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. "

 

[TheSword]

I only see it used once on DNDBeyond as well, not twice. Just the ramshackle temporary shelters.

Never mind, I found it right at the end of the section under Homes and Storage.

 

[Mort]

I only see it used once on DNDBeyond as well, not twice. Just the ramshackle temporary shelters.

The second time people are referring to is, almost certainly, the word primitively (it is the only other time in the adventure it appears under a search):

specifically:
The simple domes of the grippli’s residences and storage buildings are spread haphazardly around the marsh. Mud-brick with wicker roofs, they’re modest affairs, primitively decorated with giant crab claws. Most are empty and show signs of abandonment.

 

[Charlaquin]

"Rudimentary" as in "rudimentary intelligence," right?

No. Nothing about the word rudimentary is inherently linked to intelligence. Unlike the word primitive, which is indeed inherently linked to colonialism.

 

[Greg Benage]

No. Nothing about the word rudimentary is inherently linked to intelligence. Unlike the word primitive, which is indeed inherently linked to colonialism.

rudimentary:
relating to an immature, undeveloped, or basic form.
"a rudimentary stage of evolution"

 

[Justice and Rule]

rudimentary:
relating to an immature, undeveloped, or basic form.
"a rudimentary stage of evolution"

I mean, if you have to skip over the first definition you're kind of just being dishonest, aren't you?

The first definition is what is most commonly used, which refers to something being "basic". It's about norms, not a cultural judgment, and what makes the phrase "rudimentary intelligence" a charged phrase is the latter word, not the former: anything referring to something's intelligence generally requires care in its usage. No one gets upset when you say a kid has "rudimentary" skill in a sport.

Meanwhile, primitive is specifically a cultural judgment: we are making a judgment of where something is culturally compared to us. If I say that someone has "rudimentary hunting skills", that might mean they know to wear a bright vest and know how to fire a gun because "rudimentary" is based around norms, thus it conforms to what is "basic" to us at the moment. If I say someone has "primitive hunting skills", people will assume they hunted with a pointed stick because "primitive" carries a cultural judgment and meaning with it.

 

[Mistwell]

Let's put it another way: WotC wanted to highlight new voices. One of those voices specifically calls out colonialist-language and would never use that word and would never want his brand associated with it. WotC inserted that word into his text. Anything else is irrelevant.

Well you put forth a challenged, I answered it, and you shifted to something entirely new. I am OK with that, but I think it's important to first take note of what just happened with your first attempt there. You thought language usage was one way, you were not correct in that at least in my experience which I demonstrated with numerous specific examples, so rather than acknowledge that you shifted to a completely different point. Which is kinda poor form because you're asking people to play whack-a-mole with your shifting argument but I doubt that's a tactic you'd appreciate if used against you.

So OK your new point is that, if an author is designated a "new voice" then they can dictate how English language is going to be used, regardless of whether the usage was proper in terms of English and also regardless of whether the context makes it clear it's not about what most people (including I suspect most people who are "new voices") would consider in this context to be evocative of colonialism.

There is no "never use this word" standard for "primitive." It has not reached that level in our culture or society, or any culture or society I know of, so far. It might reach that point some day, but it has not crossed that threshold yet. So to claim the word is verboten, there is an uphill battle to show it's reached that level in society where ANY use of the word is considered wrongful in some way. I don't think the author, or people in this thread, have been able to demonstrate that.

As for the author's opinion, he'd be right if it were self-published, self-owned, and not a work for hire. As a freelancer on a gig deal, it's much more complicated, and I just don't know the internal series of events well enough. Being a "new voice" or a person of color are not facts, in themselves, which makes him correct without knowing more.

If he first went to the editor to complain when he found out about the objectionable word, got shut down or ignored, and then took it to Twitter, I can see his point. If I were WOTC in that instance I'd change the word (and in any case I'd remove his name if he wants it removed) and apologize.

But if he instead went directly to Twitter when he found out (however and whenever he found out) without ever even trying to talk to his editor, then I wouldn't remove the word. Because the later is unprofessional, rude, and puts publishers in an impossible position with a full time editor being attacked on Twitter by a first time freelancer without an opportunity to discuss it with the freelancer first.

The rest of his complaint is "I don't like being edited" which, frankly, welcomes him to the world of freelance publishing. This is where you figure out if this kind of job is for you or not, because it will happen more often than it doesn't in that industry and being a "new voice" doesn't exempt him from heavy editing by a professional editor. Most new writers welcome strong editing, because that's often the only feedback they will get and any professional feedback is helpful.

