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]

There's a whole lot of speculation, and we'll never know the real truth unless WoTC speaks out, which will never happen, so...we're just left with speculation and one side.

I suspect most editors will back me up on this, but I don't think many people realize that when you're doing layout, every word matters to get things to line up neatly. I can't count the times when I've written something, then when it comes time to do layout, I have to rewrite, cut, omit, and add text to get it to align with page count, column size, picture frames, etc. Literally every page, and often the very character count of the word I'm using matters. In layout, size does matter, and it matters a lot lol. An 8 letter word vs a 6 letter word does make a difference. How much of the changes were done for this? Only Kim Mohan knows exactly.

Speaking of Kim, we know who the editor was. It was Kim. So when people say WoTC is being racist for what they did, they are saying Kim Mohan is racist. Is that true? I don't know; I don't know Kim Mohan personally. But it seems easier to say a company is racist than saying that person is, but it wasn't the company who edited it, it was Kim personally. So if you (general you) think what happened was racist, then you're saying Kim is racist. Just throwing that out there.

 

[The Glen]

I suspect most editors will back me up on this, but I don't think many people realize that when you're doing layout, every word matters to get things to line up neatly. I can't count the times when I've written something, then when it comes time to do layout, I have to rewrite, cut, omit, and add text to get it to align with page count, column size, picture frames, etc. Literally every page, and often the very character count of the word I'm using matters. In layout, size does matter, and it matters a lot lol. An 8 letter word vs a 6 letter word does make a difference. How much of the changes were done for this? Only Kim Mohan knows exactly.

Don't get me started on widows, orphans and Dead Space. I've worn out more than one copy of roget's trying to find a replacement word to pull a line up because the character count is one letter too many. Once you get handed a final draft, you are the only person that decides what goes in. The last thing you need is a bunch of people telling you how to do your job when you got a deadline looming. It's called a final draft for a reason.

 

[Morrus]

Don't get me started on widows, orphans and Dead Space. I've worn out more than one copy of roget's trying to find a replacement word to pull a line up because the character count is one letter too many. Once you get handed a final draft, you are the only person that decides what goes in. The last thing you need is a bunch of people telling you how to do your job when you got a deadline looming. It's called a final draft for a reason.

Layout designers aren't typically given carte blanch to edit text.

 

[Ibrandul]

I highlighted the bolded area because this absolutely doesn't seem to be the case: we know from his own telling on his website that his supervisor for the project helped him out from the pitch to the final draft, with assistance on what seems like a variety of areas. We can also see from his own telling of what he wanted to do (again, on his website) that his own version of the final cut comes somewhat close to what was printed, but with mostly the context of the plot missing. In fact, the editor seems to have taken away most of the "mystery" part given that they basically removed most of the research side of things, which seems to really cut against the whole point of the book.

You're right. Reading it over, I think that wasn't a fair characterization for me to make. I retract that.

Here's a better version of what I mean: saying "I do not use premade adventures, and I am not familiar with building 'conventional' D&D adventures. I fully expected that my adventure would be edited and altered to patch its faults and issues" sounds an awful lot like "I don't read short stories, and I am not familiar with how conventional narratives in the military sci-fi subgenre are written. But since I've been contracted to write a conventional military sci-fi short story by the largest, most corporate, and most conventional military sci-fi publisher, I fully expect that the publisher will edit my manuscript into a publishable short story."

"I'm not familiar with writing in X genre but I've written something in X genre anyway" is a pretty familiar refrain heard by anyone in the publishing business, and is never a positive sign.

Given that the process he describes in writing his draft wasn't really hands-off, this whole thing feels wrongheaded. Also don't understand why his previous work or lack thereof even warrants talking about here.

Again, you're right. "Hands-off" wasn't a good choice of words.

POCG's previous work or lack thereof does matter. Mentioning it is not intended as a way of discrediting him. If anything, it's the opposite.

It does seem to me that aspects of his behavior here were unprofessional, as I mentioned—but that's to be expected if he's not actually a professional in this business! If he doesn't have any prior publication experience at all, then in my opinion it's his publisher's responsibility to treat him with greater care than if he's an old industry veteran. Part of Candlekeep Mysteries's mission statement was to highlight creative talent that didn't have this level of exposure before. This includes a laudable demographic diversity focus; my current play group includes two Asian Americans who were both overjoyed to read not just one but two adventures from members of that demographic in this book. But (again, from what I can tell) even in that context POCG is less experienced in adventure writing and in RPG publishing than most of the book's other contributors, many of whom have created and published RPG material in one form or another before.

Maybe I'm wrong about this (it wouldn't be the first time), but take a look at his (excellently clear) outline of the process in his "Part 1" blog post: it appears he wasn't involved at all in the editing after the playtesting period began, and expected that he would be, and was hurt that he was not involved.

