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."

 

[EpicureanDM]

We'll, worked: a year and a half ago, Stewart has the job that Ray Winninger has now, and was the hiring manager at the time Welch came on: they used to joke about the interview process.

This reflects the surprise I originally mentioned. It’s not my impression that the day-to-day work on D&D books by D&D designers at Kate’s level is being handled by managers at Nathan’s/Ray’s level, even if that manager was part of the hiring process. But, again, my thin understanding of the D&D team’s dynamics come from threads like this.

 

[R_Chance]

"The Patriarchy" is not academic jargon. It's widespread use in English languages, and not targeted to refer to the Orthodox Churches.


And it's still used today for the Eastern Orthodox Churches' specifically male leaders.

But by and large it's MUCH more frequently used to refer to the male leaders holding sway in a sexist family/community/society/nation/world culture.

Patriarch was the term in question, but patriarchy certainly relates to it. In short it's an academic usage of the term (patriarchy as an oppressive male dominated society), becoming more widespread. To an extent. I have 80 students taking History B-17A this semester (U.S. History to Reconstruction) and if I said "Patriarch" and asked them the meaning most would draw a blank. Some religious students would think of either Abraham and company or Orthodox Christianity. A few might connect it to "patriarchy" with all the negative consequences inherent in that usage. It came to have this use in the late 20th century in sociology originally. I'm familiar with the usage because one of my degrees is a BA in anthropology. It has come to be more widespread since then. Not everyone is a (fairly) recent college student, academic, or activist. A lot of people just connect it to history, religion, or (in this case) prior D&D usage. I doubt the people who wondered about the objection to this term, in this thread, were connecting it to oppression and realizing why there was an objection. I suggested "Patriarch / Matriarch", thought about it a bit more and suggested "Ecclesiarch".

It's hard for people to be sensitive when they don't know what the problem is.

We don't get to choose the development of language. We may disagree with it, but individuals cannot "take it back" to where the word originated once its meaning has shifted in broad culture.

Patriarch and Patriarchy are sexist concepts, and have no place in D&D books. You're welcome to run a game that has "Patriarchs" in it, with the term carrying good or bad connotations for your own game, but it has no place in a wide audience-facing text that sets the standards of the game (let alone in a new user experience text like the basic rules or starter sets!).

No, we don't get to determine the development of language. Don't tell the English instructors that though The question is how much the meaning has shifted in the context of your audience. There are a lot of terms / usages that I might take for granted that would leave most people staring. The point is to make your usage clear, to state what the term means (for you). At that point you might find fewer arguments and more discussions.

The funny thing being I see your point, and largely agree with you. Isn't this the reason WotC had someone looking at language / usage awhile back (and hopefully still do)?

 

[Zardnaar]

Patriarch was the term in question, but patriarchy certainly relates to it. In short it's an academic usage of the term (patriarchy as an oppressive male dominated society), becoming more widespread. To an extent. I have 80 students taking History B-17B this semester (U.S. History to Reconstruction) and if I said "Patriarch" and asked them the meaning most would draw a blank. Some religious students would think of either Abraham and company or Orthodox Christianity. A few might connect it to "patriarchy" with all the negative consequences inherent in that usage. It came to have this use in the late 20th century in sociology originally. I'm familiar with the usage because one of my degrees is a BA in anthropology. It has come to be more widespread since then. Not everyone is a (fairly) recent college student, academic, or activist. A lot of people just connect it to history, religion, or (in this case) prior D&D usage. I doubt the people who wondered about the objection to this term, in this thread, were connecting it to oppression and realizing why there was an objection. I suggested "Patriarch / Matriarch", thought about it a bit more and suggested "Ecclesiarch".

It's hard for people to be sensitive when they don't know what the problem is.



No, we don't get to determine the development of language. Don't tell the English instructors that though The question is how much the meaning has shifted in the context of your audience. There are a lot of terms / usages that I might take for granted that would leave most people staring. The point is to make your usage clear, to state what the term means (for you). At that point you might find fewer arguments and more discussions.

The funny thing being I see your point, and largely agree with you. Isn't this the reason WotC had someone looking at language / usage awhile back (and hopefully still do)?

Patriarch I think Othodox church or head of family in older times or different cultures.

 

[R_Chance]

Arch isn’t a title. Your tangential rant doesn’t change that.

Nor does it change that patriarch is a bad title to use for any player option in a modern gaming product.

It's part of numerous titles. By itself it isn't a title. The point being there are other choices, say "ecclesiarch" that might be better. People have to know the definition / usage you have before they understand what the point is. I'd say, state it and find fewer arguments and more discussions. My 2 cp, ymmv.

I sincerely wish you the best and apologize for any offence or pain this discussion may have caused you.

 

[Haffrung]

It just dawned on me, remembering my own frustrations in parsing 5e for the first few times, why did capitalizing a rules term rule go out of fashion and why?

In just trying to scan the book, I had skipped the introduction, the spot where they tell you what dice are and who DMs are, and went straight to character creation. Stuff I knew as long timer.

And then it took me an embarrassingly long time to realize that Advantage was a game term. Why? It was mentioned in the middle of that four page intro and then only again 172 pages later. I was confused why no bonus was listed next to this advantage or that disadvantage.

If it had been capitalized like a lot of gaming books used to do, I would have been tipped off that this was a game term and head the index (lets not go into that tangent)

You'll see terms that like capitalized in modern boardgame rules They aren't capitalized in 5E because the WotC braintrust over-corrected (or corrected in the wrong way) from 4E by writing the 5E rules in walls of conversational text, instead of using effective instructional formatting. They want people to read the PHB like they read a novel. A novel they have to memorize.

 

[Cadence]

You'll see terms that like capitalized in modern boardgame rules They aren't capitalized in 5E because the WotC braintrust over-corrected (or corrected in the wrong way) from 4E by writing the 5E rules in walls of conversational text, instead of using effective instructional formatting. They want people to read the PHB like they read a novel. A novel they have to memorize.

The place it got me was the Charm Person spell. Charmed in the spell description wasn't capitalized, so I didn't know it was a condition and just went with the (weaker in effect) way the spell text described it.

 

[Parmandur]

You'll see terms that like capitalized in modern boardgame rules They aren't capitalized in 5E because the WotC braintrust over-corrected (or corrected in the wrong way) from 4E by writing the 5E rules in walls of conversational text, instead of using effective instructional formatting. They want people to read the PHB like they read a novel. A novel they have to memorize.

We'll, at least they made the books fun to read: what they did in 4E was not such a fun read, which in effect means less likely to be used at all.

 

[Parmandur]

This reflects the surprise I originally mentioned. It’s not my impression that the day-to-day work on D&D books by D&D designers at Kate’s level is being handled by managers at Nathan’s/Ray’s level, even if that manager was part of the hiring process. But, again, my thin understanding of the D&D team’s dynamics come from threads like this.

Nathan previously, now Ray, was in charge of planning the product schedule and marketing it: he didn't do the design work, but he had approval over proposals and supervised the work in terms of broader goals, is my understanding.

 

[EpicureanDM]

Nathan previously, now Ray, was in charge of planning the product schedule and marketing it: he didn't do the design work, but he had approval over proposals and supervised the work in terms of broader goals, is my understanding.

OK, so just connect the dots back to my first post.

 

[Maxperson]

The place it got me was the Charm Person spell. Charmed in the spell description wasn't capitalized, so I didn't know it was a condition and just went with the (weaker in effect) way the spell text described it.

Yeah. That's a problem. Fluff and mechanics need to match. When one is stronger/weaker than the other, it creates a disconnect. "But the spell says it can level mountains. Why is it only 6d6 damage?!"