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.

 

[Staffan]

I think you're right about a lot of folks, but until those people are willing to GM themselves, I will continue to advocate for whatever mechanics suit me better in my gaming.

 

[pemerton]

they got rid of a lot of things that I felt were bad ideas to get rid of, like bards and good-aligned monsters (because they wanted to have only monsters you will fight[1]).

<snip>

[1] Which I always thought was dumb and lacked imagination because (a) they still have useful statblocks that could be reskinned, (b) there could be, like gold dragons or unicorns who turned evil or got corrupted, (c) the party could have one as an ally, or (d) who's to say I was going to use alignments in the first place?

I don't think you need combat stats for creatures that you are not going to fight. And if you are going to fight a dark unicorn, you can fairly easily adapt the unicorn stats from the 4e MM. The 4e DMG has guidelines for monster building that will help with that task.

As I think by now is fairly well known, 4e D&D doesn't use combat stats to resolve things like trying to persuade a Gold Dragon to aid you. That is what skill challenges are for.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't think you need combat stats for creatures that you are not going to fight. And if you are going to fight a dark unicorn, you can fairly easily adapt the unicorn stats from the 4e MM. The 4e DMG has guidelines for monster building that will help with that task.

I addressed that, though. You don't know what my party will or will not fight. It's like saying the MM shouldn't have kobold stats because my table views them as adorable uwu snuggle monsters rather than as enemies.

As I think by now is fairly well known, 4e D&D doesn't use combat stats to resolve things like trying to persuade a Gold Dragon to aid you. That is what skill challenges are for.

Once you've persuaded that gold dragon, you can't really do much with it because the stats weren't available until MM2. I also happened to really like bards, so their omission was also a mark against it. Like I said, bad first impressions.

 

[soviet]

Once you've persuaded that gold dragon, you can't really do much with it because the stats weren't available until MM2. I also happened to really like bards, so their omission was also a mark against it. Like I said, bad first impressions.

Character classes I get because each one is a big wodge of rules text.

But really, GMs were unable to make up stats for gold dragons without a published text? It's impossible to just use red dragon stats and change a couple things?

 

[Faolyn]

Character classes I get because each one is a big wodge of rules text.

But really, GMs were unable to make up stats for gold dragons without a published text? It's impossible to just use red dragon stats and change a couple things?

Like I said, bad first impressions. And again, you're assuming the reader knows what gold dragons are.

 

[soviet]

Like I said, bad first impressions. And again, you're assuming the reader knows what gold dragons are.

If they don't, why are they desperate for the stats for them?

 

[Faolyn]

If they don't, why are they desperate for the stats for them?

Sigh.

What I have said is that their reasons for excluding the creatures are not, IMO, good reasons. And that left bad first impressions with me.

 

[Hussar]

Wow, we're now back to relitigating 4e edition warring? And folks think I'm stubborn. O.O

 

[pemerton]

Wow, we're now back to relitigating 4e edition warring?

Not just any old issue, though - the top issues of gnomes, bards and metallic dragons.

(The fact that there were unicorns in the original 4e MM seems to be a mere fact, which we're ignoring.)

 

[Faolyn]

Not just any old issue, though - the top issues of gnomes, bards and metallic dragons.

(The fact that there were unicorns in the original 4e MM seems to be a mere fact, which we're ignoring.)

Because it's unimportant for my reasons for disliking the game. Which you apparently still don't understand.