"Tabletop RPG Workers Say Their Jobs Are No Fantasy" (article from WIRED)

[el-remmen]

I didn't see anyone share this. I knew about Paizo trying to unionize (go union!) and I knew that the industry was low paying, but it seems like that is just one of the workplace issues - and that TTRPGs at least at the bigger companies where people work full-time but there is also a dependence on freelancers with abysmal rates, suffers some of the unreasonable expectations of the video game industry.

Tabletop RPG Workers Say Their Jobs Are No Fantasy

The people behind some of the world’s biggest role-playing games are now fighting to make their workplaces better.

www.wired.com

Some quoted bits below, but it is a longish article.

Like the video game industry, the tabletop RPG industry is built on the passion of hobbyists starry-eyed about receiving W-2s from their favorite escapist outlet. Sixteen current and former workers across several TTRPG publishers who spoke to WIRED say that, in the industry of fantasy games, signing your contract might be where the fantasy ends. Many of these sources asked to remain anonymous for fear of professional repercussions in an industry they describe as small, tight-knit, and prone to retaliation. While some people said they were happy in their jobs, many others—especially those at bigger publishers—had a different experience.

With few big employers, full-time jobs in the industry are rare—and that scarcity, sources say, encourages people to accept poor working conditions. One worker said getting hired at Wizards of the Coast felt like “winning the lottery,” but now, after years of low pay and long hours, they view that initial enthusiasm as “naive.” Three sources recall Lisa Stevens, the CEO and cofounder of Paizo, saying she didn’t understand why employees complained about poor working conditions. In fact, they recall her saying, they should be honored to work on Pathfinder because there are others out there who would do it for free.

[Gendered] dynamics are particularly pronounced at conventions—a mainstay of the TTRPG industry that brings together tens of thousands of fans, mostly men. Sexual harassment at gaming conventions is a longtime issue. But when women at Paizo spoke up about the problem, former employees say, the company didn’t provide the support they wanted. “Every year we had harassers at PaizoCon (often against female staff), and the next year when we brought it up we were told ‘Don’t put yourself in dangerous situations’ and ‘Make sure they [convention-goers] have a good time!’” Crystal Frasier wrote on Twitter. (Two sources present at those discussions corroborate Paizo’s response.)

Workers are pushing the TTRPG industry out of its 50-year-old roots and into modernity. As the content of these fantasy adventures changes, they argue, so should the demographics of their publishers and their working conditions. “There are a lot of very old narratives and very old ideas about how the industry should run, which have become detrimental to it,” says Barber.

 

[Argyle King]

One of the things which sticks out from the article is how a lot of companies promote diversity in their products, but the company culture is largely the same.

That's (unfortunately) not unique to RPG companies. You can see that every year during Pride Month. Companies will throw rainbows and LGTBQ+ characters into a product just to sell it. Heck, sometimes they'll charge extra for those products.

Sadly, that's made me wary of buying products which use "diversity" as a primary advertising point.

One of the people interviewed for the article criticized tokenization...

I fully believe that there's probably a company out there somewhere who would sell actual physical diversity tokens (with each token featuring a different minority) if they could make money on it.

 

[billd91]

One of the things which sticks out from the article is how a lot of companies promote diversity in their products, but the company culture is largely the same.

That's (unfortunately) not unique to RPG companies. You can see that every year during Pride Month. Companies will throw rainbows and LGTBQ+ characters into a product just to sell it. Heck, sometimes they'll charge extra for those products.

Sadly, that's made me wary of buying products which use "diversity" as a primary advertising point.

To put a different perspective on this, even if a company is diversity-baiting with their products in a cynical manner - just trying to boost their marketing without changing their culture - think of how this looks to someone in the targeted community compared to 70s and 80s when a lot of us were kids. There was virtually nothing that positively acknowledged a LGBT+ person's existence. Now, my kids have been growing up in an environment where their existence is not only acknowledged by major companies but is considered important enough to devote product their way. Even if the culture at the company hasn't fully changed, it's changing, even if slowly. You aren't going to get acceptance without acknowledgement. Their foot is in the door in a way it wasn't 30-40 years ago. Their existence is recognized like it wasn't 30-40 years ago.

The progress may be painfully slow, particularly to individuals in the middle of it. It may be fought constantly by other elements in society who think this is something they should start a culture war over. But it's happening.

 

[Argyle King]

To put a different perspective on this, even if a company is diversity-baiting with their products in a cynical manner - just trying to boost their marketing without changing their culture - think of how this looks to someone in the targeted community compared to 70s and 80s when a lot of us were kids. There was virtually nothing that positively acknowledged a LGBT+ person's existence. Now, my kids have been growing up in an environment where their existence is not only acknowledged by major companies but is considered important enough to devote product their way. Even if the culture at the company hasn't fully changed, it's changing, even if slowly. You aren't going to get acceptance without acknowledgement. Their foot is in the door in a way it wasn't 30-40 years ago. Their existence is recognized like it wasn't 30-40 years ago.

