More than half of board game designers responding to a Tabletop Game Designers Association member survey say they have used generative AI for some elements of their work.
About a quarter of the 171 designers who answered the TTGDA survey said they had used a genAI platform to come up with game ideas or mechanisms – while more than half indicated they were ‘strongly opposed’ to using AI in that way.
TTGDA – a professional organisation launched in 2024 to advocate for tabletop game creators in North America – asked designers about seven use cases, comprising:
● Coming up with ideas for games or mechanisms ● Writing placeholder text ● Writing text for the final version of a published game ● Editing or proofreading text ● Making placeholder art ● Making art for the final version of a published game ● Creating marketing materials for a game
The organisation said that while 28% of respondents were ‘strongly opposed’ to all seven use cases, almost a fifth were not strongly opposed to any of them, with the remaining respondents offering a mix of use cases they consider either acceptable or not.
Image credit: The Tabletop Game Designers Association
TTGDA’s report of its findings stated, “In the free-response section of the survey, multiple designers said that the process of chatting with the AI particularly helped them better articulate their own goals or ideas for a game.
“One said, ‘It’s like asking another human who may not know much about games. They know enough to at least bounce a couple ideas, which ends up with me getting to where I want to go’.
“Several designers who had tried asking generative AI platforms to come up with its own ideas described the material they got from the AI with terms such as ‘derivative’ or ‘slop’.
“One designer said that when they tried to prompt an AI for ideas, the AI recommended inappropriate mechanisms from mass market games, like ‘lose a turn’.
“Some said that a fraction of the output from their prompts would contain nuggets of useful ideas or angles that were worth considering.”
The results for use of AI art in final products were much more clear cut, with roughly four out of five respondents ‘strongly opposed’, and only two respondents out of the 171 saying they either regularly or occasionally generate art with AI that they plan to keep in a final game.
Many more designers (30%) were accepting of using AI to generate placeholder art for their designs – but 39% of respondents were ‘strongly opposed’ to that use.
TTGDA’s report cited one respondent as saying, “Publishers want pretty prototypes and the AI art makes me better able to illustrate the narrative direction and make play less boring than it would be with black and white words or “close enough” illustrations. Some of the games I am working on have no illustrations in the real world that anyone has done and if I wanted those I would have to pay artists which I cannot afford to do.”
Image credit: The Tabletop Game Designers Association
But it added that other designers said AI assistants had failed to create usable placeholder art in response to their prompts, with several saying that after trying AI-generated placeholder art they had returned to clipart and other online searches.
TTGDA said that when asked how they feel about publishers using AI for placeholder art, 40% of respondents said they would be ok with it, but 29% would like to contractually prohibit it and another 31% said they ‘don’t like it, but wouldn’t really fight it’.
The report added, “Of all the AI uses that the survey asked about, editing and proofreading had the lowest number of ‘strongly opposed’ responses, at 35% for personal use and 30% for publisher use.
“About a quarter of designers (28%) are using AI to edit things they’ve written at least occasionally.
“Some designers gave examples of AI not working well as an editor for their games, saying it ‘made the rulebook worse’, or ‘creates more problems than it solves’.
“The problems they described included hallucinations and inappropriate tone. Designers also raised concerns that publishers might use AI for proofreading without a final human check, leaving the game vulnerable to errors.”
TTGDA also noted that more than 80% of respondents did not want publishers to use AI to generate marketing materials for their games, with multiple designers commenting that they were turned off by the use of AI in content creation around games, and will not work with influencers who use genAI in their workflow.
The report noted that of issues raised by designers when asked about their concerns around AI, “the most commonly voiced concern was that current generative AI tools are based on plagiarism, because they were trained on art and written materials without the creators’ consent.”
It noted, “Many said things like, ‘All uses of stolen material are problematic’. Multiple designers also mentioned that they want contract language that will prohibit a publisher from allowing AIs to be further trained on their game materials.
“The next most common concern was AI’s high environmental cost. A ChatGPT request uses ten times more electricity than a typical Google search (2.0Wh vs 0.3Wh). Other impacts include the use of rare earth elements, mercury, and lead in data center equipment; and the use of large amounts of water for cooling.
“Some designers worry that AI could flood the market with bad games. One designer thought it would be easy for unethical publishers to quickly create ‘clones that are slightly different’ and crowd the games they are copying out of the market.
“Another designer worried that ‘AI is great at making things that look like games for crowd funding campaigns, but without actual rules that make sense’.
