D&D (2024) The Ray Winninger Era of D&D 5e

[TheSword]

I'm with those who think the Mearls era of D&D was much better - I enjoyed the releases far more back then. There are multiple reasons for this:

• I think the adventures were more interesting. Curse of Strahd, Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, Tomb of Anhilation, etc. The adventures in Winniger era have been much less captivating, and sometimes downright unusable.
• The setting work was mostly richer. I don't think much in the Winniger era compares to the care put in Eberron, for example. Ghosts of Saltmarsh has a great little setting in just one chapter of the book.
• The swings were more generally useful. I don't play in Theros or Ravnica, but I use those books all the time. Fantastic work with the piety and renown system which is easy to rip off. Strixhaven is on the other hand a waste to me. I have never used a single thing from it.
• The monster books were fantastic. New statblocks are nice to have, but easy to find and easy to wing. The real value in Volo's and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes was in the first chapters. I use those chapters constantly, it has dramatically improved how I run orcs, gnolls, devils, demons, hags, goblinoids, kobolds, and all the major monster categories. Great, top-notch material. The reassemblage those books suffered via Monsters of the Multiverse destroyed their entire value to me as a DM.

I generally really dislike the direction the game took post-Tasha, both on the player side and on the DM-facing material. There are proper exceptions of course: James Wyatt's books (Fizban's, Bigby's) are great and I also use them all the time. I am a big fan of him as a designer. I also liked Van Richten's, though some parts much more than others.

I'm also giving some leeway to the entire early team under Mearls for the first year or so of 5e, which did have some not-so-great releases (e.g. Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, which is really quite poor). They were adapting and I think they did so very well all things considered, and in short time, but it's worth mentioning those first few releases to be fair.

Separately from my general dislike towards the general direction of the game from Tasha onwards, I think that the releases were poorly timed from a branding perspective under the Ray Winniger/Jeremy Crawford leadership. Baldur's Gate 3 was released, and the Forgotten Realms accompanying setting is not due until 2 years later? Bizarre choice. And they had the time to think this through, considering the game was a success even in early access. This repeats itself with other tie-ins, like the movie, but it's more egregious in BG3's case.

BG3 had BG Descent into Avernus released alongside the early development and the Illithid based Phandelver expansion shortly after full release. It’s not accurate to say there were no accompanying products.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Indeed. I mean, technically they all are supposed to be compatible. It’s interesting that it’s just those few that get the actual “compatibility” label.

I meant specifically designed with 5.5e in mind, not just functional with 5.5e.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Honestly it's Jeremy Crawford setting philosophy all over it, Crawford is good with mechanics and turning feedback into mechanics, but his setting Philosphy was a disaster, he has this utility minimalist + art heavy view of settings , but he completely misses the importance of deep extensive lore to draw folks in and immerse folks in a setting.

I think Jeremy Crawford's setting design philosophies increased influence was the most negative thing about the Ray era of 5e, he just really never understood what fans of settings really wanted from settings so we ended up with gorgeous and extremely shallow products which were over priced (slipcases & the DL products), especially digital. I mean the slipcases had extra material costs, but digitally were very low content.

Honestly you can tell Ray Winninger abandoned Jeremy's philosophy by the time they started developing this year's books, because instead of getting a slipcase with three tiny books in it, the FR gets two big books focusing more on depth & quality then a shallow book and wasteful type of product that looks good on a shelf, with extra material costs dramatically drive up costs and reduce budget for substance. Eberron: Forge of the Artificer is a companion to E: RftLW so it really doesn't have to do as much beyond mechanical update & setting expansion, E: RftLW does the heavy lifting already. No idea what Lorwyn will have, it's not as big of a setting, but I suspect something akin to MOoT & GMGtR more then the less popular S: CoC.

Unfortunately I suspect Ray was hitting his stride when starting to develop this year's products, I don't know how much influence he will have on 2026 products and beyond.

Interesting information, I hope the books get better soon.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Hmm, interesting. As those are 2 of the few books I've kept, but are stored, I didnt realize they were both his, as lead?

I think Wyatt is one of the better designers, he made alot of the better setting products, Theros, Ravnica, the Planeshift articles, helped Kieth Baker create and support Eberron, Mahasarpa (3.5e but still), but Ironically Fizban's & Glory of the Giants feel like some of his weakest products. Too many unwarranted retcons, like ruining the appearance of Deep Dragons or demoting the Dragon Pantheon.

I personally would just add Mahasarpa to Radiant Citadel.

 

[pukunui]

Honestly it's Jeremy Crawford setting philosophy all over it, Crawford is good with mechanics and turning feedback into mechanics, but his setting Philosphy was a disaster, he has this utility minimalist + art heavy view of settings , but he completely misses the importance of deep extensive lore to draw folks in and immerse folks in a setting.

I think Jeremy Crawford's setting design philosophies increased influence was the most negative thing about the Ray era of 5e, he just really never understood what fans of settings really wanted from settings so we ended up with gorgeous and extremely shallow products which were over priced (slipcases & the DL products), especially digital. I mean the slipcases had extra material costs, but digitally were very low content.

Honestly you can tell Ray Winninger abandoned Jeremy's philosophy by the time they started developing this year's books, because instead of getting a slipcase with three tiny books in it, the FR gets two big books focusing more on depth & quality then a shallow book and wasteful type of product that looks good on a shelf, with extra material costs dramatically drive up costs and reduce budget for substance. Eberron: Forge of the Artificer is a companion to E: RftLW so it really doesn't have to do as much beyond mechanical update & setting expansion, E: RftLW does the heavy lifting already. No idea what Lorwyn will have, it's not as big of a setting, but I suspect something akin to MOoT & GMGtR more then the less popular S: CoC.

