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. "

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't find this persuasive.

In British society it's extremely obvious that a lot of people in their 50s and 60s who were extremely progressive for the 1970s and 1980s, hold a mixture of still-progressive and bizarrely retrograde views, views that oddly enough, are not necessarily held by Americans of a similar age and background. Likewise I've seen Americans in their 50s and 60s who hold broadly progressive views, and who were seen as extremely progressive in the 1970s and 1980s, to hold views on specific matters (often race) that are somewhat retrograde.

So what I'm saying is, I don't buy that someone not being a sexist in 1980 means they understand that "primitive" or similar language is a bad idea. In fact we have hard proof that they do not understand that.

Trying to spin this as "ageism" is pretty funny, but that's all it is. I'm extremely familiar with real ageism, and how it manifests, and how harmful it can be (and I'm also aware, in the UK, of it being used by certain individuals, to attempt to defend unacceptable behaviour/language), but failure to accept that someone who is in their 60s is likely to hold different ideas on problematic language to a younger person is just silly shenanigans and strikes me as superficially similar to a bad faith argument bordering on concern-trolling. I'm not saying it IS that latter, but it sure looks similar to how such a thing would appear.

Look, you said he couldn't get the issue because of his age. That's ageism. Black and white. Own up to your own issues if you're demanding others own up to theirs.

edit you, nor I, know for sure why he missed it. Assuming it's because of his age it literally ageism.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

Graeme should have been more than aware that his submission could have major changes in word count with many things left on the cutting room floor. And yes, he was pretty upset about that and not just the "primitive" issue because that's what he complained about right out of the gate. It's industry standard, in every creative industry. You get paid for what you write, not what the print. Complaining about that, especially publicly and loudly, was a bad move.

I've seen this point from several people in the thread (phrased in different ways). I can see the argument behind calling such behaviour strategically unwise and unprofessional, but I believe that in the current TTRPG marketplace, you can actually get away with that to some degree. There's a growing independent sector of smaller studios and solo creators, some of who kind of make it part of their, let's say branding, to be extremely "screw WotC, screw Paizo, screw OPP", or otherwise being "unprofessional" or "not playing by the rules".

Now to be fair, some of them just take it way too far and it starts to feel like that they're LARPing, or that they missed the memo that punk is dead; but to a degree this "edgy" anti-corporate sentiment can get them a stable, if small consumer base for their products (just like punk, whoddathunk). But the sentiment is also genuine; some of these creators may have been personally burned by "the system", others ars simply opposed to it on principle (though since some of these people also have employees in their businesses, that makes them by definition "capitalists", so how do they reconcile that with their "screw the man" viewpoint, I... my head hurts).

"That's how things are, that's not how they should be" is something I've said several times in the thread, and that applies to the mentality of the people I described above, who are opposed to the state of the industry and want to be able to produce their own work without being beholden to the usual corporate overlords. But I feel that if I expand on the topic any further I'll run afoul of the "no politics" stance this forum has taken, because this topic is very much a political one, and holistically so at that, not just limited to discussions the RPG market but also to labour relations as a whole.

 

[DM Magic]

Look, you said he couldn't get the issue because of his age.

Is that what was said?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Is that what was said?

Yes. you know that, assuming you read their posts.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Look, you said he couldn't get the issue because of his age. That's ageism. Black and white. Own up to your own issues if you're demanding others own up to theirs.

edit you, nor I, know for sure why he missed it. Assuming it's because of his age it literally ageism.

Okay, I feel like you ARE making a bad-faith argument to concern-troll here, I cannot take this glib claim at all seriously. That's obviously not what I said, it's bizarre spin to try and do some "Both sides" nonsense. Accepting age-related cultural differences exist is not ageism, at least not in my country.

 

[DM Magic]

Yes. you know that, assuming you read their posts.

Who is the "their" you are speaking of? Only Ruin Explorer and I have commented on this aspect of the discussion, and neither of us are claiming he is incapable of understanding something due to his age.

 

[Scribe]

LOL it absolutely is ageism, I've been in enough corporate training sessions to know you would be called out over what we see here.

'of course jane believes this, she's near retirement' would get HR on you, no doubt.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Okay, I feel like you ARE making a bad-faith argument to concern-troll here, I cannot take this glib claim at all seriously. That's obviously not what I said, it's bizarre spin to try and do some "Both sides" nonsense. Accepting age-related cultural differences exist is not ageism, at least not in my country.

You literally said their age was a reason they wouldn't have picked up on the issue with primitive. That's textbook definition of ageism. I mean, it's literally part of the definition:

• 1.1Distinction from other age-related bias
• 1.2Implicit ageism
• 1.3Stereotyping
• 1.4Prejudice
• 1.5Digital ageism

and rather than accept what you're doing, you're accusing me of bad faith? Do you not see the incredible irony in you accusing others of not taking responsibility for their blinders when you are doing the exact same thing?

 

[Charlaquin]

Look, you said he couldn't get the issue because of his age.

No they didn’t?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Who is the "their" you are speaking of? Only Ruin Explorer and I have commented on this aspect of the discussion, and neither of us are claiming he is incapable of understanding something due to his age.

This was the comment:

Also yeah pretty unsurprising that someone who has to seriously pushing retirement age didn't see a problem with "primitive" nor saw the value of the material being cut.

that is literally saying the reason they didn't see a problem is because of age. What do you think "pushing retirement age" means if not related to actual age?