“The general sentiment from these and other designers was the worry that in a market where it is already difficult for a game to stand out, these practices will only make it harder.”
Recent Repercussions
TTGDA’s report comes just over a month after Ryan Dancey, a more than 30-year veteran of the tabletop gaming industry, lost his COO job at publisher Alderac Entertainment Group after saying AI could generate game ideas as good as his company’s titles Tiny Towns and Cubitos.
Wingspan designer Elizabeth Hargrave, the co-founder of TTGDA, dismissed Dancey’s suggestion when speaking to BoardGameWire the day after his departure from AEG.
She said at the time, “I absolutely do not think AI could be prompted to come up with even the basic idea for those games, let alone a fully fleshed out ruleset for them. For fun, I’ve prompted several different options for ideas for Wingspan cards and not one of them has given me an actionable idea.
“I had a friend who ran a rulebook through AI for proofreading and it hallucinated that people needed to shout ‘bingo’. Apparently that’s AI’s conception of board games right now.”
She told BoardGameWire at the time that the TTGDA board had been discussing the use of AI in board game design, adding that it was “a conversation we need to have with our membership”.
Wingspan designer and TTGDA co-founder Elizabeth Hargrave
She said, “We’re working on a model contract to offer to our members right now, and that will offer a clause that designers can request that will require publishers not to use AI in their final product. A lot of contracts ask us to certify that a board game design is our own, and not plagiarized.
“It’s my opinion that using AI in a final product goes against that, because it’s using a machine that’s built entirely on plagiarism.”
Hargrave added last month, “I do see people using AI for things like generating a bunch of placeholder names in a prototype. They’re often clunky options but they do the job when you know everything will change 50 times before you’re done anyway. I’m not aware of anyone who has successfully actually gotten good, original ideas for mechanisms from AI.
“What I wish we were talking about is how AI could be built to help designers run models of their games repeatedly to catch weird edge cases or broken strategies. I wish someone would build that tool instead of the language models that just focus on advanced auto-complete.
“This would never replace actual playtesting with humans for psychology and actual fun, but it might save me some repetitions.”
The TTGDA survey noted that one of the most common additional uses mentioned was as a source for help with probability, mathematics, and thinking about balance.
It said, “In some cases, designers are having the AI write spreadsheet formulas that they then use to do calculations in the spreadsheet. In others, they are simply asking the AI to do calculations.
“However, nearly as many designers said they had quite poor results with asking LLMs to do math, reporting errors and hallucinations. For example, one designer who used ChatGPT to calculate detailed probabilities (e.g. how often a certain set of cards might appear in a starting hand) said when they checked the results, they were wrong ‘roughly 1/4th of the time’. Another called ChatGPT ‘surprisingly bad at maths’.”
Editor’s note: GAMA is one of the sponsors of the BoardGameWire newsletter
The Origins Awards, one of board gaming’s longest-running prizes voted on by industry professionals, has unveiled its latest slate of 120 nominees – and come under fire for failing to mention any of the games’ designers for the third year in a row.
The awards, which are organised by non-profit trade organisation GAMA, say they aim to reward “excellence in game design” across a string of categories including light, gateway and heavy games, solo and co-op titles and party games.
The Tabletop Game Designers Association, a professional organisation launched in 2024 to advocate for creators in North America, said it requested that year that GAMA begin including designer names in its Origins Award announcements – and reiterated the plea when designer names were left out again in 2025.
TTGDA posted to its BlueSky account last night after the 2026 nominees were unveiled: “Shame on GAMA for once again not including designers in their ‘Excellence in Game Design’ award announcement.
“Last year they promised that this would be corrected in 2026, but again designers are not given the recognition they deserve. The omission is no longer an oversight. It is a GAMA policy.”
GAMA’s communications director Eric Francis, who joined the organisation in May last year, has since responded to GAMA members on Facebook, calling the omission “unfortunate” and “unacceptable”.
Francis, who added that he is a member of TTGDA, said, “As press releases fall under my purview I accept the responsibility for it and I apologize. But it was not intentional nor is it policy.
“I believe in accountability and I believe in fixing problems. One of my tasks after GAMA Expo ends this week is revamping the processes for GAMA’s releases so this kind of thing stops happening, and I invite you to hold me to that.”
He added, “I’ve been with GAMA for less than a year and this is my first Expo. Each of the last two nights I’ve spent hours in a massive ballroom in Louisville, Kentucky, watching people play games, many of them new or unpublished, all of them created by passionate and talented people – a number of whom are GAMA members themselves.
