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.

 

[GobiWon]

As I've stated earlier, it doesn't bother me that these items are outsourced. I feel that WotC has done a relatively good job of managing it's IP so far. I am a fan of the slower release schedule and am glad that WotC closely coordinates with the people and companies that they have contracted with to produce products. I understand that there are some who are using the term outsourcing to bash the D&D team and the natural knee-jerk reaction is to deny that outsourcing is happening. I don't care. I want quality products from people passionate about the game and smart enough to not break the rule-set with a bloat of splat books. So far, so good.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

... but if hiring another corporate entity to do these things is not outsourcing, what is? What in your mind constitutes outsourcing if not this.

That's a fair question. In the rpg world, where having outsiders do every part of the actual production is normal, it may not meaningfully mean anything. However, there is, to me, a HUGE difference between working on a freelance basis with all the milestones and feedback and final changes freelancers always have, and a process that calls for "approvals." If you outsource, you approve the final version, or approve each step, with or without feedback. IN outsourcing, you don't sit down with people and decide the direction of every outline and directive together, and discuss every detail that may need to be adjusted, and even after deciding everything you get is fine, make all the final changes yourself. To outsource a product, there management end needs to be handled outside the company, as well as the actual creative creation - otherwise it's exactly like normal freelance work.

To me, this is business as usual: "Hi, we're WotC. We need a game book. We have decided on the name, theme, outline, what it'll tie into, page count, format, and schedule including deadline and regular milestones. Just like we always do. Those milestones will let us regularly check in on your progress, and tell you when you need to make changes. We want you to write it to our outline, do an art order to our specifications, do layout to our specifications, use only people we have approved, and give your final version to us to make final changes, final development, final editing, final layout, then arrange a print run and put it through our distribution channels, just like always. In this case, though, we'd like you all to do all this work as a group, which we'll pay as a group."

This would be the minimum for outsourcing: "Hi, we're WotC. We ned a game book that'll fill the following check-boxes. What do you suggest?"
or
"Hi, we're WotC. We want a product that'll fill the following check-boxes. We know exactly what we want. Sent it to us, and we'll let you know if that's okay."

As I understand the discussions that have been had, neither of those things happen with the current D&D rpg product production plan.

Let me ask: Do you see having every word of a book written by someone out-of-house, and every price of art drawn by someone out-of-house, and everything edited out-of-house, each by a single different freelancer, as outsourcing? If not, why not? If so, why use the term now, and not for the scores of previous rpg books that qualify under that definition?

 

[sunshadow21]

In general, outsourcing implies sending jobs overseas.

Technically, you're correct. Domestic contracting jobs are outsourcing. The negative light the word inspires is due to companies sending jobs overseas to save money.

It doesn't even have to be overseas anymore. A lot of companies are relying on outside call centers and temp agencies based in the same city as them now.

Honestly though, despite the above, people claiming that the freelance setup in this industry isn't outsourcing are basically shooting themselves in the foot. It very much is outsourcing; the company ultimately putting their logo on the product is not the company actually making the product. I get that people don't like the negative connotations of the word, but it is technically correct, and trying to claim that it isn't is a losing argument. What a few people are stressing, but not most, is the fact that while free lancing is outsourcing, it's a very specific type of outsourcing that in many industries is not only accepted, but expected. In other words, all freelancing is outsourcing, but not all outsourcing is freelancing, which has it's own fairly specific definition that goes beyond the technical definition of outsourcing. I am perfectly happy buying the argument that freelancing, being the more specific term, as well as being the one generally accepted by this particular industry, is the more appropriate one, but the argument that the term outsourcing doesn't apply at all is flat out wrong.

 

[Halivar]

Technically correct implies, to me, incorrectness. WotC cannot be assailed for long-accepted practices just because they now fall under an odious new term's "technically correct" definition. WotC is not sourcing adventures to an Indian call center, nor is what they ARE doing in any way analogous, except by absurd reduction.

 

[sunshadow21]

Technically correct implies, to me, incorrectness. WotC cannot be assailed for long-accepted practices just because they now fall under an odious new term's "technically correct" definition. WotC is not sourcing adventures to an Indian call center, nor is what they ARE doing in any way analogous, except by absurd reduction.

