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.

 

[sunshadow21]

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.

Because to some people it matters now where it didn't before. I personally don't understand why that would bother people now when nothing on WotC's side has changed, but it does. Some of it probably is a few people making a last gasp attack on WotC, but even then, so what? If that's the best they can come up with, let them rant and rave about things that don't matter; it means that WotC has fixed most of the big issues that plagued them throughout 4E's run. For the rest of the people, it's important to bear in mind that a lot of things that were never really questioned before are facing scrutiny that was never there before. It's happening pretty much throughout society and in every industry out there right now. It may not be entirely fair for WotC to be targeted in this particular case, but it's not all that surprising given how much of a presence they have even with a very reduced output. It's the same scenario I tell players that absolutely must have high stats; the more you stand out, the more attention you get, both positive and negative, and the ultimate outcome of that attention is entirely up to you. Focusing on strict facts when a lot of the increased scrutiny is based at least partially on emotions does not answer the initial concerns.

Paizo has always done a reasonably good job of managing brush fires like this, and that has carried over it's fan base for the most part, in part because Paizo has very actively defended not only itself, but to a certain extent; Paizo has always actively discouraged the "us vs them" response that still plagues WotC and its supporters. WotC is getting better, and that is slowly starting to seep into the fanbase. Until then, I am forced to take what to some can seem like an antagonistic view not because I disagree with the defense being given, but because I can see how the tone and nature of that defense could quickly turn what is a very minor and small concern into a major battle that this brand and company does not need.

 

[Hussar]

How is pointing out the inaccuracy of the term outsourcing not managing brush fires? What could WotC do better in order to address this?

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

When Paizo took the magazine over quality went up IMHO. WoTC promised quality over quantity and HotDQ was a bit of a turkey so its not a surprise people will be upset over it. The perception is that they outsourced something and ended up with a shoddy product.

It doesn't bother me as such as even in house TSR and WoTC have both made crap adventures in the past. Not everything is good. With only 2 APs as such out (3 now/soon?) it makes it stand out a lot more. If Paizo makes a boo boo or even the odd meh issue of Dungeon for example the next release isn't that far away.

So frustration with the WoTC release schedule and the perceived quality of the products might have something to do with it. I mean there were reasons why HotDQ was a bit meh but once again one can blame WoTC for not getting 5E sorted in time and making the final materials available to the Kobolds or for sticking to the deadline no matter what. Things got changed at the last minute and HotDQ was rushed out the door apparently. Someone is gonna get the blame for that and the Kobolds ultimately can't control the 5E release schedule. If they had the choice of delaying the release and launched it anyway its their fault IMHO, if they were forced to release because of WoTC contract then its WotC fault.

WoTC doesn't have the variety that Paizo does so you have more options I suppose in the event something goes wrong with a Paizo product. One can also go to the Paizo forums and critique Paizo/Pathfinder without having your head ripped off. The defenders of today's 5E are tomorrows edition warriors when 6E launches or WoTC mothballs D&D whatever comes 1st.

 

[Hussar]

When Paizo took the magazine over quality went up IMHO. WoTC promised quality over quantity and HotDQ was a bit of a turkey so its not a surprise people will be upset over it. The perception is that they outsourced something and ended up with a shoddy product.

It doesn't bother me as such as even in house TSR and WoTC have both made crap adventures in the past. Not everything is good. With only 2 APs as such out (3 now/soon?) it makes it stand out a lot more. If Paizo makes a boo boo or even the odd meh issue of Dungeon for example the next release isn't that far away.

So frustration with the WoTC release schedule and the perceived quality of the products might have something to do with it. I mean there were reasons why HotDQ was a bit meh but once again one can blame WoTC for not getting 5E sorted in time and making the final materials available to the Kobolds or for sticking to the deadline no matter what. Things got changed at the last minute and HotDQ was rushed out the door apparently. Someone is gonna get the blame for that and the Kobolds ultimately can't control the 5E release schedule. If they had the choice of delaying the release and launched it anyway its their fault IMHO, if they were forced to release because of WoTC contract then its WotC fault.

But, none of this has anything to do with "outsourcing". They are all perfectly valid criticisms, but, why tie them to outsourcing?

WoTC doesn't have the variety that Paizo does so you have more options I suppose in the event something goes wrong with a Paizo product. One can also go to the Paizo forums and critique Paizo/Pathfinder without having your head ripped off. The defenders of today's 5E are tomorrows edition warriors when 6E launches or WoTC mothballs D&D whatever comes 1st.

Then that's certainly a change from a few years ago. I used to spend a bit of time over at the Paizo boards but, found them so toxic that I just couldn't take it anymore. The slightest criticism of Paizo got monkey piled and if you said the slightest thing positive about 4e, you got pilloried.

If things have changed in recent years, then great. I know En World has become a lot more fun of late as well.

 

[Iosue]

I know it's a month and some 25 pages ago, but there was context to Crawford's statement that seems to be gone now. That context was, before the EN World Multithread Thème du Mois was the role of whimsy, it was whether WotC's release schedule was too light, mistaken, or a good or bad strategy. The specific context was an Enworld thread wherein justin3x3 expressed happiness that the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide would be "WotC's first book in a year," and then expressed disappointment when he found out it was being written by Green Ronin. In the course of explaining his initial happiness and later disappointment, he repeatedly referred to products being "outsourced" or "not outsourced". Understand that he was not using it in a nuanced way to describe the collaborative effort described by Crawford, nor as a nuanced way to describe the industry's well-known reliance on contracted freelance work. No, justin3x3 was using it to explicitly remove ALL credit from WotC. HotDQ, RoT, PotA, none of that was put out by WotC, per justin. It was "outsourced".

