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. "

 

[grimslade]

It was freelance work. They got paid for their work but don't want their name associated with the edited work in the future. They are disappointed about the excising of the lore that makes the adventure seem flat. The inclusion of the word 'primitive' seems to fly in the face of the project's design goals.
There are two separate issues here. The removal of lore for the sake of brevity/ possible setting binder complications and the use of pejorative language. The first is pretty cut and dry WotC's sandbox, their rules. It would have been nice to have a rewrite to add context back into the adventure, but deadlines wait for no one. Kill one's darlings, or the editor will.
The inclusion of pejorative language is problematic. WotC has made a big deal of refocussing on inclusion and removing stigma. The diverse range of authors on Candlekeep Mysteries seems to point to a continuation of that design/culture goal. Including 'primitive' flies in the face of this effort. It was a bad call. Lazy editing. I hope the editors can reflect on why this was a poor choice.

 

[Charlaquin]

And other times, the problem has been me. It sounds like PanzerLion went far beyond his mandate, created new lore for an established race, created a playable race, and went way over his word count, all of which would require a lot of editing. If I had been that editor, I might have said "yeah, this isn't going to be a good process" and just decided to do it on my own. I would have likely sent a note to say what had happened and why, but lots of folks are much more afraid of possible confrontations than I am.

I would be more inclined to say this is a reasonable interpretation, were it not for several factors specific to this case:

1. The process starts with a pitch before writing a complete draft. If there was a time to say “sorry, we’re not looking for an adventure involving or expanding deep Realms lore,” it was here. But Panzer’s pitch was accepted.

2. According to Panzer, the PC race stats for the Grippli got cut between the initial draft and the second draft. You know, the part of the process they were actually involved in. The cutting out of the lore and motivations and the simplifying of the mystery portion of the adventure seem to have occurred as a result of issues found in playtesting, not issues with the core concept.

3. Candlekeep has been specifically marketed on the merits of including new voices and fresh perspectives. Yet, when there were issues found with the adventure in playtesting, they made significant changes without making any effort to preserve Panzer’s voice and perspective. In fact, they used language Panzer would specifically have avoided.

4. They asked Panzer to participate in the pre-release marketing push, without having informed them that there had been major changes to their adventure. Panzer accordingly talked up the book and the adventure under false pretenses.

In any case, the professional writers saying "yeah, this is how editing goes a lot of times" aren't wrong. There isn't a magical world where editing is somehow a much better process. Pick a professional writer in any genre you like and ask them. They will tell you that even the happiest and most productive relationships they have with editors are often frustrating and sometimes outright adversarial. I have editors who are genuine friends of mine, and we've still lost our tempers with each other and had conversations end with "well, I'm sorry, but it's my call at the end of the day, and we're going in this direction."

The people saying “yeah, this is how editing goes a lot of times” aren’t even wrong. They’re missing the point. The core issue is not that edits were made. It’s that the edits made cut out voices that the book was sold on the premise of hilighting. And the insertion of colonialist language in an adventure being sold as having been written by someone who specifically writes about colonialism in gaming.

 

[Gradine]

Interestingly after rereading the adventure the word primitive is used in this context.

“The central structure of the trading post is a fortified stone and mud brick edifice, decorated with the preserved carapace sand claws of giant crabs where commerce is normally conducted. The ground around it, usually clear of construction, now houses a host of makeshift dwellings, and business has slowed to a standstill. The place feels more like a refugee encampment than a trading post. The primitive shelters are the new homes”

So it makes clear that the original grippili structures are substantial and fortified and only the temporary shelters are primitive. It feels a fair use of the word.

This got glossed over a bit, so I wanted to respond to it real quick:

I'm sure it feels like a fair use of the word to you. I'm sure many reasonable people would agree. But words and their origins hold different meanings to different people. Panzer Lion is very clearly someone with anti-colonialist background and objects to the use of the term in general. The word, regardless of its context, carries some baggage with it. Baggage that the author, rightfully so, does not want associated with themself (and, presumably, their brand).

To see content that you've created and published edited not just to remove major themes but to insert language you would never use, that is antithetical to your identity, with your name still credited at the top? That sucks, incredibly, and they have every right to object to it.

See also:

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Have we seen the original pitch? I admit to not having read everything on the Internet about this case. If you pitch X but submit X+Y+Z, it shouldn't be a surprise if Y and Z don't make the final cut. Likewise, have we seen WotC's solicit? Some solicits are very specific about the box you're in, others are much more wide-open. A mismatch of expectations can start very early on.

