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.

 

[Dire Bare]

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

Starting to think about the next edition is hardly "throwing in the towel" on the previous edition. Some of the 3E designers have said that they started thinking about 4E just after the initial 3E core books were sold. Once you have completed a project, it's natural to think of what comes next, especially with something known for markedly different editions throughout the years.

When the D&D team decided to seriously start designing and planning 5E, or D&D Next, was when the towel was thrown, although I think that phrase is too negative for the process.

 

[Kramodlog]

The three things I take away from the interview:

1.

Likewise, an offhanded example of what his daily schedule looked like in 2013 included meetings with thirteen individuals, feedback on five different topics, two editing sessions, and cramming in time for writing of his own.

This is an echo to Perkins comments about a typical work day. These people are over worked and under staffed. Too many meetings it would seem. I wonder if too many reports to higher ups is part of the problem. Monte Cook saying he didn't have a problem with the design team when he quit could be blamed on micromanagement from upstairs.

2.

"Mike [Mearls] argued very eloquently to the executives for the time to make the best version of D&D and the best books possible. We gave very frequent reports. The whole company took a gamble on whether the idealistic version of D&D could succeed. It was a risk, and it's possible that it wouldn't pan out, but we are very happy that it actually worked.

We sort of deduced that. The hard cap of 15 employees for D&D is evidence of executives being skeptical. That it worked remains to be seen. The edition is young and not much of it has came out. I'm guessing executives are still watching numbers very closely. 4e sold well at first.

3.

Now, he says, some of the team is moving on to more for the game - from work on video games to board games, novels, and other licensed products. Though he's definitely still working on the next D&D book and wouldn't tell us what it was.

Not a sign that we will see much more than licensed products and APs. We already deduced this, it just reaffirms what we knew.

 

[Iosue]

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.

It seems to me like what he's referring to is a sense that "D&D" was something distinct from FR, DL, and so on. In 3e you had them spinning Dragonlance and Ravenloft out to different companies while the rule set was turned generic enough for things like Star Wars and d20 Modern. In 4e, the heretofore unknown Nerath/Nentir Vale was the default setting, while FR, Eberron, and Dark Sun were given some minor support, and Greyhawk, DL, Spelljammer, Birthright, and Mystara were left to their respective enclaves of fans to support on the sly.

In 5e, on the other hand, all of the above are explicitly called back to in the core rulebooks. Tika, Artemis, and Bruenor are namedropped in the character generation sections. Setting-specific magic items and artifacts are included in the DMG. Pantheons for most of the settings are in the PHB. 5e openly embraces all of D&D history, in spirit if not in specific product support, unlike previous editions. Chris Perkins has said on Twitter that the default setting of 5e is "the D&D multiverse."

 

[Pauper]

I have no doubt that Jeremy Crawford is a talented guy who put in a lot of hard work on the 5th Edition ruleset. But the reality is that the largest D&D campaign in the world is the Organized Play campaign that Wizards of the Coast sponsors via their Adventurer's League program.

Say what you will about the old 4th Edition 'you must play this way' style of rules communication, but that was precisely what was needed to support the 4th Edition Organized Play campaign, and it's part of what made Living Forgotten Realms the largest and arguably the most successful OP campaign in D&D history. When you have 500 DMs scattered throughout the world, each running the same set of scenarios, the idea that you want to just support the DM and let her do her thing isn't nearly as helpful as a single set of rules that says 'here's what you do when *this* happens'.

I understand the drive for inclusiveness and creative license -- I just wish that there was a bit more of the old 4th edition clarity in the new ruleset.

 

[Dire Bare]

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 think folks are overanalyzing and getting worked up over a relatively simple quote, not that we ever do that here!

It's not a change in cosmology or rules, but simply a change in focus.

From late 1E through 3E, the focus was on the individual settings, so much so that each was practically (in some cases literally) its own product line . . . nearly separate games. Each setting had a unique logo and was its own beast.

Starting in 4E, the focus shifted to a more holistic view of D&D. The focus now is on the "universe" (or multiverse) of D&D, with each setting (published and homebrew) being examples within the larger D&D universe.

It doesn't mean that all settings must have the exact same rules, although that was a push in 4E, but it will probably mean less differentiation via rules.

So, in a Dragonlance campaign, you won't "have" to add in orcs and drow. But the draconians will be expressed as a subrace of dragonborn. You probably won't see classes or subclasses for things like the Orders of High Sorcery and the like, because they aren't really needed. And Dragonlance won't likely get a big campaign book, but will be described within an adventure product of some sort.

Which, IMO, is perfect! And, when you think about it, a return to the early days of D&D before campaign settings became king! Did Dragonlance open with a big boxed set discussing the entire setting? Nope! It debuted with a series of novels and a connected adventure path . . . pretty much what they are doing now!

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

(snip) I think.

I really don't know. :/

And thanks to their lack of communication, we won't actually know until it happens.

Starting to think about the next edition is hardly "throwing in the towel" on the previous edition. Some of the 3E designers have said that they started thinking about 4E just after the initial 3E core books were sold. Once you have completed a project, it's natural to think of what comes next, especially with something known for markedly different editions throughout the years.

When the D&D team decided to seriously start designing and planning 5E, or D&D Next, was when the towel was thrown, although I think that phrase is too negative for the process.

There was a certain half-assedness to Essentials that, to me at least, seemed like an active case of throwing in the towel. It was inconsistent with the primary article of faith of post-TSR D&D: the PHB is the biggest seller so there was no Essentials PHB. It was inconsistent in terms of the physical size of the books. It was inconsistent in that the new Red Box basically used different rules to 4E proper which limited its utility as a true introductory product.

Those inconsistencies, to me, add up to "throwing in the towel" and ensuring the edition is dead... which makes sense when plan A is seen as someone else's fault and you have already worked up a plan B.

 

[Klaus]

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!"

IMHO, I think what he's referring to is that those 2e settings began as supplements to the core game, but as the years went on, they veered down the rabbit hole, and each setting became almost a separate game by itself (q.v. Dragonlance's Fifth Age, RL's Domains of Dread). So a RL supplement had little use to a DS player, and vice-versa.

 

[KirayaTiDrekan]

Something else to consider (and, also speculation so keep that in mind)...

Starting with 3E, the Spelljammer/Planescape model where every world was contained in one mega-setting was left behind in favor of each setting being its own contained universe. FR led the way, with the campaign setting describing a new cosmology that left behind the Great Wheel. (Though, the beginnings of this could be seen in Dragonlance when it diverged into its own game system for a while in the late 90s). Eberron followed suit with its own unique set of planes and distant, possibly non-existent gods.

4E tried to reverse that trend and tie the settings back together and now I think we're seeing the next evolution of that, going back to the mega-setting model.

 

[Staffan]

When he's talking about the division of labor between him and Mearls, it sounds a lot like the Magic division between designers and developers - designers come up with new cards and mechanics, while developers tune them, make sure they work, and kill those who don't.

 

[TerraDave]

The designer/developer division has existed for many years in RPGs. WotC has always used it, and TSR used it at points way back when.

The difference is that you would have a development team, not just a single developer.