Jeremy Crawford Also Leaving D&D Team Later This Month

Jeremy Crawford is leaving Wizards of the Coast later this month. Screen Rant (via me!) had the exclusive announcement. Crawford was the Game Director for Dungeons & Dragons and was one of the guiding forces for D&D over the past decade. In the past year, Crawford has focused on the core rulebooks and leading the team of rules designers. He has also been a face of Dungeons & Dragons for much of 5th Edition, appearing in many promotional videos and DMing Acquisitions Incorporated Actual Play series.

He joins Chris Perkins in leaving the D&D team in recent weeks. Perkins, who was the Creative Director for D&D, announced his retirement last week. Both Perkins and Crawford appear to have left Wizards on their terms, with Lanzillo very effusive with her praise of both men and their contribution in our interview.

On a personal note, I've enjoyed interviewing Jeremy over the years. He was always gracious with his time and answers and is one of the most eloquent people I've ever heard talk about D&D. I'll miss both him and Chris Perkins and look forward to their next steps, wherever that might be.

 

[Greg K]

I mean many fans want their favorite game to be the top with a bunch of the extras WOTC or TSR did.

Tons of settings. Tons of extra classes/races/feats.

But my some of my favorite games don't use classes. Some only have human as a playable race. And most only have a single setting. I am fine with the first two. However, I cannot deny wanting to see all all of them get licensed settings or additional licensed setting

 

[Minigiant]

But my some of my favorite games don't use classes. Some only have human as a playable race. And most only have a single sett. I am fine with the first two. However, I cannot deny wanting to see all all of them get licensed settings or additional licensed setting

Sure.

And the company will barely made any books, have no or AI art, and have no 3PP support.

... unless the game company puts some focus on money.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

There is a lot of it in the books that came out around then I guess? Idk it was a silly complaint.

H…how?

I genuinely can’t fathom how you could see “rats fleeing the ship” as the more likely scenario.

Also gross way to talk about people.

My view of the situation doesn't have to be yours, what is so "gross" about my view?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My view of the situation doesn't have to be yours, what is so "gross" about my view?

Referring to them as rats fleeing a ship is gross on several levels.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

What bland content?

As posted most of the releases post Tasha's. Pandelver and below is a remake made bland compared to the OG Lost mines with a half baked add on extension that railroads players into a wierd mindflayer thing that struggles to resolve the plot.
Monsters of the multiverse is little more than Volo's and Tome of Foes stripped of lore and made into a single book.
Vecna, well anything at that level of play is hard, but they knew the limits of the system when they saddled that horse.
I can go on if you'd like.

 

[kayakingpoodle]

Referring to them as rats fleeing a ship is gross on several levels.

It is a well known and long standing turn of phrase, I did not call them rats. Maybe look the term up, it is in quotes for a reason.

 

[Stormonu]

No, I want new creatives taking a crack at it.

I'd actually like both. Having a crew who understands where D&D came from to keep it within the "bounds" of D&D, but new individuals to bring in new ideas and be willing to try out new things rather than simply rehash the old. I really like the creative spark in 2E's heydey where we got a dozen new campaign worlds and was being stretched in all sorts of new directions for content. I think WotC clings too much to the issues that diversity wrought, and drew the wrong conclusions. Making campaign worlds like Planescape, Spelljammer or the Historical Series wasn't the issue - the problem wasn't they were made and released, it was that went too far down the rabbit hole supporting specific content for those worlds, turning them into product lines instead of one-offs. (Yes, they're re-releasing the old campaign sets like that now, but I don't want rehashes - I want new worlds that dare to be more than paint jobs over the kitchen-sink rules).

Also seriously what would suddenly change?

The new Corebooks are out nothing will change that, and we know they are doing well in sales. So what do you guys seriously think will happen?

Change doesn't stop with the core books; look at how the game evolved through Xanathar's and Tasha's for the 2014 books. The 2024 books will go through the same additions, changes and add-ons. The path I see them moving down is not a path I particularly wish to follow. Like they proved with 2014 5E, if they put out books that I like, I'll certainly buy them - I want to buy them. But nothing that is being released this year by the D&D team at WotC interests me.

 

[S'mon]

My view is the game has been very badly mismanaged for years, Crawford seems the single person most responsible. So this seems very hopeful news. I guess it could just be they are going to mothball the brand. But I hope at least we get no more "half races are racist" type stuff driving design. The Angry Mothers From Heck era ended and hopefully this era will end too.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I'd actually like both. Having a crew who understands where D&D came from to keep it within the "bounds" of D&D, but new individuals to bring in new ideas and be willing to try out new things rather than simply rehash the old. I really like the creative spark in 2E's heydey where we got a dozen new campaign worlds and was being stretched in all sorts of new directions for content. I think WotC clings too much to the issues that diversity wrought, and drew the wrong conclusions. Making campaign worlds like Planescape, Spelljammer or the Historical Series wasn't the issue - the problem wasn't they were made and released, it was that went too far down the rabbit hole supporting specific content for those worlds, turning them into product lines instead of one-offs. (Yes, they're re-releasing the old campaign sets like that now, but I don't want rehashes - I want new worlds that dare to be more than paint jobs over the kitchen-sink rules).

Change doesn't stop with the core books; look at how the game evolved through Xanathar's and Tasha's for the 2014 books. The 2024 books will go through the same additions, changes and add-ons. The path I see them moving down is not a path I particularly wish to follow. Like they proved with 2014 5E, if they put out books that I like, I'll certainly buy them - I want to buy them. But nothing that is being released this year by the D&D team at WotC interests me.

Yes they will release adventures and supplements, like the upcoming Eberron Book, and the FR books. Those will add to the game, but they are in nature no different than stuff that has come in the past. Yet some people try and make it sound like completely alien stuff to the game like loot boxes and AI DMs are suddenly going to be bashing us over the head.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I wish more companies cares about their games as GAMES and not just PRODUCTS from which to squeeze REVENUE. I honestly think we get better games that way.

WotC is more or less the only TTRPG company where top management sees their games as just products for revenue, as far as I'm aware.

The are a couple of others which are kind of on the way there (not Paizo, notably, despite being fairly large), but I don't think there's some major change needed in the TTRPG industry as a whole here. It's really just WotC.

If you get into boardgames, wargames and videogames then there are a lot more examples, of course.