“This organization supports creators, full stop. But as with any human endeavor it is fallible, as tonight’s release demonstrates. My job is to head off those shortcomings or, failing that, fix them so they don’t happen again. It’s your job to keep me apprised of how I’m doing. I look forward to that dynamic.”
The Origins awards, which were first presented in 1975, have been in heavy flux over the past few years, going from 10 categories in 2019 to 24 in 2024 – with the make-up of those categories significantly shaken up from year to year.
GAMA briefly introduced categories in 2024 which represented its membership having expanded beyond just retailers, publishers and wholesalers, including recognition for artists, writers and media.
But those segments were removed again in 2025, with categories cut including Best Media Production, Best Game Related Writing and Best 2D Artwork – although the miniatures segment was expanded from two categories to three, covering games, the miniatures themselves, and paint and accessories.
A total of 50 board games have again been nominated this year across five categories, with the full list of nominees presented at the end of this article.
Trading card games and collectible card games will compete in constructible and randomised categories – the latter of which awards booster boxes and displays – while RPGs are again represented across two categories, games and supplements.
Veteran board game designer Matt Leacock is nominated for two designs this year
Matt Leacock has picked up two nominations this year for his work on Lord of the Rings: Fate of the Fellowship and Animal Rescue Team, the latter co-designed by Lisa Towell.
Tyler J Brown has also picked up two nominations for Hercules and the 12 Labors and 23 Knives, as has David Gordon for his work on Crafting the Cosmos, alongside frequent collaborator TAM, and Finspan, which was co-designed by Michael O’Connell.
Capstone Games and The Op also each have a trio of games nominated this year – with Capstone’s titles Rowdy Partners (designed by Jason Hager and Darren Reckner), Sanctuary (Mathias Wigge) and Tea Garden (Tomáš Holek) all contesting the Light Strategy Game category.
The Op three nominations are Jason Tremblay’s Tacta, Matt Fantastic’s How Many What?!, and Manny Vega’s Tea Witches, across the Gateway Game, Party Game and Heavy Strategy Game categories respectively.
This year’s winners are set to be announced at the Origins Game Fair in Columbus, Ohio, which is due to take place between June 17 and 21.
Gateway Game • A Place for All My Books, Alex Cutler, Michael Mihealsick – Smirk & Dagger Games • Above and Below: Haunted, Ryan Laukat – Red Raven Games • Everdell Duo, James A. Wilson, Clarissa A. Wilson – Tycoon Games • Flamecraft Duals, Manny Vega – Cardboard Alchemy • Pergola, Michał Gołąb Gołębiowski, Przemek Wojtkowiak – Rebel Studio • Point Galaxy, Molly Johnson, Robert Melvin, Shawn Stankewich – Flatout Games, AEG • Railroad Tiles, Hjalmar Hach, Lorenzo Silva – Horrible Guild • Tacta, Jason Tremblay – The Op • Toy Battle, Paolo Mori, Alessandro Zucchini – Asmodee • Wine Cellar, Andrew Stiles – 25th Century Games
Light Strategy Game • 3 Witches, Corey Young – Allplay • Diatoms, Sabrina Culyba – Ludoliminal • Finspan, David Gordon, Michael O’Connell – Stonemaier Games • Rowdy Partners, Jason Hager, Darren Reckner – Capstone Games • Sanctuary, Mathias Wigge – Capstone Games • Star Wars: Battle of Hoth, Richard Borg, Adrien Martinot – Days of Wonder • Tag Team, Gricha German, Corentin Lebrat – Scorpion Masqué • Tea Garden, Tomáš Holek – Capstone Games • Timelancers, Juliana Chang, Kenny Heidt, Teresa Ho, Lee Ho – Party Tails • Winter Rabbit, William Thompson – Absurdist Productions
Ryan Dancey, a more than 30-year veteran of the tabletop gaming industry, has lost his COO job at publisher Alderac Entertainment Group (AEG) a day after saying AI could generate game ideas as good as his company’s titles Tiny Towns and Cubitos.
Much of the ire was directed at Dancey’s response to a post comment which argued that “AI wouldn’t come up with Tiny Towns or Flip Seven or Cubitos because it doesn’t understand the human element of fun”.
Dancey posted in reply, “I have zero reason to believe that an AI couldn’t ‘come up with Tiny Towns or Flip Seven or Cubitos’. I can prompt any of several AIs RIGHT NOW [Dancey’s emphasis] and get ideas for games as good as those.
