D&D 5E More folks working on D&D Next than was implied

[DDNFan]

The thousands of playtesters don't count.

Yes they do, which is why 5th edition is a much better game. They didn't just ram everything through without any feedback or consultation, and that's why customer satisfaction is much higher this time around. The sales will reflect that, believe me. Or not.

Internal playtesters and QA do very much count, they are a crucial part of any team. External beta testers or focus groups also matter, not to the extent that you give them all credits in the game by name, but at least give them credit in principle for having contributed. At least a shout out.

I guess you tend to minimize the importance of the public playtests because you disagree with the results and the final game. It's not perfect, but it's loads better than all prior editions probably. We will see how the book sales are in a few years, and then when the dust has settled, you can either accept reality that designing a game that people will like by, well, asking them what they liked or didn't, will result in better sales.

Had they done an extensive public design phase for the previous edition, the result would have been much different.

For starters, they wouldn't have given lizards mammaries. It was such an insult to people's intelligence, very cartoony and silly. And I liked dragonborn other than that. It just felt like it was catering to the manga / in-betweener market.

 

[Boarstorm]

As to the question "How many people are employed by Wizards of the Coast for the purposes of full-time development of D&D 5E?", playtesters really don't count.

They were absolutely important to the process, certainly. But they don't meet the other requirements put forth in the question.

 

[DDNFan]

I was rounding up.

From the interview with Escapist.

Bolding: So you guys probably have one of the largest development teams in roleplaying games, how many members is that right now?

Mearls: The team as a whole has about fifteen people. About half that are actually working on the RPG right now. The other half are working on other D&D stuff like Neverwinter, iOS games, licensing, or board games.

So fifteen people total but only half of them were working on the RPG, so around eight.

With a focus on rules simplicity rather than rules complexity, 8 solid designers over 3 years with 150000 playtesters and 4 prior editions worth of materials to work with (5 if you include Pathfinder which made some significant innovations as well), is probably more than enough.

It seems like a low number, but it's actually a benefit to not have the core design team be too large. Too many cooks, too many conflicting ideas. They lost a few big names for that reason probably. It's better to have a streamlined, consistent vision for the game than a mashup of divergent design goals.

 

[Paraxis]

With a focus on rules simplicity rather than rules complexity, 8 solid designers over 3 years with 150000 playtesters and 4 prior editions worth of materials to work with (5 if you include Pathfinder which made some significant innovations as well), is probably more than enough.

It seems like a low number, but it's actually a benefit to not have the core design team be too large. Too many cooks, too many conflicting ideas. They lost a few big names for that reason probably. It's better to have a streamlined, consistent vision for the game than a mashup of divergent design goals.

You seem to want some kind of argument. My previous posts were in relation to the OP trying to say we should count building maintenance and administration to the list of people who helped bring us D&D 5e, and that is just silly. The OP seems to want to have some kind of who has a bigger package WoTC or Paizo, I don't care.

Both companies are probably going to keep making an excellent product, I like the 5e playtest rules so much I have had a weekly game for the past year. I want 5e to succeed.

So in closing it doesn't matter to me how many people helped make 5e as long as it is good.

 

[Halivar]

The important thing is that we don't have

1. Design by committee, with too many voices clouding and complicating the design process or
2. Lone wolves off on a silo'd project without oversight or internal feedback.

For this reason I prefer, a small, tight core of devs with extensive playtest and feedback.

I would venture to say that maybe 8 is too much, but I'll take it.

 

[tomBitonti]

As to the question "How many people are employed by Wizards of the Coast for the purposes of full-time development of D&D 5E?", playtesters really don't count.

That, I think, is the wrong question. "full-time" is not necessary to be a part of the process!

There could be an art director out-of-team who reviews the artwork, and who coaches the art staff. That art director is a part of the count (if only fractionally).

To highlight my intent: Folks have been comparing the staff of Paizo and WotC, and the general result has been that Paizo seems to have a higher headcount.

Reflecting on that, I think that the WotC headcount is understated. Counting just core team (of about eight persons currently) doesn't reflect contributions made by folks outside of the core team. In a corporate environment, that could be a lot of additional people. And, the count only reflects current personnel. There may have been lots of additional folks who provided input earlier on who are no longer on the team (or even still employed by WotC).

The point about building maintenance and upper management counting was to point out that, as a smaller company, folks employed with a focus on PathFinder may have other duties of the administrative sort, simply because there is not enough of that kind of work to have an independent department (or person), meaning, their count as a fully directed employee should be reduced.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Umbran]

Reflecting on that, I think that the WotC headcount is understated.

As soon as you use the word "headcount", you run into an issue. In business, this means something very specific.

User may feel it is important to know how many people are involved in making the game, in a broader sense, due to some perception that the size of the team matters. Never mind the mythical man month, folks have this perception that bigger team = better!

Thus, the question becomes complicated - the real answer in a business sense does not necessarily match the answer that you, a consumer, want to know. Now, imagine the furor if WotC reported dozens of people working on the project, and someone looked and saw a whopping 8 on the payroll? All of a sudden, WotC would be lying!

Ask how the sausage is made at your own peril - the number of people is irrelevant. The *product* is relevant.

 

[delericho]

You seem to want some kind of argument. My previous posts were in relation to the OP trying to say we should count building maintenance and administration to the list of people who helped bring us D&D 5e, and that is just silly. The OP seems to want to have some kind of who has a bigger package WoTC or Paizo, I don't care.

Yep, I kinda got that impression, too. And "I don't care" is the right response, I think - the Edition Wars were frankly tedious before 4e was even released (never mind Pathfinder or 5e), and the "Company Wars" are even moreso. It really doesn't matter if it was 1, 10, 25, or 1,000 guys who made the game; what matters is whether the 5 (ish) guys around my table have fun.

 

[gweinel]

Can we enumerate-identify these 8 people?

1)Mike Mearls
2)Chris Perkins
3)James Crawford
4)Trevor Kidd
5)Rodney Thomson
6)James Wyatt
7)Nathan Stewart (?)
8)Matt Sernett (?)

Anyone else?

 

[Saxon1974]

The important thing is that we don't have

1. Design by committee, with too many voices clouding and complicating the design process or
2. Lone wolves off on a silo'd project without oversight or internal feedback.

For this reason I prefer, a small, tight core of devs with extensive playtest and feedback.

I would venture to say that maybe 8 is too much, but I'll take it.

Agree with this post. A small group I think it much better for creative design and sticking to the "core" ideas and feel of the vision.