And if he doesn't like that experience I would strongly encourage him to not enter my wife's profession of acting, where she can spend a week or more on the job working extremely hard only for every scene she's in to end up on the cutting room floor with no explanation or feedback of any kind, ever. This is the world of work-for-hire, where you trade personal freedom for lack of control over your work.

People keep mentioning poor communication in this thread. But you know what's the most basic level of poor communication? When you have an issue you pick up your phone and call your supervisor to discuss it first.

You don't blog about it, you don't rant on Facebook, you don't bash the company on Twitter to anger fans, you don't even text your supervisor. MAYBE you email them in certain situations, provided you are patient enough to wait for their reply for a decent length of time. But mostly even in this day and age you call them, or meet with them in person in a non-Covid word, to talk like professional adults first.

You reserve that other behavior for truly bad failures after you've already done your best to be a professional adult and try and resolve it privately first.

So again, I don't know if he tried to talk to his editor or other supervisor first, got nowhere, and then only resorted to Twitter after a really bad failure to respond to him from WOTC. If he did, then I side with him in this.

But if he went directly to Twitter first, then I have no sympathy for his demands in this one. Being a "new voice" or a person of color does not exempt him from the basic professional adult behavior of calling up your supervisor to talk to them first if there is a problem. In fact, being a new freelancer regardless of "new voice" or minority status should put anyone on best professional behavior because you're just starting out and you want to make a good impression and you want to get good feedback from more experienced people.

 

[DM Magic]

Well you put forth a challenged, I answered it, and you shifted to something entirely new. I am OK with that, but I think it's important to first take note of what just happened with your first attempt there. You thought language usage was one way, you were not correct in that at least in my experience which I demonstrated with numerous specific examples, so rather than acknowledge that you shifted to a completely different point. Which is kinda poor form because you're asking people to play whack-a-mole with your shifting argument but I doubt that's a tactic you'd appreciate if used against you.

So OK your new point is that, if an author is designated a "new voice" then they can dictate how English language is going to be used, regardless of whether the usage was proper in terms of English and also regardless of whether the context makes it clear it's not about what most people (including I suspect most people who are "new voices") would consider in this context to be evocative of colonialism.

There is no "never use this word" standard for "primitive." It has not reached that level in our culture or society, or any culture or society I know of, so far. It might reach that point some day, but it has not crossed that threshold yet. So to claim the word is verboten, there is an uphill battle to show it's reached that level in society where ANY use of the word is considered wrongful in some way. I don't think the author, or people in this thread, have been able to demonstrate that.

As for the author's opinion, he'd be right if it were self-published, self-owned, and not a work for hire. As a freelancer on a gig deal, it's much more complicated, and I just don't know the internal series of events well enough. Being a "new voice" or a person of color are not facts, in themselves, which makes him correct without knowing more.

If he first went to the editor to complain when he found out about the objectionable word, got shut down or ignored, and then took it to Twitter, I can see his point. If I were WOTC in that instance I'd change the word (and in any case I'd remove his name if he wants it removed) and apologize.

But if he instead went directly to Twitter when he found out (however and whenever he found out) without ever even trying to talk to his editor, then I wouldn't remove the word. Because the later is unprofessional, rude, and puts publishers in an impossible position with a full time editor being attacked on Twitter by a first time freelancer without an opportunity to discuss it with the freelancer first.

The rest of his complaint is "I don't like being edited" which, frankly, welcomes him to the world of freelance publishing. This is where you figure out if this kind of job is for you or not, because it will happen more often than it doesn't in that industry and being a "new voice" doesn't exempt him from heavy editing by a professional editor. Most new writers welcome strong editing, because that's often the only feedback they will get and any professional feedback is helpful.

People keep mentioning poor communication in this thread. But you know what's the most basic level of poor communication? When you have an issue you pick up your phone and call your supervisor to discuss it. You don't blog about it, you don't rant on Facebook, you don't bash the company on Twitter to anger fans, you don't even text your supervisor. MAYBE you email them in certain situations, provided you are patient enough to wait for their reply for a decent length of time. But mostly even in this day and age you call them, or meet with them in person in a non-Covid word, to talk like professional adults first. You reserve that other behavior for truly bad failures after you've already done your best to be a professional adult and try and resolve it privately first.

So again, I don't know if he tried to talk to his editor or other supervisor first, got nowhere, and then only resorted to Twitter after a really bad failure to respond to him from WOTC. But if he went directly to Twitter, then I have no sympathy for his demands in this one. Being a "new voice" or a person of color does not exempt him from the basic professional adult behavior of calling up your supervisor to talk to them first if there is a problem. In fact, being a new freelancer regardless of "new voice" or minority status should put anyone on best professional behavior because you're just starting out and you want to make a good impression and you want to get good feedback from more experienced people.

