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.

 

[Zardnaar]

No; they just disagree with you. It happens.

That is perfectly fine lol. Some seem to like jumping off the deep end and putting words in one mouth that is all.

 

[Mistwell]

Don't make me call the Attorney General of London on you!

Zard, I didn't put any words in your mouth. I have asked you what the purpose was of some things you brought up - and in response you've posted what looks to me to be defensive and aggressive responses which don't seem to address the question. I don't have any issue with you criticizing 5e or WOTC - I have an issue with using a double standard, where WOTC is criticized for something that other RPG companies are not criticized for when they do it. I think I've been pretty consistent on that position.

This is your opportunity to explain what you meant...that's not putting words in your mouth, it's asking you what words are in your mouth. I am explaining what it looks like to me from my perspective - and you're not offering any reasons that are different from that perspective so far, beyond apparently getting angry at me for asking, and for telling you what it looks like to me.

I am also fine just letting this drop if it's not something you want to talk about.

 

[Zardnaar]

Don't make me call the Attorney General of London on you!

Zard, I didn't put any words in your mouth. I have asked you what the purpose was of some things you brought up - and in response you've posted what looks to me to be defensive and aggressive responses which don't seem to address the question. I don't have any issue with you criticizing 5e or WOTC - I have an issue with using a double standard, where WOTC is criticized for something that other RPG companies are not criticized for when they do it. I think I've been pretty consistent on that position.

This is your opportunity to explain what you meant...that's not putting words in your mouth, it's asking you what words are in your mouth. I am explaining what it looks like to me from my perspective - and you're not offering any reasons that are different from that perspective so far, beyond apparently getting angry at me for asking, and for telling you what it looks like to me.

I am also fine just letting this drop if it's not something you want to talk about.

I have not started any threads saying WotC or Paizo are outsourcing stuff so I am somewhat confused at accusations of a double standard. You have used examples of SWSE which I did not know it was produced by freelancers until a few days ago when you mentioned it on the WotC boards. I own those books and they do not contain any indication they were produced by anyone other than WotC. They do mention the authors involved but there was no indication IIRC that they were freelancers and its not like one tends to read the credits page or pay that much attention to them anyway. Or at least I don't.

If others are making a big deal about it that is on them. I have never defended Paizo in regards to outsourcing or even cared and I only have a vague idea what and how Paizo has produced after Ultimate Campaigns. As to why people might be having a go at WotC (for whatever reason) ask them. Paizo has never really hid the fact they outsource, it seems the current storm in a teacup is splitting hairs.

If I had to guess (purely IMHO)
1. Paizo has more goodwill in the bank than WotC.
2. People are taking their frustrations of the release schedule (not enough of it, quality of quantity hasn't really happened etc) out on WotC.
3. Any criticism of 5E is met by a reaction similar to criticism of 4E. By that denial, accusations of edition warring, claims one doesn't understand the system, demands to prove an opinion etc etc etc. One good things about the 3E days was you could criticize it without provoking arguments over semantics.

Its not like I pay that much attention to the current crop of Paizo or WotC artists. I know I like Komarck and dislike WAR (to cartoony). If you said Company A outsourced production/design to company B in New Zealand people would know what you would be talking about (assuming both companies are New Zealand based companies). Often they may even start a new company with a different name in order to make cheaper versions (store brands or budget services)of something not sure what you would call that.

If Americans get upset by the Queens English that is on them. They should not have revolted against King George.

 

[Uchawi]

I could care less on how or who creates adventures as long as they are good. WOTC should have the same attitude. When they try to explain things, it gives the impression of some sort of damage control, or an effort to smooth out relationships. If that is the case, it should all be done behind the scenes with adventure creators.

I am surprised they have not implemented anything, to my knowledge, that involves community input when creating adventures, using contests or a similar mechanism. If WOTC is limited with staff, budget, and how often adventures are created (internally or outsourced) then tap the community.

 

[sunshadow21]

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?

