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.

 

[Celtavian]

It doesn't matter. Not really.
I don't really care who I buy adventures from. I buy and run 3rd Party adventures. It's mostly an issue for people who equate anything not done in house as inherently inferior.

It does mean that WotC isn't really writing adventures, but letting another company do the work. But that's no biggie, as they don't really have the staff to handle four or five books each year anymore. And their staff isn't really made up on adventure writers, so the quality will be better than if not outsourced.

I just like to give credit where credit is due. The WotC team did an effing amazing job with the core rulebooks and should feel super proud. But I'm not going to praise them for books they only had a partial role in creating. You don't praise the editor of a novel or the producer of a movie. Whenever a film tries to advertise itself as "from the Studio that brought you..." it's almost a joke. This isn't that different.

I'm sure there's a Dilbert strip somewhere about managers taking responsibility for hired worker's efforts...

I disagree with this vehemently.

If you're putting your money up for something to be completed hiring competent people, you are taking the largest financial risk. Finance is where you put your money where your mouth is and take a tangible risk that can you lose a lot of money. Producers, those putting the money up, should get substantial credit when a product succeeds, just as they take a big financial hit when it fails. It's a lot of damn work to produce something and financially risky.

If WotC paid adventure designers, paid for publishing, paid for marketing, and all the other associated costs of producing an RPG product, they most certainly share the credit. A freelancer once paid gets to walk away from the financial risk of a product. His part is done. WotC gets to sell that product to the consumer taking on the full financial risks associated. If it fails, the freelancer suffers only a loss of single credit on his resume. If the product fails for WotC, they lose a bunch of money and people possibly get fired at the company.

Just because creative people get up and make fun of the corporate people doesn't mean that producing isn't incredibly important and deserving of accolades when done well. It can be incredibly difficult to come up with financing for a book. Once you invest money into a project, it's failure hurts even more just like its success feels great. It's extremely stressful to finance projects. You're putting real money into a project that if it fails you have no means of recovering. I don't see why being the producer somehow lessens the credit you are due when a product does well.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

So, let me see if I understand this right [MENTION=9213]ShinHakkaider[/MENTION].

I hire five freelancers to do a project, and that's not outsourcing.

I hire a company with five employees to do a product and that is outsourcing.

Is that what you're arguing?

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]

I'm not arguing ANYTHING Hussar.

Me arguing something implies whether or not I feel I havent gotten my inital point across or am trying to change someone's mind. I pretty much feel that I've gotten my point across in my one post to [MENTION=20004]Zil[/MENTION] and pretty much dont care if I change anyone's mind. I was agreeing with Zil and then clarifying my own thoughts on this discussion. That's it.

 

[Eric V]

To be fair, [MENTION=20004]Zil[/MENTION] isn't saying those products aren't 'D&D'. Yes, a Marvel movie is still a Marvel movie and an outsourced D&D product is still D&D.

I may be a college prof, but not of economics, so maybe there's some very specific definition of the word 'outsourcing' that doesn't jive exactly with what WotC is doing here, but because it involves another company, as opposed to a specific individual, it certainly seems like outsourcing. Like I said, maybe it is or isn't under some technical basis; I wouldn't know.

I'm not sure why it should matter if it's outsourced or freelanced, as long as the result is good.

Yet, there remain a few issues here. One, it seems the word 'outsourcing' carries negative connotations for some people that I am really not sure are inherent in the word (though, again, I am no professor of economics, nor linguistics). The other is people who do seem to know objected to being (I guess what they felt was) dictated to about whether things were or weren't outsourced. I suppose they found that somewhat condescending, perhaps. While I don't necessarily feel that way myself, I guess I could see how that would sound like doublespeak to someone with better knowledge on the topic than myself.

Finally, with complete respect for the moderators and Morrus in particular, I'm not sure the message given (that WotC will stop posting if the content of what they post gets challenged critically) was the best response. It at least insinuates that only a particular spectrum of reactions to WotC posts are ok if we ever want to find out new information. That's a far cry from thought police, but I wonder how someone who really did believe what was said was corporate doublespeak was supposed to respond?

 

[Shasarak]

Aaaaaand that, again, is why WOTC doesn't spend much time engaging with the fans. "There's no point in conversing about [D&D work] if the thought police are going to accuse you of [double-speak, corporate shilling, not communicating enough]."

WOTC has no reason to participate in public fora with fans when they get feedback like this.

There should be some kind of meme that goes:

I dont always engage with my fans

but when I do I make sure it is 140 characters or less.

 

[Jester David]

And what exactly do you have a problem with? Or are you just trying to call Crawford out on something for no particularly good reason other than to do it?

It always works that way. I have no idea why you're suddenly making a stink about it. What exactly is your point? What is your beef? Or do you just feel like arguing?

Why is any of us making a stink about this? It takes two to argue, and the other side seems just as vested in giving WotC full credit for the adventures.
I just don't believe WotC should get full credit. Or principal credit. That the answer to the question "who made the adventures?" is not "WotC made them."

Why is that any different with WotC? Hiring successful RPG freelancers is what they do. Making a good business decision of who to hire to produce an adventure somehow takes away from the success of WotC or their part in the process? At the end of the day it is the WotC name and the WotC product attached to the final product. If the freelancer does a good job, he gets future worker. If he doesn't, he doesn't.

