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."

 

[SehanineMoonbow]

Late to the discussion.

Idk about the "new user experience". I mean, 5e has drawn in more new players than ever (and shows like Critical Role). D&D is becoming more recognized in media, too. I myself haven't played D&D that often, but I've been in the D&D world for years (as a Forgotten Realms fan, I'm interested in the lore). If anything, I sometimes feel like 5e is catered to new users, ignoring fans that are already here (I'm a millennial, but I've been into FR since 2005). This is not to knock new players, of course. I think it's awesome that new people are discovering D&D. I just think 5e is geared towards new players.

From a lore standpoint, there are changes I have found frustrating (yeah, I know I can ignore them), but 5e, with the help perhaps of Critical Role, has lured in a lot of new players. Unless I am misunderstanding what is meant by "new user experience". I hear mechanics are easier (when I tried to play, they were admittedly difficult, but that's coming from someone who is bad at math).

 

[R_Chance]

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

Arch is a part or numerous titles. Monarch, patriarch, matriarch, hierarch, archduke, archbishop, ecclesiarch, and so on. It indicates a position of power or influence over something. It has other meanings as well of course, but the above is the use in this framework. So if you object to "patriarch" you could have the exact title used vary by the individual (patriarch, matriarch, etc.). Or use a gender neutral term if you prefer like ecclesiarch. It means the same thing in the case of a religious institution. Classically when people talk about a "patriarch" or "matriarch" they are simply talking about an influential male or female figure in a family, religion or what have you. I know that "patriarch" and the "patriarchate" are a thing with some people who object to male dominance of society (which can be pretty objectionable)... but I'm not responsible for their misuse of the language. People appropriate a word to stand for something they dislike (or like), come up with a new definition or spin on the term and the meaning of the word eventually shifts in popular usage (and eventually this worms its way into dictionaries with expanded definitions - language changes over time).

sigh Sorry, bit of a rant there, and I can understand the objection to a term (which for some people) has come to have an objectionable... if not meaning, then inference. Not everybody shares that internal definition.

 

[Marandahir]

I know that "patriarch" and the "patriarchate" are a thing with some people who object to male dominance of society (which can be pretty objectionable)... but I'm not responsible for their misuse of the language. People appropriate a word to stand for something they dislike (or like), come up with a new definition or spin on the term and the meaning of the word eventually shifts in popular usage (and eventually this worms its way into dictionaries with expanded definitions - language changes over time).

sigh Sorry, bit of a rant there, and I can understand the objection to a term (which for some people) has come to have an objectionable... if not meaning, then inference. Not everybody shares that internal definition.

Sorry, you don't get to claim that offensive language is only offensive if you mean it offensively.

Some language can be reclaimed - if done so by the people it's been weaponized against and only if they are using it purposefully for reclamation - but when we get into "Oh, but I'm not meaning it in an offensive way so excuse me, princess…" we're heading down a dark rabbithole of sexism. Please don't go there.

 

[ccs]

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

So? Evidently they have a position to fill....

 

[mockman1890]

Haha... the "D&D has piss-poor new user experience" comment is just exactly the thing to start a 250+ comment argument on a D&D site. XD

...okay, I admit, I'm curious what she means by this, since I can think of more than one meaning. Hopefully she'll say more about it somewhere.

Honestly, despite everyone's curiosity (including mine) about what she didn't like, it sounds like her experience at WotC wasn't that bad, it is a pretty friendly & positive resignation letter.

 

[R_Chance]

Sorry, you don't get to claim that offensive language is only offensive if you mean it offensively.

Some language can be reclaimed - if done so by the people it's been weaponized against and only if they are using it purposefully for reclamation - but when we get into "Oh, but I'm not meaning it in an offensive way so excuse me, princess…" we're heading down a dark rabbithole of sexism. Please don't go there.

That dark rabbit hole is not what I'm talking about.

At the core of it is a matter of definitions. When two people are arguing about a term with different personal definitions they are talking past each other about different things. My objection to the use of terms like "patriarch" has nothing to do with male dominated society. Personally I think that's a bad thing. But when you use a term like this to mean that and the other person doesn't... what's the point of the argument? If a term has a meaning for you (and others), explain it. Then maybe you'll have fewer arguments, or at least fewer meaningless ones. That's what my rant is about.

If you explain your objection by defining a term and explaining what it means to you (and many other people) you present a good reason for the non-use of that term. Maybe then you (both of you) decide to use another term, like say ecclesiarch, which is hopefully inoffensive and meaningful. That's the problem with the reclamation of offensive terms, it's confusing. If you have a specific definition for a term, explain it. Do not assume the other person shares your definition or even knows of it. When you read a textbook on, say economics, they mangle the English language pretty well. If you just read it your left wondering what they are talking about. Fortunately they define the terms in these books so you can understand it. Then it makes sense. Then you can have a conversation or argument.

The worst for this are academics. Until the word achieves widespread general usage it's pretty useless in arguing with people outside of your field.

 

[Guest 6801328]

NOBODY ask her what she meant by that. It would totally spoil this thread.

 

[agrayday]

There is a whole lot of assumptions here that her reference to new user experience is mechanical/rules in nature. I wouldn't necessarily make that assumption.

Yes, as this could be about culture. She appears to be able to make impact, and maybe she wants to use that gift in a way that wasn't along the lines of her job title or that office.

 

[Pixelllance]

But I dont want to.

well playing other RPGs than DnD really improved my skills as DnD DM and player espc Dungeon World was a free your mind experience Also there are really good RPGs out
there other than DnD.

Regarding the Topic:
I found getting in 5e a a DM rulewise not easy (coming from 2e). Besides 5e being a game where there a lot of exceptions to basic rules and way to many spells the rules or the information about the rules / introduction to the rules needs a far better structuring..

 

[Kaodi]

If D&D has a poor new player experience I can only imagine what she would think of the one for PF2. Of course - Paizo also happens to be looking for a new game designer for Pathfinder. I am not sure if there would be room there for working on a new new player experience for a game that has been only out for a year though.