Editors also have people they report to. Someone saying "yeah, this sounds good" doesn't guarantee that nothing will change in the development process -- it's entirely possible that, when they showed their work in progress to their superior, something that they had told Panzer sounded fine didn't fly with them. I've had this happen extraordinarily late in the process, and while it's enraging -- I still sometimes wake up in the middle of the night mad about a case of this happening a few months ago -- it's not a sign of malice or even incompetence necessarily.

The colonialist language is inexcusable and, honestly, it makes me wonder if WotC hasn't done the sensitivity training that I assumed had happened last summer, when there was the big to-do about the Vistani and orcs and the like. At the very least, that editor needs to have a long sit-down with their superiors.

Marketing not telling Panzer that there had been cuts to his work requires that they knew. Lots of times, marketing only knows slightly more than the general public. I would be surprised if they were knowingly complicit in pulling the wool over Panzer's eyes.

Again, though, we're just hearing one side of all of this. You're right, @Charlaquin, it's very likely that an editor is at least partially to blame for this. But I would hesitate to put all the blame on editors, despite being someone who loves to rant about them in my day job.

 

[Charlaquin]

Have we seen the original pitch? I admit to not having read everything on the Internet about this case. If you pitch X but submit X+Y+Z, it shouldn't be a surprise if Y and Z don't make the final cut. Likewise, have seen WotC's solicit? Some solicits are very specific about the box you're in, others are much more wide-open. A mismatch of expectations can start very early on.

Not that I’m aware of. Panzer explained the process from their perspective here:

What happened? Writing for Wizards Part 1 - POCGamer

The stages of writing for Wizards that I experienced, and some rules that writers may want to use if they choose to write for Wizards.

pocgamer.com

Editors also have people they report to. Someone saying "yeah, this sounds good" doesn't guarantee that nothing will change in the development process -- it's entirely possible that, when they showed their work in progress to their superior, something that they had told Panzer sounded fine didn't fly with them. I've had this happen extraordinarily late in the process, and while it's enraging -- I still sometimes wake up in the middle of the night mad about a case of this happening a few months ago -- it's not a sign of malice or even incompetence necessarily.

I don’t assume it’s the result of malice. Incompetence is closer to what I suspect is the cause, but that doesn’t really convey the right idea either. I think it would be more accurate to say it’s the result of perverse incentives influencing WotC’s priorities.

We don’t know WotC’s side of the story, and we probably never will. But I think it’s safe to assume that they made what they thought was the best decision. However, the outcome is the silencing of the perspective of a person of color they were marketing the product as elevating. Whatever priorities or incentives lead them to think that was the best decision are to blame.

The colonialist language is inexcusable and, honestly, it makes me wonder if WotC hasn't done the sensitivity training that I assumed had happened last summer, when there was the big to-do about the Vistani and orcs and the like. At the very least, that editor needs to have a long sit-down with their superiors.

Yeah, that was definitely a result of incompetence.

Marketing not telling Panzer that there had been cuts to his work suggest that they knew. Lots of times, marketing only knows slightly more than the general public. I would be surprised if they were knowingly complicit in pulling the wool over Panzer's eyes.

No, I don’t think they were knowingly complicit either. It still shouldn’t have happened. Structural changes should be made to insure this kind of thing doesn’t continue to happen.

Again, though, we're just hearing one side of all of this. You're right, it's very likely that an editor is at least partially to blame for this. But I would hesitate to put all the blame on editors, despite someone who loves to rant about them in my day job.

I’m not particularly interested in assigning blame. A bad thing happened. I don’t really care who’s fault it is, I care that WotC takes steps to prevent it from happening again.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Is it a better adventure post-editing?

 

[beast013]

Not sure what contractual obligations WotC had with the writer. Usually, the publisher has final say. With that said, I think WotC should have given a heads-up to the writer that content had been adjusted/dropped. A simple professional courtesy.

 

[Reynard]

Work for hire is not a soap box, it's a job. It isn't intended to give you a voice, it is intended to give the publisher a saleable product. Once you hand in the work the publisher owes you nothing but a check.

If I was in the business of hiring freelancers, ones that had a history of running to social media to complain about the process and impugn their former employers would not be on the short list.

 

[Reynard]

Not sure what contractual obligations WotC had with the writer. Usually, the publisher has final say. With that said, I think WotC should have given a heads-up to the writer that content had been adjusted/dropped. A simple professional courtesy.

No it's not. It never happens except for really famous contributors. Work. For. Hire.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is it a better adventure post-editing?

Impossible to say without knowing what it looked like pre-editing, but it certainly sounds worse from what I’ve read.