Wizards of the Coast Hiring New Lead Designer and Head of Game Ecosystem for D&D

dnd-asterik-1234066 (1).jpeg

Wizards of the Coast seems to be hiring replacements for Chris Perkins and Jeremy Crawford. This week, Wizards of the Coast posted job listings for a new "Head of Game Ecosystem" for Dungeons & Dragons, as well as a new "Principal Game Designer" for the game. Both are high level positions focused on product execution for Dungeons & Dragons, with 8+ years of experience in game design preferred for both roles.

Wizards of the Coast recently lost the two arguable faces of Dungeons & Dragons - Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins. Both left the company after the launch of D&D's revised 5th Edition ruleset. In an interview I did with Jess Lanzillo about the departures, she indicated that others within the D&D design team would be taking on greater responsibilities moving forward.

The job description for the Principal Game Designer role is below:


The Principal Game Designer leads the execution of Dungeons & Dragons’ major product releases. These tentpole projects span analog and digital expressions and may include setting content, rules-adjacent systems, adventures, and platform-native features. This role architects and stewards the design vision of sophisticated product suites, working closely with design leads, editorial, rules leadership, and digital teams to ensure cohesion and quality across every player touchpoint.

What You'll Do:
  • Lead the game design execution of major multi-SKU product suites, collaborating with cross-functional partners to align scope, tone, and player value.
  • Structure content development plans, including product mapping, design outlines, and contributor briefs that account for both analog + digital formats.
  • Guide designers, freelancers, and partners in developing content that reflects D&D’s tone, design ethos, and evolving format needs.
  • Collaborate with rules design leadership to integrate new mechanics or modular systems under development into flagship products.
  • Act as the primary design voice for your product(s), providing vision, review, and iteration through every phase of development.
  • Partner with the Executive Producer and Head of Product to ensure your projects meet the quality bar and are delivered on time and within budget.

The Head of Game Ecosystem job description is below:


The Head of Game Ecosystem is a crucial leadership position responsible for driving the complete design and evolution of the Dungeons & Dragons game system. This role ensures consistency across all game releases, both physical and digital, preserving the integrity of the rules and mechanics while encouraging innovation.

What You'll Do:
  • Define and drive the long-term vision for D&D’s core rules and gameplay systems across all product formats.
  • Own the rules roadmap and ensure mechanical consistency and interoperability between releases.
  • Propose and lead ecosystem-forward product initiatives—system-focused releases that reinforce the health, extensibility, and accessibility of the D&D ruleset across play formats and player types.
  • Lead and mentor a team of game designers and developers to deliver high-quality content at scale.
  • Partner closely with product management, narrative, and digital teams to align game systems with franchise goals and player needs.
  • Develop frameworks and tools to support scalable content creation—internally and externally—without compromising quality.
  • Represent D&D’s systems vision internally and externally, acting as a voice of authority and alignment across all design efforts.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Christian Hoffer

Christian Hoffer

From the job descriptions, and their listed functions, the "Principal Game Designer" is not really originating the game design, like the real concepts, the real "why we're doing this", but rather merely carrying it out. That's very unusual in TTRPGs. Not unheard-of I'm sure, but it's unusual. It's a little more common in video games.
This makes sense to me. I would have promoted someone already working on it and has been mentored by the person leaving to that position rather than hiring a new "leader" from outside. Least of all when you released a new set of rules just a few months before.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would have promoted someone already working on it and has been mentored by the person leaving to that position rather than hiring a new "leader" from outside. Least of all when you released a new set of rules just a few months before.
I think the fact that they seemingly aren't doing this is another pin on the crazy/murder wall of "6E is coming". Hiring from outside makes a lot of sense if you're really seriously reconfiguring things.

I suspect that 2024, whilst clearly selling decently by any normal standards, hasn't actually met WotC's or perhaps Hasbro's expectations, sales-wise. That's not a critique of 2024 - I don't think there's anything "wrong" with 2024 that's causing that - rather I think it's inevitable that if you merely tweak a system and do a "new edition" that's functionally equivalent to say, a Call of Cthulhu new edition, then uptake will be limited/slow. Not because people are mad or sad or in their feelings about it, just because people don't feel any real pressure to upgrade - there's little FOMO/peer-pressure, little "shiny new stuff" factor. Especially when the buy-in is significant - 3 expensive hardback core books is a bigger ask than one moderately-priced softback, and most games which do smaller editions do the latter.

Further, WotC/Hasbro's sales expectations might not ever have been reasonable re: 2024. 2014 was very lucky in that WotC had basically no sales expectations for D&D, indeed, they were close to vaulting the IP by various accounts, and this was just "Well, okay so long as the cash-flow is positive, I guess we can do it..." (whereas 4E had a specific $50m/per annum revenue expectation which it never met, it part because the digital tools necessary to achieve that weren't in place). Unreasonable sales expectations are not uncommon in the videogame sphere - I'm struggling to think which it was, but a videogame a few months back sold multiple millions of copies, got great reviews, but was still considered to "underperform" by the publisher. Other games do everything right, get good-to-great reviews, are well-liked by people who played them, but just don't sell for unclear reasons.

Anyway, they've cleared out all the 2014-2024 leadership, and they're coming in with an entirely different leadership structure here, and that doesn't happen in a corporate environment if senior management is happy with how everything is going and just wants to keep that going.
 


Call me cynical, but I don't believe they will get rid of 2024 until they've milked all the easy cash by publishing books that are the majority upcycled 2014 content with some new content as the hook to buy.

That's not contrary to anything @Ruin Explorer is saying, even after filling these positions a new edition is likely years of development, public playtesting, and printing/distribution away.

