D&D 5E [Merged] Candlekeep Mysteries Author Speaks Out On WotC's Cuts To Adventure

In an event which is being referred to as #PanzerCut, one of the Candlekeep Mysteries authors has gone public with complaints about how their adventure was edited.

Book of Cylinders is one of the adventures in the book. It was written by Graeme Barber (who goes by the usernames PanzerLion and PoCGamer on social media).

Barber was caught by surprise when he found out what the final adventure looked like. The adventure was reduced by about a third, and his playable race -- the Grippli -- was cut. Additionally, WotC inserted some terminology that he considered to be colonialist, which is one of the things they were ostensibly trying to avoid by recruiting a diverse team of authors for the book.

His complaints also reference the lack of communication during the editing process, and how he did public interviews unknowingly talking about elements of an adventure which no longer existed.

"I wrote for [Candlekeep Mysteries], the recent [D&D] release. Things went sideways. The key issues were that the bulk of the lore and a lot of the cultural information that made my adventure "mine" were stripped out. And this was done without any interaction with me, leaving me holding the bag as I misled the public on the contents and aspects of my adventure. Yes, it was work-for-hire freelance writing, but the whole purpose was to bring in fresh voices and new perspectives.

So, when I read my adventure, this happened. This was effectively the shock phase of it all.

Then I moved onto processing what had happened. ~1300 words cut, and without the cut lore, the gravity of the adventure, and its connections to things are gravely watered down. Also "primitive" was inserted.

Then the aftermath of it all. The adventure that came out was a watered down version of what went in, that didn't reflect me anymore as a writer or creator. Which flew in the face of the spirit of the project as had been explained to me.

So then I wrote. Things don't change unless people know what's up and can engage with things in a prepared way. So I broke down the process of writing for Wizards I'd experienced, and developed some rules that can be used to avoid what happened to me."

He recounts his experiences in two blog posts:

• What happened? Writing for Wizards Part 1
• What Happened? Writing for Wizards Part 2

The author later added "Wizards owns all the material sent in, and does not publish unedited adventures on the DM Guild, so there will be no "PanzerCut". I have respectfully requested that my name be removed from future printings. "

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Sadly, RPG editors communicating with freelancers is not an industry standard. Some of that comes from either:

• The (wrongly) assumption that it would be faster to do a rewrite instead of working it out with 'lancer.
• The editor is also the line developer/owner of the company and the work doesn't line up with the editor's unspoken expectations.
• A lack of training on workflow for publishing.
• A lot of times, all of the above.

Sometimes a very late submissions will also trigger an editor's bad habit vs keeping communication open, but 9 times out of 10, it's an editor thing.

And it happens quite often in RPGs, periodicals and small press.

Listening to the latest episode of Dragon Talk, cuts and changes are being made at the last minute, because when they flow the text into their layout program, they're finding they have too many words to fit in around the art. I get that art is a big deal (and relatively expensive, compared to a 100 words here or there), but that process made me cringe.

The software should provide an accurate available inch count to work off of before that point, providing more time to make more thoughtful edits.

 

[Charlaquin]

On the basis of time. It comes earlier in the stages of history.

It comes earlier in the stages of white European history, yes. It also comes currently in other cultures.

It's much more basic in how its built and what it can accomplish.

How do you define “basic”?

Making mud huts is definitely a more primitive way of making a building then building a castle. Is one inherently better than the other? I don't think so. A castle is much better in many ways.

Castles don’t get built much these days, would you say they’re primitive compared to adobe brick, which absolutely does get used to make houses in the modern day?

But in others, a primitive construction is better. If you need to build something quickly, with few materials on hand, a primitive construction is better.

Different construction techniques have different strengths and weaknesses, yes. What value is gained by ranking them on a hierarchy of “advancement?” And by what standard is advancement determined, other than the order in which white Europeans developed them?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

As for the use of "primitive" to describe the Grippli and their culture, that is language well enmeshed with the Grippli. Primitive is found directly in the FR page for Grippli, for example. See: Grippli This description of Grippli as primitive is not unique to 5E WotC, however. Google Primitive and Grippli. The association is well established and pervasive throughout older materials for D&D, as well as in Pathfinder. The author elected to use Grippli when it was clear that this language was commonly associated with it. If that was offensive to the author, there was a proactive responsibility for the author to make it clear that they were intentionally avoiding the term and description, and felt it insensitive to have it associated with the race in the adventure. To be clear: I'm not defending WotC for using the term, but I am saying that the author also had a duty to take significant steps to make sure a loaded term intrinsic to the content was avoided or handled properly. IP comes with baggage.