This is bad excuse for taking out the lore. This is a book about mysteries which starts in a library filled with knowledge from across the Realms. The whole point of these things is to learn stuff. It's one of the primary appeals of mysteries: to find answers.

It wasn't an excuse, it was a (possible) explanation. I want more lore, not less, in adventures from WotC! But WotC doesn't. Just because POCG wrote 7,000 words doesn't mean all 7,000 of them were the kind of material WotC wants to use in an adventure.

I mean... maybe they hired him on the strength of his pitch? I dunno, feels like it's possible.

Of course they liked his pitch. And also wanted to hire a demographically diverse slate of writers. Those are both legitimate motives.

So if you (general you) think what happened was racist, then you're saying Kim is racist. Just throwing that out there.

If we say "John is racist," that carries a different valence than does "John said something racist." Every subtlety makes a difference here; even "John is a racist" feels different from "John is racist." I think the addition of the word "primitive" to this adventure was racially insensitive. I wouldn't be comfortable calling someone "racist" for using a racially insensitive term like "primitive," in the absence of other malfeasance. I think the recent expansion of the meaning of the word "racist" to include all manner of racially insensitive speech acts is unfortunate, because I think the negatives to putting people like whoever added this term to this adventure and David Duke in the same category outweigh the positives. This is a controversial opinion. But one thing shouldn't be controversial: the person who added this racially insensitive language still shouldn't do it, and should know better by now, especially if they're editing a project for WotC!

 

[Justice and Rule]

@jeremypowell

Yeah, my biggest issue was with your initial framing. I could quibble more, but we're in "agree to disagree" territory, so better to just move on with the discussion.

@Sacrosanct

I have no actual knowledge of the person, but it's worth noting that you don't need to be an out-and-out racist to do insensitive things, and that WOTC has had recent problems with it. As it stands, WOTC has a problem when it comes to sensitivity and while this isn't the biggest or worst instance of it, it's disappointing because we know they've issued statements that they're trying to be better. This feels like something where they should have been more careful, and it definitely feels like WOTC should keep better communication to prevent it from happening again.

 

[Charlaquin]

Speaking of Kim, we know who the editor was. It was Kim. So when people say WoTC is being racist for what they did, they are saying Kim Mohan is racist. Is that true? I don't know; I don't know Kim Mohan personally. But it seems easier to say a company is racist than saying that person is, but it wasn't the company who edited it, it was Kim personally. So if you (general you) think what happened was racist, then you're saying Kim is racist. Just throwing that out there.

That’s not how systemic racism works. Kim Mohan, as an individual, probably doesn’t consciously hold racist views (I don’t know anything about them, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.) They certainly have unconscious racial biases - everyone does. But ultimately, I’m not really interested in what they think or do as an individual. They contribute to the larger apparatus that is Wizards of the Coast, and in that contribution, have furthered its systemic tendency to silence PoC voices. That doesn’t make Kim Mohan a racist, it is simply one more example of the systemic racism endemic of the company.

 

[Charlaquin]

I will say, while the Panzer Lion / PoC Gamer situation is unfortunate, I do appreciate their break down of how the writing process went and their comparison of their original vision with the published draft. I think it sheds a lot of light on why WotC published adventures are the way they are. When I read how they cut out the deep lore and complex NPC motivations in favor of a simple adventure that can easily be adapted to other settings, or how they took an investigative hook with a branching path and simplified it to an NPC giving you directions and advice to the DM to make one branch “show the players it’s in error,” I can’t help but think of other adventures like Water Deep Dragon Heist. I had already suspected that one was the result of a hack job to an initially much more complex adventure.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Wizards as a company, during the 4e era fired a bunch of people a week or 2 before Christmas for several years running. From that I think we can safely say that it is insensitive as a company. That is not to say that Wizards does not have a racism problem, because, while "two swallows do not a summer make", it could be a start of a disturbing trend.
That said, it should be noted that it has a history of insensitive HR decisions and anyone thinking of freelancing for them should be aware of this.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You're right. Reading it over, I think that wasn't a fair characterization for me to make. I retract that.

Here's a better version of what I mean: saying "I do not use premade adventures, and I am not familiar with building 'conventional' D&D adventures. I fully expected that my adventure would be edited and altered to patch its faults and issues" sounds an awful lot like "I don't read short stories, and I am not familiar with how conventional narratives in the military sci-fi subgenre are written. But since I've been contracted to write a conventional military sci-fi short story by the largest, most corporate, and most conventional military sci-fi publisher, I fully expect that the publisher will edit my manuscript into a publishable short story."

"I'm not familiar with writing in X genre but I've written something in X genre anyway" is a pretty familiar refrain heard by anyone in the publishing business, and is never a positive sign.

Again, you're right. "Hands-off" wasn't a good choice of words.

POCG's previous work or lack thereof does matter. Mentioning it is not intended as a way of discrediting him. If anything, it's the opposite.