But it's not JUST WotC's name on the product. There's a whole other design studio. There are a number of people who didn't work for WotC, who worked for Sasquatch Game or Kobold Press or Green Ronin, who were hired by an entirely different company. And it's unfair to give WotC full credit for someone else's work.

The questions are:
Is Sword Coast Legends a WotC product?
Would you judge WotC's involvement with that product the same as with this product?
How is the authorship and creative responsibility of this product different?
Ehy are the adventures different? Just because they're RPG book? Should the format make a difference in who gets primary credit.

 

[GobiWon]

So, let me see if I understand this right @ShinHakkaider.

I hire five freelancers to do a project, and that's not outsourcing.

I hire a company with five employees to do a product and that is outsourcing.

Is that what you're arguing?

I would argue that this is a fair dividing line between freelancing and outsourcing. If WotC has to coordinate five individuals to create one product, it's freelancing and WotC can take credit for the content, but if another company whose business is to create RPG content is brought on board then it seems like outsourcing. I'm sure WotC had input as any IP holder has input, but they are relying on another company to create and coordinate employees to create new content. With that said many of these companies are exactly the people we want creating content. Most are former WotC employees. Some are the people who originally envisioned these worlds. I think it is fine that WotC reach out and use these companies and individuals. It is unfortunate that Crawford feels like he must defend WotC's process by claiming it's not outsourcing. He knew many would attack him if he admitted it was outsourcing and declare WotC a hollow shell devoid of ability ... and that is unfair.

 

[Patrick McGill]

Why is any of us making a stink about this? It takes two to argue, and the other side seems just as vested in giving WotC full credit for the adventures.
I just don't believe WotC should get full credit. Or principal credit. That the answer to the question "who made the adventures?" is not "WotC made them."


But it's not JUST WotC's name on the product. There's a whole other design studio. There are a number of people who didn't work for WotC, who worked for Sasquatch Game or Kobold Press or Green Ronin, who were hired by an entirely different company. And it's unfair to give WotC full credit for someone else's work.

The questions are:
Is Sword Coast Legends a WotC product?
Would you judge WotC's involvement with that product the same as with this product?
How is the authorship and creative responsibility of this product different?
Ehy are the adventures different? Just because they're RPG book? Should the format make a difference in who gets primary credit.

I don't think anyone is arguing that WotC deserves full credit or are somehow downplaying the involvement of the other studios.

I think people are trying to say that the relationship between WotC and the other studios isn't so cut and dry as third party outsourcing. There's a lot that goes on in house that dictates the development done by the third party, and there's a lot of communication back and forth so that it's definitely more of a collaboration. It's a closer relationship than what "outsourcing" usually means.

If any one is saying that WotC deserves full credit and the third party should be ignored then, well, they're just wrong. I don't see anyone saying that however.

 

[Jester David]

I disagree with this vehemently.

If you're putting your money up for something to be completed hiring competent people, you are taking the largest financial risk. Finance is where you put your money where your mouth is and take a tangible risk that can you lose a lot of money. Producers, those putting the money up, should get substantial credit when a product succeeds, just as they take a big financial hit when it fails. It's a lot of damn work to produce something and financially risky.

If WotC paid adventure designers, paid for publishing, paid for marketing, and all the other associated costs of producing an RPG product, they most certainly share the credit. A freelancer once paid gets to walk away from the financial risk of a product. His part is done. WotC gets to sell that product to the consumer taking on the full financial risks associated. If it fails, the freelancer suffers only a loss of single credit on his resume. If the product fails for WotC, they lose a bunch of money and people possibly get fired at the company.

Just because creative people get up and make fun of the corporate people doesn't mean that producing isn't incredibly important and deserving of accolades when done well. It can be incredibly difficult to come up with financing for a book. Once you invest money into a project, it's failure hurts even more just like its success feels great. It's extremely stressful to finance projects. You're putting real money into a project that if it fails you have no means of recovering. I don't see why being the producer somehow lessens the credit you are due when a product does well.

So then how come there's not an Oscar for "best producer" or "best studio"?
How many book editors or movie producers can you name off the top of your head (that aren't also creatives in their own right)?

 

[Jester David]

I don't think anyone is arguing that WotC deserves full credit or are somehow downplaying the involvement of the other studios.

I think people are trying to say that the relationship between WotC and the other studios isn't so cut and dry as third party outsourcing. There's a lot that goes on in house that dictates the development done by the third party, and there's a lot of communication back and forth so that it's definitely more of a collaboration. It's a closer relationship than what "outsourcing" usually means.

If any one is saying that WotC deserves full credit and the third party should be ignored then, well, they're just wrong. I don't see anyone saying that however.

There does seem to be a few people who insist that because WotC wrote some of the content and have so many people credited, it's as much a WotC book as the core rulebooks.
And WotC doesn't always drawing attention to the... um... use of hired labour (to avoid the terms "freelancing" or "outsourcing"). There's no mention on the product pages and Green Ronin wasn't even mentioned in the Rage of Demons press release.

It's certainly in the middle between outright licencing the brand to another studio and hiring them for freelance work.
The fact it's continually referred to as a "licence" rather than a "contract" does suggest its closer to the former than the latter though. WotC isn't so much hiring them as loaning them the game with restrictions.

 

[Staffan]

So then how come there's not an Oscar for "best producer" or "best studio"?

Actually, the Academy Award for Best Picture is awarded to the producer/producers of the movie.