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.

 

[Celtavian]

What I don't get is WotC has been fairly clear as to what they're doing. Mearls has stated many times that Unearthed Arcana articles have material in them that is meant for play-testing. They are releasing play-test material to elicit feedback to improve the material prior to compiling it in a book and releasing it. So far we've received a lot of Unearthed Arcana material to test. I'm sure they have more material they are working on behind the scenes.

What is Mearls and company doing that they haven't been doing from the beginning? 5E was carefully play-tested before release. It seems they will not release any major books other than adventures until they get some play-testing done. They have communicated this clearly to the player base. I'm not as plugged in as most, but even I received this information loud and clear from reading Unearthed Arcana, reading articles, the podcasts, and the process Mearls has been using since 5E released.

I guess I don't see the cause for concern. Mearls is executing the plan he outlined. He has been clear what the plan is and the entire staff has been consistent with the messaging. I can understand not liking the plan, but I can't understand why anyone thinks WotC hasn't communicated the plan to the player base.

 

[Morrus]

Because people call them on it when they try to redefine reality? I'm fine with them being silent when it comes to BS like this.

The fact that you term it "calling them on it" certainly speaks to the answer.

 

[Jester David]

It sounds similar to what Paizo does. I believe Paizo designs the story and theme, then hires adventure designers to write one of the modules in the AP. They choose the art and maps as well. WotC is hiring freelancers to do adventure design work, but they're not outsourcing the work. It seems like the standard RPG model that most of the RPG companies follow to some degree.

Not quite.
That's freelancing and WotC did a bit of it during 3e and 4e. In those cases, the company hires the writer and assigns the work and then gets the rough draft turned in, which they edit, format, layout, and then print. They also handle the art orders and the like. In this situation, they're licencing the entire work and paying the other company to not only write the words, but also edit, order maps and art, layout the book, and more.

WotC is just offering oversight. They're managing the process. What Crawford is saying is "they could not have done the project without our expert management and advice". In much the same way they're offering constant feedback and approval on the Sword Coast Legends video game and likely had oversight over the Temple of Elemental Evil board game.
Okay, admittedly, it's a little more robust of support. Since they're pitching the story, offering concept art, and giving feedback throughout. But it's a much, much different process than freelancing or what Paizo does.

 

[Jester David]

For what it is worth, this may help people understand the process between Sasquatch and WoC you can listen to this Tome Show Podcast:
http://www.thetomeshow.com/e/gamer-to-gamer-rich-baker/
The WoC & Sasquatch part is between Minutes 29:50 & 36:00

Thanks, I was looking for that.
I hope [MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] gives it a listen too.

 

[Jester David]

You should review your history. WotC, and TSR before them, used freelancers on a lot of products. Among many others, perhaps you've heard of Ed Greenwood, Keith Baker, Erik Mona, James Jacobs, or Jason Bulmahn, all of whom wrote for TSR/WoTC when they weren't employed there? And I'm not even getting into Dragon and Dungeon. I don't recall them ever being criticized for "not really writing their own books" before now.

This semantic argument over the meaning of the word "outsourcing" doesn't seem to be going anywhere. If what WotC is doing is outsourcing, then Paizo is also outsourcing their APs, adventures, in fact the bulk of their gaming materials, most of which isn't entirely designed and written by Paizo employees. And that's fine. I don't think the word used matters, unless it contributes to mistaken impressions about the work being done. And that's what Jeremy was trying to counter, this mistaken impression that WotC isn't "really writing their own books", in some way that's fundamentally different than what they or other gaming companies have done for a long time. WotC is exercising close editorial control over the materials they're "outsourcing", as they have for decades.

It's a different situation as WotC is basically handing the majority of the work to another company and then advising. When James Jacobs and Erik Mona of Paizo wrote Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss they were still with Paizo but there's no Paizo logo or mention of that company on the book. But the new storyline adventures have the Kobold Press and Sasquatch Games logos on them. It's not just hired worker but a licensed company.

It'd be more like if Paizo took the material made by a 3rd Party Press, advised the 3PP on how to make the product, and then co-published it.

 

[justinj3x3]

I guess I don't see the cause for concern. Mearls is executing the plan he outlined. He has been clear what the plan is and the entire staff has been consistent with the messaging. I can understand not liking the plan, but I can't understand why anyone thinks WotC hasn't communicated the plan to the player base.

Yes we have had Unearthed Arcana to play test, but for what? The only info I had to work with for products being offered was the APs until yesterday. So maybe Unearthed Arcana is just for future APs, which is meh to me. Again, this is the thought process before the Sword Coast Handbook announcement. I have heard nothing but APs for future TRPG products, and being someone not interested in buying Realms products that isn't doing anything for me. I know we are still getting Realms with Sword Coast, but at least it sounds like we will be getting more character options than I could see being in an AP. I'm hopeful. If you don't understand my view that's ok, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I know I can be blunt and (as Mistwell has noted elsewhere) snarky and can come across as a jerk, so I'm just trying to explain my view a little so you all can understand I'm not saying things to troll or fight. They come from a thought process, as off-base as it may or may not be.

 

[Kramodlog]

I'm not sure why some people say the outsourced D&D books are less desirable or of less quality. Are there people who actually say this anyway? The outsourcing is not the reason for the poor or great quality of WotC's books.

I do agree with those who say Crawford is using doublespeak. It is like the whole Mearls episode with non-cancellation because there was no announcement. Or jury duty used as the second excuse to explain the lack of conversion rules. WotC has a problem with communicating facts. As a fan, being told up is down and down is up is just insutling, it doesn't make me like the company and makes me dubious of other communications.

It isn't like it requires lots of critical thinking.

 

[Prism]

I totally understand why Wizards don't refer to this as out-sourcing. In my job I freelance as an instructor to various training companies. They get the sale, manage the event, provide the equipment. I prepare the content and run the event. Someone else writes the content. We all share responsibility for it. Not once have I ever used the term outsourcing to refer to what my company does. There is absolutely no way the training company would say they outsourced the event. At a push, they might refer to it as co-sourcing.

This to me sounds similar to what Wizards does. If they say its not out-sourcing, I agree. I wouldn't call it that either based on my industry.

Now if the training company got a lead and then offered me the job of organising, sourcing equipment, running and managing it - that would be outsourcing. I guess wizards would call that licensing

 

[Queer Venger]

If this is true, it's a lot less easy to explain why the modules are so ill-suited to Organized Play, containing mechanics, items, and situations that don't work well in Adventurer's League, which has to be considered the largest D&D Fifth Edition campaign.

Adventurer's League?!? Meh, I honestly could care less if it blends with that program. Plus they have their own slew of organized play modules to keep them busy.

Its pretty awesome to hear the process behind these modules, and explains why they are such a hit at my tables. In particular, Rise of Tiamat and PotA which are stellar IMO.

 

[EthanSental]

I totally understand why Wizards don't refer to this as out-sourcing. In my job I freelance as an instructor to various training companies. They get the sale, manage the event, provide the equipment. I prepare the content and run the event. Someone else writes the content. We all share responsibility for it. Not once have I ever used the term outsourcing to refer to what my company does. There is absolutely no way the training company would say they outsourced the event. At a push, they might refer to it as co-sourcing.

This to me sounds similar to what Wizards does. If they say its not out-sourcing, I agree. I wouldn't call it that either based on my industry.

Now if the training company got a lead and then offered me the job of organising, sourcing equipment, running and managing it - that would be outsourcing. I guess wizards would call that licensing

Well said Prism, nice look at other companies In an industry and their relationship to an event.