But it is still outsourcing, and that is the part that many people not overly familiar with how the industry works will see. You may call it absurd reduction, but to someone who barely even knows that the industry exists, it's often applying what is happening in their own industry to the word because they don't know what else to apply, and trying to completely ignore the term just because it has a negative meaning in other industries doesn't make the term go away. I could care less about assailing WotC or the RPG industry for their practices, but I do care when people start to try to blatantly ignore terms that are applicable to that industry and will be seen by the general public as applying to that industry.

Fortunately, WotC, and the industry as a whole, has a way of easily dealing with it that doesn't require flat out denial of the term. Correcting people that while outsourcing is not wrong, a more specific and accurate term exists to explain this particular style of outsourcing is a far more effective response that addresses the actual beef people have with the word while not denying the technical definition. Point out that freelancing is not only an accepted term, but the normal mode of operation for this particular industry, something that the general populace probably does not fully understand, and you have a strong explanation that will satisfy most people. And if you don't have time to correct people politely, sometimes it's best to accept that while it's not the term you would select, it's probably the term that most of the population will actually understand and use.

The only real difficulty comes with people who deliberately use the term to antagonize WotC supporters, and frankly, that should be obvious enough at this point to be very easy to spot and ignore. The vast majority of people who would use it this way are fairly consistent in their attacks on the company and should be as well known as the crazy people who would defend WotC even when presented pages of evidence of some mistake or bad decision the company was genuinely guilty of. I will freely admit that a large part of my reluctance of caring about 5E is the often overwhelming number of supporters who think that any even possibly negative comment about the company must mean that the company, the game, and the world are under assault and need to be defended at all costs. This thread is actually a prime example. A few very reasonable voices have acknowledged the technical correctness, but than proceeded to refocus the response to explain why there are better descriptions. Most, however, seem bound and determined to yell out anybody who dare to suggest that the term may not be entirely inaccurate. I understand why so many have that sharp of an automatic response, and tend to dislike those who forced that hyperdefensive position, but that doesn't make the conversations any more pleasant, and it doesn't encourage me, as someone still very much sitting on the fence, to really learn more about the system because there is so much negative noise being generated around it by both sides.

 

[Alzrius]

Technically correct implies, to me, incorrectness.

Well clearly that's not true:

[video=youtube;hou0lU8WMgo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hou0lU8WMgo[/video]

 

[Hussar]

/snip

The only real difficulty comes with people who deliberately use the term to antagonize WotC supporters, and frankly, that should be obvious enough at this point to be very easy to spot and ignore. The vast majority of people who would use it this way are fairly consistent in their attacks on the company and should be as well known as the crazy people who would defend WotC even when presented pages of evidence of some mistake or bad decision the company was genuinely guilty of. I will freely admit that a large part of my reluctance of caring about 5E is the often overwhelming number of supporters who think that any even possibly negative comment about the company must mean that the company, the game, and the world are under assault and need to be defended at all costs. This thread is actually a prime example. A few very reasonable voices have acknowledged the technical correctness, but than proceeded to refocus the response to explain why there are better descriptions. Most, however, seem bound and determined to yell out anybody who dare to suggest that the term may not be entirely inaccurate. I understand why so many have that sharp of an automatic response, and tend to dislike those who forced that hyperdefensive position, but that doesn't make the conversations any more pleasant, and it doesn't encourage me, as someone still very much sitting on the fence, to really learn more about the system because there is so much negative noise being generated around it by both sides.

Actually, I'm going to disagree with this. Since the WOTC tweets and the subsequent discussion, I haven't seen a single example of anyone talking about how 5e products are outsourced anymore. Not one. So I'd say mission accomplished. It's been a month since this thread started up and there were a couple of others. The message got out and anyone who does start deliberately using the term to antagonise just gets pointed at this thread and the conversation stops.

Is there negativity on both sides? Maybe. But, one side is deliberately using a loaded term in order to criticise without substance. The other side is pointing out (sometimes very strongly) that that's a load of ballocks and disingenuous. And they're right. Right from the horses mouth that what WOTC is doing now is exactly the same as RPG companies have been doing for years. At that point it becomes rather obvious that the only reason to bring out the "outsourcing" comment is just edition bashing without substance.