The progress may be painfully slow, particularly to individuals in the middle of it. It may be fought constantly by other elements in society who think this is something they should start a culture war over. But it's happening.

I think acknowledgement and representation is good.

I also think that some (but certainly not all) companies have efforts which are very hollow.

I'm not sure that the disingenuous efforts are an overall net positive, especially when actual real people working at a company are treated poorly.

To me, it's kinda like a couple who has an awesome Instagram -showing fun vacations, romantic dinners, and a great life; but then you find out that the relationship was abusive when the cameras were off.

...or maybe a better example would be seeing everyone change the frame around their social media profile picture to support a cause but then not doing any of the actual work to fix a problem.

I dunno. I get what you're saying. Certainly, having some representation is better than none. There are aspects about it which rub me the wrong way though.

 

[Malmuria]

It's possible that people in "creative director" positions want more inclusive products, and maybe a more diverse staff, but don't have the authority to make that happen or won't use their voice to push for it in tangible ways. This quote struck me "This worker adds that, even at some of the most inclusive and forward-thinking publishers in the industry, 'almost all those who make hiring decisions that impact the makeup of industry professionals don't want to risk their own capital to diversify their organizations.' " Imagine being a person of color on a short term contract trying to explain to someone with a much more long standing position than you that there are certain problems with the source material from the 70s and 80s. Internet arguments blow up over such a suggestion; imagine if that was your boss.

Paizo has been the recent focus for good reason, but I think wotc is really getting a pass, especially considering they are a legit big corporation and drive profit at Hasbro. I'm not sure what their pay is like, but from the article it doesn't sound that great, and we know they rely on freelancers. Moreover, I don't think relying on freelancers makes for better products.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think acknowledgement and representation is good.

I also think that some (but certainly not all) companies have efforts which are very hollow.

I'm not sure that the disingenuous efforts are an overall net positive, especially when actual real people working at a company are treated poorly.

To me, it's kinda like a couple who has an awesome Instagram -showing fun vacations, romantic dinners, and a great life; but then you find out that the relationship was abusive when the cameras were off.

...or maybe a better example would be seeing everyone change the frame around their social media profile picture to support a cause but then not doing any of the actual work to fix a problem.

I dunno. I get what you're saying. Certainly, having some representation is better than none. There are aspects about it which rub me the wrong way though.

You're talking about "virtue signaling", but the actual proper usage and not just the right-wing epithet for being progressive. In this case, it's about looking progressive, putting up the hashtag without actually acting on such values where you can. Corporate pride flags are a great example.

This isn't to say that representation, even stuff that is not backed up by what's going on in the office, is necessarily bad. It's good to have more diversity, certainly, and it's good to recognize at least that advancement. But more than that, we have to fight for the real stuff. It's good that Paizo has great representation in their books and did a great Fantasy Africa book... but if their actual office culture doesn't reflect that, then there's a problem. It's great if Wizards is doing what they can to improve the problematic parts of their game, doing better with stuff like character race... but if they are allowing a black employee to beg for jobs and only get two in five months, then there is a problem.

So the in-game diversity does have value, but it definitely doesn't negate the problems these companies (and really, the industry as a whole) has.

Edit: Damn autocorrect

 

[MGibster]

Many years ago, I worked for a comic book shop in the Dallas/Fort Worth area that also sold a great deal of gaming material. And tons of A Nightmare Before Christmas merchandise for some reason. While I wouldn't say this was a dream job of mine, it was certainly preferable to working retail at Sears or something (Do kids today remember Sears?). And the application process was somewhat competitive because there were a lot of other young (mostly) men who wanted to work at the comic book shop as well. The owner actually required us to read comic books in our down time in order to keep up with the story lines of various titles. During meetings, he would randomly ask employees questions like, "What's happening in Spider-Man right now?" So it was actually a pretty cool job.

Jobs at game companies are kind of like that. They're positions that a lot of people want because they just love gaming that much. And when you have an industry, insofar as we can call gaming an industry, like that, it's real easy to take advantage of your labor force's love for the work.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

In most industries, seeing how the proverbial sausage is made is an eye-opener, that's for sure. I hope that these sorts of peaks behind the curtain help lead to better working conditions.

As for representation, even if it's not reflected in the workplace culture, it's important to recognize that a company still decided that it was more profitable to be inclusive in their marketing than to just continue selling to cishet white people. That alone means something. Granted, ideally you have both an inclusive work environment and product, but it's still a step forward...

 

[Zaukrie]

Sean Reynolds said he'd tweet out all that he told them after he's back from the con he's at...

 

[Jd Smith1]

When you have countless people who want the job, and only a few jobs to go around, the job will remain low-paying. Nothing will change that economic reality.

Lip service to change is the norm. Any seller of goods will say whatever sells their goods more efficiently, but in the end, their only goal is to sell their goods. Expecting commercial enterprises to stand on principle is foolish at best.