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.

 

[TarionzCousin]

I think I differ from a lot here in that I don't really care about getting a detailed release schedule. Doesn't do anything for my game at the table. If I go on Amazon or walk into the store and see a new book I'll check it out, but until then as long as I'm having fun with what I already have why care about that stuff?

For some people, it is incredibly helpful to plan their long-term campaigning--if they are hoping to use WotC material therein.

Yeah, I wrote "therein."

 

[pemerton]

Once they decided to do hardbacks and adventures, it's not a given that the form they are in now is necessarily the best or only way to go.

No, it's not a given.

On the other hand, I think WotC probably employs qualified accountants, business analysts etc. So I tend to think they probably have the most reliable projections as to what will make them the sorts of returns they desire.

Those projections aren't infallible, but the fact that WotC seems to still be going strong nearly 20 years since it bought TSR suggests that they're at least reasonably reliable.

 

[Kramodlog]

You writing a $1000 cheque to WotC to help subsidise the publication of that book probably won't make you go bankrupt either, but I'm guessing you're not doing that.

I'm not even sure how this is supposed to be an analogy or a reversal that shows a flaw in my logic.

They're a business. Their goal is to make returns on investment. "Avoiding bankruptcy" is an important threshold, yes, but it's not their barometer for success.

I mentioned bankrupty in the context of a slippery slop fallacy. If WotC produces a few more books, it stands a chance of making more money. As I mentioned, producing modern APs is a new thing for WotC. A Forgotten Realms source book, might generate more sale than an AP and WotC has experience with thise. More than a few posters say that it is not the case and financial ruin lies with a producing even a few more books.

If more people are playing D&D on a regular basis than every other RPG put together, in what sense is the game dead, or not thriving?

The crux of the arguement is that with two APs a year, you won't get more people playing D&D. You will get less because it won't sustain the average RPG gamer's attention with such little content.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No, it's not a given.

On the other hand, I think WotC probably employs qualified accountants, business analysts etc. So I tend to think they probably have the most reliable projections as to what will make them the sorts of returns they desire.

Those projections aren't infallible, but the fact that WotC seems to still be going strong nearly 20 years since it bought TSR suggests that they're at least reasonably reliable.

Wizards of the Coast were bought out by Hasbro so their business strategy apparently wasn't reliable.

Having qualified accountants and business analysts are not always going to get you anywhere. Table top roleplaying games are a niche area that analysts are not really going to help you very much because it is a very odd duck. TTRPG's are not a big cash maker and D&D is no exception.

The best thing Hasbro could do would be to divide Wizards up and have one team working on the table top RPG while another team works on T-shirts, mugs, bobbleheads, and action figures.

 

[Nellisir]

What is the "carry-through" that would be missing? (Or is "carry-through" just a synonym for "more books being published"? In which case the claim that few publications means little carry-through becomes a tautology.)

No, it's not a synonym for "more books being published". Carry-through means "bring to successful conclusion; reach a goal." http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/carry+through In this instance and context, I'm using it in a sense of emphasizing short-term, ephemeral goals over longer-term, more substantial achievements. A philosophical design emphasis and priority on short-term, pre-scripted scenarios to the detriment (not just option, but actual detriment) of longer-term customized campaigns. D&D as board game or video game. 40 hours of play to complete. Not a mechanical approach, but a design and presentation one.

I do not think that's the intent of the current regime at WotC, but I'm afraid it may be the outcome.

Here's my take. The D&D RPG is a hobby game. If it is being played, it is thriving. If not, it's not.

Success at any cost is certainly one metric.

 

[Nellisir]

This suggests to me that you are a very atypical WoTC customer.

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.

 

[Remathilis]

That would set the break-even point at 10,000 books sold.!

Then how can Paizo sell three hardbacks, a monthly AP, and several supplemental softcovers per year and not drowned. I wager not every Pathfinder player gives a fig about Golarion, and I'm sure some of those APs weren't the biggest sellers. Paizo manages to magically know how to do with without 10,000 units sold. How?

Or, how doe Fantasy Flight Games do it with Star Wars? I'm sure that is a much smaller pool of players, and yet they have several books and box sets out. How is FFG able to do it?

Cubicle 7's Doctor Who: Adventures in Space and Time RPG has several books (including sourcebooks for each of the Doctors up to 8 so far). I'm wagering even as popular as Doctor Who is, the RPG is absolutely minor in terms of sales and wouldn't crack 5,000. Yet they continue to make supplements on a shoe-string. How?

Yet Wizard's of the Coast, one of the biggest game companies in the business, owned by one of the largest toy manufacturers in the world, can't produce sourcebooks for the most recognized and old RPG in the business. Too expensive, can't be done.

Male-cow-refuse.

 

[Harry Dresden]

In my opinion:

I think what the underlying problem we face is that the majority of the D&D community wants one thing while Wizards wants something else.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yet Wizard's of the Coast, one of the biggest game companies in the business, owned by one of the largest toy manufacturers in the world, can't produce sourcebooks for the most recognized and old RPG in the business. Too expensive, can't be done.

Being a small unit of a big company doesn't always give you big-company resources. If you have miserable growth prospects, you probably get the bare minimum to keep doing what you're doing. You still likely end up less agile than a smaller independent company, too. Worst of both worlds.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Being a small unit of a big company doesn't always give you big-company resources. If you have miserable growth prospects, you probably get the bare minimum to keep doing what you're doing. You still likely end up less agile than a smaller independent company, too. Worst of both worlds.

I have a feeling Hasbro doesn't completely understand the RPG market.

I would say Wizards doesn't have miserable growth according to TTRPG standards. I would say their growth is great by the normal standards, but Hasbro being the huge company that they are, probably doesn't see it that way. I would say they are holding D&D to a unreal standard.