“The gaming industry doesn’t exist because humans create otherwise unobtainable ideas. It exists because many many previous games exist, feed into the minds of designers, who produce new variants on those themes. People then apply risk capital against those ideas to see if there’s a product market fit. Sometimes there is, and sometimes there is not. (In fact, much more often than not).”
“Extremely occasionally (twice in my lifetime: D&D and Magic: the Gathering) a human has produced an all new form of gaming entertainment. Those moments are so rare and incandescent that they echo across decades.
“Game publishing isn’t an industry of unique special ideas. It’s an industry about execution, marketing, and attention to detail. All things AIs are great at.”
Alderac CEO John Zinser, who has led the Space Base and Love Letter publisher for three decades, moved quickly to distance the company from Dancey’s comments, posting on BlueSky yesterday, “I want to be clear where I stand. For 30+ years, AEG has worked with human designers to bring games to life.
“That creative partnership, the collaboration, the shared spark, is what makes tabletop special. That is not changing.”
Several hours later, Zinser confirmed in a Facebook post that Dancey and AEG had “parted ways” after more than a decade.
Zinser said, “This is not an easy post to write. Ryan is my best friend and has been a significant part of AEG’s story, and I am personally grateful for the years of work, passion, and intensity he brought to the company. We have built a lot together.
“As AEG moves into its next chapter, leadership alignment and clarity matter more than ever. This transition reflects that reality.
“Our commitment to our designers, partners, retailers, and players remains unchanged. We will continue building great games through collaboration, creativity, and trust.
“I expect Ryan will have much success in whatever he builds next.”
BoardGameWire contacted Zinser to ask for further comment on the situation, its affect on AEG, the company’s plans to recruit a replacement, and for Zinser’s take on Dancey’s achievements during his decade at the business, but is yet to receive a reply.
“This tide is, in my opinion, only running one way, and AEG is going to have to fight hard to hold it’s [sic] position.”
Former Alderac COO Ryan Dancey
Dancey, however, provided an extensive response to BoardGameWire’s questions, including denying that he believed AI could “come up with Tiny Towns or Flip 7 or Cubitos” – instead emphasising that he was speaking about the technology being able to produce “ideas” rather than completed designs.
He told BoardGameWire, “I am not saying that an AI could turn over a finished game design ready for publication. I’m not even saying that an AI could produce work ripe enough to be pitched to a publisher. But the idea that it could not be used to generate ideas on the level as those embodied by those three games is already demonstrably false (in my opinion).
“This language ‘come up with’ is pretty nonspecific and I understand people who chose to take it at its most extreme level even though that was not my intent. I could have done a better job of being more explicit about the level of work I think an AI can do.”
Dancey added that he had contacted Tiny Towns designer Peter McPherson and Cubitos creator John D Clair in the wake of his comments discussing their games, saying, “Among other things I told them: ‘I don’t think AI is capable of doing your jobs, I would much rather work you with than a robot, I think you’re both top-tier designers that I feel privileged to work with, and I apologize if you found anything in my remarks to be hurtful’.
“I don’t have a working relationship with [Flip 7 designer Eric Olsen], but I would say the same to him if I did.”
Tiny Towns: Villagers || Photo Credit: AEG
Commenting on his suggestion in the LinkedIn post that all current board game design is based on designers taking existing games and producing variants on those themes, Dancey said, “Everything we do as humans is derived from experience. All art is derived. We all stand on the shoulders of every generation who went before us.
“Specifically I wrote: ‘The gaming industry doesn’t exist because humans create otherwise unobtainable ideas. It exists because many many previous games exist, feed into the minds of designers, who produce new variants on those themes’.
“I stand by that statement. It seems axiomatic to me.
“The game industry is overflowing with great ideas for games. We don’t lack for ideas. The hard part is deciding which great ideas can be commercialized, and how to do that. The incredible skill that someone like Pete or John brings is knowing how to evolve ‘a good idea’ into a ‘great game’.”
No AI at AEG
Dancey also told BoardGameWire that AEG’s leadership team made a policy decision “several years ago” not to use generative AI in its products or its “creative pipeline”.
He said, “I supported that decision – it was a consensus. I believed then and I believe now that it’s not appropriate to use AI in those ways in tabletop games.
“Since then I have been responsible for developing and adding language to our boilerplate contracts with people who freelance for AEG, who develop for AEG and who create artwork for AEG which specifically prohibits them from using generative AI in their work without permission, which AEG does not provide, and that specifies pretty harsh penalties for failure to comply with those policies.
