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.

 

[Wicht]

Of course, Pathfinder was a product line of adventures before a D&D 3.5 clone was added to it. What year is that 10% from?

When the PFRPG was released, the sense of polls on this board, and elsewhere, was that about 10 percent of the community was playing it. That number increased over the course of the following years. The polls were not scientific, but they gave a pretty good sense of trends.

They're on record as saying a lot of things when preaching to their choir of devoted fans, but it's not like they opened their ledgers to the public. But, it's certainly plausible that, as 3.5 holdouts got bored with it, they migrated to Pathfinder.

Unless you are willing to publicly accuse them of lying, then it seems reasonable to believe them. Especially as they were in their 5th printing by 2011...

Then there was also the observable growth at conventions. So, there is no good reason to think that their fanbase did not increase more and more as time went on.

Like I said, with very little hard information, it's very easy to devise a plausible scenario to your liking.

It seems that way to you because of your personal confirmation bias.

Hard numbers would be needed to resolve that difference. Hard numbers I'm afraid probably don't exist.

There's simply not enough data for proof, so it's all anyone /can/ pull together. So, yes, constructing plausible-with-enough-confirmation-bias scenarios is what everyone is doing in discussions like this.

"Hard" information such as specific sales, is indeed difficult to obtain, and if that is your standard of proof, then I wonder why you feel compelled to debate what for you is an unknowable.

But there were plenty of other observable ways to gauge the trends. There were polls. There were sales estimates. There are the statements made by people both in Paizo and in WotC. There was the floundering within WotC which led to the creation of an all new edition. All of which means various scenarios have various degrees of plausibility and, I believe, the canny observer can have a reasonable expectation of discerning the trend of events.

Or to put it another way, I don't need to know how many raindrops are hitting the ground in order to observe the direction of the wind.

If, however, you think that 4e brought in an ever increasing number of players, who all loved it, and Pathfinder has fewer people playing and buying it today then it had when it was initially released... then I am not going to waste the time debating it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

When the PFRPG was released, the sense of polls on this board, and elsewhere, was that about 10 percent of the community was playing it. That number increased over the course of the following years. The polls were not scientific, but they gave a pretty good sense of trends.

Yeah, that's pretty weak evidence, but it's not an unfair conclusion. The scenario of more and more 3.5 holdouts eventually migrating to Pathfinder does make sense.

Unless you are willing to publicly accuse them of lying, then it seems reasonable to believe them.

Statements like that, made to a group you're selling to, without hard numbers, could be primarily about marketing. That doesn't make them lies - nor does it mean what they imply is true.

"Hard" information such as specific sales, is indeed difficult to obtain, and if that is your standard of proof, then I wonder why you feel compelled to debate what for you is an unknowable.

Just pointing out where conclusion are being drawn from data vs supposition. IcV2 is data, not great data, not complete, but it's something. It supports - or doesn't contradict - some of what folks around here get into. Vague statements and cheerleading by insiders or speculation and anecdotes from anonymous internet posters, not so much.

Just, y'know, have a little perspective.

 

[Wicht]

Yeah, that's pretty weak evidence, but it's not an unfair conclusion. The scenario of more and more 3.5 holdouts eventually migrating to Pathfinder does make sense.

Actually, it was, I believe, mostly people mostly from 4e, with some also coming from 3.5

Statements like that, made to a group you're selling to, without hard numbers, could be primarily about marketing. That doesn't make them lies - nor does it mean what they imply is true.

Statements which state or imply things not true are de-facto lies. I am not sure where the middle ground is on a statement to the effect, "We sold more books in year 2 than in year 1" or how it can be anything other than a lie or a truth.

Just pointing out where conclusion are being drawn from data vs supposition. IcV2 is data, not great data, not complete, but it's something. It supports - or doesn't contradict - some of what folks around here get into. Vague statements and cheerleading by insiders or speculation and anecdotes from anonymous internet posters, not so much.

Just, y'know, have a little perspective.

Thank you for the reminder for the need for perspective. I will endeavor to maintain it.

On the other hand, you might notice the distinct lack of any mention of speculative internet anecdotes in the list of things I mentioned as being observable phenomena by which one might gauge trends.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yeah, that's pretty weak evidence, but it's not an unfair conclusion. The scenario of more and more 3.5 holdouts eventually migrating to Pathfinder does make sense.

Statements like that, made to a group you're selling to, without hard numbers, could be primarily about marketing. That doesn't make them lies - nor does it mean what they imply is true.

Just pointing out where conclusion are being drawn from data vs supposition. IcV2 is data, not great data, not complete, but it's something. It supports - or doesn't contradict - some of what folks around here get into. Vague statements and cheerleading by insiders or speculation and anecdotes from anonymous internet posters, not so much.

Just, y'know, have a little perspective.

Why are you clinging to IcV2 for dear life?

Are you so desperate to think that 4th edition was a success that you will ignore the whole picture to help you sleep at night?

You have already been given loads of information about IcV2 and why it's utterly pointless. 4th edition sold the best in shops because that was generally where you bought the books. If Pathfinder wasn't sold mostly online and was entirely dependent on shops then I could see that, but it was selling in stores, had it's rules free online, sold on Amazon, and sold from their website in book and PDF format. So when you look in shops what else was D&D really competing with?

Nothing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Actually, it was, I believe, mostly people mostly from 4e, with some also coming from 3.5

I know you want to believe that, but there's no support for it. At all.

Pathfinder offered an alternate path for 3.5 fans. It had little to offer anyone else.