Get over Paizo vs WotC; seriously, it's getting tiresome. For one, contracting out a magazine that is clearly an accessory product, but one that requires a full time staff of its own is not likely to get nearly as sharp a reaction as contracting out entire books when total output for the brand is only three or four products a year total. Second, you are right that the term had negative connotations long before that, but the difference was at the time that WotC had Paizo under contract outsourcing, like freelancing, had a very specific meaning, and the two were very clearly different. Now, it doesn't, and it's not just WotC or this industry being effected. Lots of industries that have traditionally relied on similar structures with little difficulty are coming under fire. Others are attempting to create new types of businesses that deliberately blur the boundaries. Even in traditional companies, a lot of actions are being taken by the employers and a lot of concerns are being raised by employees that push that boundary. The core conversation is pretty much the same in every case, and it's not the same core conversation being held ten years ago.

The restaurant business, which has long relied on franchise agreements from large chains, is having to have a conversation not too dissimilar to this one for a variety of reasons. I worked at Domino's almost a decade ago for a short time, and I worked at a Domino's in the last year or so, and the experiences and conversations where completely different, despite the fact that I was shift manager for portions of both periods, so the job duties were essentially the same. A decade ago, there was occasional friction between the franchisee and corporate headquarters, but it was all internal, and any impact it had on day to day conversation was the occasional concern about what was or was not on the menu in our specific store. No links to or concerns about how other industries worked or anything like what I experienced in my latest stint. That time, friction between the franchisee and corporate headquarters was massively apparent as corporate was trying very hard to create a unified image, but expected the franchisee to foot most, if not all, of the bill. For that and other things, this type of conversation was at minimum a weekly topic, and not infrequently more common than that. In other restaurant chains, some of the frustrations at the employee level have been taken to court, and the precise nature of the franchise agreement, and who is responsible for what, has been publicly challenged. As a result of these forces and other ones present both within the industry and without, it's likely that franchise agreements will change in ways that ten years ago would have been seen as absurd.

In the meantime, delivery drivers using their own vehicles face new insurance restrictions because companies like Uber are forcing the insurance companies to change policies regarding using personal vehicles for business use. Airbnb is forcing how home insurance policies are being written as the definition of "guest" and "hotel" blur.

Even in traditional companies, there's a lot of pressure from both sides that has changed how business occurs. Ten years ago, I would never have even considered a temp to permanent while working with a temp agency; now, I've personally experienced it twice, and the company I am trying to get hired on permanently at just, for lack of any better word, outsourced their time clock, vacation tracking, and similar HR functions to an outside company. From the bottom, a lot of employees are starting to get concerned about wanting to own and control their own ideas rather than just feeding them into the corporate machine. Both directions are applying force that really challenges the old assumptions.

In the end, outsourcing may not be the precise word used in any of these example, but it is becoming the most familiar word that describes the general trends highlighted by the above examples, and is forcing a lot of companies, even those of relatively unchanged industries, that have long held particular ways of doing things. In all cases, the question of who precisely is making the product, who actually owns it, and what is proper compensation are really the core questions. WotC should be thankful that their only concern right now is fixing terminology, and is not likely to have to do much more in the near future; a lot of the above examples tend to involve lawyers and/or sharp changes in actual practices that have some significant ripple effects, especially on the compensation question, which this industry has been blessed to not have to worry about. Expect those questions to only become more and more prominent in the years ahead, not less.

 

[sunshadow21]

As for Paizo doing much the same thing, the issue is one of scale. It's unlikely that anyone outside this particular industry even knows much about Paizo beyond very basic facts. WotC and Hasbro are a very different story, being the only company in the rpg industry that anyone else is going to even pretend to care about. WotC is also the only one that thus far has had extensive contacts in other industries. If all of the projects that Paizo is working on truly take off, than I would expect Paizo would have to deal with reaction outside the industry as well, and sooner rather than later. And it wouldn't hurt Paizo or the rest of the industry to think about the implications of this conversation now rather than later. But for now, WotC, as the flagship company, pretty much gets the entire spotlight to themselves. Paizo is less likely to have difficulties when it does hit this stage simply because it can preplan for them, but WotC seems to have gotten much better about this since the 4E days; once fans can relax a bit and get back down to a less overtly hostile stance, the company will be fine, and threads like this will simply be expected and handled in the normal course of business.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I see it as a "contracted collaboration and outsourcing or a CCO for short" - WotC provides the request outline, basically what they want and do not want, a timeline and approval points. Theses are provided to contracted employees or a company, which writes the material and provides it to WotC for approval. WotC then will contract the printing and publishing to someone else.