“I fully support the inclusion of that language in our contracts. I took the initiative to write that language and I took the initiative to enforce its inclusion.
“We have already had pushback from creative workers who don’t like the harsh penalties. We’ve had pushback from people who want to water down their affirmative responsibility to ensure that they and anyone they’re working with or subcontracting work to adheres to this policy.
“This tide is, in my opinion, only running one way, and AEG is going to have to fight hard to hold it’s [sic] position.”
He continued, “I am not championing the use of generative AI in the gaming industry to design, develop or illustrate games. I believe we must talk about the real abilities of this technology, honestly, so that we can think about the impacts it will have on our lives.
“Making decisions to use it, how to use it, how to restrict it, and how to enforce those decisions is something that every publisher in the industry should already have done and should be revisiting on a regular basis.
“The time for these conversations is now. Not next year. Now.”
“I’m writing this for the people in my life who don’t [work with AI]… my family, my friends, the people I care about who keep asking me “so what’s the deal with AI?” and getting an answer that doesn’t do justice to what’s actually happening. I keep giving them the polite version. The cocktail-party version. Because the honest version sounds like I’ve lost my mind. And for a while, I told myself that was a good enough reason to keep what’s truly happening to myself. But the gap between what I’ve been saying and what is actually happening has gotten far too big. The people I care about deserve to hear what is coming, even if it sounds crazy.”
Dancey told BoardGameWire, “I believe I am in touch with enough of this tech and have done enough research to feel the same as author Matt Schumer. I feel like I have an obligation to discuss this technology as widely and as honestly as possible. If I do not, I am doing harm to those I care about.
“I’m sorry if having this conversation makes people uncomfortable. I know there are people who want it to go away, or believe it’s unfixably tainted by the unethical circumstances of its birth. I know that there are people who want to have a fight about this and want to use proxies if they have to (which is what I feel has happened in this particular case). But I still feel compelled to speak. If I do not, I will go insane.
“I’m incredibly sad that this episode has resulted in my separation from AEG, a company I have worked with for more than 10 years. And I’m really frustrated and hurt that it’s happening because of something people think I said, not something I actually said.”
Wider Issue
Wingspan designer Elizabeth Hargrave, the co-founder of non-profit support organisation the Tabletop Game Designers Association, dismissed Dancey’s suggestion that AI could generate ideas for games such as Tiny Towns and Cubitos.
TTGDA co-founder Elizabeth Hargrave
She told BoardGameWire, “I absolutely do not think AI could be prompted to come up with even the basic idea for those games, let alone a fully fleshed out ruleset for them. For fun, I’ve prompted several different options for ideas for Wingspan cards and not one of them has given me an actionable idea.
“I had a friend who ran a rulebook through AI for proofreading and it hallucinated that people needed to shout ‘bingo’. Apparently that’s AI’s conception of board games right now.”
She added, “Designers do pull from existing games but when it’s done well it’s because those existing mechanisms serve some original idea, and then they’re remixed so thoroughly with other mechanisms and with the subject matter that it feels new.
“Sanibel has pieces of Tokaido and Tetris and many tile-laying games. But it wasn’t a prompt of ‘I’m going to remix these games’. It was ‘what would work well in service of this idea that I have?’.
“That requires understanding how games actually feel when you play them, and anticipating how different pieces can fit together.”
Hargrave said that the TTGDA board had been discussing the use of AI in board game design, adding that it was “a conversation we need to have with our membership”.
She said, “We’re working on a model contract to offer to our members right now, and that will offer a clause that designers can request that will require publishers not to use AI in their final product. A lot of contracts ask us to certify that a board game design is our own, and not plagiarized.
“It’s my opinion that using AI in a final product goes against that, because it’s using a machine that’s built entirely on plagiarism.”
Hargrave added, “I do see people using AI for things like generating a bunch of placeholder names in a prototype. They’re often clunky options but they do the job when you know everything will change 50 times before you’re done anyway. I’m not aware of anyone who has successfully actually gotten good, original ideas for mechanisms from AI.
“What I wish we were talking about is how AI could be built to help designers run models of their games repeatedly to catch weird edge cases or broken strategies. I wish someone would build that tool instead of the language models that just focus on advanced auto-complete.
“This would never replace actual playtesting with humans for psychology and actual fun, but it might save me some repetitions.”
Previous apology
Dancey’s exit from Alderac comes three years after he publicly apologised for saying that male board game designers vastly outnumber women because “females are socialized in the West to avoid situations where they’re subjected to fairly harsh criticism of their abilities and creative ideas”.
