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.

 

[Morrus]

The Indie games really don't seem to be doing anything of significance. The Kickstarter and Corporate companies are exceeding them in quality and innovation.

How are 'Kickstarter' and 'Indie' two different groups? Who are 'Corparate'? What do these words mean to you?

I won't touch the nonsense "quality and innovation" bit. That's just silly.

 

[AlViking]

Desires a profit is also different from "putting out books solely to make a profit."


I'm sure they do love D&D and I'm sure they give their work their all. But: Elsewhere in this thread (pretty sure it's this thread; maybe it's the thread on gamer conservatism), people are talking about how "the fans" voted against certain changes that were made in those UA playtests because they didn't want radical changes to the game. Which says that the writers couldn't write what they wanted (something quite different from D&D's norm) because "the fans" wouldn't buy it, thus reducing the profits the book would make.

(I'm actually pretty sure people would buy the books anyway and either find they like the changes or complain about them bitterly for the next decade, like they always do.)

So that's what I mean.

The people writing the rules for a game are not being "forced" into certain decisions. Developers of all stripes throw out all sorts of ideas and discuss multiple options all the time. Sometimes these are just brainstorming sessions other times it's getting feedback from the target customer. Iterative development and refinement of ideas is just one aspect of creating something new and it doesn't mean they aren't happy to implement the results. Any company that wants to stay in business has to take into consideration what their target audience wants.

There are exceptions to all rules of course, but not asking for or listening to feedback doesn't seem like a good way to create something that appeals to your target consumers to me.

 

[Faolyn]

The Indie games really don't seem to be doing anything of significance. The Kickstarter and Corporate companies are exceeding them in quality and innovation.

I've seen a lot of those indie games go on kickstarter. It's just that they have goals of a few thousand instead of a few tens of thousands.

But that's the problem. A lot of those games are good and very innovative. But you're dismissing them because they don't have huge audiences, as if that is the sole quantifier for quality.

 

[soviet]

There are exceptions to all rules of course, but not asking for or listening to feedback doesn't seem like a good way to create something that appeals to your target consumers to me.

This is the point. True quality and innovation doesn't care about target customers and market research. Make something you personally think is f'ing cool, commit to it fully, and hope people like it.

 

[TiQuinn]

You’re right.

Apparently innovation is “stuff I like”.

 

[mamba]

people are talking about how "the fans" voted against certain changes that were made in those UA playtests because they didn't want radical changes to the game. Which says that the writers couldn't write what they wanted

I have no idea which version they liked better, the proposed slightly more interesting one or the boring one they ended up using in the end (and not always based on the feature being voted down either).

(I'm actually pretty sure people would buy the books anyway and either find they like the changes or complain about them bitterly for the next decade, like they always do.)

I don’t think it makes any difference, other than exactly which people complain. I see 2024 as a wasted opportunity

 

[AlViking]

This is the point. True quality and innovation doesn't care about target customers and market research. Make something you personally think is f'ing cool, commit to it fully, and hope people like it.

So if I write rules for a game with passion and love but everyone but me thinks it's a steaming pile of poo it's still a quality game? You have a very different definition of quality than I do.

 

[mamba]

You’re right.

Apparently innovation is “stuff I like”.

I mean, I saw you struggle with ‘innovative’ given your posts, but this is far out there

 

[soviet]

So if I write rules for a game with passion and love but everyone but me thinks it's a steaming pile of poo it's still a quality game? You have a very different definition of quality than I do.

Examine again the last four words of the post you responded to.

 

[vecna00]

Apropos of nothing...

My brother in Gygax...have you heard the Good Word of the ignore feature?

I really should heed this advice more often!