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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?

On the one hand, as a tabletop gamer, sure - it sucks that they're not going to put out a ton of D&D books. It is nice having options.

But on the other hand, one of people's big fears about said lack of support is it could mean the edition going belly up. They're afraid the lack of hardcover books means players will tire of 5E, which they love, and it will become hard to maintain or find new players to play 5E with.

Imagine what it would do for the hobby if Universal or Warner Brothers made a D&D movie that made more money in its opening weekend than 30 years of RPG supplement sales. Imagine all the middle school kids, teens and college students that would walk out of the theater, pull out their smartphones, and look up more about this whole "Dungeons & Dragons" thing. There's an entire generation out there for which D&D is the perfect combination of nerd chic, retro dorkiness-turned-coolness and quality time spent with your friends. Dare to dream of a world where you could say to a coworker or new acquaintance, "Hey, would you be interested in playing in a D&D game I'm hosting this Saturday?", and it would be taken the same way as asking if they wanted to play videos games on XBOX Live with you or an invitation to a pick-up basketball game.

Putting out a quality movie or two is the best possible thing they could do for the game as a whole - it could bring D&D to the general public's attention in a way it hasn't been since the early 80s, ensure the game's future and worthwhile support for years to come, and grow the entire industry as more people are introduced to the hobby than were during the d20 boom.

I don't see the current strategy as disappointing, or pathetic, or poorly thought out - I see it as bold, and risky, and visionary, and perhaps the best shot the game has at actually reentering the cultural zeitgeist and reclaiming some of its former glory as opposed to becoming an increasingly niche and graying market.

But yeah, I guess they could just release a couple of splatbooks and a campaign setting book no one outside of the hobby will ever hear about, instead.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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?
Tweets are support. They replace the old sage advice/FAQs. There are people online who collate them, for those who care about getting it all.

The answers to (1) and (3) are the same: if you want a short adventure, download one of the many (dozens? hundreds?) for sale via DriveThru. If you can't decide, I very strongly recommend B10 Night's Dark Terror, an excellent scenario that I used for my 4e game.

What you call lazy I think is better called efficiency. The company has a huge back catalogue. It has designed 5e to be highly compatible with that back catalogue. So why not use what they have?

Back when 3E first debuted Ryan Dancey explained that short adventures weren't profitable and that WotC therefore wouldn't be publishing many of them. What makes you think the company position in that respect will have changed over the intervening 15 years?
 

WotC knows how many of those books it sold. Presumably it is drawing upon that information in deciding how many of those books to keep publishing.
And using that logic they never published modern APs, they do not know how many of those they can sell.

After saying that, having metrics doesn't mean you interpret them correctly or take the optimal decision using those metrics. *cough*4e*couch*
 

On the one hand, as a tabletop gamer, sure - it sucks that they're not going to put out a ton of D&D books. It is nice having options.

But on the other hand, one of people's big fears about said lack of support is it could mean the edition going belly up. They're afraid the lack of hardcover books means players will tire of 5E, which they love, and it will become hard to maintain or find new players to play 5E with.

Which is the Catch-22. A game without updates starts to feel abandoned. Sure, it can be beloved and played forever, but eventually even the more ardent supporter clamor for new stuff. There is a reason OSRIC began; as support for a 20+ year old RPG that hadn't seen a new supplement since 1989.

Imagine what it would do for the hobby if Universal or Warner Brothers made a D&D movie that made more money in its opening weekend than 30 years of RPG supplement sales. Imagine all the middle school kids, teens and college students that would walk out of the theater, pull out their smartphones, and look up more about this whole "Dungeons & Dragons" thing. There's an entire generation out there for which D&D is the perfect combination of nerd chic, retro dorkiness-turned-coolness and quality time spent with your friends. Dare to dream of a world where you could say to a coworker or new acquaintance, "Hey, would you be interested in playing in a D&D game I'm hosting this Saturday?", and it would be taken the same way as asking if they wanted to play videos games on XBOX Live with you or an invitation to a pick-up basketball game.

Putting out a quality movie or two is the best possible thing they could do for the game as a whole - it could bring D&D to the general public's attention in a way it hasn't been since the early 80s, ensure the game's future and worthwhile support for years to come, and grow the entire industry as more people are introduced to the hobby than were during the d20 boom.

