Jeremy Crawford Also Leaving D&D Team Later This Month

Jeremy Crawford is leaving Wizards of the Coast later this month. Screen Rant (via me!) had the exclusive announcement. Crawford was the Game Director for Dungeons & Dragons and was one of the guiding forces for D&D over the past decade. In the past year, Crawford has focused on the core rulebooks and leading the team of rules designers. He has also been a face of Dungeons & Dragons for much of 5th Edition, appearing in many promotional videos and DMing Acquisitions Incorporated Actual Play series.

He joins Chris Perkins in leaving the D&D team in recent weeks. Perkins, who was the Creative Director for D&D, announced his retirement last week. Both Perkins and Crawford appear to have left Wizards on their terms, with Lanzillo very effusive with her praise of both men and their contribution in our interview.

On a personal note, I've enjoyed interviewing Jeremy over the years. He was always gracious with his time and answers and is one of the most eloquent people I've ever heard talk about D&D. I'll miss both him and Chris Perkins and look forward to their next steps, wherever that might be.

 

[pemerton]

Much of art is functionality. Art needs to fulfill a need, even if the need is to express a feeling or concept.

Making a product that no one utilizes is like designing a language that no speaks.

Even if only ten people need the product, it has to fulfill a need.

Was Andy Warhol an innovative filmmaker? I dunno the best answer to that question, but we don't work out the answer simply by noting that films like Empire and Sleep are not watchable (at least in any typical fashion).

In a practical way the people who play D&D own D&D.

That's not what it looks like to me. WotC seems to play a very strong role in (i) shaping tastes, and (ii) producing the products that satisfy those tastes. And a lot of D&D players seem willing to pay WotC money to buy the stuff that WotC is producing to satisfy the tastes that it is creating and sustaining.

 

[pemerton]

I think with 4e, the problem was they revamped everything. Not just the rules, but tons of the lore as well, and excluded some of the races and classes, and changed or excluded a lot of monsters, and used icons and unusual formatting, all at the same time. So at that point, you were basically playing a different game, except it was still called D&D.

This seems to me a case of using second person ("you") when what is intended is first person "I/me".

Speaking for myself, when I played 4e D&D I didn't feel like I was "basically playing a different game". I felt like I was playing a game that fully developed the strengths inherent in earlier versions of D&D, while getting rid of a whole lot of unhelpful accretions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This seems to me a case of using second person ("you") when what is intended is first person "I/me".

Speaking for myself, when I played 4e D&D I didn't feel like I was "basically playing a different game". I felt like I was playing a game that fully developed the strengths inherent in earlier versions of D&D, while getting rid of a whole lot of unhelpful accretions.

I wonder how much of that feeling comes from you basically wanting to play something like 4e the entire time, so for you when 4e came out WotC finally got it (more or less) right? If you come at the issue from the perspective that 4e's innovations were never something you wanted, can you see how a person might feel as @Faolyn suggests?

 

[pemerton]

I wonder how much of that feeling comes from you basically wanting to play something like 4e the entire time, so for you when 4e came out WotC finally got it (more or less) right? If you come at the issue from the perspective that 4e's innovations were never something you wanted, can you see how a person might feel as @Faolyn suggests?

I read the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, and wanted to play that game. Classic D&D has some elements that support that - see, eg Gygax's discussion of hit points and saving throws in his DMG - but equally has many elements that push in the other direction.

Here is the Foreword I'm referring to, together with some other classic D&D rules text that is consistent with it:

From Tom Moldvay's Foreword to the Basic Rulebook (page B2, and dated 3 December 1980):

I was busy rescuing the captured maiden when the dragon showed up. Fifty feet of scaled terror glared down at us with smoldering red eyes. Tendrils of smoke drifted out from between fangs larger than daggers. The dragon blocked the only exit from the cave. . .

I unwrapped the sword which the mysterious cleric had given me. The sword was golden-tinted steel. Its hilt was set with a rainbow collection of precious gems. I shoulted my battle cry and charged.

