Crawford’s and Perkins’s departure doesn’t really matter much to me. My issues with the current state of D&D come from something else entirely: the fact that it’s a product published by a large, profit-driven corporation whose primary goal is to sell as many books and supplements as possible. And that’s perfectly understandable — that’s how big companies operate.
However, it also means that every new release has to be aimed at the broadest possible audience. The game and its supplements must be as universal, accessible, and “safe” as possible in order to appeal to everyone: complete newcomers, casual players, and long-time veterans alike. As a result, the designers are limited in how experimental they can be — whether in mechanics, tone, or more niche concepts — because anything too specialized might alienate parts of the mass market.
All of this means that D&D, at least in its official form, will always be a mainstream product designed for a wide audience. And that’s why I don’t expect this to change, regardless of who is currently working on the game.
However, it also means that every new release has to be aimed at the broadest possible audience. The game and its supplements must be as universal, accessible, and “safe” as possible in order to appeal to everyone: complete newcomers, casual players, and long-time veterans alike. As a result, the designers are limited in how experimental they can be — whether in mechanics, tone, or more niche concepts — because anything too specialized might alienate parts of the mass market.
All of this means that D&D, at least in its official form, will always be a mainstream product designed for a wide audience. And that’s why I don’t expect this to change, regardless of who is currently working on the game.