Yeah, I've written about sensitive subjects about which the accepted language has changed in recent years. In those situations, I put that in as an all-caps note at the beginning of the file explaining that, linking to the appropriate usage guide, then circle back around repeatedly during the process to make sure the language hasn't reverted to a dated usage and sometimes it still gets through, since I don't have access to everyone in the editorial chain.

 

[DM Magic]

Absolutely, and D&D has certainly used the word in that way. But they're not using it that way here, and it's bloody obvious! Like...dictionaries frequently use the phrase "primitive accommodations" to provide context for this usage. And these are editors we're talking about, so they probably know their way around a dictionary!

So they use three different descriptions for the new structures: ramshackle, makeshift, and primitive. This is all in the context of a non-ramshackle, non-makeshift, non-primitive central structure which is described as a permanent, fortified, decorated, edifice.

In context it's very clear the word is not being used to describe the people, their culture, society, customs, or building skills. It's used to contrast the nature of a temporary structure with the permanent one.

On the basis of time. It comes earlier in the stages of history. It's much more basic in how its built and what it can accomplish.

Making mud huts is definitely a more primitive way of making a building then building a castle. Is one inherently better than the other? I don't think so. A castle is much better in many ways. But in others, a primitive construction is better. If you need to build something quickly, with few materials on hand, a primitive construction is better.

I can see the author's outrage at adding words and descriptions that he didn't intend. No argument there.

That being said, I find the particular outrage at the word in question hard to understand. Is primitive a bad word somehow?

primitive
1. relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
"primitive mammals"
2. having a quality or style that offers an extremely basic level of comfort, convenience, or efficiency.
"the accommodations at the camp were a bit primitive"

How should rudimentary dwellings be described? What if the dwellings really are, you know, primitive?

We make skyscrapers now. When was the last time you heard a tent called primitive? A log cabin? A castle?

 

[Charlaquin]

There are a lot of editors out there who view freelancers as interchangeable word-creators. We don't even know that the person who made these cuts was the person who hired Panzer. It is entirely possible they don't know or care why he was hired.

I don’t doubt that’s the case. And that is a problem.

That's not to be dismissive of his feelings here: I have had equally baffling cuts and changes made to my work, making me wonder why the company in question approached me at all.

But I think it's dangerous to think the collective "they" necessarily has good internal communication. Evidence would suggest just the opposite, in fact.

If they have poor internal communication (which seems likely), they should work on fixing their internal communication. I would think that would be obvious.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

How should rudimentary dwellings be described? What if the dwellings really are, you know, primitive?

"Rudimentary" is a pretty good synonym, for one.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I feel like the defense of "That's just what happens as a freelancer & in editing" misses the point that WOTC wants to avoid this sort of thing happening again. I get that this situation might not be uncommon, but given that it seems to have lead to the discussion we are currently having, making it less common would seem to be the ideal choice.

It's worth remembering that you don't just change this stuff with sensitivity training: changing your habits and how you think of things takes time. One of the things that really helps with it is to have other people check over your stuff because people looking from a different perspective will see what you won't. Obviously that's not what happened here and apparently doesn't happen often in regards to WFH gigs, but again: maybe that needs to change.

WOTC has already had problems in the past with this. I know that Chult has been something of a sore point in how it's been realized, while the Orion Black situation clearly showed that there are some internal culture problems that need to be taken care of. This instance isn't really as big as either of those, but why it happened should be instructive, and how they move on from here to stop this sort of thing from happening again.

I actually think PanzerLion's part 2 post is extremely on-point. I think he takes some ownership that part of the problem was in his expectations of the process, and an understanding of how the cuts happened.

WotC flubbed things, though. Like, you're trying to cultivate new talent, but you don't discuss the whole process with them? You know you're trying to bring in new voices. You know they're not familiar with your process. You also should know that new voices might mean different issues. Getting those new voices means that you won't understand each other as well. At least not at first. I know there are timelines and pressures and such, but.... It's just frustrating and disappointing.

