[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!

​

 

[Sacrosanct]

...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.
.

Your argument seems to be dependent on discrimination on the part of WotC, whether intentional or not, and I'm saying that's a flawed way to look at it. You shouldn't assume that because "the pipeline has resulted in few or no women on this team" that means that women are being discriminated against. Sometimes, it could very well be that the 8 people on the team are the best qualified, and they just so happen to be men. Looking at all the other women who were involved in D&D, it certainly seems most probable to me that WoTC doesn't have some inherent discrimination against women going on.

That's what bothers me about your position. You seem to be saying that unless there's X amount of representation, then there's unfairness going on. Sometimes that might be the case. Sometime it's not. The point is you shouldn't assume it's the case. Not without any sort of evidence to support it, because implications of discrimination against someone, even unintentional, is a really big deal that shouldn't be thrown around lightly.

 

[Patrick McGill]

Using historical marginalization as justification for preference regardless of other factors over equally or more qualified individuals, is indeed playing a card.

What about modern, actually happening today marginalization? Are you allowing them to use that as a justification to be represented?

 

[Cam Banks]

Let's talk about a better product.

Is the product more inviting, appealing, attractive, inclusive of, and supportive of a demographic that includes more than just white men of a certain income bracket?

Chances are, if those creating it aren't working hard to ensure that, it won't.

Chances are, if those creating it come from diverse backgrounds, it will.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Morrus]

Actually it did mention designers. Mearls did the same stupid thing that you did and not actually be bothered to read what threw him into a tizzy.

I'd advise you to do the bare minimum of basic research before you start throwing around accusations of stupidity.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Let's summarize the whole of a group's marginalization as playing the victim card. That's the correct and ethical thing to do. Those women need to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I mean, one almost became president recently! /s

Can I just state something I've observed? This will also show why it is I am an anti-SJW despite believing in the essential goals of equality.

Take a look at what ad_hoc said: "Feeling that gender does not matter is a privilege." Okay, that's nice... and isn't that same feeling, one backed by social mechanisms, the goal of gender equality? And given that it is a privilege, doesn't that mean that gender equality is not out to destroy privilege, but to gain it for those who do not have it? After all, if it were out to destroy privilege and what ad_hoc says is true, then one of the things gender equality movements would be out to destroy is the feeling that gender does not matter. And, it doesn't take a genius to see that destroying that feeling utterly would create even more injustice and oppression than currently exists.

That and replying to someone pointing out they are raising their daughter to feel that gender doesn't matter (another stated goal of gender equality) and that she shouldn't feel victimized (another stated goal of gender equality) is a marginalization of an whole group's problems with how society treats them kinda suggests the real goal of the SJW side of gender equality is the marginalization of the very groups they are fighting for. Is it, perhaps, no coincidence that the first President in history who treats women's issues seriously and is very much a gender equality SJW is also the one who coincides with a downturn in women's rights within law, then?

I am not saying gender equality is not an issue that should not be fought for. I'm saying that, in a way, you and ad_hoc are almost coming across as saying that the very goals of the gender equality movement are inherently discriminatory towards the people that movement is fighting for. I don't necessarily agree, but it's hard to side with you when you're undermining your own argument.

Not saying that equality is not deserved or that you are actually wrong. What I am doing is tossing this out there so you have an idea of an essential logic weakness within your stance.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Let's talk about a better product.

Is the product more inviting, appealing, attractive, inclusive of, and supportive of a demographic that includes more than just white men of a certain income bracket?

Chances are, if those creating it aren't working hard to ensure that, it won't.

Chances are, if those creating it come from diverse backgrounds, it will.

Cheers,
Cam

OK, you can stop with the implication that only member of demographic X will make an effort to be supportive of demographic X. As the father of a black child and a member of my PRIDE group, I find your implication frankly insulting that as a straight white male I am inherently incapable (intentionally or not) of actively supporting someone of another ethnic/racial/religious/gender/identity group, or that I don't work as hard at being inclusive as someone who is a minority.

 

[Shemeska]

Transphobic is a fear of trans... what?

Of me and others in the industry apparently. I'm so sorry that my neural architecture in some ways resembles that of most XX versus most XY individuals despite having a Y myself. So sorry for a developmental hitch in utero, because clearly I'm just delusional according to you.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Let's talk about a better product.

Is the product more inviting, appealing, attractive, inclusive of, and supportive of a demographic that includes more than just white men of a certain income bracket?

Chances are, if those creating it aren't working hard to ensure that, it won't.

Chances are, if those creating it come from diverse backgrounds, it will.

Cheers,
Cam

Now this is a good point!

There's also something else: That diversity of viewpoints will mean a diversity of information for creating a fantasy game that allows people to truly RP as they wish. More viewpoints are never a bad thing for roleplaying games.

 

[Patrick McGill]

Can I just state something I've observed? This will also show why it is I am an anti-SJW despite believing in the essential goals of equality.

Take a look at what ad_hoc said: "Feeling that gender does not matter is a privilege." Okay, that's nice... and isn't that same feeling, one backed by social mechanisms, the goal of gender equality? And given that it is a privilege, doesn't that mean that gender equality is not out to destroy privilege, but to gain it for those who do not have it? After all, if it were out to destroy privilege and what ad_hoc says is true, then one of the things gender equality movements would be out to destroy is the feeling that gender does not matter. And, it doesn't take a genius to see that destroying that feeling utterly would create even more injustice and oppression than currently exists.

That and replying to someone pointing out they are raising their daughter to feel that gender doesn't matter (another stated goal of gender equality) and that she shouldn't feel victimized (another stated goal of gender equality) is a marginalization of an whole group's problems with how society treats them kinda suggests the real goal of the SJW side of gender equality is the marginalization of the very groups they are fighting for. Is it, perhaps, no coincidence that the first President in history who treats women's issues seriously and is very much a gender equality SJW is also the one who coincides with a downturn in women's rights within law, then?

I am not saying gender equality is not an issue that should not be fought for. I'm saying that, in a way, you and ad_hoc are almost coming across as saying that the very goals of the gender equality movement are inherently discriminatory towards the people that movement is fighting for. I don't necessarily agree, but it's hard to side with you when you're undermining your own argument.

Not saying that equality is not deserved or that you are actually wrong. What I am doing is tossing this out there so you have an idea of an essential logic weakness within your stance.

My response was definitely more to the end of his comment, in which he calls what women and others are doing right now (trying get better representation) as playing the victim card. The first part of his comment I have no problem with. Dismissing the whole issue out of hand is what I have a problem with.

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

Of me and others in the industry apparently. I'm so sorry that my neural architecture in some ways resembles that of most XX versus most XY individuals despite having a Y myself. So sorry for a developmental hitch in utero, because clearly I'm just delusional according to you.

I want people like you in the industry. I may not ever fully understand your viewpoint on life, but I can say there are endless items you can contribute to the roleplaying industry that will benefit it just because of what you know about life. And, the people accepting it is of your viewpoint and experiences, the more people who have shared them will feel welcome and, potentially, play the game.

Simple practicality