He had made those comments on Twitter in response to a thread from Elizabeth Hargrave, who had presented data criticising the structural issues in board gaming which had seen so few women nominated for the Spiel des Jahres prize – widely considered the biggest award in board gaming.
Dancey’s comment in the thread included him saying, “Males are socialized to take the punches and keep moving forward. Getting across the gap is how you turn someone into a ‘real game designer’ who gets paid for their work and who makes designs that are attractive to publishers.”
In addition to saying the post “doesn’t reflect my views and it certainly doesn’t reflect the views of the company I work for”, Dancey outlined “concrete steps” he said AEG would be taking “to do better in this regard”, and called on readers to “check back with me in a year and hold me accountable”.
When BoardGameWire contacted Dancey on the anniversary of the apology for an update, he said, “When I’m ready to speak more on this topic I’ll do it on X as a followup to that original post.”
No follow-up to that original post from Dancey appears to exist.
Update 19/2/26: Dancey contacted BoardGameWire to say that he wrote a follow-up to the original post on Twitter in May of 2024, but deleted some of his Twitter posts when he stopped using the site in November of that year.That response no longer exists online following Dancey’s deletion of it, but a full version of the text has now been included at the end of this article.
Dancey’s career in the tabletop space dates back more than 30 years, when he was part of the team developing the Legend of the Five Rings TCG.
In 1997 he helped negotiate Wizards of the Coast’s takeover of the bankruptcy-threatened Dungeons & Dragons publisher TSR, becoming head of D&D following the deal.
Dancey also previously worked as chief marketing officer for CCP Games, the Icelandic video game producer of space sandbox MMO Eve Online, following its acquisition of roleplaying game and book publisher White Wolf Publishing in 2006.
He was also the CEO of Goblinworks, the company behind development of a massively multiplayer online game based on Paizo’s Pathfinder RPG, between 2011 and 2015.
That title raised about $1.4m across a pair of Kickstarter campaigns, but after Dancey left for “personal reasons” all but three of the company’s staff were almost immediately laid off, with then-Paizo CEO Lisa Stevens saying “delays in getting the game to market coupled with some anticipated funding falling through have left us about 75% short of the money we need to finish the game”.
Dancey told BoardGameWire yesterday that he did not have any specific plans for the future following his departure from AEG.
—
Update 19/2/26:Ryan Dancey’s now deleted Twitter post from May 2024, a year after his apology for saying that male board game designers vastly outnumber women because “females are socialized in the West to avoid situations where they’re subjected to fairly harsh criticism of their abilities and creative ideas”:
Last year I hastily wrote out some thoughts about the challenges that women face in succeeding as game designers and the hurdles they face moving past the pitch process and getting their games published. I managed to pretty thoroughly mangle my thoughts, anger a lot of people, and disrupt that dialog. I was clumsy in my writing, and poorly communicated what I wanted to express. In the aftermath I apologized, and I said I would return to the topic after a year spent in reflection and in working on these issues.
This is that update.
Since I joined AEG as a full time staff member in 2016 one of the things I have been working on is improving the diversity of our staff. From 2016 into the pandemic, we had fairly low staff turnover. During that time the most significant staff change was the addition of a VP of Sales & Marketing, who is a woman, but we parted ways with her in 2019. During the pandemic we had no significant staff changes.
Currently of 13 full time staff at AEG, five are women. Of the most recent hires since 2021, four of five hires have been women. Of the departures since 2021, none have been women. Since 2023 we have hired one person into a full time staff role, and that person is a woman. As we turned the calendar page to 2024, we promoted Adelheid Zimmerman to our Leadership team. This five person team sets overall direction for the company, and reviews and approves things like the schedule of new product releases, budgets, staff compensation and hiring and separations, etc.
We continue to struggle with racial and ethnic diversity and are also concerned about our internal and external connections with all people who might feel marginalized or face obstacles in the profession of game publishing. This is a significant problem that our Leadership team has discussed at length and it is an area where we need to show improvement.
AEG affirmatively seeks to diversify its workplace by providing opportunities to candidates who identify with underrepresented groups and we provide a pathway through our application process for candidates who may have experience and backgrounds that bypass some of the requirements in our job postings.
I am confident that we will continue to become a more diverse employer over time.
Our pipeline for new products has mostly been closed over this period. We have a backlog of amazing games in development and have not been actively pursuing new pitches in the way that we did earlier in the decade and before the pandemic. Much of the new work we have been pursuing has involved designers already working with us on previous products. This has significantly curtailed our footprint in the spaces where designers interface with publishers as a part of the pitch process. We did take a few outside pitches this year including several from designers who don’t identify as male, but none of those pitches progressed to an option or offer.
