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.

 

[Imaro]

I stand corrected. I must have been thinking of something from the playtest. Serves me right for writing at 6 am after little sleep.

That said, there are a few other places. Certain Monk features (Fangs of the Fire Snake) have an odd amount of very specific verbiage ("range extended for that action") and very general verbiage ("when the attack hits"--so presumably it applies if you hit with both? but it doesn't specify, which seems out of place). It's a smaller ambiguity than I had thought for the Fighter ones though. From the Shadow Monk, though, what does "make an attack" mean? Does it mean taking the Attack Action at all, or actually landing a blow (aka if you miss, are you still invisible)? Or "Open Hand Technique"--does it apply every time you hit, or just on one of the hits? (It could be read either way--e.g. each one hit = one use, or any hits = ONLY ONE use.)

I could swear this was a hell of a lot more ambiguous previously, so again I must be remembering the playtest. Unfortunately, that happens an awful lot; the vast majority of my experience with 5e has been with the playtest rules rather than the PHB, so I unfortunately tend to conflate them. Especially when I'm tired.

I still think that their effort to subsume everything into "take the Attack Action," as if your Action wasn't a thing you expend in order to attack things, was a silly idea that leads to weird and annoying circumlocutions--unnatural language, IMO, but I'm picky.

No worries I was genuinely curious about the maneuvers and thought maybe there was some ambiguity in some of the one's the battlemaster in my campaign hadn't selected.

I do agree there is some ambiguity in 5e... but I tend to find it's around things that I don't think clear cut, hard and fast rules can really encompass the permutations of... such as stealth. I've never seen stealth rules (including 4e) that didn't rely heavily on DM judgement and thus I'm pretty much ok with them placing them fully in the realm of DM adjudication... but that's just me.

 

[Remathilis]

My guess is that WotC insists on a higher return on investment than does Paizo. I also think that WotC is hoping to achieve more ambitious things with the D&D IP than Paizo is with its IP, and that this is a factor in their decision on how much, and what, to publish.

I think Hasbro does understand the RPG market, including that it can't generate the sorts of returns that Hasbro wants, and hence WotC is not focusing its efforts primarily on publishing into that market.

Which is all a nice way of saying "D&D is about video games and movie rights now, with token support given to the TTRPG".

I mean, I guess I see that. Marvel and DC are movie studios now, comic book sales barely make a dent in against the weight of their IP on T-shirts, video games, movies and action figures. The Winter Soldier made more money opening weekend than 30 years of comic sales has, so you do follow the money.

Still hurts that D&D's name is worth more the product its attached to, but whatcha gonna do?

 

[wedgeski]

Which is all a nice way of saying "D&D is about video games and movie rights now, with token support given to the TTRPG".

"Token support" would not have been a 2-year play-test. Moan about the post-release schedule all you like, but that process, and what it delivered, showed that someone making decisions at WotC knew that it was the right thing to do.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Which is all a nice way of saying "D&D is about video games and movie rights now, with token support given to the TTRPG".

I mean, I guess I see that. Marvel and DC are movie studios now, comic book sales barely make a dent in against the weight of their IP on T-shirts, video games, movies and action figures. The Winter Soldier made more money opening weekend than 30 years of comic sales has, so you do follow the money.

Still hurts that D&D's name is worth more the product its attached to, but whatcha gonna do?

And yet, comic books haven't decreased. We see new titles coming out on a regular basis. I just can't understand this whole direction where they need to slacken on the releases in order to focus more on doing things outside the TTRPG.

I see see all these examples of companies doing other things with the brand but are still able to churn out their original products. It shows a bit of incompetency on their part.

 

[pemerton]

Which is all a nice way of saying "D&D is about video games and movie rights now, with token support given to the TTRPG".

In some ways I agree, but I think your use of the word "token" is an unfair overlay.

First, there is [MENTION=16212]wedgeski[/MENTION]'s point - a two year playtest is not "token". (I also think that the playtest is strong evidence that 4e made credible returns . If the last project from that division had been the financial flop some posters characterise 4e as, what rational management would have backed 5e? Presumably the revenue from DDI -all 4e-driven - also played an important role in financing the playtest.)

Second, I don't regard two hardback adventures a year, plus UA, plus the tweet, plus a huge back catalogue being available via PDF, as "token support". That's a well-supported RPG that is easy to get into and start playing.

I think the notion of a well-supported RPG being one with lots of new supplements for sale was invented by RPG companies, as part of their marketing of books when books were the only way they could make money. From the point of view of the player base, new books aren't all that essential when there are so many already-published books available.

This is why it is so important to 5e that it play like older editions, and that older edition conversions be relatively straightforward (both of which are recurring themes, that contrast with 4e). The truer this is, the more all that B/X and AD&D material available on DriveThru supports the game.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I'm guessing they will eventually put out another book of some options, monsters, or rules, but it appears the 5e game to WOTC is not the PH, DMG, MM, + a bunch of splats and expansions. Its just the core three and its supported by keeping them in print and on shelves, with some AP's. To some that is a dead game I guess, to me its very alive. I've got the rules and if we get a new player or need a new PH I can go to the store and grab one off the shelf.

