Who Makes WotC's Adventures?

There are now three large hardcover adventures for D&D 5th Edition. There's the two-part Tyranny of Dragons campaign produced by Kobold Press; there's Princes of the Apocalypse, from Sasquatch Game Studios; and there's the imminent Out of the Abyss, from Green Ronin publishing. All of these are official, hardcover adventures produced for WotC by third party companies. But how does that actually work? What is the relationship between the company producing the products and the company publishing them? WotC's Jeremy Crawford told me yesterday that the term "outsourcing" is innacurate when it comes to describing this arrangement.

​

If we go back a bit to when I asked Kobold Press' Wolfgang Baur about the process, he told me that "the 5E adventures are produced as a combination of studio work and WotC oversight." He went on to describe it in a little more detail, highlighting a to-and-fro between the companies -- "we'd do some portion of the work, then we would get feedback from WotC on Realmslore, or story beats, or mechanics. Then we did more of the design, and got feedback from swarms of playtesters. Then we turned over another version for feedback on the art and layout. And so forth. It was iterative..." So collaboration clearly takes place all the way through the process.

He describes Kobold Press role as "the heavy lifting in design, development, and editing" with WotC having "crucial input and set the direction for what they wanted".

Moving ahead to now, WotC Jeremy Crawford observes that "It's bizarre to see a few posters on ENWorld mistake our [D&D 5E] collaborations as outsourcing. Each book has been a team effort." The input from WotC isn't just greenlighting the book at various stages; as Jeremy tells us "Our reviews are deep. We create the story & the concept art. We write portions of the books. We design mechanics. Etc.!" As he also points out, the credits page of each book tells us who contributed to each.

So there we have it. These books aren't outsourced to third parties in any traditional sense of that word; the books are written as a collaborative effort with writing and more done by both companies.

 

[Pauper]

Making the first part of every new AP a bit railroady, and specifically designed for the AL ruleset, might start to rub people actually buying the books the wrong way, even though it wouldn't really be a great impediment to them - not as tough as it would be on AL organizers/DMs/players to adapt a more 'interesting' scenario to the limitations of Encounters.

That's a good point, and while WotC may be interested in keeping their hard-cover books accessible to new players, including limiting the sandbox for the openings to those books to facilitate new players starting the game, they probably don't want to go down the road of making every new book start out with 'here's the level 1-4 tutorial for this storyline season'.

With that said, the volunteer admins appear to be really stepping up -- they added a wealth of setting material for Mulmaster for the Princes of the Apocalypse season, and have already explained how a Madness mechanic from the DMG has been added to the AL Expeditions scenarios for the Out of the Abyss season. Given enough lead time, these guys could probably come up with a variation of the level 1-4 section of each new storyline book that would be more fitting for Encounters without having to expressly incorporate that into the actual book itself.

It'd be nice to see them get the chance.

Plus, AL in general and Encounters in particular, is the closest thing we have to new-player outreach, so it needs to show the game in its best light...

Agreed. Incorporating their own in-house AL staffers into the process and giving them authority to either make changes in the book or to provide the opportunity for the motivated volunteer admins to do the same would definitely promote that goal.

I've avoided the other argument -- the 'outsourcing' one -- because I don't really see it hold water. As some other posters have already pointed out:

Wolfgang Bauer - former WotC employee
Steve Winter - former WotC employee acquired from the original TSR purchase
Rich Baker - former WotC employee
Stephen Schubert - former WotC employee
David Noonan - former WotC employee

It's not necessarily clear yet who from Green Ronin worked on Out of the Abyss, but Owen K.C. Stephens and Chris Pramas are also both former WotC employees.

Chris Perkins tweeted a few days ago that WotC approaches freelancers they want to work with -- it seems that having worked with WotC previously goes a long way toward determining if you get approached.

(Edit: I don't mean to imply that this is a bad thing -- knowing how WotC works certainly makes
it easier for a freelancer to interact with their WotC contacts, I'd imagine -- and clearly the guys
still at WotC see a benefit to throwing some work toward their former colleagues, which certainly
helps keep the lines of communication open. I'd just agree that this isn't the sort of arrangement
most people think of when they think of a project being 'outsourced'.)

