Who Makes WotC's Adventures?

There are now three large hardcover adventures for D&D 5th Edition. There's the two-part Tyranny of Dragons campaign produced by Kobold Press; there's Princes of the Apocalypse, from Sasquatch Game Studios; and there's the imminent Out of the Abyss, from Green Ronin publishing. All of these are official, hardcover adventures produced for WotC by third party companies. But how does that actually work? What is the relationship between the company producing the products and the company publishing them? WotC's Jeremy Crawford told me yesterday that the term "outsourcing" is innacurate when it comes to describing this arrangement.

​

If we go back a bit to when I asked Kobold Press' Wolfgang Baur about the process, he told me that "the 5E adventures are produced as a combination of studio work and WotC oversight." He went on to describe it in a little more detail, highlighting a to-and-fro between the companies -- "we'd do some portion of the work, then we would get feedback from WotC on Realmslore, or story beats, or mechanics. Then we did more of the design, and got feedback from swarms of playtesters. Then we turned over another version for feedback on the art and layout. And so forth. It was iterative..." So collaboration clearly takes place all the way through the process.

He describes Kobold Press role as "the heavy lifting in design, development, and editing" with WotC having "crucial input and set the direction for what they wanted".

Moving ahead to now, WotC Jeremy Crawford observes that "It's bizarre to see a few posters on ENWorld mistake our [D&D 5E] collaborations as outsourcing. Each book has been a team effort." The input from WotC isn't just greenlighting the book at various stages; as Jeremy tells us "Our reviews are deep. We create the story & the concept art. We write portions of the books. We design mechanics. Etc.!" As he also points out, the credits page of each book tells us who contributed to each.

So there we have it. These books aren't outsourced to third parties in any traditional sense of that word; the books are written as a collaborative effort with writing and more done by both companies.

 

[pedr]

So why is outsourcing bad?

It seems to me that the cause of this current disagreement is, at its strongest, the possibility that Jeremy Crawford understands that word differently from you. If he is, in fact, wrong about what it means, and there is an element of outsourcing in WotC's creation of the adventures (I think it's a misleading word to use in this circumstance and so I understand why Crawford describes WotC's activity as counter to outsourcing), so what?

As I said - this arrangement should create better products than a traditional freelancing model! Or is freelancing outsourcing too? Surely it is, by that definition, which makes the definition useless for discussing role playing games as it doesn't distinguish anything.

 

[Maggan]

So my take is that the adventures are produced in-house (utilising internal resources) and parts are outsourced, for example some writing and design.

 

[Mistwell]

OUTSOURCING
verb (used with object), outsourced, outsourcing. 1. (of a company or organization) to purchase (goods) or subcontract (services) from an outside supplier or source.

So I ask again. Under that definition, if I buy paper from a paper company, I have outsourced. If I buy ANYTHING for my product, from ink to plastic to staples to coating to wrapping to boxes, anything at all, then I have outsourced. Right? And those companies are all outsourcing too, since they don't grow/mine their raw materials but buy those as well. When I demonstrate the definition isn't functional, at some point you have to reconsider if that's an appropriate definition for this context.

2. to contract out (jobs, services, etc.): a small business that outsources bookkeeping to an accounting firm.

So again, if WOTC contracts with a printer to print the book, they've outsourced. They have to grow trees, cut them down, make them into pulp, manufacture paper from the pulp, grow all the plants and/or mine all the minerals to make the ink that goes onto the pages, and print and bind and coat it all themselves, in order for it to not be outsourced under this definition. You see how this is ridiculous for this context, right? Under these definitions, almost all products are outsourced, because almost nobody grows/mines their own raw materials to make them into end products anymore.

 

[justinj3x3]

Here's a better one from Merriam-webster

: to procure (as some goods or services needed by a business or organization) under contract with an outside supplier <decided to outsource some back-office operations>

See how it says "decided to outsource SOME back-office operations Mistwell?

 

[Umbran]

There's a term for that. 'Sheeple'.

This is from a bit upthread, but bears reamark: Don't be insulting, please.

Wow. OK then. I think you shouldn't complain again about WOTC being too silent (though I suspect you will). You punish explanations with accusations if the explanation doesn't match your preconceive notions.

To repeat, for the umpteenth time (in big letters, because that seems necessary): DON'T MAKE IT PERSONAL. If you make it about the speaker, and not the logic, you will generally replace reasoned discussion with ego-driven butting of heads, which is not a desired outcome for anyone other than trolls. So, please stop.

 

[justinj3x3]

So I ask again. Under that definition, if I buy paper from a paper company, I have outsourced. If I buy ANYTHING for my product, from ink to plastic to staples to coating to wrapping to boxes, anything at all, then I have outsourced. Right? And those companies are all outsourcing too, since they don't grow/mine their raw materials but buy those as well. When I demonstrate the definition isn't functional, at some point you have to reconsider if that's an appropriate definition for this context.



So again, if WOTC contracts with a printer to print the book, they've outsourced. They have to grow trees, cut them down, make them into pulp, manufacture paper from the pulp, grow all the plants and/or mine all the minerals to make the ink that goes onto the pages, and print and bind and coat it all themselves, in order for it to not be outsourced under this definition. You see how this is ridiculous for this context, right?

The first part you are being silly. Using supplies is not outsourcing. You are reaching here.

Yes if they sent to a printer to print the printing itself was outsourced. The production of the product was not unless you want to debate semantics. Which it seems you do.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

Fights about definitions are the best fights.

 

[Galendril]

I don't understand why people feel they have a right to know how the sausage is made.

 

[Mistwell]

Here's a better one from Merriam-webster

: to procure (as some goods or services needed by a business or organization) under contract with an outside supplier <decided to outsource some back-office operations>

See how it says "decided to outsource SOME back-office operations Mistwell?

So how is the printer not an outside supplier? How is the janitor not an outside supplier? What products don't involve an outside supplier? Back office most often means administrative personnel by the way, which we know were not outsourced in this case as all the finance, accounting, legal, human resources, facilities, marketing, public relations, customer service, etc. are done in-house.

 

[justinj3x3]

This is from a bit upthread, but bears reamark: Don't be insulting, please.

I wasn't trying to insult. That's the word for what he was saying. I didn't direct it at anyone, only towards his comment. But I see where you are coming from.