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.

 

[Hussar]

So Sunshadow, you admit that "outsourcing" carries strong negative connotations and admit that WotC is doing nothing new that hasn't been done since day 1. But using that negative word to describe what WotC is doing somehow isn't just typical WotC bashing.

Good grief we had Paizo printing Dragon and Dungeon magazines for years yet not a whisper of "outsourcing " was uttered. It's only when people want to bitch about WotC's practices that we see this.

But it's not disingenuous? Really?

 

[Mistwell]

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 don't want to speak for Owen here as he's quite capable of speaking for himself. But my suspicion is Owen is being hired out as a business entity of some sort when he's being hired as what you call a freelancer. I suspect, though again I do not know this for fact, that when he files his taxes he's filing it as some sort of sole proprietorship, and he writes off expenses against that business entity, when available, on some level. I am not even sure there is the sort of semantic difference you're expecting here - they're likely both businesses being hired. It's just that one has more than one employee, and the other has just one employee. Unless Owen's spouse or other people also work with him on the books or something, in which case it's possible Owen's "freelancer company" also has multiple people working there. Regardless, my suspicion (which Owen can confirm or deny) is he's a business entity of some sort as well.

 

[Mistwell]

The second that writer becomes a formal company, something changes.

OK this I can speak to with a great deal of assurance, as I've written the various business formation documents for some comic book and other writers. They are almost all "formal companies" of some sort. You might just see their name on the credits instead of a company name, as they often use their name as their company name (which saves the cost of filing a Doing Business As filing), but they're companies of some sort. Sometimes sole proprietors, sometimes partnerships, sometimes LLCs or even S-corps and C-corps. You just were not aware of that fact, which was happening behind the scenes. But that didn't make it not a fact - they were and are formal companies.

 

[sunshadow21]

So Sunshadow, you admit that "outsourcing" carries strong negative connotations and admit that WotC is doing nothing new that hasn't been done since day 1. But using that negative word to describe what WotC is doing somehow isn't just typical WotC bashing.

Good grief we had Paizo printing Dragon and Dungeon magazines for years yet not a whisper of "outsourcing " was uttered. It's only when people want to bitch about WotC's practices that we see this.

But it's not disingenuous? Really?

That was also at a time when those practices weren't being used by other industries in ways that created negative connotations, so no one cared if they happened to notice. As more businesses use similar practices in ways that disturb the status quo of those industries, expect more pressure brought to bear on the industries that have used it from the start. Right now, there's really only one company in the rpg field that is large enough to have to deal with it, and that's WotC. Paizo may get there soon, but they are still mostly specifically known in this industry only. White Wolf at it's height, and a few others in the same boat, are no longer strong enough to be noticed. One challenge of being a leader and highly visible is that you will sometimes get attention you don't want, and that is something that WotC has never been good at handling and its fans have never been graceful of accepting. WotC itself is getting better, but the fan base on the forums are still very much in the defensive mentality caused by the 4E ruckus, and that isn't helpful. Just because someone says something bad about WotC doesn't mean that everyone has to pull out the tar and feathers and burn them at the stake. It's getting better, but it's still very hard to read a lot of the 5E threads for me because true civil discussion is still rather rare.

 

[Mistwell]

That was also at a time when those practices weren't being used by other industries in ways that created negative connotations,

Lolwut?

Outsourcing has been a big issue since well before that. Outsourcing as a primary business strategy in the U.S. started in 1989 and was all the rage in the 1990s. It was a huge issue during the passage of the NAFTA agreement, and earlier rounds of China negotiations. It was a big topic in the 2004 Presidential race debates - where it had been happening for over a decade at that point. By the time Paizo was doing it, it was very old hat already. Paizo was only founded in 2002 remember, and started work on Pathfinder in 2007.

In 2008 Paizo announced outsourcing. "Concept Art House is an international art studio/outsourcing company....a full production studio in Shanghai, China...You'll be seeing plenty of their work in the pages of Pathfinder products." Nobody said a negative word about it, as far as I can recall. I would say that aspect (and just that kind of overseas usage) of what Paizo did is legitimately called outsourcing.

Right now, there's really only one company in the rpg field that is large enough to have to deal with it, and that's WotC. Paizo may get there soon, but they are still mostly specifically known in this industry only.

So let me see if I follow the double standard here. Paizo is bigger than WOTC for D&D when it comes to bashing them for running "a skeleton crew" for D&D (which was never true but has been the repeated claim). But when discussing this topic, now they're "the big company" and held to a different higher standard than Paizo.. Even though Paizo has a lot more employees working on the topic we're discussing (D&D). And even though there is zero justification to be discussing the Magic the Gathering employees of WOTC for the purposes of this discussion. Did I cover the double standard?

...fans have never been graceful of accepting...the fan base on the forums are still very much in the defensive mentality caused by the 4E ruckus, and that isn't helpful. Just because someone says something bad about WotC doesn't mean that everyone has to pull out the tar and feathers and burn them at the stake.

