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.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

And isn't this "themeing" pretty much what they did with Princes of the Apocalypse? They wrote an elemental-themed adventure book, placed it ostensibly in the Realms for ease-of-use in the AL, but then went into the ways these elemental-themed adventures and hooks could be used in the other settings. So even though ToEE is classically thought of as a "Greyhawk" product... the themeing could bring it cross-setting.

By the same token... if the rumored Dungeonland / Beyond The Magic Mirror style adventure book gets produced... it's again not a specific Realmsian concept but due to it probably being a Feywild-themed product, it can find a place to be set in the Realms, and Greyhawk, and Eberron, and Dragonlance, etc. because the Feywild-themeing goes cross-setting.

Eventually... a Shadowfell/horror-themed book could come out that would be an obvious use to Ravenloft fans, but also be able to be placed somewhere in the Realms, and Greyhawk and all the rest. Because horror isn't specifically Ravenloft-- any setting can have horror elements and be found to have a place for it.

A place can be found for any of these themed adventure paths they produce. It's just a matter of thinking creatively and not getting too hung up on any element having to be a setting-specific thing.

This is exactly the sort of model I think they're pursuing - let Unearthed Arcana articles handle the setting-specific crunch (Warforged race, rules for a Defiler archetype, etc.) and have the hardcover products appeal to the largest possible market.

Though they may well move away from Realms-centric APs at some point - they can still sell "themed" products even if the background setting is less generic. A drow-and-Underdark-themed AP set in the Vault of the Drow in Greyhawk, or an urban themed campaign in Eberron's Sharn, or a planar themed campaign in Planescape's Sigil - all of them could have useful material regardless of where they're set.

 

[Uchawi]

With the current direction of 5E and re-releasing old content, or producing revamps of old content, all that is left are the rules, and I don't think they reached the mark on inclusiveness or clarity of rules. Letting the DM decide, is just another approach to system mastery, except it is all in the DMs hands. You better be up to the task to address what the rules don't. I liked 4E for the ease of play, clear action economy, and addressing all the classes on equal footing (although AEDU went to far). I did not like essentials when it tried to simplify things. I would rather have an option with 4E to simplify all the classes, or make them more complex. Just like I want the same feature in 5E.

The only other thing that strikes me is letting the playtest decide where the game goes, versus having a clear internal vision, especially if the goal is being inclusive. It is very hard to design things by the committee (community) approach. You often end up with too many compromises.

None of that matters at this point, it is all water under the bridge.

 

[Remathilis]

I wanna agree with this, but...

We've long since moved on past 2e's setting splat.

In 3.X, we had (not counting a couple of licensed products like OA, RL or DL) a total of two "specific" campaign settings: Eberron and Forgotten Realms (the third, Greyhawk, was hidden in the core and slowly morphed from anything canonically Greyhawk by the time 3.5 rolled around). WotC made maybe 10 book each for them, the bulk of the 3.X line was "generic D&D" Even towards the end, Realms and Eberron material lost its unique look and began to resemble core lines (witness Races of Eberron). There was no Planescape book, there was Planar Handbook. There was no Ravenloft book, there was Heroes of Horror. There was no Dark Sun, there was Sandstorm and the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

4e took it further: three settings (Realms, Eberron, and Dark Sun) got a setting book, a player guide, and a module (DS got a Monster Manual instead of splitting the DM/PC guides). The remaining amount of 4e's releases WERE generic. And everything was designed to work together, which is why Dark Sun PCs no longer were generated with 4d4+4 for stats.

The ghetto of "supplements for supplements" died in late 3.5, but was dying come the end of 2e (RL and PS in specific started getting releases under the Core supplement line come Carnival (RL) and Warriors of Heaven (PS). WotC has been making generic D&D material (out of or replacing settings) for 15 years; this is hardly re-inventing the wheel.

Which brings me back to my original thought: how much less support can you give them and claim they are still supported? Planescape hasn't seen a proper PS* book since 97, Ravenloft hasn't had a new release** since 2006, same with Dragonlance. Mystara and Birthright died in 1996. Proper Greyhawk*** in 2002. Eberron saw its last book support in 2009. Everything else WotC has made is either generic or Realms (and Realms only in the form of adventures). You can't get any more "one brand D&D" than this unless you make all of it into a single setting (*coughNentirValecough*).

I really wish the interview could have honed in on setting support, since WotC SAYS it wants to support all settings (and has made some gestures for that, such as mentions in the Core books and the Eberron UA) but so far hasn't told us if we are going to see campaign settings, a giant book of settings, UA articles, or just occasional references to other worlds strung through future books for those diehards who collected material during 1982-2010.

* There have been planar books and mentions of Sigil throughout 3e and 4e, but neither carried PS's tone or style, rather returning to the older idea of "Planes where big monsters live".
** Expedition to Castle Ravenloft doesn't count, as it deals mostly with the original I6 module and famously gets canon wrong in an attempt to revise the classic module.
*** Ignoring Expedition to Castle Greyhawk, a love-letter to GH for sure, but very much a one-off rather than anything resembling setting support.

 

[Tony Vargas]

With the current direction of 5E and re-releasing old content, or producing revamps of old content, all that is left are the rules, and I don't think they reached the mark on inclusiveness or clarity of rules.