5e, OTOH, has a lot to offer long-time players who appreciated classic D&D, is the only available alternative for 4e fans, and shouldn't exactly be repugnant to 3.5 fans. It does offer quite a bit of what 3e did, but without the 15 years of bloat.

Statements which state or imply things not true are de-facto lies. I am not sure where the middle ground is on a statement to the effect, "We sold more books in year 2 than in year 1" or how it can be anything other than a lie or a truth.

A statement like that can easily be interpreted many ways. How many more books. 1 the first year, a million the next? 10,000 the first year, 10,100 the next? Which books? I know you want to draw very specific conclusions from that statement, but the support isn't there.

To be fair, WotC has done the same kind of thing /plenty/. When they refer to the playtest, they never give enough data to draw valid conclusions, just enough to jump to the one they want. Was the playtest successful? Oh, the initial sign-up was huge. Is 5e what the fans really wanted? Oh, by the end of the playtest surveys were showing strong approval. WotC happily announced that 3e, 4e, and 5e all launched with sales that were even better than they'd hoped for.

It's what companies do. You can't go around saying 'our product kinda sucks...'

Why are you clinging to IcV2 for dear life?

I'm not. It's the available data. Is it inadequate? Yes, that's the important point. Does that mean the opposite of what is says must be true? No. Does it mean the scenario you want to believe in isn't well-supported by the available data? Yes. Does it mean that scenario can't be correct? No.

Does any of that matter: only to the degree that you need validation of your choice of Team Pathfinder over Team D&D.

 

[Wicht]

I know you want to believe that, but there's no support for it. At all.

No support that will satisfy you anyway.

A statement like that can easily be interpreted many ways. How many more books. 1 the first year, a million the next? 10,000 the first year, 10,100 the next? Which books? I know you want to draw very specific conclusions from that statement, but the support isn't there.

They were in their 5th printing by 2011.

And they said they were selling more. More is more, regardless of how much more the amount of more is over the previous amount. That means for any amount by which they sold x in the first year they sold x + more in the second. That means they grew in the number of people buying. That means it was the opposite of a decline. The amount of growth is irrelevant to the existence of the growth. As in, they did not immediately spike and then go backwards from there. There was a continued growth of market and market share.

only to the degree that you need validation of your choice of Team Pathfinder over Team D&D.

This is not about teams. I am quite happy for 5th edition to be doing so well. If you think the only reason a person might think that Paizo outperformed WotC in relative RPG sales is because of fan-boyism, then I would politely suggest you are projecting. It is possible to discern trends in the market apart from one's emotional and financial investment in any particular system.

 

[Dire Bare]

Ravenloft and Dragonlance (also under licence) both had the licences revoked in 2006 (Paizo might have lost Dragon around the same time) to prep for 4e. Those books are very OOP, and aren't going on Drivethru.

Actually, at least four of the MWP Dragonlance licensed RPG books are on Drivethru right now. The "remastered" for 3E Dragonlance Chronicles adventures (3 books), plus the bestiary and the "dragons" sourcebook. Huh, I guess that's at least five books!

While we won't know until we see them, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Ravenloft RPG books licensed by White Wolf appear on the site at some point.

 

[Dire Bare]

"These game mechanics are in draft form, usable in your campaign but not fully tempered by playtests and design iterations. They are highly volatile and might be unstable; if you use them, be ready to rule on any issues that come up. They’re written in pencil, not ink."

Aaaaaannd . . . so what?

While there is plenty of back-and-forth in the forums over these articles, they are very solid additions to 5E. And they are free.

I'm happy!

 

[Tony Vargas]

They were in their 5th printing by 2011.

And they said they were selling more. More is more, regardless of how much more the amount of more is over the previous amount.

Nod. That could truthfully be said of small print runs and anemic growth.

This is not about teams. I am quite happy for 5th edition to be doing so well.

So why jump in with the 5e is doomed and Pathfinder uber alles song and dance in every thread where it might remotely be tangental to the topic?

If you think the only reason a person might think that Paizo outperformed WotC in relative RPG sales is because of fan-boyism

We have data, not great data, but something, that shows Pathfinder out-selling Essentials in one quarter of 2010, and some time later, taking the lead as D&D wound down and went on a two-year hiatus while 5e was developed.

That's what's there. Wild conclusions drawn from that owe more to the mindset of the folks drawing the conclusions. If your thought process is that "the data aren't complete," so all the data we don't have must point to D&D out-selling Pathfinder, chances are you're a D&D fanboy. If all you can think to add is "Pathfinder sells lots of it's stuff on-line," so it must have beaten D&D for it's whole run and still really be #1, chances are you're a Pathfinder fanboy.

It is possible to discern trends in the market apart from one's emotional and financial investment in any particular system.

It is. The current trend being that D&D is back on top.

For now.

 

[Shasarak]

2nd edition went into the teeth of the CCG, LARP, indie and Storytelling trends in gaming. Young players virtually disappeared from D&D tables, taking up M:tG instead, existing ones abandoned the game, WWGS and SJG were rapidly becoming the headspace leaders in the industry, which became increasingly fragmented into myriad 'not D&D' (D&D being the poster boy for despised 'ROLL playing') niches. I'm fairly confident that 2e saw a further decline in numbers of players, but I can't cite numbers to prove it - AFAIK, there aren't any. But the visible trends of the decade all point that way.

All that turned around with 3.0 & d20. Players came back to D&D, and erstwhile direct competitors jumped on the d20 bandwagon.

I remember that 2e was so strong that even atfer being in production for more then 10 years, with TSR burning down and with CCG, LARP, indie and Storytelling trends raging - it was still the biggest RPG in town.