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."

 

[cbwjm]

I liked the 3.5 sourcebook format for organizing spells: listed by class, then by level within each class, was the spell name and a one-line summary of the spell's intended result. (Fireball: Flashy explosive ball of flames 30 feet across.) Spells shared by multiple classes had their description line repeated. The actual full spells followed in one big alphabetical list.

This was probably my favourite as well, could instantly get an idea of how the spell worked which made things easier when choosing spells then you can look up the spell for more details if needed.

 

[Azzy]

And if you think you can do significantly better than WotC's basic rules, I suggest you do so.

TSR already did this with the Mentzer basic set and the later black basic set. WotC could take lesson from those to create a starter set that is a much better on-ramp to the PHB. Even then, the PHB should be more new player friendly.

 

[Azzy]

This was probably my favourite as well, could instantly get an idea of how the spell worked which made things easier when choosing spells then you can look up the spell for more details if needed.

Agreed.

 

[Marandahir]

Because to me, it's more important to find any spell I want quickly. If they're alphabetical, I know exactly where to look. If they're sorted by level first, then I have to know which level section to search. ("Is it level 2? No, it's not in the level 2 section. Must be level 3...")

And what class are you? Before Page 211 is the spells by class level list.

Unless you're a DM looking to add spells to a monster, the spells aren't laid out intuitively. This is the player's handbook, not the DM's guide.

Or do you just like to look up spell names for fun?

Not discounting your type of fun, but I don't think looking up a given spell without knowing the caster-level is as relevant to a new player as grouping all spells of the same caster level together for comparison and ease of reference.

 

[jayoungr]

And what class are you?

My very first 5E character was a bard, so large spell list.

A lot of the spells are fairly intuitive from just reading the name. I'd go down the list looking at the names, select the one I wanted to know more about, and then flip straight to it.

Before Page 211 is the spells by class level list.

Yes, but if the spells are arranged by level first, you have to first go to the class level list and then go to the appropriate level section, as opposed to a straight alphabetical lookup. Two steps instead of one.

This is the player's handbook, not the DM's guide.

That's a fairly meaningless distinction because it's the only list of spells. Both players and DMs have to use it.

 

[Rabulias]

Back in the AD&D 1st Edition and 2nd Edition days, spells were presented by class, and then alphabetically by level. This was often a pain for DMs and players. Yes, when you gained a new spell level, it was handy to flip through just a couple of pages to look over all the spells. Having gamed through both of those, IME there are more instances where the current presentation is an improvement. DMs have many NPCs and creatures with spells and spell-like abilities and a single alphabetical list is an easier reference. Players will often have potions or other magic items that grant spell effects that they need to look up, and they will not always know the spell level. I do miss the 3rd Edition summaries in the spell lists, and I think their return would make the lists more useful.

 

[Azzy]

Can you go into a little more detail on why you think the current set-up is superior?

Having played BECMI, 1e, & 2e, I always hated the way that spells were organized. When 3e came out and reorganized spells alphabetically, it was like a breath of fresh air and made it so much easier.

 

[Hatmatter]

Back in the AD&D 1st Edition and 2nd Edition days, spells were presented by class, and then alphabetically by level. This was often a pain for DMs and players. Yes, when you gained a new spell level, it was handy to flip through just a couple of pages to look over all the spells. Having gamed through both of those, IME there are more instances where the current presentation is an improvement. DMs have many NPCs and creatures with spells and spell-like abilities and a single alphabetical list is an easier reference. Players will often have potions or other magic items that grant spell effects that they need to look up, and they will not always know the spell level. I do miss the 3rd Edition summaries in the spell lists, and I think their return would make the lists more useful.

I agree.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think there are a few small tweaks they could make that would really improve the on boarding for new players. If think they could add another 8 pages to the PHB (the standard amount for printing) dedicated to helping new players and it would really enrich the book whilst taking nothing away from the rules.

Some tangible examples of what I mean: the starting process for most new players is to fill out a character sheet. In the PHB they sort of guide you through this in the first section, but they don’t tell you everything you need to know. For example, no where in the first section does it tell you what your passive perception score is. In fact they don’t overtly tell you in the second section. There a box out on passive scores and you can deduce it from there.The same goes for you initiative and for your attack bonus on ranged weapons and things like that. I think for a lot of players they get lost creating their first character because there are all these empty areas on your character sheet that you would expect to fill in as you follow the first section of the book, but can’t find the answers to.

Another thing that I see tripping players up, is that after choosing your race it prompts you to select a number of skills to be proficient in. But then in the next step, choosing your class, you might get set skills that your character is proficient in, perhaps being ones you’ve already chosen meaning you need to jump back a step and pick another skill instead, and then the same thing can happen with your background prescribing skill proficiencies too. Really you need to choose your race, class and background simultaneously - work out all the mandatory skill proficiencies you get, and then make your choices. A little flow chart to guide a player through this could do wonders in my opinion.

It also doesn’t help that the book doesn’t explain what skill proficiencies even are until Chapter seven. How is a new player supposed to make these decisions without knowing what they mean?

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm not saying it couldn't benefit from reorganization. I'm saying that no matter what you do to it, the sheer volume of information people require from the PHB will prevent it from being "easy".

I simply do not agree with this.

If you cut classes, races, spells etc. it will be met with "outrage" from the people whose favorite material has been removed to make it more digestible.

I’m sure it would be. It’s also not something I am advocating for in the slightest.

An intro version with both new / better organization (and ymmv on what that means) and reduced options is the only way to make it "easier". I don't believe it will ever be all that easy. As many have pointed out, it's not an easy game.

I disagree with every assertion you make here. D&D is an easy game (see: all the people proudly proclaiming they figured it out by themselves when they were 12). Better organization would make that ease more apparent to newcomers, who are often turned off by its apparent complexity.

So, to sum up my point, you might improve on it (both the PHB and any new intro game) but you will never make it easy enough for casual / new players to just pick up and play. They have to want to play. Really want.

Obviously people who don’t want to learn to play never will. The problem is that some people who do want to learn to play never do, because they have an idea in their head that it’s this super hard, super complex game. It isn’t, but it doesn’t do a good job of making that clear. It could do a better one, creating a better new player experience, without needing to change a single rule.

The best thing, imho, that streaming games have done is make it desirable / cool. As well as bringing some basic familiarity.

On that I do agree with you. Streaming games also show potential new players an example of actual play, which demystifies it and shows them that it’s really not as hard as they think it is.