In 2023 and 2024 AEG released four all new games: Rolling Heights, Number Drop, Shake that City and Waffle Time. We have two more games that are just now going into wide release: Let’s Go! To Japan and Undergrove. Of those games Undergrove which was co-designed by Elizabeth Hargrave and Mark Wootton is the only game in that list designed by a woman.
We have been trying to find proactive ways to connect with people who have been working on diversity initiatives in the industry. It’s been a good year for forward momentum in this area. Organizations like the Tabletop Game Designers Association will hopefully gain traction and AEG intends to provide support when they are ready to connect with the publisher tier. We have also connected with and provided support to the Rose Gauntlet Foundation.
We have plans to directly contact some of the communities which have self-organized for groups that are underrepresented in the design pipeline and establish a system by which we can both provide opportunities for constructive feedback (both directions) and hear pitches from designers in those communities who feel they are ready to make them. We’re hopeful that this will result in some games in development coming from those communities for publication in the latter half of this decade.
We have done some work behind the scenes providing counsel and advice to a number of women and BIPOC individuals who have approached us seeking insights about the industry and when possible we’ve been happy to provide as much assistance as we can. These kinds of interactions are usually confidential and we respect the secure nature of these relationships; if you or someone you know would like to engage with us confidentially and ask for our thoughts about how the industry works, have us make introductions to our network of contacts, share some of our quantitative information or get our perspective on the current state of the industry please feel free to reach out to anyone on the AEG team.
I believe that the design pipeline is unbalanced and the predominant cohort of designers who succeed in finding a partner to get their games into print are stereotypically middle aged white men. Over the more than thirty years I have been a gaming industry professional this has improved and not remained static but a lot of work remains to be done. My personal opinion is that the biggest obstacle to a more representative market of designers begins upstream of the pitch meeting. I think that like AEG, most of our peers are very receptive to the idea of working with designers who are not middle aged white men. The challenge all publishers face is increasing the quantity and quality of pitches that we are receiving from designers from a wider demographic base.
We need to see more designers get past their first design efforts even if those efforts don’t result in a published game. It’s possible that a person’s first design is a winner but It is much more common that it often takes several swings before a designer makes a winning design idea. One thing I think a lot about is how to help people get over that first hurdle of rejection, recycle, and come back with a better second (third, fourth, etc.) effort. Game design is an inherently and intensely personal creative effort and nobody likes the feeling of being told their ideas aren’t good enough or marketable enough. I wish I had better answers for how to support people going through the transition from someone with good ideas about games to someone who is a professional game designer. This is a subject I think about often and am very interested in having more dialog about to craft viable ideas.
As a publisher that mostly publishes games from outside designers, we have a responsibility to try to find designers who are not a part of that traditional cohort of white male designers. We believe making connections with as diverse a community of designers as possible is likely to result in enabling us to publish games that don’t feel like iterations on older game tropes and inject new ideas and new voices that hopefully will connect with an ever wider audience.
At our leadership summit at the end of January this year our team recommitted ourselves to the goal of widening our reach when prospecting for new game pitches. When we’re ready to re-open our pitch pipeline we plan to be more actively visible in the spaces where we believe we can find and connect with an ever more diverse designer community. Coincidentally and beneficially it appears the industry is self-generating many new venues where these connections may occur and we’re going to seek to take advantage of those opportunities.
Another part of that is finding ways to support people at the beginning of their design careers, when they are making their first forays into the business of game design. We continue to research and evaluate opportunities AEG may be able to assist with in this area, but progress so far has been slow other than relationship building with individuals.
We’d like to find ways to engage at a systems level, so we can multiply our investment of time and resources to reach many people at the same time. This is a tough nut to crack, but we’ll continue to work on it.
Diversity is both an objective and a set of values. I’m proud to work for a company that has embraced the challenge of being a part of the change that the industry needs and is experiencing and I’m happy that we are on a path of continuous improvement in this area that is generating results.
I would like to thank all the people who helped me craft this message. Those people included AEG staff members and people in our larger stakeholder community. Your feedback was invaluable.
For various reasons mostly related to current ownership of this platform, I don’t interact much on X any longer but since this was the place where the initial interactions which triggered this response occurred I felt it appropriate to post this message here. I would be happy to respond to anyone who wishes to have a dialog about any of the issues raised in this message; the best way to reach me is via email at rsdancey at gmail dot com.
