[UPDATED!] The Unsung (Female) Half of the D&D Team!

Now that Jennifer Clarke-Wilkes is no longer at WotC, the core D&D design team of eight people (Mike Mearls, Rodney Thompson, Jeremy Crawford, Greg Bilsland, Chris Perkins, Peter Lee, Matt Sernett, Adam Lee) is comprised solely of men. However, it's easy to overlook the other half of the team, which consists of those not so much in the limelight, and who are essential to the game's success - and who include a number of talented female staff. According to Mike Mearls, the following members of the D&D team are female.

This amounts to 9 hardworking, essential people. Mike lists them as follows:

• all of our data collection, polling, research - done by a woman
• our director of publishing, aka the person who decides what we make - a woman
• our marketing senior manager - a woman
• the four person team who created the look of 5e - women
• our licensing director - a woman
• our marketing art director - a woman

I don't know the names of all of them (I've listed the ones in the credits of the books below). I've dropped WotC's Jeremy Crawford a quick line, as he's been helpful with providing WotC staff names and positions before, and I'll update this if I hear back.

The books themselves mention Kate Irwin, Mari Kolkowsky, Melissa Rapier, Shauna Narciso (art directors), Liz Schuh, Shelly Mazzanoble, Hilary Ross, Laura Tommervik, Kim Lundstrom (brand and marketing), and Emi Tanji, Bree Heiss, and Trich Tochum (graphic designers), which is at least 12 women working on D&D!

UPDATE - Jeremy Crawford has responded with an awesome reply which lists many of the people involved with D&D:

We're putting the finishing touches on Princes of the Apocalypse, so I need to keep this short for now.

Many committed, talented people work on D&D products at Wizards of the Coast, both inside D&D R&D and outside it. The D&D team spans multiple departments, and it works on the roleplaying game, video games, licensed products, novels, and more. Regarding the RPG, which is my focus, the credits pages of the three core books show that many people had a hand in forming the new edition of the game.

EN World currently lists the following people being on the D&D team: Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Chris Perkins, Greg Bilsland, Rodney Thompson, Peter Lee, Matt Sernett, and Adam Lee.

That list should include Kate Irwin, Dan Gelon, and Shauna Narciso, the art directors who oversee the creation of all art for D&D. The list should also have Bree Heiss and Emi Tanji, who created the gorgeous interior designs of the core books and who worked tirelessly with me, Chris Perkins, and Kate Irwin to lay out those books. Most recently, Kate, Emi, Chris, and I have been collaborating to bring Princes of the Apocalypse to completion. The way we work, art affects text and vice versa.

The list is only complete with Richard Whitters, our amazing R&D concept artist and world builder, who works with Chris Perkins and Adam Lee in shaping the stories and worlds we plan to visit in the coming years. A fun fact: the fabulous condition sketches in the Player's Handbook are by Richard.

The list should name Chris Youngs, Ben Petrisor, Tom Olsen, and Chris Dupuis, members of D&D R&D who work with our video game partners; who work on board games, like the upcoming Temple of Elemental Evil; who review numerous licensed products, like the WizKids miniatures; and who are part of our internal testing of the RPG.

The list needs Nathan Stewart, Liz Schuh, Chris Lindsay, Shelly Mazzanoble, Hilary Ross, Laura Tommervik, Kim Lundstrom, and Trevor Kidd—all members of the D&D brand team. They collaborate with R&D on shaping product plans, creating future stories, gathering playtest data, working with freelancers and outside game studios, planning convention events, and dealing with innumerable other parts of the D&D business.

The list should mention Chris Tulach, who oversees the Adventurer's League and who has participated in many design meetings for the RPG over the years.

I could keep going and going. The core books wouldn't have made it out of the building without the D&D project managers—John Hay and Neil Shinkle—making sure all our departments were working in sync with each other. Our books would never see print without people like Jefferson Dunlap and Cynda Callaway working with our printers. Our gathering of playtest data and potential errata is always helped by Sam Simpson and the rest of our enthusiastic customer service team. We also get feedback and occasional loans of personnel from Magic R&D. For instance, James Wyatt did his final work on the Dungeon Master's Guide while on the Magic team.

And everything we do is in consultation with Bill Rose, the vice president of R&D, and with the rest of the company's executive team.

None of this begins to scratch the surface when it comes to our contractors. People like Michele Carter, Anita Williams, and Robert Schwalb aren't on our staff, but each of them played a key part in creating the fifth edition books. And currently, Dan Helmick is a full-time contractor working for us in-house.