Yikes.

 

[Bacon Bits]

I’ve looked a few times at the text (albeit on Roll20). I can only see the word used once... to describe the temporary shelters. Is the text different on D&DBeyond or the hard copy?

Yes. I'll include page numbers as well as directions. Maybe that will help you and others find them.

Spoiler: Minor spoilers

On page 93, under the heading "Helping the Grippli" there's a section called "Trading Post". The start of the second paragraph below that begins, "The primitive shelters are the new homes of grippli who escaped[...]".

Later, on page 95 begins a section called "Village". Later, on page 97, there's a subsection called "Homes and Storage". The descriptive text in the highlight immediately below that subsection title says, "[...] Mud-brick with wicker roofs, they're modest affairs, primitively decorated with giant crab claws. [...]"

I think the second one is worse. It comes across as a value judgement on the art of the grippli culture. Like we're not talking about their hastily made emergency homes. These are the homes they lived in for generations. Back on page 95 under the "Docks" subsection, they describe their construction as "sturdy planks of wood tightly fastened together and treated to make the structure waterproof." Does that sound like something a primitive culture made? Not to me. So why do they describe the rest of it that way?

Edit: I just... they decorate their homes with hunting trophies as a hunting tribe and it's "primitive"? How is that primitive, but a stag head on the wall isn't? Why can't it be bad-ass giant crab claws that are bigger than some of the homes that the whole village got together to take down? Show the size of the beasts that they're taking down. Let them be impressive hunters when they try instead of "primitive".

Also, the temporary shelters are also described as ramshackle and makeshift... so yes they are badly built... As opposed to the fortified mud brick main buildings that survived.

Yes, but the point is that the homes had to be made quickly, not that their builders lacked skill or were primitive. The mud brick structure is just the structure that's been there for many years and wasn't built while there were aged, injured and young grippli risking exposure to the elements. It's an important structure, but it's not a defensive or culturally significant place. It's a trading post that's become the center of a makeshift village.

I do think it’s worth considering that just because a word isn’t appropriate for academic anthropology doesn’t mean it doesn’t have a wider context. It’s also acceptable that not everyone agree on language.

Sure, and a woman's dress might be unflattering. That doesn't mean you describe it that way to her face. There's tact, right? And someone can call a person "ignorant" and they might just mean "uninformed" but it also connotes stupidity. It's probably best to avoid the word "ignorant" entirely, right?

Part of communication is understanding that when you speak you need to consider how the words you use will be received. Language is fuzzy even when it's between close relatives who share the same experiences and culture. Imprecise language helps explain miscommunication, but it doesn't excuse it. You can't come back and say, "Well, I understand this word also means this, but that's not how I meant it so you're wrong." You need to use words and phrasing that are difficult to misinterpret. That's what editors should be doing.

The whole adventure is basically a colonialism reference, right? Even with just the story in the printed book I think it's pretty clearly making a reference to colonialism. If someone writes a story and it's an allegory for Montezuma, Quetzalcoatl, and Cortez, they might get a small bit of criticism if they start out by calling the equivalent of the Aztecs "primitive". People can read subtext. "Primitive" is one of the words used by colonial powers to justify their colonialism: conquering and subjugation of indigenous people across the globe for wealth extraction. It should probably just be avoided entirely.

Edit: I don't think anybody is suggesting that WotC actually things colonialism is a good thing. People are just saying, "Wait, why are you using the same words that the colonialists used to describe indigenous peoples in an adventure about helping indigenous peoples overcome subjugation and enslavement? Isn't that a little weird? Aren't we a little beyond that?"

 

[TheSword]

Does anyone know what the problematic art was that Graeme mentioned?

 

[Greg Benage]

I mean, if you have to skip over the first definition you're kind of just being dishonest, aren't you?

The first definition is what is most commonly used, which refers to something being "basic".

No, not being dishonest. With "primitive," we're skipping over the usage as:

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"

...even though that is the obvious usage in context, in order to run with the other usage:

relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in the evolutionary or historical development of something.
"primitive mammals"

If someone can construe the usage of "primitive" in this way, context be damned, I genuinely don't understand why they wouldn't/couldn't construe the meaning of "rudimentary" as well. I guess it's a broader question about which I'm truly curious: Scrutinizing language is good, but how do you set up your guidelines in advance? How do you know someone will construe "primitive" in an unintended way BUT ALSO feel confident they won't construe "rudimentary" in an unintended way?

From my perspective, it sure looks like the construing is happening after the fact, with the context obfuscated (as originally) or set aside (when people posted the passage). I personally believe that the intentions of this exercise are good BUT ALSO that the language is intentionally construed in a way to sustain the outrage.