Unfortunately I suspect Ray was hitting his stride when starting to develop this year's products, I don't know how much influence he will have on 2026 products and beyond.

I thought Perkins was the story guy and Crawford the mechanics guy during the 2014 era. I would have said that the setting books being art heavy with less content was more of a Perkins thing.

I think Wyatt is one of the better designers, he made alot of the better setting products, Theros, Ravnica, the Planeshift articles, helped Kieth Baker create and support Eberron, Mahasarpa (3.5e but still), but Ironically Fizban's & Glory of the Giants feel like some of his weakest products. Too many unwarranted retcons, like ruining the appearance of Deep Dragons or demoting the Dragon Pantheon.

Wyatt also made a lot of the 4e monster lore changes (at least initially).

 

[TerraDave]

I wouldn't blame all that on Ray Winninger.

 

[Parmandur]

Honestly it's Jeremy Crawford setting philosophy all over it, Crawford is good with mechanics and turning feedback into mechanics, but his setting Philosphy was a disaster, he has this utility minimalist + art heavy view of settings , but he completely misses the importance of deep extensive lore to draw folks in and immerse folks in a setting.

I think Jeremy Crawford's setting design philosophies increased influence was the most negative thing about the Ray era of 5e, he just really never understood what fans of settings really wanted from settings so we ended up with gorgeous and extremely shallow products which were over priced (slipcases & the DL products), especially digital. I mean the slipcases had extra material costs, but digitally were very low content.

Honestly you can tell Ray Winninger abandoned Jeremy's philosophy by the time they started developing this year's books, because instead of getting a slipcase with three tiny books in it, the FR gets two big books focusing more on depth & quality then a shallow book and wasteful type of product that looks good on a shelf, with extra material costs dramatically drive up costs and reduce budget for substance. Eberron: Forge of the Artificer is a companion to E: RftLW so it really doesn't have to do as much beyond mechanical update & setting expansion, E: RftLW does the heavy lifting already. No idea what Lorwyn will have, it's not as big of a setting, but I suspect something akin to MOoT & GMGtR more then the less popular S: CoC.

Unfortunately I suspect Ray was hitting his stride when starting to develop this year's products, I don't know how much influence he will have on 2026 products and beyond.

I would actually suggest that the changes to the Forgotten Realms product may be because Winninger had moved on: it looks to me like it was originating to be a slipcase, too.

D&D is never a one man show.

 

[Not a Decepticon]

I see a lot of daring choices and improvements mechanically, I am even tempted to get 2024 Monster Manual and player's Handbook (but Bastions scare me away from Dungeon Master's Guide due to their "I WIN" button nature). But I see a lot of books that were criticised for dismissive approach to setting lore - Spelljammer, Vecna, 2024 Monster Manual - or offered very little of it (Radiant Citadel). I do wonder if Winninger isn't a product of rhetorics that "everyone plays in their own setting anyway", hence visible downplaying of setting lore over mechanics. Even Spelljammer's lack of ship combat falls into it - if your mindset is that the target audience ignores at best and sneers at worst at specific settings and their mechanics, you don't want to invest into setting-specifc mechanic like Spelljammer combat, but offer a generic alternative (in this case "pretend ship is a dungeon").

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Honestly it's Jeremy Crawford setting philosophy all over it, Crawford is good with mechanics and turning feedback into mechanics, but his setting Philosphy was a disaster, he has this utility minimalist + art heavy view of settings , but he completely misses the importance of deep extensive lore to draw folks in and immerse folks in a setting.

I think Jeremy Crawford's setting design philosophies increased influence was the most negative thing about the Ray era of 5e, he just really never understood what fans of settings really wanted from settings so we ended up with gorgeous and extremely shallow products which were over priced (slipcases & the DL products), especially digital. I mean the slipcases had extra material costs, but digitally were very low content.

Honestly you can tell Ray Winninger abandoned Jeremy's philosophy by the time they started developing this year's books, because instead of getting a slipcase with three tiny books in it, the FR gets two big books focusing more on depth & quality then a shallow book and wasteful type of product that looks good on a shelf, with extra material costs dramatically drive up costs and reduce budget for substance. Eberron: Forge of the Artificer is a companion to E: RftLW so it really doesn't have to do as much beyond mechanical update & setting expansion, E: RftLW does the heavy lifting already. No idea what Lorwyn will have, it's not as big of a setting, but I suspect something akin to MOoT & GMGtR more then the less popular S: CoC.

Unfortunately I suspect Ray was hitting his stride when starting to develop this year's products, I don't know how much influence he will have on 2026 products and beyond.

Definitely something changed in how they treated settings, particularly in their fidelity to what came before: what Sword Coast, Eberron and Saltmarsh shared was they didn't go out of their way to overturn the existing history of a setting.

With Ravenloft they sort of went hell-bent into "who cares about the existing fans of these settings" that informed the approach to the later settings (Dragonlance, Spelljammer etc)

 

[TheSword]

Definitely something changed in how they treated settings, particularly in their fidelity to what came before: what Sword Coast, Eberron and Saltmarsh shared was they didn't go out of their way to overturn the existing history of a setting.

With Ravenloft they sort of went hell-bent into "who cares about the existing fans of these settings" that informed the approach to the later settings (Dragonlance, Spelljammer etc)

I certainly didn’t get that impression with Planescape? It seemed pretty darn faithful. There were even Easter eggs related to PS Torment, that only true fans would know about.

I can’t speak for Ravenloft or the others. Though I read them and they seemed fine to a newcomer. I wasn’t a big enough fan to notice the discrepancies.

Not so the case with Planescape, which as a product doesn’t support the trend your claiming.