There is a big problem with this scenario: the movie has to be GOOD and that has to translate into sales of the RPG. Comic book movies have existed and sold well since 2002, but only recently has comic sales began to increase (and even then, they are no where near the 1990's sales totals). I don't put huge trust into said movie-into-sales moves: mostly because I don't trust said movie to be good. Ignoring the fact the last three D&D movies were tripe, one need only look at Ouija and Battleship to see Hasbro isn't exactly stellar at making IP into movies.

I don't see the current strategy as disappointing, or pathetic, or poorly thought out - I see it as bold, and risky, and visionary, and perhaps the best shot the game has at actually reentering the cultural zeitgeist and reclaiming some of its former glory as opposed to becoming an increasingly niche and graying market.

But yeah, I guess they could just release a couple of splatbooks and a campaign setting book no one outside of the hobby will ever hear about, instead.

And this runs the same problem 4e had: its chasing potential customers at the expense of its current fanbase. You can't do that. You need some balance. I'm hoping WotC has found some level of balance between IP and RPG, but my fear is that when push comes to shove, the latter is going to win.

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.

Not lots, but regular and well-announced. The debate isn't that WotC needs another book-of-the-month club release schedule, but that it needs to say what it IS doing. Its the silence that's maddening. If I'm not getting another FRCS or ECS, that's fine. I will begin the laborious process of conversion. I don't want to get 45% of the way into said conversion to find out there will be said book coming in 2016. Are we getting a psionics book or no? Is campaign settings a go or no? Are we getting new classes, another monster manual, or no? Are we getting an OGL, fan-licence, or nothing? I don't care when; I'm patient. I want to know IF.

WotC could alleviate a lot of concern simply by saying: Here is out general outline of future support for D&D. In the future, we plan to do... and fill in the rest. Even if its "we plan to release two APs and a free PDF per year", then at least we'd know what to expect.

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.

Me either. The video games are designed by outside studios. Their supplemental stuff is done by Gale Force 9 and WizKids. Their APs are written by outside game studios. WHAT IS THE ACTUAL RPG DIVISION DOING?

Again, the silence is deafening.

"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.

Which is why this confuses me so. WotC's release schedule was full the second half of 2014. In six months, we got a basic set, three hardbacks, two modules, a DM screen, plus supplemental releases from GF9 and Wizkids. And we were looking at leaks on a new Hardback (Adv. Handbook) and AP (PotA). We were promised some sort of thing for fans to make their own content (or even an OGL) in the spring. We were similarly promised conversion guides for older material. (Which would be REALLY nice for all that support we're given via DnDclassics.com)

And then Christmas came, the layoffs happened, and WotC went quiet. The Adv Handbook was "not cancelled" cancelled. We've heard nothing of the fan licence/OGL. The conversion guides were delayed. We've had one release in four months, with no hint of future releases. Its scary, almost as if the D&D division is literally a skeleton crew and their original idea for support is fading due to lack of resources. I can't believe this is what they had in mind in 2012.
 

Not lots, but regular and well-announced. The debate isn't that WotC needs another book-of-the-month club release schedule, but that it needs to say what it IS doing. Its the silence that's maddening. If I'm not getting another FRCS or ECS, that's fine. I will begin the laborious process of conversion. I don't want to get 45% of the way into said conversion to find out there will be said book coming in 2016. Are we getting a psionics book or no? Is campaign settings a go or no? Are we getting new classes, another monster manual, or no? Are we getting an OGL, fan-licence, or nothing? I don't care when; I'm patient. I want to know IF.

WotC could alleviate a lot of concern simply by saying: Here is out general outline of future support for D&D. In the future, we plan to do... and fill in the rest. Even if its "we plan to release two APs and a free PDF per year", then at least we'd know what to expect.
I agree 100% with what you said, but WotC just can't announce stuff in advance. They have a tendency of not delivering (e.g. Dungeonscape, Adventurer's Handbook, conversion documents) and that is also bad for them. It is better for them to be silent and just announce what they actually know will be release. While not optimal, that is where they are with the small overworked and meeting plagued crew they currently have.

What WotC needs right now is to hire more designers and editors. That being said, they seem to have a hard cape of 15 employees. The firing of two editors to hire a communiation manager and license manager is a good sign for the brand, but not a good sign for the RPG.
 