My charge caught the dragon by surprise. Its titanic jaws snapped shut just inches from my face. I swung the golden sword with both arms. The swordblade bit into the dragon's neck and continued through to the other side. With an earth-shaking crash, the dragon dropped dead at my feet. The magic sword had saved my life and ended the reign of the dragon-tyrant. The countryside was freed and I could return as a hero.​

From the Introduction to the same book (page B3):

In the D&D rules, individuals play the role of characters in a fantasy world wher magic is real and heroes venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune.​

From the Introduction to Gary Gygax's Player's Handbook (p 7):

ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is a world. Of course, this world is not complete. It needs organizers and adventurers to order and explore it. It neds you! . . . Into this world of weird monsters, strange peoples, multitudinous states, and fabulous treasures of precious items and powerful magic stride fearless adventurers - you and your fellow players.​

Under the heading "The Game" in the same book (p 7):

[O]ne player must serve as the Dungeon Master, the shaper of the fantasy milieu, the "world" in which all action will take place. The other participants become adventurers by creating characters to explore the fantastic world and face all of its challenges - monsters, magic, and unamed menaces.​

Moldvay's Foreword is the most evocative of these passages, but all seem to me to very strongly imply that the PCs are protagonists in a fantasy adventure. The PCs venture out on dangerous quests in search of fame and fortune, striding through the world created by the GM (Gygax's description of this is reminiscent of Conan as described in the Nemedian Chronicles), exploring that world and facing all of its challenges.

There are items in the history of D&D - eg the DL modules - that clearly have something like the Moldvay Foreword in mind, or at least seem oriented towards that sort of experience.

But 4e is the version of D&D that actually has rules that comprehensively support it.

Those who were happy with the games that the rules of AD&D and 3E supported - eg operationally-focused dungeon crawling in the former case; I don't quite know how to describe the latter case, but minutiae of PC and NPC/creature build seem to have been a big focus of that edition - may not have liked 4e.

But those people don't have a monopoly over what D&D is, and aspires to be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I read the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, and wanted to play that game. Classic D&D has some elements that support that - see, eg Gygax's discussion of hit points and saving throws in his DMG - but equally has many elements that push in the other direction.

Here is the Foreword I'm referring to, together with some other classic D&D rules text that is consistent with it:
There are items in the history of D&D - eg the DL modules - that clearly have something like the Moldvay Foreword in mind, or at least seem oriented towards that sort of experience.

But 4e is the version of D&D that actually has rules that comprehensively support it.

Those who were happy with the games that the rules of AD&D and 3E supported - eg operationally-focused dungeon crawling in the former case; I don't quite know how to describe the latter case, but minutiae of PC and NPC/creature build seem to have been a big focus of that edition - may not have liked 4e.

But those people don't have a monopoly over what D&D is, and aspires to be.

Never said they did. We all have our preferences, and none superior or more important than any other.

 

[Parmandur]

Was Andy Warhol an innovative filmmaker? I dunno the best answer to that question, but we don't work out the answer simply by noting that films like Empire and Sleep are not watchable (at least in any typical fashion).

That's not what it looks like to me. WotC seems to play a very strong role in (i) shaping tastes, and (ii) producing the products that satisfy those tastes. And a lot of D&D players seem willing to pay WotC money to buy the stuff that WotC is producing to satisfy the tastes that it is creating and sustaining.

If WotC has proven anything over rge decades, it is that they lack the ability to shape the tastes of the public: they are more successful when they pursue the existing tastes, and fail when they try to shape them

 

[DEFCON 1]

I suspect that for a large number of players... the system itself has little to do with someone's interest in playing it. Rather, it'll be the genre of story their character will be living in that will impact them more than the methods for rolling dice and adding numbers together.

What's the differences between Shadowdark, Draw Steel!, Level Up, Pathfinder or any version of D&D? They are primarily mechanical. The dice rolling is different, but where the stories and events take place are all relatively the same-- they are all traditional fantasy. So if a player wants to play a traditional fantasy RPG... then it doesn't matter the system and they will be perfectly happy with the lowest-common-denominator. In this case, the largest and most easily-accessible game available to them.