Oh boy, I said was going to keep this short. It's easy for me to get enthusiastic when acknowledging the contributions of the diverse group of people who make D&D what it is today!

​

 

[ad_hoc]

So let me ask you this. If the team is set at 8 people, who should they fire so they can bring in a few women? Do you not see the major problem in this? I prefer not to automatically assume sexism on the part of the people in charge, so based on that assumption, you're suggesting they should fire someone who is more than qualified for someone who might be lesser qualified just because of gender? I also find your strawman that it "doesn't take a Y chromosome to be an awesome D&D designer" disingenuous. Because I don't see anyone making that argument.

I just think it would have been nicer if there were more women to start. Designing the game is a creative endeavour and gender certainly has an effect on your cultural perspective and your creativity in regards to that.

Still, 5e is my favourite edition of D&D.

I also love what they did with the character description section on sex, gender and sexual orientation (except for a bit of unfortunate wording that should have been caught by having someone educated on the matter take a quick look at it).

 

[Sacrosanct]

I just think it would have been nicer if there were more women to start. Designing the game is a creative endeavour and gender certainly has an effect on your cultural perspective and your creativity in regards to that.

That's just it. They did. Open your books and look at who was involved. Don't do whatever this person did that Morrus was talking about and assume that no women are on the "D&D Team". Those 8 people actually are a pretty small part of who was on the "D&D Team".

Still, 5e is my favourite edition of D&D.

I also love what they did with the character description section on sex, gender and sexual orientation (except for a bit of unfortunate wording that should have been caught by having someone educated on the matter take a quick look at it).

Agreed on both.

 

[Chocolategravy]

I just think it would have been nicer if there were more women to start. Designing the game is a creative endeavour and gender certainly has an effect on your cultural perspective and your creativity in regards to that.

In other words, men can't do what women can do.

What would actually be nice is if people would stop believing that gender mattered and so not make posts like yours.

 

[ad_hoc]

In other words, men can't do what women can do.

What would actually be nice is if people would stop believing that gender mattered and so not make posts like yours.

Gender definitely does matter.

Male privilege is a thing. Even if it weren't, people of different genders (or without gender) would still have different experiences.

We can't even have a thread here talking about how WotC really actually does employ women without people being upset about it.

I will try to explain the difference (though in a simple way):

A white woman is asked what she sees when she looks in a mirror. She says 'a woman'.

A black woman is asked what she sees when she looks in a mirror. She says 'a black woman'.

A white man is asked what he sees. He says 'a person'.


Do you see the privilege? The white man doesn't have to worry about race and gender so he doesn't see or care about it. He only sees it when the women point out that it does actually matter.

 

[jimmifett]

Gender definitely does matter.

Male privilege is a thing. Even if it weren't, people of different genders (or without gender) would still have different experiences.

We can't even have a thread here talking about how WotC really actually does employ women without people being upset about it.

I will try to explain the difference (though in a simple way):

A white woman is asked what she sees when she looks in a mirror. She says 'a woman'.

A black woman is asked what she sees when she looks in a mirror. She says 'a black woman'.

A white man is asked what he sees. He says 'a person'.


Do you see the privilege? The white man doesn't have to worry about race and gender so he doesn't see or care about it. He only sees it when the women point out that it does actually matter.

And that ladies, gentlemen, and fellow Gender:'Sexual Tyrannosaur's, is SJW bovine feces plain as day. Kill this thread, kill it with fire. Nuke it from orbit, only way to be sure.

 

[Patrick McGill]

And that ladies, gentlemen, and fellow Gender:'Sexual Tyrannosaur's, is SJW bovine feces plain as day. Kill this thread, kill it with fire. Nuke it from orbit, only way to be sure.

You're free to leave the conversation if you find it uncomfortable. Leave the moderation to the moderators.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

There is no such thing as a level playing field. There are people with more experience and people with less experience. Some with more experience cost more and are thus priced out of a hiring decision in favor of cheaper, less experience people that show the potential to grow into a position. Others are so low in experience that they may not yet show the potential to grow into a position and no matter how cheap, aren't selected for a position of a certain level. No where in this does human anatomy play a role.

But as you say, anatomy is apparently no longer related to 'Gender' (as if that even matters in a hiring decision either). So if we're making things up now because we can't tell fantasy from reality, I'm claiming as my gender 'Sexual Tyrannosaur'.

