D&D 5E Kate Welch on Leaving WotC

Kate Welch left Wizards of the Coast a few days ago, on August 16th. Soon after, she talked a little about it in a live-stream.

She started work at WotC as a game designer back in February 2018, and has contributed to various products since then, such as Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Descent into Avernus, as well as being a participant in WotC's livestreams. In December 2019, her job changed to that of 'senior user experience designer'.

"I mentioned yesterday that I have some big news that I wouldn't be able to share until today.

The big news that I have to share with you today is that I ... this is difficult, but ... I quit my job at Wizards of the Coast. I no longer work at Wizards. Today was my last day. I haven't said it out loud yet so it's pretty major. I know... it's a big change. It's been scary, I have been there for almost three years, not that long, you know, as far as jobs go, and for a while there I really was having a good time. It's just not... it wasn't the right fit for me any more.

So, yeah, I don't really know what's next. I got no big plans. It's a big deal, big deal .... and I wanted to talk to you all about it because you're, as I've mentioned before, a source of great joy for me. One of the things that has been tough reckoning with this is that I've defined myself by Dungeons & Dragons for so long and I really wanted to be a part of continuing to make D&D successful and to grow it, to have some focus especially on new user experience, I think that the new user experience for Dungeons & Dragons is piss poor, and I've said that while employed and also after quitting.

But I've always wanted to be a part of getting D&D into the hands of more people and helping them understand what a life-changing game it is, and I hope I still get the chance to do that. But as of today I'm unemployed, and I also wanted to be upfront about it because I have this great fear that because Dungeons & Dragons has been part of my identity, professionally for the last three years almost, I was worried that a lot of you'll would not want to follow me any more because I'm not at Wizards, and there's definitely some glamourous aspects to being at Wizards."

She went on to talk about the future, and her hopes that she'll still be be able to work with WotC.

"I'm excited about continuing to play D&D, and hopefully Wizards will still want me to appear on their shows and stuff, we'll see, I have no idea. But one thing that I'm really excited about is that now I can play other TTRPGs. There's a policy that when you're a Wizards employee you can't stream other tabletop games. So there was a Call of Cthulhu game that we did with the C-team but we had to get very special permission for it, they were like OK but this is only a one time thing. I get it, you know, it's endorsing the competition or whatever, but I'm super excited to be able to have more freedom about the kinds of stuff that I'm getting involved with."

 

[R_Chance]

Dropping in to this one a bit late and, I'm pretty sure others have made this point. And, I only read about 3 pages worth of the posts and skimmed the rest

There has to be a balance between "new user" friendly and the game your existing base wants. Making it friendly to new users can involve cleaning things up and altering presentation. Another way of doing so is simplification to make it easier to pick up the rules. The combination of these two things could produce a "very friendly" game for new users. And cost you a lot of the current player base as they move on to a game that better suits what they want. New, and casual, users may buy into the game but are they going to pony up for multiple $50 books a year? You could end up with a very popular game and go out of business. I am not saying that outreach to new players couldn't improve btw. Just that you have to look at the entire picture. You don't want to run new players off. On the other hand you don't want to run off your existing player base. I think if you're focused on new players or old players too much you will fail in the end.

Now, where you want to set that point on the line is the question. Given 5E's popularity and push into the mainstream D&D has enjoyed lately I think they have done a pretty good job. I think they've pulled in a lot of new players (albeit a lot of that is due to 3rd parties like streamers) and drawn a lot of existing players back in.

OK, I've vented. If you call taking the moderate position venting

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I think some people are taking "improve new user experience" to mean changing the rules. The rules are fine. Much easier than they can seem to be from a casual read. It's more a matter of presentation and "How do I start playing".

I actually don't think the problem is with the core books per se, as long as we accept the core books are only geared towards people who already know how to play.

D&D has struggled with starter sets since day dot. The 5E one is great, probably the best they've ever done, but it could be better. There needs to be something 5 completely green players can pick up, play, and not come away thinking, "I don't think we did that properly."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If we were to change the term from spell "level" to something else I'd like it to be circle.

At "x" level you expand able to cast "x"th circle spells always sounded more flavorful to me than spell level.

Agreed. Numbering spell levels along with full caster class levels is possibly the worst idea I've ever seen, and naming spell levels individually just complicates things for no actual benefit.

But calling them spell circles is great.

and Patriarch for Cleric?

What.

 

[Hatmatter]

I think some people are taking "improve new user experience" to mean changing the rules. The rules are fine. Much easier than they can seem to be from a casual read. It's more a matter of presentation and "How do I start playing".