It does seem to me that aspects of his behavior here were unprofessional, as I mentioned—but that's to be expected if he's not actually a professional in this business! If he doesn't have any prior publication experience at all, then in my opinion it's his publisher's responsibility to treat him with greater care than if he's an old industry veteran. Part of Candlekeep Mysteries's mission statement was to highlight creative talent that didn't have this level of exposure before. This includes a laudable demographic diversity focus; my current play group includes two Asian Americans who were both overjoyed to read not just one but two adventures from members of that demographic in this book. But (again, from what I can tell) even in that context POCG is less experienced in adventure writing and in RPG publishing than most of the book's other contributors, many of whom have created and published RPG material in one form or another before.

Maybe I'm wrong about this (it wouldn't be the first time), but take a look at his (excellently clear) outline of the process in his "Part 1" blog post: it appears he wasn't involved at all in the editing after the playtesting period began, and expected that he would be, and was hurt that he was not involved.

It wasn't an excuse, it was a (possible) explanation. I want more lore, not less, in adventures from WotC! But WotC doesn't. Just because POCG wrote 7,000 words doesn't mean all 7,000 of them were the kind of material WotC wants to use in an adventure.

Of course they liked his pitch. And also wanted to hire a demographically diverse slate of writers. Those are both legitimate motives.

If we say "John is racist," that carries a different valence than does "John said something racist." Every subtlety makes a difference here; even "John is a racist" feels different from "John is racist." I think the addition of the word "primitive" to this adventure was racially insensitive. I wouldn't be comfortable calling someone "racist" for using a racially insensitive term like "primitive," in the absence of other malfeasance. I think the recent expansion of the meaning of the word "racist" to include all manner of racially insensitive speech acts is unfortunate, because I think the negatives to putting people like whoever added this term to this adventure and David Duke in the same category outweigh the positives. This is a controversial opinion. But one thing shouldn't be controversial: the person who added this racially insensitive language still shouldn't do it, and should know better by now, especially if they're editing a project for WotC!

@jeremypowell

Yeah, my biggest issue was with your initial framing. I could quibble more, but we're in "agree to disagree" territory, so better to just move on with the discussion.

@Sacrosanct

I have no actual knowledge of the person, but it's worth noting that you don't need to be an out-and-out racist to do insensitive things, and that WOTC has had recent problems with it. As it stands, WOTC has a problem when it comes to sensitivity and while this isn't the biggest or worst instance of it, it's disappointing because we know they've issued statements that they're trying to be better. This feels like something where they should have been more careful, and it definitely feels like WOTC should maybe keep better communication to prevent it from happening again.

To be clear, I'm not saying either of you have said WoTC is racist. Only that in general, I've heard several people claim that WoTC is racist by doing this, and what I mean is that we know who made these changes, and it was Kim Mohan. So for those people who have said WoTC is racist, what they actually are saying is Kim Mohan is racist, since Kim is the one who did this, not WoTC. I suppose my point is it's easier to say "company X" is racist because there's no human tied to that and you don't have to worry about defending your accusation. And it's harder to say "person X" is racist without additional back pedaling or suddenly a bunch of other qualifiers added that weren't added when you (again, general you) said WoTC was racist, because now it's personal to someone directly.

Like you say, it's very nuanced, and I've observed that when you (again, general you) level accusations, it's much easier to level more serious accusations against entities than against actual people when it shouldn't matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

To be clear, I'm not saying either of you have said WoTC is racist. Only that in general, I've heard several people claim that WoTC is racist by doing this, and what I mean is that we know who made these changes, and it was Kim Mohan. So for those people who have said WoTC is racist, what they actually are saying is Kim Mohan is racist, since Kim is the one who did this, not WoTC.

I don’t think anyone is saying “WotC is racist for doing this,” they’re saying “this is yet another drop in the bucket of racist outcomes that have resulted from WotC’s business practices.” Nobody is calling any individual WotC employees racist here. They’re pointing out that, once again, the business structures at WotC have resulted in a person of color having their voice not be heard.

I suppose my point is it's easier to say "company X" is racist because there's no human tied to that and you don't have to worry about defending your accusation. And it's harder to say "person X" is racist without additional back pedaling or suddenly a bunch of other qualifiers added that weren't added when you (again, general you) said WoTC was racist, because now it's personal to someone directly.

It’s not just easier to say a company is racist than to say a person is racist, it’s saying something completely different. Again, I don’t know Kim Mohan, but I expect they probably don’t consciously hold racist views. That doesn’t mean they can’t contribute to a system that marginalizes people of color. Indeed, they seem to have done exactly that here. That doesn’t make them racist. It’s just another example of the systemic racism at WotC.

Like you say, it's very nuanced, and I've observed that when you (again, general you) level accusations, it's much easier to level more serious accusations against entities than against actual people when it shouldn't matter.

Funny, I would argue that trying to boil racism down to a problem of individual bad actors is far less nuanced than recognizing that complex systems can produce racist outcomes without conscious intent driving them.