 

[Jester David]

Let me ask: Do you see having every word of a book written by someone out-of-house, and every price of art drawn by someone out-of-house, and everything edited out-of-house, each by a single different freelancer, as outsourcing? If not, why not? If so, why use the term now, and not for the scores of previous rpg books that qualify under that definition?

Hrm...

How much WotC does might vary. I can see them spending less time on Tyranny of Dragons than the Rage of Demons adventures.
And they offer feedback and constant advice on their other products (board games, minis, and video games). Heck, WotC staff did the bulk of the design and rule creation on the Temple of Elemental Evil board game, having planned and written it for a shelved game.

It's very much in the fuzzy middle of being outsourced and standard freelancing (especially as any freelancing is effectively freelance outsourcing).
I can think of two ways it might cross "the line" from standard freelancing into... something else. First is if the company hired to do the work hires someone else without the supervision/approval of WotC. When the people hired have the authority to delegate the work to another party that means WotC is a step removed. The second reason would be if WotC is hiring out the work because they cannot do it themselves. Which is certainly the case for the current miniature products.

Alternatively, hiring a company rather than an individual could be argued as making it " outsourcing". If Paizo hires Owen Stephens to write an adventure it's freelancing. If they hire Rogue Genius Games it's outsourcing. The quality likely doesn't change, and it's just semantics.

I only really see this being an issue in terms of credit (who to praise/blame) and whether it is "official". Some people are really funky in terms of only using " official" content, as if the name of the publish carries special powers that influences quality. Rise of Tiamat is just automatically better than Fifth Edition Foes despite the same designer really being the lead in both products.

 

[sunshadow21]

The other side is pointing out (sometimes very strongly) that that's a load of ballocks and disingenuous. And they're right.

Except that to someone not familiar with the industry and seeing a news report about how WotC has contracted out work to such and such a company, it's not just a load of ballocks and disingenuous, it is a very real and genuine concern, and that is where the difficulty lies. An awful lot of forum posters seem to automatically assume that any question by anybody along these lines must obviously be edition bashing and feel compelled to aggressively attack the questioner without even a second thought. And the same holds true for anything about WotC. A lot of forum posters assume that anything negative said about WotC must obviously be edition bashing because they can't possibly have screwed up or, gasp, earned the negativity through their own actions. And that is the part that bothers me personally.

In this case, they aren't entirely right. Outsourcing is a term that can apply to what this entire industry does; the fact that there is a better, more specific term does not remove this very basic fact. The fact is that whether people like to admit or not, the fact that WotC is now applying the tried and true strategies to entire, easily recognizable companies is an important change; it may not seem like one to someone already familiar with and comfortable with the process, but it takes it of the realm of "merely hiring a few artists and writers as needed," which is something that is different enough from the average person that most don't even try to make direct comparisons, to something that a lot of people in other industries are becoming more and more familiar with, and not in a good way. The explanation of why it's not negative in this particular industry may seem trite and unnecessary to you, but as the rest of the corporate world starts to emulate many of the practices common in this industry, it will become more necessary to have enough patience give that explanation without actively insulting the party.

You are right that it went away reasonably quickly this time, but this won't be the last time it comes up, and dealing with many of the future instances is going to require a lot more patience and understanding than what many of the posters here have exhibited with this instance.

 

[sunshadow21]

Alternatively, hiring a company rather than an individual could be argued as making it " outsourcing". If Paizo hires Owen Stephens to write an adventure it's freelancing. If they hire Rogue Genius Games it's outsourcing. The quality likely doesn't change, and it's just semantics.

But that semantics is important. Freelancing is something most people can handle; it's understood an rpg or a comic book is going to have rotating writers and artists. More importantly, it's an arrangement that has little to no impact on the vast majority of people, who have very different types of jobs and employment. The second that writer becomes a formal company, something changes. It becomes just familiar enough of a process that people can draw conclusions that, even if they miss a great number of details, are technically correct. It also becomes just familiar enough to potentially evoke emotions that WotC hiring 5 writers individually would not. So while it is "just" semantics, this is one case where those semantics can be just important enough to just enough people that it cannot simply be dismissed as edition bashing.