And WotC knows they have a lot of baggage and such in their lore. I'm a little surprised they don't have someone review the content for inclusivity at this point. The word choice of their editing is understandable in that I see how such a mistake could happen, but it's not really a defensible choice any more than the issues with Curse of Strahd were.

 

[Justice and Rule]

"Rudimentary" is a pretty good synonym, for one.

In the context, "hastily constructed" and "obviously temporary" would also work. The problem is that "primitive" makes a cultural judgment: to take @DM Magic 's point, if you were to go to a disaster site and saw a bunch of FEMA tents, people would think you were strange to call them "primitive" despite it technically fitting into the whole definition of "basic". "Primitive" evokes something that is less technologically advanced, which is something that is against the author's intent.

I actually think PanzerLion's part 2 post is extremely on-point. I think he takes some ownership that part of the problem was in his expectations of the process, and an understanding of how the cuts happened.

Okay, sorry, I just wanted to use that image because I love it so dearly.

But really, I see that less as a problem with him and more how poorly the industry can handle communication. If WOTC wants to fix problems, it's going to need to open communication with the people making this stuff, especially those bringing in perspectives that WOTC has said they want.

 

[Charlaquin]

As for the use of "primitive" to describe the Grippli and their culture, that is language well enmeshed with the Grippli. Primitive is found directly in the FR page for Grippli, for example. See: Grippli This description of Grippli as primitive is not unique to 5E WotC, however. Google Primitive and Grippli. The association is well established and pervasive throughout older materials for D&D, as well as in Pathfinder. The author elected to use Grippli when it was clear that this language was commonly associated with it. If that was offensive to the author, there was a proactive responsibility for the author to make it clear that they were intentionally avoiding the term and description, and felt it insensitive to have it associated with the race in the adventure. To be clear: I'm not defending WotC for using the term, but I am saying that the author also had a duty to take significant steps to make sure a loaded term intrinsic to the content was avoided or handled properly. IP comes with baggage.

I don’t disagree, but they didn’t exactly have the opportunity to do so, given that the changes were made after they turned in their final draft, and WotC didn’t contact them about the changes. They wrote it not to include language they found offensive, and didn’t expect what they wrote to be changed without notice.

Introducing a new playable race, additionally, may not be something they were capable of doing for this product due to contractual obligations elsewhere and other financial concerns (adding a playable race puts WotC in a position that requires their 3rd party partners (such as D&DBeyond) to support, and also puts them in a position where they are envisioned to have a 'gap' in their D&D miniatures line), or the version provided may have been determined to require more playtesting than they had budget to cover on this project. It may have been determined that it would be too duplicative of the Grung, and thus unnecessary and an acceptable 'budget cut' for not providing enough value to warrant the cost of printing it. I am not surprised that it was cut.

Read Panzer’s blog post, folks. The PC race stats got cut between the first and second draft, the part Panzer was involved in.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

It comes earlier in the stages of white European history, yes. It also comes currently in other cultures.

Virtually every culture on this planet, except isolated ones, have also moved from mud huts to something else. Cultures and civilizations separated by oceans and without contacts for thousand of years have moved in very similar directions and developed similar solutions to similar problems. So, not it's not just primitive from the point of view of Europeans.

How do you define “basic”?

Depends on what you use it for. It can be more basic in the tools it requires to be built, or more basic in the maintenance it requires, or on the knowledge you need to acquire to build it.

Castles don’t get built much these days, would you say they’re primitive compared to adobo brick, which absolutely does get used to make houses in the modern day?

They absolutely are more primitive than many things we build today. A modern house is much more comfortable, cost less to build, etc. Now, once again, if I was being attacked by an army, I would wish for a castle.

Different construction techniques have different strengths and weaknesses, yes. What value is gained by ranking them on a hierarchy of “advancement?” And by what standard is advancement determined, other than the order in which white Europeans developed them?

We can rank them by in many ways and get value out of it. As I mentioned, we could rank them on how easy it is to build them, how comfortable they are, how well suited they are for certain climates. And yes, as part of the history of architecture, we also sort them by time periods. Does that seem that far fetched?