Well, the interview was an interesting read. I took two things from it that make me pretty sad though:

1. He's the reason why the only things I was highly enthusiastic about during the playtest were killed dead, and replaced by milquetoast-y alternatives that played it safe (with, IIRC, even less public review than the first round). The Sorcerer especially especially was a tragedy to lose. Yeah, yeah, "wasn't liked by the playtesters" (guess me and most every person I talked to didn't count as playtesters!) But Crawford has stepped up to the plate as the one who actually axed the whole class, barely a month after they introduced it, while other "problem" stuff (like Fighter and Rogue features) lingered for ages before finally being pulled. :(

2. Again we see strident official rhetoric that 5e is "big tent," yet the support for 4e style play remains woefully inadequate. The long promised "tactical rules module" is either vaporware or totally insufficient for my needs (if, that is, the DMG stuff was supposed to be the whole of it). And I find it painfully "funny" to hear 5e's rules compared favorably to the clarity of 4e's. Perhaps it's just because I'm a bitter edition warrior partisan, but I find much of 5e to be ambiguous at best and sometimes frustratingly difficult. Stealth it's one example. The muddy distinction between "trading the Attack Action" and "making an attack" is another--in their effort to use fewer terms to describe things, they have created a situation where two different meanings (with very different consequences) are referenced by identical or nearly identical words. That is...about as far from "clarity" as you can get without using actually incorrect terms!

I still wish them all the best and hold the slimmest margin of hope that the 4e support within 5e expands to more than a token gesture. Time will tell.

D&D has never supported multiple editions. Not sure why you would expect them too. D&D needs to cultivate 5E and let past editions be in the past. Wasting resources on previous editions is not profitable and I would hate to see them worry about something that will do nothing but hurt the current game.
 

We are all special in our own way.

Edit: I actually don't know what to make of this comment. I never claimed to be typical or atypical. That's not something that's of concern to me. Is my opinion less valuable because of deviation from the norm, or more valuable because of experience? My "atypicalness" stems mostly from being in the right place at the right time to see someone else do something cool. Should I not be allowed to speak? Would my opinion have more merit if I were simply a long-time D&D player that started at the tail-end of 1e, played through 2e and 3e, dabbled in the OSR during 4e, and am now "back" (in some sense at least) to 5e? Should I be another frustrated amateur publisher under the OGL (I have a GORGEOUS cover ready to go for a book that's 12 years late...)?

It's not my interest to decide whether or not my opinion is valuable to WotC. My opinion is valuable to me. I'm not going to self-censor because of an unsubstantiated assumption that WotC doesn't value me.

Less valuable. A business's goal is to produce a product that appeals to the largest possible customer base. Any opinion that does not fall within that largest possible customer base would be considered outside their customer base. In a game like D&D, I imagine any minority viewpoint would be expected to house rule what they don't like.
 

D&D has never supported multiple editions.
Not exactly true. In the 80s/early 90s, both BECMI D&D and AD&D were supported simultaneously. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for this was to prevent Dave Arneson from getting AD&D royalties, because it allowed TSR to claim that the two were different games.
 

Not exactly true. In the 80s/early 90s, both BECMI D&D and AD&D were supported simultaneously. As I understand it, one of the main reasons for this was to prevent Dave Arneson from getting AD&D royalties, because it allowed TSR to claim that the two were different games.

I was playing in the 80s and 90s, not sure what you mean by BECMI.

Back in the 80s and 90s, weren't we all playing second edition?

Let me see.

Red Box came out when I was very young. Probably 1st or 2nd grade. Light blue expert rules followed that. Then Advanced D&D with the book with the thief stealing the gem from the efreeti statue's eyes. I think AD&D culminated in books like Unearthed Arcana. Then 2nd edition came out and the Forgotten Realms launched with all its stuff. 2nd edition was an awesome edition with a glut of very cool material. Then 3rd edition and ENWorld launched. It used the 2nd edition model for books and settings, which I really liked. Then 3.5. Then 4E I left. Now I'm back for 5E. It's fun so far. I've never had support for multiple editions that I can recall. TSR/WotC/Hasbro have always been very focused on a new edition when it launches.

I don't recall a period when D&D had support for multiple editions including new books and the like.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top