If you would like book after book of new rules, classes, etc then Paizo is probably your best bet. They even have books to help you use the other books!

 

[Staffan]

The threshold isn't "no one".

I really don't know what WotC's financials look like. I can only guess based on my very limited knowledge of book authorship in another field. But let's think about a 128 page hardback. That's in the neighbourhood of 100,000 words, maybe more depending on font and artwork. (I think it's around 500 words per full column.)

Between authoring, development, editing, art etc, how much labour goes into that? To make the maths easy I'm going to call it an even year, at salary plus on-costs of $100,000. (I don't know how much WotC's designers and editors get paid, and I don't really know US salary structures in general. For their sakes I hope that my estimate of a year's salary plus on-costs is low rather than high!)

Back in the day, one of the writers (I think it was Sean Reynolds) mentioned that writers at Wizards were expected to write 32 pages per month. So a 128-page sourcebook would be four man-months of writing. I have no idea how much the rest of the design/development process (playtest, editing, art, layout, whatever, plus whatever overhead they consider appropriate) adds to that, but it's a starting point.

 

[pemerton]

I can't recall a time where I had to figure out a situation that was one or the other. Not saying this isn't true, but rather that the situation is substantially more common in 5e.

I can't comment on its prevalence in 5e. In 4e it comes mostly in the form of "when/if you attack" triggers - does that mean rolling an attack roll, or using an attack power (Wall of Fire and errata-ed Magic Missile are the two pretty common wizard powers that I'm familiar with in this context)?

Here is the official answer, from the Rules Compendium glossary:

attack: An attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls. The word “attack” is sometimes used as shorthand for “attack power.” Some attack powers include multiple attacks, and some powers, such as magic missile, are designated as attacks yet lack attack rolls (using such a power counts as making an attack if the power has a target).

Here are some instances of that answer being applied, from FAQs etc:

What happens if I use magic missile while benefiting from a power like greater invisibility? Does it count as an attack and would my invisibility end?
Yes, it does, and yes, it would. The initial use of any attack power that has a target line, an attack line, or both counts as making an attack. Because of this fact, using an attack power like the fighter's rain of steel does not count as making an attack, since the power has neither a target line nor an attack line.

I’m playing a Warlord with the Tactical Presence class feature. One of my allies spends an action point and uses an attack power that grants multiple attacks, like Twin Strike. Does he get the bonus on one of the attacks or both?
Tactical Presence just grants a bonus to the next attack your ally would make. He would only get the bonus on the first attack of the Twin Strike.

If I use a blast or burst power that is both thunder and lightning, with the Oncoming Storm feat, do I get the bonus immediately within that power?
Yes. If you make multiple attacks with a lightning and thunder power and one of the attacks hits, you can apply that +1 bonus to the subsequent attack rolls.​

In my view the first answer is somewhat broken, as it allows Wall of Fire or similar powerful attacking effects to be used without breaking invisibility. The second answer seems sensible. The third answer may not be broken, but it makes no sense relative to the fiction, in which all those "attacks" happen simultaneously.

One PC in my game has the Echoes of Thunder feat, which grants a damage bonus until the end of next turn after hitting with a thunder power. The logic of that third answer would suggest that the bonus kicks in immediately after the first attack roll is made, but I'm pretty sure that's not how the player in question plays it. (And the feat is plenty powerful enough not being played that way!)​

 

[Harry Dresden]

Second, I don't regard two hardback adventures a year, plus UA, plus the tweet, plus a huge back catalogue being available via PDF, as "token support". That's a well-supported RPG that is easy to get into and start playing.

I don't regard any of that as healthy support.

Let's look at a few things.

1) 2 hardback adventures a year: Not everyone uses AP's and since they haven't provided many short adventures to accommodate those people, I don't see a lot of support in that area.

2) Tweets are support? Stars and stones that's really grasping at straws here.

3) That back catalogue supports previous editions more than it does 5th edition. Also, it is extremely lazy to direct people to older material from previous editions instead of giving people up to date stuff. I think it just happens to be a coincidence and not the plan. I mean what about new people?

I see all this as getting by with the bare minimum which looks like a "token gesture" to be honest.

If this makes you happy then I'm glad at least someone has their needs met.

 

[pemerton]

Back in the day, one of the writers (I think it was Sean Reynolds) mentioned that writers at Wizards were expected to write 32 pages per month. So a 128-page sourcebook would be four man-months of writing. I have no idea how much the rest of the design/development process (playtest, editing, art, layout, whatever, plus whatever overhead they consider appropriate) adds to that, but it's a starting point.

That's in the neighbourhood of 1000 words per day - brutal (!) but within the realm of the possible.

My rough feeling for the rest of the contributions is to double the time. That would bring down the costs a bit, though on the other side I think my estimation of the return to WotC per unit sold might have been on the high side. But perhaps they don't need 10,000 sales to break even; maybe it's closer to 5,000 or 6,000. (Though that is ignoring the discount on future sales relative to current outlay - I'm not sure what WotC's discount rate would be, but presumably above the cost of borrowing. Call it an even 10% to make the maths simple and you're adding at least some hundreds of additional units to break even.)