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.

 

[Rossiland]

People have been saying that D&D is toast for close to 50 years.

True

 

[Rossiland]

And I'm sure some of those people feel that opinion was justified, even now.

Everyone finds something to justify anything, no matter what it is.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

The Dark Dyad - Penny Arcade

Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.

www.penny-arcade.com

 

[Yaarel]

I think you confuse something here. A product needs functionality for customers. Art beeing my need to express myself is not a functionality for anyone than myself. Its my form of expression. I can try to make my art a product, but I don't have to. In fact I have tons of art in my flat and none of it is in any form a commercial product.

Design is always related to a product and thus - contrary to art - always tries to create functionality. Although I would argue that good design is actually not about the functionality, but the quality. As long as something works as intented, the functionality is fullfilled - that doesn't mean its good designed though.

Are you asking a corporation that is responsible for serving millions of D&D players to do "art" that no one needs?

In any case, art must fulfill the needs of others. If "art" is made and no one utilizes it and no one sees it, then nothing is "expressed", and no "art" exists in the first place.

 

[mamba]

Do you think there's a need to free up some slots to get ready for the 6th Edition team?

too early, 5.5 is just barely out the gates, if they are thinking about 6e now (I don’t think they are) then it would have to be an abysmal failure. What is their turnaround time on 5.5, three years?

 

[mamba]

A product needs functionality for customers. Art beeing my need to express myself is not a functionality for anyone than myself. Its my form of expression. I can try to make my art a product, but I don't have to.

the art in the D&D books is a product however

 

[Micah Sweet]

You are asking a corporation that is responsible for serving millions of D&D players to do "art" that no one needs?

Exactly what are you asking here?

In any case, art must fulfill the needs of others. If "art" is made and no one utilizes it, then nothing is "expressed", and no "art" exists in the first place.

If we agree that a product needs utility for someone, we agree in principle and are just dickering over price. How many people need to find utility in a product for it to be worth producing? That is a question worth discussing.

 

[Argyle King]

Not sure if you're trying to be funny, but you're actually kinda right. The team that is going to be built today will be the ones who, in 10 years, will be releasing 6th edition. They will cut their teeth on the next half-decade of projects and once they both identify the problems to address and cuttings changes in the market, begin preliminary work on what will be 6e.

That's a way away though, but the seeds are being planted.

We're already seeing some different mechanics creep into the Monster Manual.

In past editions, building blocks (and tests) of whatever the next edition would be could be seen in products. For example, Book of 9 Swords and late 3.5 Monsters had various pieces of what 4th Edition would become.

 

[Yaarel]

If we agree that a product needs utility for someone, we agree in principle and are just dickering over price. How many people need to find utility in a product for it to be worth producing? That is a question worth discussing.

It is legitimate to create niche products for smaller communities. In fact it is completely necessary for the health of the gaming community. My point is, indy companies are better able to fulfill this need.

The core rules, especially 5.5, make an effort to be versatile for diverse settings. Since 5.0, the rules were already remarkably robust to handle a great deal of rules modifications and still be able to function well enough.

5e is arguably the best D&D system for indies to mess around with.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is legitimate to create niche products for smaller communities. In fact it is completely necessary for the health of the gaming community. My point is, indy companies are better able to fulfill this need.

The core rules, especially 5.5, make an effort to be versatile for diverse settings. Since 5.0, the rules were already remarkably robust to handle a great deal of rules modifications and still be able to function well enough.

5e is arguably the best D&D system for indies to mess around with.

It becomes a matter of which 5e is your preference for a base to your 3pp and homebrew (or at least it should be IMO). I believe Level Up, itself using 5.0 as a base, is better as a spring board than 5.5 or any other 5e-based game. I'm quite glad designers got their 5.0-based versions out there and supported before WotC iterated themselves and created their usual gravity well encouraging other creators to tow their line.