So if one has players that are already playing or have played 5E and then the GM says "How about we try Shadowdark?"... they will receive a perfectly logical query of why bothering to switch games when the group would be doing the same exact narrative thing-- dungeon crawling in a medieval fantasy setting? What would be the point? The GM would of course mention that the mechanics of the game would be different... different methods of dice rolling and time keeping etc. etc... but if the players don't care about that stuff, then that's where the brick wall shows up. To them, there's no reason why they can't dungeon crawl in 5E (or whatever D&D game they are playing), so having to learn a new system and potentially buy new books could seem a bit pointless.

At least if a GM suggests playing a different genre of RPG then the players might be more willing to switch... because the game they are most used to won't have the proper rules to emulate that genre. So one is probably more likely to get their group to try something like Mutants & Masterminds or Shadowrun than they would with Tales of the Valiant.

I just think too many people discount the idea that game mechanics are just less important to a lot of people than the stories that are played in and generated. And that it's only a subset of more hardcore players that find any juice in changing mechanics. But for all the others... if the stories are always changing, there's no reason to be concerned if the mechanics themselves never do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suspect that for a large number of players... the system itself has little to do with someone's interest in playing it. Rather, it'll be the genre of story their character will be living in that will impact them more than the methods for rolling dice and adding numbers together.

What's the differences between Shadowdark, Draw Steel!, Level Up, Pathfinder or any version of D&D? They are primarily mechanical. The dice rolling is different, but where the stories and events take place are all relatively the same-- they are all traditional fantasy. So if a player wants to play a traditional fantasy RPG... then it doesn't matter the system and they will be perfectly happy with the lowest-common-denominator. In this case, the largest and most easily-accessible game available to them.

So if one has players that are already playing or have played 5E and then the GM says "How about we try Shadowdark?"... they will receive a perfectly logical query of why bothering to switch games when the group would be doing the same exact narrative thing-- dungeon crawling in a medieval fantasy setting? What would be the point? The GM would of course mention that the mechanics of the game would be different... different methods of dice rolling and time keeping etc. etc... but if the players don't care about that stuff, then that's where the brick wall shows up. To them, there's no reason why they can't dungeon crawl in 5E (or whatever D&D game they are playing), so having to learn a new system and potentially buy new books could seem a bit pointless.

At least if a GM suggests playing a different genre of RPG then the players might be more willing to switch... because the game they are most used to won't have the proper rules to emulate that genre. So one is probably more likely to get their group to try something like Mutants & Masterminds or Shadowrun than they would with Tales of the Valiant.

I just think too many people discount the idea that game mechanics are just less important to a lot of people than the stories that are played in and generated. And that it's only a subset of more hardcore players that find any juice in changing mechanics. But for all the others... if the stories are always changing, there's no reason to be concerned if the mechanics themselves never do.

I think you're right about a lot of folks, but until those people are willing to GM themselves, I will continue to advocate for whatever mechanics suit me better in my gaming.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think you're right about a lot of folks, but until those people are willing to GM themselves, I will continue to advocate for whatever mechanics suit me better in my gaming.

100%. The GM runs what they want to run. If they can find at least 3 players then they are good to go and everyone else can go twiddle their thumbs.

 

[Faolyn]

This seems to me a case of using second person ("you") when what is intended is first person "I/me".

Speaking for myself, when I played 4e D&D I didn't feel like I was "basically playing a different game". I felt like I was playing a game that fully developed the strengths inherent in earlier versions of D&D, while getting rid of a whole lot of unhelpful accretions.

OK, I never got to play it, since nobody I knew wanted to run it and at that time I was mostly buying books for the systems I was playing. But, well, in reading it, they got rid of a lot of things that I felt were bad ideas to get rid of, like bards and good-aligned monsters (because they wanted to have only monsters you will fight[1]). And they turned some monsters, like dryads, into big scary combat monsters (at least by appearance; I honestly can't remember what their powers are, but dryads went from shy forest guardians to angry trees). So to me, this strongly signified it was a game based almost entirely on combat, and that's not what I wanted at all. Not after the RP-heavy games I got used to.

So I know some (all?) of those got changed in later 4e books, but bad first impressions and all that.

---

[1] Which I always thought was dumb and lacked imagination because (a) they still have useful statblocks that could be reskinned, (b) there could be, like gold dragons or unicorns who turned evil or got corrupted, (c) the party could have one as an ally, or (d) who's to say I was going to use alignments in the first place?