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."

 

[Haffrung]

... some of that can be onboarding but I tend to find more often that it's because they assume some obscene level of knowledge and mastery is needed to even consider running a game rather than realizing how much of what we do is seat-of-our-pants flying.

This is a crucial point. I've been DMing for 40 years, and when I look at the dozens and dozens of articles on forums and videos on Youtube about DMing, even I get intimidated. World-building. player engagement, running sandboxes, creating villains, crafting a mystery, etc. etc. Many content creators are providing the equivalent of an advanced film-school course on directing.

You don't need to know all that stuff to DM. I sure as hell didn't when I created my first dungeon at age 10 and ran by friends through it. I drew a map. I populated it with monsters and treasure. When my friends told me where their characters went, I described what they saw. When they encountered a monster, we rolled some dice.

Many new DMs feel as though they need to become a Matt Mercer or Chris Perkins before they can DM. That's like someone getting into film feeling she needs to learn everything Stanley Kubrick knew when he directed Barry Lyndon before she can pick up a camera. It's bananas.

The emphasis on mega-campaigns is part of the problem. Running a campaign is a big, big step up from running an adventure. I don't think I ran anything that really looked like a campaign (rather than a sequence of discrete dungeons) until I had been DMing for 6 or 7 years. New DMs need to be encouraged to think small, and WotC needs to do a better job supporting adventure-based play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

Gendered titles aren't inclusive, for one thing.

Names for levels are just bad, as well. My character isn't an anythingarch, their class level is just a game element. That's it. If they get a damn title it's by specifically earning it in game.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Can't have an argument about the word level without referencing this comic...

 

[R_Chance]

It's hilarious to think that one of the big problems with the new player experience is character level vs. class level vs. spell level. As if anyone touching DnD before hasn't played a video game where their character is a level 10 warrior with two levels in rampage using a third level blood axe
People can get that stuff quickly. It's not a significant barrier

Or simple rules. Dungeon exists. A dozen DnD Devlve games exist. A hundred other games that are "DnD but simpler exist." But none are close to as popular

The big hurdle is understanding the game. The idea of there being this referee that tells the stories and builds the game. That's this big logical leap. Once you get over that it becomes smoother

Experienced players are a bigger wall. The grognards and edition warriors and factious internet communities. Everyone arguing that the ranger sux and fighters are boring or we need Dragonlance back or how 3e/4e was the bomb or OSR is the right way to play. The people arguing that orcs need to have intelligence penalties and drow have to be evil

I don't think anybody, except perhaps you, thought this was "a significant barrier" to new players. Just an interesting example of numerous minor barriers, and one that is just blindly accepted by the experienced user base.

And yes, everything is easier when you understand the basic flow of the game. Hence all those examples of play in the front of RPG books going back to the beginning. And the various basic / introductory games...

I don't see myself as a bigger wall Edition warriors, maybe. The internet... probably not given the amount of streaming games and "how to" videos. Two of the game sites I visit have "How to play D&D videos" along with all the videos on different classes and so on. As for the "ranger sux and fighters are boring" bit, I've seen / heard those arguments for over 40 years. "One true wayism" and restrictions / characterizations of races are a barrier if you disagree with them. And they are pretty changeable.

 

[EpicureanDM]

[Deleted.]

 

[R_Chance]

I'm not sure "Patriarch" is something you can toss into a game in 2020 and not have at least a large portion of your players go "what now?" It's just got too much other stuff attached to it now.

"High Priest/Priestess" might get some giggles -- "what are they high off of?" -- but it also doesn't suggest your Cleric of Light is also going around upholding sexist social structures.

So... Patriarch / Matriarch?

edit As for the use of those old titles to set up NPC types for 5E, why not? I prefer NPC classes myself, but then they have been a thing (either in the Strategic Review / The Dragon / Dragon) or in later editions (3 / 3.5) for a long time.

 

[Mistwell]

Gendered titles aren't inclusive, for one thing.

Names for levels are just bad, as well. My character isn't an anythingarch, their class level is just a game element. That's it. If they get a damn title it's by specifically earning it in game.

As for being not inclusive, I don't hear you complaining about options for male names and female names in the player's handbook. You can add any gender you want, but "arch" isn't gendered and that's the title I am referring to. Doesn't matter if it's Patriarch, Matriarch, Androarch, Progeniarch, whatever "arch" you want.

You don't have to use it then. He was asking for name levels for the SPELL levels, and "arch" was one of the original name levels for Cleric, and 5th level was open in his chart so I suggested something for it. If you don't like it that's fine.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

As for being not inclusive, I don't hear you complaining about options for male names and female names in the player's handbook. You can add any gender you want, but "arch" isn't gendered and that's the title I am referring to. Doesn't matter if it's Patriarch, Matriarch, Androarch, Progeniarch, whatever "arch" you want.

You don't have to use it then. He was asking for name levels for the SPELL levels, and "arch" was one of the original name levels for Cleric, and 5th level was open in his chart so I suggested something for it. If you don't like it that's fine.

Arch isn’t a title. Patriarch, the only title actually in question here, is a very bad title for anything in the game.

 

[Parmandur]

So, I'm not 100% sure, bit this job description looks an awful lot like the one for when Welch was hired:

Wizards of the Coast

Wizards of the Coast is the world's largest publisher of adventure games, including Magic: The Gathering, Dungeons & Dragons, and Avalon Hill, a pioneer of modern war and cooperative strategy games like Betrayal at House on the Hill, Axis & Allies, and Lords of Waterdeep.

boards.greenhouse.io

 

[Guest 6801328]

The big hurdle is understanding the game. The idea of there being this referee that tells the stories and builds the game. That's this big logical leap. Once you get over that it becomes smoother

No kidding. Just look at all the veterans who can’t seem to grasp, or won’t accept, how 5e has changed the play loop from previous editions.