Each part can be bided on and all the material (rejected or accepted) ends up being owned by WotC. WotC assigns a project manager and they just setup the time table, task, due dates and milestones.

Started to see this at work, a product idea provided, a roadmap of the idea is created, a project manager is assigned, the work is contracted and the project manager manages the material providing it to management for approval. You will then have the build, which may be done in house or by another party.

 

[Hussar]

Funny how personal experience colors things.

Even in traditional companies, there's a lot of pressure from both sides that has changed how business occurs. Ten years ago, I would never have even considered a temp to permanent while working with a temp agency; now, I've personally experienced it twice, and the company I am trying to get hired on permanently at just, for lack of any better word, outsourced their time clock, vacation tracking, and similar HR functions to an outside company. From the bottom, a lot of employees are starting to get concerned about wanting to own and control their own ideas rather than just feeding them into the corporate machine. Both directions are applying force that really challenges the old assumptions.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?465812-Who-Makes-WotC-s-Adventures/page24#ixzz3kLJI87MK

Whereas the last time I worked temp was in the very early 90's and the entire point of working temp jobs was to get full time employment. London Life, a life insurance company in Canada hired temps full time constantly. Again, nothing new going on here AFAIC.

The issue with Paizo and WOTC is that it really does look like a double standard. "Outsourcing" is only used to criticise WOTC. It's never used in a neutral way. It's always negative and that's very deliberate. It's no different than any other hot key buzzword that people use to criticise WOTC. Sure, if you squint hard enough, it's "true" for a given value of truth. So, as far as it goes, it's a valid use of the word. But, it's never just that is it? It's never, really, about how the books are being written. It's all about being able to take broadside shots at WOTC without actually having any real substance to the criticism.

 

[sunshadow21]

The issue with Paizo and WOTC is that it really does look like a double standard. "Outsourcing" is only used to criticise WOTC. It's never used in a neutral way. It's always negative and that's very deliberate. It's no different than any other hot key buzzword that people use to criticise WOTC. Sure, if you squint hard enough, it's "true" for a given value of truth. So, as far as it goes, it's a valid use of the word. But, it's never just that is it? It's never, really, about how the books are being written. It's all about being able to take broadside shots at WOTC without actually having any real substance to the criticism.

If that's all you see in this conversation, than I'm very disappointed. It's also why I am not any more excited about 5E than I am. I don't have an issue with WotC as a whole at this point; they have more or less learned from their mistakes and moved on from most of them. The fan base is still bound and determined to see any critique of the company, regardless of what that critique is, as a negative assault, and that gets very old. I have reached a point where I don't actively follow or support Paizo much either, but at least I know that a thread like this can lead to a fruitful conversation for the majority of the the participants with only a single change of replacing WotC with Paizo. It saddens me that even after all the success that WotC and 5E have enjoyed, I still cannot have any kind of sustained conversation that involved WotC in any significant form because it's fan base is unwilling to let go the battles of the past, and recognize that to some extent, there will always be criticism, and it cannot all be taken so personally.

 

[Hussar]

Ok, let me try this from another direction.

What positive contribution to a conversation does (mis)using a negatively loaded word make? How can we use the term "outsourcing" which has been debunked both by WOTC itself and by other industry members to make a positive conversation?

Criticism is perfectly fine. Someone doesn't like Hoard of the Dragon Queen? Perfectly fine. Think it's too linear and too railroad? Ok, fair enough, let's talk. Think that the reason you don't like the module is because WOTC outsourced it? Yeah, conversation comes to a screeching halt because it's just so factually inaccurate. Try to argue that D&D 5e's quality is suffering because of outsourcing? Yeah, again, not really a conversation because the basic premise is so flawed. 5e is no more outsourced than any other edition of D&D. The only difference now is that they tend to make a big deal that they are hiring this or that company whereas before, the use of freelancers and companies was just glossed over.

Put it another way. Was there a problem with Dungeon or Dragon when Paizo took it? Is Green Ronin or Kobold Studios known for putting out shoddy products? Then why would there be any issue with them writing an adventure?

Why is it perfectly acceptable to for Wolfgang Baur to write umpteen books and modules for 3e, but, somehow, Kobold Studios is a bad thing? It's the same guy.