They reached a mark of some kind. There's a lot of things included from classic D&D, for instance, 5e does an excellent job of capturing the feel of D&D over the first 25 years of it's history. 0D&D, Basic, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1e, Rules Cyclopedia, 2e, all were close enough to eachother to each be recognizably D&D, and so is 5e. You couldn't really include that feel, and include too much clarity, since leaving a lot to DM interpretation was a hallmark of the game in that era - and a central conceit of 5e (Rulings not Rules).

3e isn't exactly abandoned, either. The Sorcerer and Warlock both had their beginning in 3e, and are both there in reasonably recognizeable incarnations. While Battlemaster bears a vague resemblance to some of the late-3e Bo9S classes, and the Arcane Trickster dates back to a PrC. Perhaps the crowning glory (or horror) of 3.x, the multi-classing system, is still in 5e, in fairly solid form, as well. So are the 3e innovation of feats, albeit 'optional.' Resolution systems are standardized on 3e/d20's d20+bonus vs DC dice mechanic. There's even a nod to Essentials in the Champion, essentially(pi) the Slayer, and the Eldritch Knight (which appeared in an Essentials-era Dragon mag article - though maybe it was a PrC at some point, too?).

None of that matters at this point, it is all water under the bridge.

Nod. 5e is the current bearer of the D&D standard, and like each prior edition, deserves the support of all the game's fans...

 

[Remathilis]

and the Eldritch Knight (which appeared in an Essentials-era Dragon mag article - though maybe it was a PrC at some point, too?).

Yup. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/eldritchKnight.htm (3.5 DMG)

 

[pemerton]

If playing Dark Sun and Ravenloft and Forgotten Realms all felt like the same kind of experience mechanically, there wouldn't be much value in the new coat of paint (orange or gray!).

<snip>

the risk there is that D&D becomes one thing - that in fighting against the settings being "different games" it all becomes the same game, the same thing, just slightly different. Which isn't that appealing to me. Yeah, you can do a dungeon crawl in Ravenloft, but that's not using what is interesting or unique about Ravenloft to its best effect.

Is the difference between setting primarily mechanical - that in FR you roll a d20 to attack, but in DS you roll (say) 2d12 (? because PCs in DC are "uber")?

I would have thought the difference between running a dungeon crawl and running some other sort of adventure isn't mechanical, but mostly about the fiction. (Also - isn't I6 one of the classic dungeoncrawls? I don't actually understand why you think Ravenloft doesn't do dungeon crawls.)

 

[pemerton]

One way they could go is to have separate core setting books, which would be a kind of "all-in-one" to get you started in that setting, with the usual world overview but also a more detailed section on one area (e.g. Greyhawk and environs, the Dalelands or Sword Coast, etc).

Which brings me back to my original thought: how much less support can you give them and claim they are still supported?

<snip>

Proper Greyhawk*** in 2002.

A quick search of DriveThru RPG (using "Greyhawk", "City of Greyhawk" and "Living Greyhawk" as search terms) shows me that I can get the classic GH boxed set, From the Ashes, Greyhawk Adventures, the two late-era 2nd ed AD&D products (Adventure Begins and Player's Guide), plus Greyhawk Treasures, many of the modules (Vecna Lives, Rary the Traitor, Ghost Tower of Inverness, City of Skulls, Return of the Eight, Greyhawk Ruins were the ones I noticed).

When I search for The Marklands it's there too. It seems that the only products missing are the City of Greyhawk boxed set and the Living Greyhawk gazetteer.

With all these products available at the click of a button, I'd turn the question around: has Greyhawk ever been better supported?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't think e-copies of old material are exactly 'support.' Maybe no (or less) 'ongoing support' would be a fair complaint?

 

[Nellisir]

With all these products available at the click of a button, I'd turn the question around: has Greyhawk ever been better supported?

Absolutely its been better supported. Being able to access old material does not equal support for a setting. It just doesn't. It's like saying a tv show isn't cancelled if you can watch reruns on Netflix. I HAVE all the GH material in print. Telling me WotC is "supporting" the setting by letting us buy what we already own and is already available is asinine. Microsoft isn't "supporting" Windows '95 by archiving the manual on a wiki. Support carries a connotation of ongoing, present-time, assessment and development.

Gah. It's like reading nothing but the same books you read in high school, forever.

 

[Mercurius]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], as someone who exclusively homebrews settings but loves to buy setting books for reading pleasure and idea-mining, I'd much rather WotC create a new setting or two than re-hash the old - largely because, as you say, all the old stuff exists, and much of it I already own. But I also recognize that many of the classic settings have strong fan-bases who want a new version of their preferred setting, which is I advocate for a two-pronged setting approach:

1. A "Classic D&D Worlds" line - maybe one book (or box set) a year, a full and beautiful treatment of a classic setting.
2. A new setting - A series of gazetteers and supplements exploring a new world - maybe one core rulebook and two or three supplements per year. Add (or transition to) a new world every 2-3 years.

Of course given their presumed release plan, I realize this is just fantasy...but hey, it is D&D after all and there's nothing wrong with a bit of fantasizing!