Does WotC actually have a bunch of mathematician types working on D&D?

This was raised in a previous post:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=382276&postcount=237

Let's examine the background of the known names working on 4E D&D.


Rob Heinsoo - anthropology (Reed College)

http://library.reed.edu/instruction/anthropology/seminar/theses.html

Logan Bonner - painting, English composition (Fort Hays State U.)

http://www.keystonegallery.com/logan/writingsamples/Logan_Bonner-Resume.pdf

Matt Sernett - English, writing (Syracuse U.)

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/matt-sernett/4/3ab/1bb

James Wyatt - religion (Oberlin College)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wyatt_%28game_designer%29

Richard Baker - English (Virgina Tech)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baker_%28game_designer%29

Bruce Cordell - biology (U. of Colorado at Boulder)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Cordell

Bill Slavicsek - journalism (St. John U.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Slavicsek

Mike Mearls - geography (Dartmouth)

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-mearls/2/894/381

Ari Marmell - writing (U. of Houston)

http://mouseferatu.com/index.php/about/

Chris Sims - writing, graphic design (Virginia Commonwealth U.)

http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisssims



Stephen Schubert - ? (previously a programmer at IBM)

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20090319

Andy Collins - ?

Christopher Perkins - ?

Rodney Thompson - ?

Jeremy Crawford - ?


Overall, not exactly a crowd with a hardcore mathematics type background.  Definitely not an MIT or Caltech type crowd.

You don't need to be a science major to take a stat course.

Quote from: Peregrin;382458You don't need to be a science major to take a stat course.

True, assuming it is one of those stat courses which doesn't require any calculus.

Quote from: ggroy;382460True, assuming it is one of those stat courses which doesn't require any calculus.

Even introductory discrete math (the one that does -- comp sci majors take this) doesn't use very much heavy calculus for the most part.

It's mostly just applying laws and solving logical problems, with a few applied higher concepts.  You can solve most of the problems without applying any calc-heavy math at all, if you understand the logic behind how to solve the problems.

Probabilities can be tricky for people not used to dealing with them (there are lots of logical traps you can fall into), but they're by no means hard.

Quote from: Peregrin;382461It's mostly just applying laws and solving logical problems, with a few applied higher concepts.

Some results in basic stats courses are just quoted without proof, judging by the textbooks used for such courses.

Though I don't have much first hand experiences with such courses.  The only statistics courses I ever took in university was one on mathematical statistics, which required several rigorous calculus courses (ie. where they prove the theorems) as prerequisites.  Overall it was a largely useless course, other than going through the proofs of various theorems and results in common use in probability and statistics.

Quote from: Peregrin;382461Probabilities can be tricky for people not used to dealing with them (there are lots of logical traps you can fall into), but they're by no means hard.

In practice, yes.

Back when I was in university, I sorta weaseled my way out of having taking such courses on basic applied probability.  The first part of that mathematical statistics course I took, was mostly cranking out the basic theorems and results in probability theory.  It didn't really cover the applied probability type problems, common in introductory stats courses.

In hindsight, a course on basic applied probability would have been more useful than a mathematical statistics course proving tons of theorems.

James Wyatt trained as a minister, and any time he is allowed to talk about good and evil and shit, it all comes through. He's as bad as Justin Achilli about belching Christianity into places it doesn't belong. The Book of Exalted Deeds was terrible and in no small part because James Wyatt kept slapping crap in here and there about how "godly" was "good" and "ungodly" was "evil." Which makes about zero sense in D&D's polytheistic great wheel cosmology.

James Wyatt isn't just incapable of making a mathematical model that holds together with three or more variables, he can't even get his religious biases out of the way long enough to write a fictional moral paradigm for another culture. At least Rob Heinsoo can do that.

-Frank

Hey I read Anthropology and Geography and I can totally handle a bit of integrated calculus (of course I was educated in England ) and at Uni when my girlfriend was struggling with a medical stats course I just read the text book and taught her how to pass the exam.

You can master probabilities from a text book in a couple of days. You can even get programmes that handle it all for you.

You would have thought that the largest RPG company in the world would be able to splash out a few dollars on a probability engine that the designers can just chuck a few numbers into.

I mean its not Rocket Science

Hmm... this shows why I like Mearls and Cordell the most.  Now go back and tell us the backgrounds of D&D creators.

Quote from: ggroy;382451Does WotC actually have a bunch of mathematician types working on D&D?

I can't see how this is relevant to anything.

Greg Stafford is not a mathematician. Sandy Petersen is not a mathematician. Ricard Ibañez is not a mathematician. Gary Gygax was a shoemaker. Many great game designers were not statistic experts, and no one gives a fuck.

Quote from: FrankTrollman;382468James Wyatt isn't just incapable of making a mathematical model that holds together with three or more variables, he can't even get his religious biases out of the way long enough to write a fictional moral paradigm for another culture. At least Rob Heinsoo can do that.

-Frank

I don't have anything personal against you, but seriously, I can't remember seeing a post by you saying something positive about anything.

Quote from: mhensley;382485Hmm... this shows why I like Mearls and Cordell the most.  Now go back and tell us the backgrounds of D&D creators.

Yeah, let's hear for that. And again, let's see how that disqualifies people like Greg Stafford.

Quote from: Peregrin;382458You don't need to be a science major to take a stat course.

No kidding. I have a business degree, but managed to take four years' worth of stats courses and two years of math (calculus).

It's nice to see a spread of interests, I suppose. Though unsurprisingly writing seems to be the most common. Given that they're professional writers.

Just to fill in one more of the blanks - Andy Collins has a degree in English (Stanford). No maths here either.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Cooking.pdf

It's relevant because 4e is highly math and statistics dependent. Which means they need someone (Or two) to crunch the numbers.

Quote from: Imperator;382493I can't see how this is relevant to anything.

This was attempting to answer a point raised by Garnfellow in the following post:

http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=382276&postcount=237

(As to whether Garnfellow was just being sarcastic, I don't know).

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;382500It's relevant because 4e is highly math and statistics dependent. Which means they need someone (Or two) to crunch the numbers.

No they don't they need a $10 computer programme that can act as a probability engine. Of all areas of Maths probability and statistics are the best suited to computerisation.

Sites like http://www.fnordistan.com/smallroller.html
or
http://wareseeker.com/free-roll-dice-probability/

or just type "Dice based probability programmes" in google ....