I suggest this thread be locked, it's well past going into SJW politics, which is not something I come here for. Save that for Video Gaming 'journalist' sites like Kotaku and Polygon.

Being possibly the biggest anti-SJW person on this site, I can affirm that wanting more women in the business and wanting them to have more input is not solely an SJW decision.

I am honestly happy about the make-up of WotC and the fact there are more women. Why? Because all I have to do is open one of the books, flip to any page, and look at the results, and know that DnD has benefited from it. And all I have to do is show the pictures from the classes to a prospective female player and, regardless of if they are a man or a woman, probably recruit them for my game... which, in turn, means my table directly benefits from that diversity through a greater range of available players. And, in turn, that increased range and the increased feeling of comfort DnD offers to those people means more people playing, which means the game garners more positive attention and in turn draws more players that could end up gaming with me.

Simple practicality.

 

[ad_hoc]

I am honestly happy about the make-up of WotC and the fact there are more women. Why? Because all I have to do is open one of the books, flip to any page, and look at the results, and know that DnD has benefited from it. And all I have to do is show the pictures from the classes to a prospective female player and, regardless of if they are a man or a woman, probably recruit them for my game... which, in turn, means my table directly benefits from that diversity through a greater range of available players. And, in turn, that increased range and the increased feeling of comfort DnD offers to those people means more people playing, which means the game garners more positive attention and in turn draws more players that could end up gaming with me.

Simple practicality.

Yeah, it's just about having different perspectives and inviting those people in to play games.

D&D is about telling stories. I like to tell stories with women in them and have women help me tell those stories.

There is something missing otherwise.

I would be ashamed to play a 1e game with women and have to tell them that their characters get penalties because they are women. I mean, I would just be ashamed to play D&D in general.

I feel great about being able to play 5e and showing people in the rules that the are no limitations on the gender or sexual orientation of their characters and there are no penalties associated with them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I am honestly happy about the make-up of WotC and the fact there are more women. Why? Because all I have to do is open one of the books, flip to any page, and look at the results, and know that DnD has benefited from it. And all I have to do is show the pictures from the classes to a prospective female player and, regardless of if they are a man or a woman, probably recruit them for my game... which, in turn, means my table directly benefits from that diversity through a greater range of available players. And, in turn, that increased range and the increased feeling of comfort DnD offers to those people means more people playing, which means the game garners more positive attention and in turn draws more players that could end up gaming with me.

Simple practicality.

I agree with this. Overall, as a whole, I think the art in 5e is some of the best from any prior edition. Flipping open my book, I see 4 out of 6 art directors are women. That tells me that these people (both the men and the women) are more than qualified to do an excellent job.

I fully acknowledge things like privilege exists, but in the context of the D&D team, I'm not seeing a whole lot of unfair playing fields there by WoTC. It seems to me that they are hiring the people who best fit their vision, and many of them just happen to be women. I don't think there's any conspiracy here, nor do I think they need to hire more just for the sake of them being women. I think people need to stop either outright accusing, or even implying, that there is unfairness going on here on WoTC's part, or that some sort of quota needs to be filled.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So let me ask you this. If the team is set at 8 people, who should they fire so they can bring in a few women?...you're suggesting they should fire someone who is more than qualified for someone who might be lesser qualified just because of gender?

I don't know how "It'd be nice to have a greater diversity on the design team itself" suddenly became "fire people now." There's lots of ways to accomplish that goal in a sustainable way that respects the jobs being done today by the hard-working design staff. One of the most obvious would be, "the next time there's an opening, make sure that there's some viable women candidates in the recruitment pool." Turnover happens, and in the world of WotC, turnover seems to happen not infrequently.

I prefer not to automatically assume sexism on the part of the people in charge, so based on that assumption

...based on that assumption, you can ask, "in what ways might our pipeline distort the representation of people with kinds of talents we're considering for these roles?"

Folks don't need to be actively sexist themselves to perpetuate and participate in a pattern of behavior that results in unintentional biases like "we have no women designers on the team" and the negative effects that spiral out of that.

I also find your strawman that it "doesn't take a Y chromosome to be an awesome D&D designer" disingenuous. Because I don't see anyone making that argument.

It wasn't intended as a counterpoint to anything, or as a presentation of someone else's actual argument, just as an acknowledgement that there are women doing awesome D&D (and D&D-ish) things who are not paid D&D designers. That is, who gets to be a paid D&D designer at WotC isn't determined purely on merit. Which shouldn't really be very shocking.