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

but I think that some one like a "Product Game Designer" as describe is needed. The total lack of ability of different parts of WoTC to coordinate has been noted here many times in the past. Most notably with the release of the movie and BG3.
Oh definitely.

The trouble is they've had people whose job was to coordinate these things before, just with different job titles, including Mike Mearls himself at one point (when he was in that role he authorized BG3 to be made), and they didn't get coordinated then, seemingly because of territoriality or something within WotC, or perhaps just ineptitude (not on behalf of Mearls), so I'm not sure that will change!
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Then:
"The two top designers leave WoTC. Sales must be bad. D&D 5.5 is on health support. It can't survive."

Now:
"WoTC wants to hire two designers. D&D 5.5 is dying. 6e is around the corner and sooner than you think."

In a few months:
"WoTC announces a sci-fi RPG, a horror RPG and a modern RPG using a modular system based on D&D 5.5. OMG! OMG! Sales of D&D 5.5 must be so bad they need to create spin-off games to stay afloat."

Always the drama.
 

Which isn't to say that they won't continue to put out D&D books at the usual rate.
We already have several books coming at the normal rate, I have no idea why people are insisting that things are not going well.
I love that these two posts are right next to each other.

For the record my opinion is closer to @FitzTheRuke here. I don't think we'll see any difference in the number of books being release for 5E for at least 2 years, and it won't necessarily go down either - late 3.5E had absolutely tons of books coming out.

Just look - there's no real "throwing the brakes": List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks - Wikipedia

They don't even slow down until literally the official previews for 4E come out! So why would anyone expect them to throw brakes early this time?

I don't think Hasbro (and by extension, WotC) is particularly concerned about the TTRPG of D&D, beyond "don't do anything to screw it up".
That definitely used to be true, but I think it's obviously no longer true from the fact that game design is mentioned over and over in the Head of Game Ecosystem, including what are clearly entirely rules. That is not a role that exists merely to "keep the ship upright" like you're suggesting. It could be new rules for 5E, maybe, indeed likely for a year or three at least, but it's not "just don't screw it up!!!".

They're going to be far, far more concerned in the near future with how to adapt the system to video games.
I agree that's likely to be a major concern. It's part of why I think a new edition is a bit more likely, because did not prove particularly easy to adapt as a videogame in a playable way. Larian had to take a lot of liberties and still ended up with something pretty fiddly, and Solasta, which took less liberties is, sorry, not "playable" in any normal sense, it's a serious nerds-only deal (and even for me, who is one of those, it's clunky).

Also, why did the 3D VTT fail? I would argue that it was in significant part because 5E's rules are not trivial to implement in a really user-friendly and accessible VTT. They're actually quite hard to implement in something truly user-friendly (which neither Foundry nor Roll20 are, to be clear). Many of the early ideas they had about how the 3D VTT would work had to be abandoned because it was too hard to make them work.

That has got to be weighing on the mind of WotC too.

So I agree, but I don't draw the same conclusion.

In particular based on any premise that 2024 has been unsuccessful.
I agree that we don't know, but to see the level of turnover of really major, high-level positions and to see them not being directly rehired, but new positions created instead or alongside those, with very different responsibilities and titles? That's significant.

And it doesn't say "Wow those guys were doing a bang-up job and totally met expectations!" either lol.
 

Then:
"The two top designers leave WoTC. Sales must be bad. D&D 5.5 is on health support. It can't survive."

Now:
"WoTC wants to hire two designers. D&D 5.5 is dying. 6e is around the corner and sooner than you think."

In a few months:
"WoTC announces a sci-fi RPG, a horror RPG and a modern RPG using a modular system based on D&D 5.5. OMG! OMG! Sales of D&D 5.5 must be so bad they need to create spin-off games to stay afloat."

Always the drama.
I mean, you can just make up nonsense that no-one said, but that doesn't make it true or clever or helpful or insightful. It's just nonsense no-one said.
 


I got three laughing emoticons (so far). Some people understand humour when they see it.
With respect, there are people rolling in the aisles at Jeff Dunham standup or getting ChatGPT to tell them jokes, so I'm not sure that's compelling validation lol.

My point is though, it's not "humour" (I use the term advisedly m'lud) grounded in how things actually are, it's just made-up nonsense that literally no-one has said.
 

EnWorld is not the only social media platform that discusses the 'futures' of D&D. These things were said, are being said, as I write, and will likely be said. That is the joke. Always D&D Drama after each WoTC announcement. No, I will not provide you with proof or quotes.

Six laughing emoticons and two likes (so far).
 
Last edited:

....


I agree that's likely to be a major concern. It's part of why I think a new edition is a bit more likely, because did not prove particularly easy to adapt as a videogame in a playable way. Larian had to take a lot of liberties and still ended up with something pretty fiddly, and Solasta, which took less liberties is, sorry, not "playable" in any normal sense, it's a serious nerds-only deal (and even for me, who is one of those, it's clunky).
Dunno, I like Solasta, I find BG3 more fiddly but that is just in passing, not why I responded to this post.
Also, why did the 3D VTT fail? I would argue that it was in significant part because 5E's rules are not trivial to implement in a really user-friendly and accessible VTT. They're actually quite hard to implement in something truly user-friendly (which neither Foundry nor Roll20 are, to be clear). Many of the early ideas they had about how the 3D VTT would work had to be abandoned because it was too hard to make them work.
I tried project Sigil and got my players to try it. It did not go well. It was really not ready.
However, I partly agree with you D&D rules are difficult to automate but I also think that automation is overrated. The D&DBeyond maps works fine because the character sheet rolls the dice and sends the results to the VTT. The math is done the old fashioned way.

Sigil did not enforce rules but die rolling was fiddly.
What I found about Sigil, is that a 3d map is cluttered, the walls get in the way. 2d maps are a cleaner interface, in particularly since we have been trained to use them since pen and paper days.
3d maps are hard and very time consuming to create. That can also be true of some 2d tools. Creating a map in GIMP is a pain as are the tools in FantasyGrounds (as an example) but Dungeondraft is easy and easier again is finding a maps online and importing it into either D&DBeyonds Maps or FantasyGrounds., to use examples I am familiar with.
 


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top