The only part with a 6E that I can't jive with their expectation is that WotC leadership was incredibly insistent that 2024 wasn't a new edition, probably because sales of the previous edition tank when that happen and they wanted to get full value from the products in the pipeline. If it's the same leadership, how do they announce and build hype for a 6E without doing that?
 

The irony that 2024 might be done in by corporate for the same reasons as 4E is mildly hilarious to me
It is kind of funny yes, but terribly unsurprising.

As soon as 5E became obviously extremely successful, WotC seemed to wake up and immediately try and put 5E on essentially the same course as 4E, particularly with suddenly this 3D VTT (later Sigil) becoming this huge part of D&D's future (again, I remind everyone that Cynthia Williams claimed they had 250 people working on the 3D VTT at one point, and even the later figure, from when the 3D VTT/Sigil got shut down, of about 33 remaining people is larger than the number who seemed to be working on actual D&D 2024). Then of course just like 4E, the 3D VTT seemed to be developing much more slowly than expected, and then got shut down entirely. This time WotC effectively dumped what is basically an early beta (feature-complete, but very much not content complete, nor are the feature refined), to us rather than shutting it down in the background, but that was with absolute zero fanfare (whimper not a bang!).

Unfortunately (?! or not?) WotC now seems to have Big Ambitions for D&D to continue as an IP and specifically as a TTRPG (which is different from the previous later-5E goal which appeared to be more "lifestyle product"), and so we're seeing all these people leaving and major re-organisation of responsibilities (no doubt to "align" with "brand goals"). Will they turn out positively? Will 6E be great? I guess that remains to be seen.

What I will say is it doesn't - yet - look like they're trying to run the same exact script again. This isn't how you'd set things up - I personally think - if you were trying to do "3D VTT is going to be at the heart of our strategy for D&D!" again, so maybe this time it will be different (definition of madness etc.)?

If WotC are very smart re: 6E, I think they'd look for something fun and accessible like 5E is, but try and make it even more of both of those, whilst also having an eye to making it easy to adapt into videogames (5E is not bad but it's not good either, from that perspective) and work really well with VTTs. But I'm getting pretty far ahead there!
 


Call me cynical, but I don't believe they will get rid of 2024 until they've milked all the easy cash by publishing books that are the majority upcycled 2014 content with some new content as the hook to buy.

That's not contrary to anything @Ruin Explorer is saying, even after filling these positions a new edition is likely years of development, public playtesting, and printing/distribution away.
Oh to be clear I agree completely here. I don't see 2024 getting unceremoniously dumped like the 3D VTT/Sigil was. That would be a break of trust with people who did buy it and not great reputationally, and more importantly to WotC, it also would make less money!

My expectation is:

  • 2024 continues for 3-4 years as "main D&D"
  • A new edition being planned is announced at some point in year 3 or later
  • Open playtest in year 4 or 5
  • WotC attempts to keep transition smooth, probably rewards 2024 owners on Beyond somehow
  • 6E is far less backwards-compatible than 2024 but not backwards-hostile like 4E effectively was, lots of free conversion materials from WotC

Of course there might also be:

  • Insane WotC execs cannot resist stepping on rakes so instead of doing a CC-BY/SRD 5.2 deal as with 5E 2024, we get OGL 2.0/GSL-style licencing.

Just can never underestimate the desire of the WotC exec to just leap towards the nearest rake!

Also bear in mind I have wildly overestimated how long it has taken WotC to move on stuff - like, I expected Perkins to go a while back, but thought it'd take a year or two, and it was like two months after that, and when he went I expected Crawford to follow, but again, I thought it'd be a year or two, and it was months. So if the timescale is much compressed, don't blame me! But I don't think it'll be longer than 5 years before 6E is here or nearly here.

The only part with a 6E that I can't jive with their expectation is that WotC leadership was incredibly insistent that 2024 wasn't a new edition, probably because sales of the previous edition tank when that happen and they wanted to get full value from the products in the pipeline. If it's the same leadership, how do they announce and build hype for a 6E without doing that?
I think they look at 2024's soft sales and go "Ok, it's temporary pain, but we can deal with it when we get big sales next year with the new edition!". I think a lot of the insistence that it wasn't a new edition stuff was coming from a fear of killing the golden goose, but it turns out the "updated but not entirely new" goose is laying less eggs anyway, so maybe they can just get an entirely new goose to really slam them eggs out?

Also I suspect that the leadership now is not the same internally as it was when 2024 was developed. But without paying incredible attention to WotC's LinkedIn, which I am frankly unwilling to do (and which "gardening leave" stuff makes much harder), I couldn't say for sure.
 

This makes sense to me. I would have promoted someone already working on it and has been mentored by the person leaving to that position rather than hiring a new "leader" from outside. Least of all when you released a new set of rules just a few months before.
Who said they haven't? It's not uncommon for companies to publicly publish job opening when they already have the candidate they want, either internally or externally. Often they have policies that all job openings have to be open publicly to reduce favoritism/whoyouknow-ism. Plus Washington state has some unusual employment laws that could impact this as well.

The pool of those who are qualified is pretty darned small, and WotC management already know who 99% of those people are. These job openings are done for some other reason than to find qualified candidates.
 


The only part with a 6E that I can't jive with their expectation is that WotC leadership was incredibly insistent that 2024 wasn't a new edition, probably because sales of the previous edition tank when that happen and they wanted to get full value from the products in the pipeline. If it's the same leadership, how do they announce and build hype for a 6E without doing that?
Do your last mechanical release in 2028, start building hype in 2029 with an epic "closing" module and drop 6e in 2030.

I don't know if that will work, but it seems like a safe, conservative approach if they want to do it.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top