--
Pauper

 

[tomtill]

In support of our sage, Jeremy Crawford, there is nothing inherently misleading about his statements. One can certainly draw a distinction between "outsourcing" and "collaboration", although one can also minimize that difference, depending on the argument being made.

An english language dictionary is not a computer language dictionary. It _reports_ on the current (and historical) generally accepted usage of a word, but it does not _define_ the meaning of the word. The actual meaning of a word can vary greatly depending on the context, including the geographic location and subculture (business or otherwise) of the people involved.

At least in my business, there is no hard boundary between “outsourcing” and “collaboration”. In general, “outsourcing” connotes greater autonomy, while “collaboration” connotes more extensive coordination between the parties involved. Along the continuum between these types of relationships, what Jeremy describes certainly sounds closer to “collaboration” than to “outsourcing”.

That said, I believe Jeremy was attempting to reassure us that WotC is still intimately involved in growing 5e through adventures and added mechanics for the tabletop game, not merely paying lip service while they sell the “brand” to more lucrative markets. Chris Perkins has made similar avowals of his deep involvement with 5e stories and the tabletop game.

The actual details of who does what is better left to the credits for each product. To me it is enough that they remain deeply involved, and are not just paying other companies to create generic products in order to simply maintain a buzz to better position their brand. I think that was the point of his post. Unlike a studio, which makes many types of films, WotC is committed to growing their particular vision of 5e.

 

[SuperTD]

They had a hand in reviewing the book. That's not writing. That's not creating.

Jeremy Crawford says that they write parts of the books. Where is your counter information that they only review them coming from?

 

[Jester David]

Jeremy Crawford says that they write parts of the books. Where is your counter information that they only review them coming from?

We know they wrote some small parts. Rodney Thompson wrote the Tiamat statblock for instance. And the ice toads were also WotC monsters that didn't make the cut for the Monster Manual. Likely the drakes too.
That doesn't mean they wrote the adventure. That doesn't mean it was their creative work.

 

[TheDonger]

We know they wrote some small parts. Rodney Thompson wrote the Tiamat statblock for instance. And the ice toads were also WotC monsters that didn't make the cut for the Monster Manual. Likely the drakes too.
That doesn't mean they wrote the adventure. That doesn't mean it was their creative work.

You're working very hard to minimize WOTC's role in these publications. But whatever man, to each his own. This lengthy thread pretty much encapsulates the spectrum of opinions on the role of WOTC, so there's really nothing much else to say.

 

[Umbran]

You can attribute the overall success of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to the studio.
But the individual films are still the creation of their individual directors, and their success or failure lies with them. No one every really goes to a movie because it's from the same studio as another hit.

Except the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which at this point does get people going to them for being Marvel movies. And Marvel *is* getting both credit and criticism over many of the choices being made.

 

[Umbran]

[Edit to add this: . Because apparently it was unclear I was gently poking fun]

Poking fun at people who aren't allowed to respond isn't exactly kind, Mistwell.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

This thread is starting to look like an attractive nuisance. It seems to be bringing out the worst in people, which is limiting its usefulness.

We ask you to please play by The Rules, and be kind to each other. If you find the thread irritating, it is probably time to walk away.

 

[collin]

Folks,

This thread is starting to look like an attractive nuisance. It seems to be bringing out the worst in people, which is limiting its usefulness.

We ask you to please play by The Rules, and be kind to each other. If you find the thread irritating, it is probably time to walk away.

Thank you. Some calm sanity after battle of words about the definition of a word, as if it mattered more than a rat's bladder.

Given this whole over-reaction, I think Morrus is right in that if I were anyone at WotC right now, I would just say, "Well, that's the last time we say anything in public before a product comes out."

Anyway, I think you Morrus for posting the information. Like I said in a previous response, it helps me to better understand what WotC is doing, and how they are doing it, which explains more to me about the whole product release time-line.

Thanks,

Collin

 

[Uder]

Two things I learned today:

1. WotC adventures are not outsourced. They're just contracted to other sources. Outside the company.
2. (Omitted)


If you don't want someone commenting on doublespeak or "educating customers", don't put it on the front page in red letters. If you don't get this, you don't get the schism from the 3E/4E PR debacle.