Nor was justin3x3 the only person to use the word in this way. It was used by a number of folks in those threads, often to suggest that WotC no longer had the manpower to release any content, and so had to "outsource" all product after the Core Books. All used in a negative way, all to suggest that WotC had minimal involvement in the development of the those products. justin3x3's comments were just the straw that broke the camel's back, and encouraged Crawford to clarify WotC's collaborative role in the products.

In the archest of ironies, justin3x3 then accused Crawford of semantic dishonesty for using the word in the way he (justin3x3) had been using it. He's not here any more.

So we can certainly have an interesting conversation about industry practices, but let us not pretend that the word "outsourcing" was being innocently used, or was anything but a proverbial "stick to beat a dog with".

 

[Mistwell]

One can also go to the Paizo forums and critique Paizo/Pathfinder without having your head ripped off. The defenders of today's 5E are tomorrows edition warriors when 6E launches or WoTC mothballs D&D whatever comes 1st.

Neither of these claims matches with my observations. I have seen head-ripping (meaning over the top negative reaction) at the Paizo boards when someone criticizes a Paizo product. Similarly, I have seen very little head-ripping over negative comments about 5e here. Most people are pretty good about accepting criticism of 5e, and the most common unusual reaction is over-reaction to any disagreement with criticism and exaggerated pretending it's head-ripping when someone simply doesn't agree with a criticism. Like for example when you wrote:

Last I looked it was not illegal regardless of the reasons to criticise WoTC for whatever reason one likes.

It looked like, to multiple people, like you were confusing normal disagreement with threats of criminal prosecution. In that case it looked like you were engaging in over-the-top head-ripping over disagreement with your criticism. You're always free to criticize - but you have to accept the risk when you do criticize that someone is going to disagree with your criticism. Disagreement with your criticism isn't necessarily making someone tomorrow's edition warrior. It's theoretically possible your criticism in a particular case isn't well founded, and that the disagreement is perfectly rationale and logical.

 

[Zardnaar]

Neither of these claims matches with my observations. I have seen head-ripping (meaning over the top negative reaction) at the Paizo boards when someone criticizes a Paizo product. Similarly, I have seen very little head-ripping over negative comments about 5e here. Most people are pretty good about accepting criticism of 5e, and the most common unusual reaction is over-reaction to any disagreement with criticism and exaggerated pretending it's head-ripping when someone simply doesn't agree with a criticism. Like for example when you wrote:



It looked like, to multiple people, like you were confusing normal disagreement with threats of criminal prosecution. In that case it looked like you were engaging in over-the-top head-ripping over disagreement with your criticism. You're always free to criticize - but you have to accept the risk when you do criticize that someone is going to disagree with your criticism. Disagreement with your criticism isn't necessarily making someone tomorrow's edition warrior. It's theoretically possible your criticism in a particular case isn't well founded, and that the disagreement is perfectly rationale and logical.

The tactics of a few posters are exactly the same as the tactics the 4vengers used a few years ago. And by that I mean they defend 5E no matter what, dismiss any concerns about the release schedule and outright accuse people of playing 5E is wrong. There are complaints coming in now of the CR system no working for example and I claimed that almost a year ago. High CR monsters are to easy. I also claimed bless was OP and sure enough it is turning up in various optimization threads.

5E has some issues and sooner or later it will end. In a few years it will be interesting to see some of the posters responses lol.

 

[Mistwell]

The tactics of a few posters are exactly the same as the tactics the 4vengers used a few years ago. And by that I mean they defend 5E no matter what, dismiss any concerns about the release schedule and outright accuse people of playing 5E is wrong. There are complaints coming in now of the CR system no working for example and I claimed that almost a year ago. High CR monsters are to easy. I also claimed bless was OP and sure enough it is turning up in various optimization threads.

5E has some issues and sooner or later it will end. In a few years it will be interesting to see some of the posters responses lol.

Who? Not me surely. I have issues with the CR system for example. I have no issues with the release schedule or with the Bless spell. Is my disagreeing with you on those two issues but agreeing with you on CR a symptom of me defending 5e no matter what? I actually have some issues with 5e which you do not have (I don't like overnight healing for example)...so does your disagreement with me on those issues a sign you're the 5venger in the room? My point is - maybe you're misdiagnosing people disagreeing with your criticism as edition warring when it really is normal disagreement with your criticism. Surely people can disagree with you on something like the Release Schedule without being 5vengers or over the top 5e fanboys, right?

 

[Uchawi]

I guess if we are quoting experience during the 4E days on the Paizo board then I did experience your typical head ripping by devoted fans that I just brushed away. But I received nothing but consistent and appreciated behavior from the Paizo "powers in charge". They actually defended me when I made some points about product improvements, when I received a sound lashing from devoted fans because I had the 4E supporter label.

Either way WOTC does have a public perception of wavering in my eyes (even when I supported 4E). That opinion cemented after the playtest and they decided the main focus was going retro.

But I will state again if whatever WOTC releases sells like gangbusters and receives popular support from the majority, then they will not feel the need to defend themselves. Apparently success has been proven for the rule set, but they still have a ways to go with everything else.

 

[Zardnaar]

Who? Not me surely. I have issues with the CR system for example. I have no issues with the release schedule or with the Bless spell. Is my disagreeing with you on those two issues but agreeing with you on CR a symptom of me defending 5e no matter what? I actually have some issues with 5e which you do not have (I don't like overnight healing for example)...so does your disagreement with me on those issues a sign you're the 5venger in the room? My point is - maybe you're misdiagnosing people disagreeing with your criticism as edition warring when it really is normal disagreement with your criticism. Surely people can disagree with you on something like the Release Schedule without being 5vengers or over the top 5e fanboys, right?

You're not one of them Mistwell and its more in regard to some of the posters on the WotC boards.