Nobody is tarring and feathering people. We're disagreeing civilly. Things like "outsourcing wasn't a big negative thing in the year 2003 or so when Paizo started doing it", or "hold WOTC to a double standard of either bigger or smaller than Paizo depending on the topic" are plenty fair grounds for disagreement. If people feel disagreement is the same as dipping in burning tar and covering in feathers to punish for speaking, I think perhaps there should be some re-thinking on who is being overly defensive here.

 

[Umbran]

That was also at a time when those practices weren't being used by other industries in ways that created negative connotations

Paizo got license to publish Dragon in 2002, and published the magazine until 2007.

Outsourcing was a major point in the 2004 US Presidential election. On the campaign trail, John Kerry referred to outsourcing companies as "Benedict Arnold corporations". I mention this not as a point of political discussion, but merely to note the historical fact that it had negative connotations on the national stage at the time.

So, I think your point here is factually incorrect.

And, how is it you can criticize WotC for doing it, but *not* criticize Paizo for being the other end of the deal? Do you like Paizo? It exists as it is today *because* WotC outsourced production of Dragon! So, how bad can it be?

 

[sunshadow21]

2002 is a world away when it comes to outsourcing and the common understanding of it. It was still very much tied to overseas jobs. That is not nearly as true today. A lot of companies are finding ways to outsource work that is functionally identical to what the rpg industry has been doing all along and freely calling it outsourcing. It doesn't even have to be negative; I only have the job I currently have because the company contracted with a temp agency to find new hires that are hired on permanently after a probation period. So I have no problem with WotC's practices; it's only an explanation that attempts to ignore the new reality around the term outsourcing that bugs me. WotC hasn't changed, but a great deal of the rest of the business world has, and that can't just be ignored.

 

[Mistwell]

2002 is a world away when it comes to outsourcing and the common understanding of it.

It's not. You said, "those practices weren't being used by other industries in ways that created negative connotations." I cited numerous examples which refute your claim (And Umbran did as well). Simply repeating your claim without addressing the issues already raised in response isn't moving anything forward.

Outsourcing was being used by other industries in ways that created negative connotations prior to Paizo doing it - prior to them even existing as a company. Paizo then hired, in 2008, an outsourcing art company, located in China, which directly states it's outsourcing, and nobody said a negative word about it. Outsourcing had already long had a negative connotation attached to it at that time, particularly outsourcing to China. Why did they get a pass, but WOTC gets harped on for "outsourcing" in joint ventures with known groups of freelancers in the U.S. who, for the most part, used to work for them as employees? How is that not a double standard?

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not. You said, "those practices weren't being used by other industries in ways that created negative connotations." I cited numerous examples which refute your claim (And Umbran did as well). Simply repeating your claim without addressing the issues already raised in response isn't moving anything forward.

Outsourcing was being used by other industries in ways that created negative connotations prior to Paizo doing it - prior to them even existing as a company. Paizo then hired, in 2008, an outsourcing art company, located in China, which directly states it's outsourcing, and nobody said a negative word about it. Outsourcing had already long had a negative connotation attached to it at that time, particularly outsourcing to China. Why did they get a pass, but WOTC gets harped on for "outsourcing" in joint ventures with known groups of freelancers in the U.S. who, for the most part, used to work for them as employees? How is that not a double standard?

Just found this thread Mistwell your posts on the WotC site makes a bit more sense. Not all of us are from the USA and here if a company gets a product made by another company and you used the word out sourcing it would be understood what you meant. You could also call it sub contracting or whatever. Some words mean slightly different things here (hotdog, jelly, jam, donuts being examples). Outsourcing is not as negative here I suppose as made in China does have some negative connotations i regards to quality but so does made in the USA when applied to cars for example or 5E PHB falling apart as it turns out.

TSR used freelancers it has been around for decades but I suppose its the scale of it. Hiring an individual= freelancing, hiring a company= outsourcings/sub contracting or whatever you want to call it. The reason Paizo gets away with it I suspect is because they didn't spend several years purging their staff to a minimal amout with annual lay offs. Paizo may have more good will I suppose even from people who do not buy their products. The perception would be (IMHO of course) if 5E is doing that well why doesn't WoTC just hire some of its ex staff back? I know there are probably financial considerations but if they do not want to pay wages (and benefits I suppose) even that will leave a negative impression.

In other countries you do not have to worry about things like health benefits as you are already covered by ACC or the general tax intake via national healthcare. Its legal for US corporations to act that way, doesn't mean you have to like it. If 5E is doing that well hire more staff and produce it in house, if they can't or won't there is your problem. I don't think people care about freelancing but when you freelance/out source/subcontract (pick your term) everything after the initial products it seems it may not leave a good impression for whatever those reasons are.

 

[I'm A Banana]

WotC should write their next adventure like Uber: give contractors the ability to make their own adventures and sell them through WotC's platform, which prices their adventure dynamically depending on an algorithm of supply and demand for that particular product type.

It's the wave of the future, guys!