations were wrong. And still some medias talk as if he might still have been guilty. There is always the possibility, that someone is not guilty. So at that time, Mike Mearls most probably made statements he should not have made, but we don´t know what exactly he did.

Edit: we also don´t know exactly why he was replaced. Probably because he did something stupid, even helping some criminal, probably only because you can´t have a lead designer who can´t say something in public, because as soon as he says something, people start screaming at him.

Edit2: oh, and just to be clear: I don´t think that there were no victims. I just say, that it is not on us to judge here without knowing what was really going on.

 

[Jester David]

Right but Zak said he got that email address elsewhere and not from Mike Mearls.

And Zak S has proven himself as someone reliable who we can believe based on his word?

And as far as I know Hill never said she shared it only with Mike.

She made an anonymous email for the sole purpose of contacting Mearls and then shared it with multiple people who were also associated with Zak S?
I find that doubtful...

Do you have any evidence of that statement? A name? An anonymous tweet that someone shared said email? Anything but your personal feelings?

Indeed as you say she was a loud critic of Zak and I think she shared it with many people (but I do not know that and if someone has something to the contrary please post it). Now Zak is a scoundrel to be sure, but where is the evidence it came from Mike Mearls other than Hill making that accusation with, as far as I can tell, no evidence other than simply making the accusation.

People will always believe what they want and no amount of "evidence" will convince someone of something they just don't want to believe.

I think this is the third time this topic has come up where someone asked for this evidence, and the third time people have kinda shrugged, claimed it's truth because the accusation was made, and then moved on as if it was true because the accusation was made and "they heard" it was supported or "they think they saw evidence long ago which they can no longer find" that it was true.

So, basically, it's your assertion Olivia Hill is lying.

That's what your saying here. You are fine with believing Zak S over Olivia Hill. That she is making up her accusation and blaming Mearls because.... of reasons.

Yeah, that makes total sense.

The only email I've ever seen is the one Corrosive posted. And I think it's perfectly fine that people object to it. But it's also not nearly as bad as the allegation he shared emails and names of accusers with Zak. That later accusation - doesn't it need real support to feel secure that it's OK to spread that allegation around?

I tend to default to a combination of Ocam and Hanlon's Razor in situations like this. There's no need to invent third parties leaking emails from behind a grassy knoll. There's usually a simple explanation, and more often than not it just involves ignorance and carelessness.

In this instance, it's very possible Mearls shared the accusations with Zak to get his side of the story. And, not being experienced with being the target of online harassment, Mearls forgot to fully scrub said emails when he forwarded them, and the address was quoted or included in the metadata. The email was shared, but not on purpose.

But that's just speculation on my part based solely on my affection for D&D and desire to believe the people responsible for the game weren't horrible. I want Mearls to be a good guy. And so I frabricate a mental scenerio to justify my continued support...

 

[Vexorg]

Alternate theory time.

Maybe Mearls knows he and the team did such a great job designing 5E that he knows he'll never top it, so he decided to depart while he is still regarded as a genius. Jump ship while you're winning. Let someone else manage the fatigue and criticisms that the fan base will eventually start voicing.

 

[J-H]

Wow, people are surprised that gamer nerds don't handle social conflicts well. Woo.

Didn't the mod say to drop the topic like 6 pages ago?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Wow, people are surprised that gamer nerds don't handle social conflicts well. Woo.

Didn't the mod say to drop the topic like 6 pages ago?

Sorry.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

Except, while all of that has been repeatedly bandied about, nobody has ever, to the best of my knowledge, provided even one scrap of actual evidence that it happened like that. There's lots of speculation, but every time this comes up and someone asks for evidence, the same not-evidence keeps being produced.



I didn't dig too far into that mess, but I couldn't find those replies. Can/would you link them directly? I am a fan of Mearls and am happy to defend him in this matter, but if I'm wrong, I'd like to see the evidence.

Not too far down the Twitter thread is a reply from Jacob “Gnome” Randolph about it that makes a lot of accusations. It’s not evidence per se, but I’m not sure you’re going to find any direct evidence on the internet for this. It’s going to be “he said, she said” and you’ll just need to make your mind up as to who you believe.