I actually don't think the problem is with the core books per se, as long as we accept the core books are only geared towards people who already know how to play.

D&D has struggled with starter sets since day dot. The 5E one is great, probably the best they've ever done, but it could be better. There needs to be something 5 completely green players can pick up, play, and not come away thinking, "I don't think we did that properly."

I agree with this. The complaints about the PHB reading like a reference book from earlier in this thread are relevant here b/c, for an experienced player, a reference book is appropriate, but perhaps not for the new player. A non-PHB refinement of an introduction for new players, perhaps with some kind of video accompaniment, would be good. In fact, maybe a Wizards-produced video introduction, with some kind of branching feature so that viewers can select between options, might be in order.

 

[Mistwell]

Agreed. Numbering spell levels along with full caster class levels is possibly the worst idea I've ever seen, and naming spell levels individually just complicates things for no actual benefit.

But calling them spell circles is great.




What.

What? It was one of the named levels for Cleric in D&D 1e. It can be Matriarch too. But the "arch" title seems legit for a cleric, no?

 

[teitan]

So is perhaps the decision to leave based on decisions around new user experience?

I’d not be surprised. Fan environments are pretty damn toxic in general.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think some people are taking "improve new user experience" to mean changing the rules. The rules are fine. Much easier than they can seem to be from a casual read. It's more a matter of presentation and "How do I start playing".

Agreed!

I actually don't think the problem is with the core books per se, as long as we accept the core books are only geared towards people who already know how to play.

D&D has struggled with starter sets since day dot. The 5E one is great, probably the best they've ever done, but it could be better. There needs to be something 5 completely green players can pick up, play, and not come away thinking, "I don't think we did that properly."

I don’t think making the core books for people who already know how to play and making a separate starter product for people to learn with is a sound strategy. WotC learned that lesson with MtG. Most people, when they want to start playing your game, reach for what they perceive to be the core product. And the idea that newcomers need to get a separate, basic version of the product first before they’ll be ready to graduate to the “real” game contributes to the misconception that the game is super complex and hard to learn.

 

[R_Chance]

Agreed. Numbering spell levels along with full caster class levels is possibly the worst idea I've ever seen, and naming spell levels individually just complicates things for no actual benefit.

But calling them spell circles is great.




What.

IIRC, back in the dark ages when 1E was just getting going Gygax (I think it was him) talked about the overuse of the term "level". As I recall he considered "Order" for spells, "Rank" for characters and "level" for dungeons (or monsters? it's been a while). So you would have a 9th Rank Magic User casting a 5th Order spell on the 4th level of the dungeon and so on. Then they dumped the idea because everyone was used to "level" and they thought the change would be confusing

I'll have to try and dig up that reference... early Dragon Magazine (well, The Dragon in those days) I believe...

edit But this is not happening tonight... my memory is too fuzzy and I'm praying it was in Dragon... maybe Gygax's column The Sorcerors Scroll... maybe earlier or later. Argh.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

IIRC, back in the dark ages when 1E was just getting going Gygax (I think it was him) talked about the overuse of the term "level". As I recall he considered "Order" for spells, "Rank" for characters and "level" for dungeons (or monsters? it's been a while). So you would have a 9th Rank Magic User casting a 5th Order spell on the 4th level of the dungeon and so on. Then they dumped the idea because everyone was used to "level" and they thought the change would be confusing

I'll have to try and dig up that reference... early Dragon Magazine (well, The Dragon in those days) I believe...

edit But this is not happening tonight... my memory is too fuzzy and I'm praying it was in Dragon... maybe Gygax's column The Sorcerors Scroll... maybe earlier or later. Argh.

I'm pretty sure it was in the 1st edition AD&D DMG, under the heading "Why Level?"

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

After thinking about it, I have concluded the dungeon level / spell level nomenclature is probably intentional. Men and Magic (the OD&D Player's Handbook) contained 6 levels of spells. Likewise Underworld and Wilderness Adventures (the OD&D DMG) provided tables for creating 6 levels of dungeons.

The magic-users (Conjurers and Thuergists) on the 2nd dungeon level are capable of casting 1st and 2nd level spells. The Thaumaturgists and Magicians on the 3rd dungeon level can cast up to 3rd level spells. The enchanters on the 4th dungeon level can cast 4th level spells. The sorcerers on the 5th dungeon level can cast 5th level spells. The wizards on the 6th level can cast 6th level spells.

I really doubt that's a coincidence.