Jeremy Crawford On The Dark Side of Developing 5E

WotC's Jeremy Crawford spoke to The Escapist about the D&D 5th Edition development process and his role in the game's production. "There was a dark side where it was kind of crushing. The upside is it allowed us to have a throughline for the whole project. So I was the person who decided if what we had decided was important two years prior was still being executed two years later."


You can read the full interview here, but below are the key highlights.

• Mike Mearls started pondering about D&D 5th Edition while the 4E Essentials books were being worked on in 2010.
• There were "heated discussions" about the foundations of 5E.
• Crawford is the guy who "made the decision about precisely what was going to be in the game".
• Crawford considers D&D's settings as an important pillar.

For another recent interview, see Chris Perkins talking to Chris "Wacksteven" Iannitti.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Heated discussions about D&D? You don't say.

 

[Tormyr]

All meetings were conducted through an anonymous online forum.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Interesting. I actually thought Mike had thrown in the towel much earlier than that on 4E.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D has this multiverse where many worlds are part of one setting and that has been around for a long time. Over time though that connection was eroded, so rather than being all D&D in different worlds they were almost different games: Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ravenloft... but we wanted to undo that."

I'm not sure how to unpack this sentence. Is he implying a larger shift to an open multiverse (where we get Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc support) or is he implying a distilled version (akin to Nentir Vale, borrowing from everything) or that settings will be less unique in fluff (elves are elves) or crunch (not needing 27 wizard classes to cover sha'ir, defilers, artificers, etc). Or just maybe some of the really out there worlds (Athas, Ravenloft, Al-qadim) aren't getting any support to keep the game in line with the classic Pseudo-Tolkien settings.

I REALLY want to know what he meant as far as future settings go. WotC's Maddening Whispers (5th level illusion) and Zone of Silence (3rd level Transmuation) is driving me crazy already.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not sure how to unpack this sentence. Is he implying a larger shift to an open multiverse (where we get Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc support) or is he implying a distilled version (akin to Nentir Vale, borrowing from everything) or that settings will be less unique in fluff (elves are elves) or crunch (not needing 27 wizard classes to cover sha'ir, defilers, artificers, etc). Or just maybe some of the really out there worlds (Athas, Ravenloft, Al-qadim) aren't getting any support to keep the game in line with the classic Pseudo-Tolkien settings.

Yea, that also struck me as saying that they expect all the settings to fit into a similar mechanical framework. Which would point against the idea that setting books would be used to deliver new crunch as well.

I REALLY want to know what he meant as far as future settings go. WotC's Maddening Whispers (5th level illusion) and Zone of Silence (3rd level Transmuation) is driving me crazy already.

Shh, we're not allowed to complain about that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, that bit is....interesting.

I interpret it rather broadly in that the idea is that all of these things "are D&D." Which is a smart track to take, but I'm perhaps overly paranoid about 4e-style "EVERY WORLD NOW HAS DRAGONBORN DEAL WITH IT" kind of unification. Different experiences in different settings is why D&D is so diverse, and thinking about it the other way (D&D is this one thing that all the other setting must also be) is problematic. And it could be taken to mean either thing.

Ultimately, my goals when playing Ravenloft are different than my goals when playing Dark Sun or Forgotten Realms, and I want a D&D that recognizes that and uses that difference in creative and interesting ways, not one that posits Ravenloft as "dungeon crawling, but with vampires!" and Dark Sun as "dungeon crawling, but with mutants!" and FR as "dungoen crawling, but with ruins!"

 

[MwaO]

Interesting. I actually thought Mike had thrown in the towel much earlier than that on 4E.

I don't think that contradicts that. I think the path taken represents the pragmatic play. I don't think Mearls thought Essentials would save 4E, but if he didn't try to save it, he probably would have done a lot of damage to sales of product already at the stores. Given that Essentials somehow managed to both sell poorly and generally sell out...

 

[casterblaster]

I'll admit it, I bought into the whole Essentials line. I wanted a new simplified DnD and seeing the red box starter was a throw back that I bought into only to find, well 4e. I liked the small rule books though. I still look back at all my 4e stuff but I never really enjoyed it. Not saying it was a bad game just not for me. Anyway sorry to get off topic of the thread.

 

[Nellisir]

I'm not sure how to unpack this sentence. Is he implying a larger shift to an open multiverse (where we get Eberron, Ravenloft, Dragonlance, etc support) or is he implying a distilled version (akin to Nentir Vale, borrowing from everything) or that settings will be less unique in fluff (elves are elves) or crunch (not needing 27 wizard classes to cover sha'ir, defilers, artificers, etc). Or just maybe some of the really out there worlds (Athas, Ravenloft, Al-qadim) aren't getting any support to keep the game in line with the classic Pseudo-Tolkien settings.

I'm...guessing that it means less emphasis on a singular setting, and maybe more references to settings in "generic" books as examples, as is done in the PH? I think it's also related to the mechanics of D&D being able to encompass sha'irs and defilers without fundamental rule changes - new subclasses, yeah, but not new classes.

I think.

I really don't know. :/