Upper Deck, the publisher of the Legendary series of deck-building board games, has been urged not to create a Harry Potter-based tabletop title amid ongoing anti-trans campaigning from the character’s creator, JK Rowling.
Professional organisation The Tabletop Game Designers Association made the plea in the wake of Upper Deck announcing a deal for the “coveted” Harry Potter licence earlier this month, calling on the publisher to “help keep gaming a welcoming environment”.
Upper Deck said on January 7 that it would begin creating collectibles for the Harry Potter franchise, starting with two sets of trading cards due for release later this year, adding that it was “excited to bring its iconic brands and flagship products to the world of Harry Potter”.
The company’s previous collaboration with Warner Bros Discovery Global Consumer Products saw it launch a DC trading card set in March last year, which was followed in October with the announcement of Legendary: A DC Deckbuilding Game.
Following the TTGDA plea and rising numbers of comments across Upper Deck’s social media calling out the decision, the publisher yesterday made a single-sentence response on BlueSky and a BGG thread saying “Upper Deck has no plans to produce Harry Potter games at this time”.
But that response has not allayed the fears of board game designer Marceline Leiman, a TTGDA board member and founder of the Block collective – a group of board gamers she says “share the goal of sharing resources and information, disrupting bigoted spaces, and engaging in serious conversations on the topic of trans rights”.
Marceline Leiman
Leiman said on BlueSky, “Precisely the problem. You can and likely will in the future. WE DON’T WANT THIS. And this isn’t just about concerns of a game coming out from you. Please cancel any and all products that use JKR’s blood money.
“Please respond directly to the issues your community are flagging for you all across your social media that you keep erasing and blocking. It’s undeniable that every company that supports this IP plays an economic function connected to this transphobic death cult machine.
“Making this decision isn’t just a business decision. It’s a value based decision. This could all be connected to ignorance or misunderstanding – and if it is, PLEASE COMMUNICATE AND WORK WITH US. We actively want to work with you and help you learn and grow based on your failure to support us.
“You’re saying you’re transphobic without saying you’re transphobic. You’re telling us to get bent. You’re telling us you don’t care. If you want to be better than your actions have been so far, speak up. Because so far… this non-response has been unacceptable.
“I insist any and all readers following this story continue with the boycott of Upper Deck products. No purchase, promotional video, post, or ANYTHING that can trade them attention for the algorithms. Don’t give them an inch. Not until they give us a proper response and a plan to move forward.”
BoardGameWire contacted Upper Deck several days ago with questions about its plans for the Harry Potter licence and the pushback it had received so far, but no one at the company has responded.
TTGDA was among the critical voices of CGE’s decision, saying at the time, “Author JK Rowling’s extreme anti-trans rhetoric has caused physical and emotional harm to a particularly vulnerable group, and the licensing fees she receives from the game will be used to support these attacks.
“CGE released a statement about the controversy around their decision, but it fell far short of anything meaningful.
“TTGDA is dedicated to fostering diversity in designers and diversity in viewpoints. However we do not accept intolerance and demonization of a specific group as an acceptable viewpoint. This is particularly true as anti-trans rhetoric and action has been increasing in many countries around the world, including the United Kingdom and United States.”
In a follow-up response two weeks later CGE apologised “unreservedly” for failing to take into account how “the harmful views of the story’s creator have escalated into harmful actions”.
The publisher committed to donating 100% of the game’s profits to appropriate charities, and said an amount equal to or greater than the fee paid to license the product would go directly to organisations that provide support for the trans community.
It said at the time, “Many of you have expressed your understandable anger, pain, and disappointment through a variety of platforms. Frankly, we were not prepared for the volume of the response. As a result, multiple accounts and comments were blocked or muted that should not have been.
“We would never want anyone experiencing the pain this situation has caused to then feel like they are being silenced. So for that, too, we want to sincerely apologize.
“Like the world we live in, CGE is made up of individuals with various backgrounds, gender identities, sexual orientations, and belief systems. None of us would ever want to take actions that would hurt or restrict the rights of another human being.
“We commit to remaining supportive of an inclusive and welcoming community of gamers. We believe in the rights of all people to have their own identity, and we reject hate and bigotry in all their forms. Trans rights are human rights.”
Last year Upper Deck lost a long-running legal battle with Ravensburger, which it had accused of stealing the design of its trading card game Rush of Ikorr in order to create the hugely successful Disney Lorcana TCG.
Anmelden
