WotC WotC Removes Digital Content Team Credits From D&D Beyond

According to Faith Elisabeth Lilley, who was on the digital content team at Wizards of the Coast, the contributor credits for the team have been removed from DDB.

The team was responsible for content feedback and the implementation of book content on the online platform. While it had been indicated to them that they would not be included in the credits of the physical books for space reasons, WotC apparently agreed to include them in the online credits.

It appears that those credits have now been removed.

I just discovered that I have been removed from book credits on D&D Beyond for books I worked on while at Wizards of the Coast.

Background:

While at Wizards (so after D&D Beyond was purchased) - with numerous books, my digital content team and I worked directly with the book team on the content, reading through rules drafts, suggesting changes, giving ideas, and catching issues. We had a full database of the content and understood exactly how it interacted.

Given that we were contributing to the content in the books, I felt it reasonable to request that team be added to the credits, but was informed the credits section was already too crowded with the number of people involved and many of the marketing team had already been dropped from credits. I felt strongly that anyone actually contributing to what is in the printed book should be credited though, so we agreed a compromise, that the team would be added to the credits page on D&D Beyond only, as there is no issue with "not enough space" on a web page.

I've added screenshots here that I had for some of the books.

At some point recently, those credits pages have been edited to remove the credits for me and the content team. Nobody reached out to let me know - it just happened at some point, and I only just noticed.

We've even been removed from the digital-only releases, that only released on D&D Beyond, such as the Spelljammer Academy drops.

I'm not angry or upset, just yet again, really disappointed, as somehow I expected better.

EDIT TO ADD MORE CONTEXT

It's not just getting the books online. I worked with Kyle & Dan to improve the overall book process from ideation to delivery across all mediums (you should have seen the huge process charts I built out...)

The lead designers would send over the rules for each new rulebook and we'd go through it, give feedback, highlight potential balance issues, look at new rules/design that was difficult to implement digitally and suggest tweaks to improve it etc etc. We even had ideas for new content that was then included in the book.

We'd go through the whole book in detail, catching inconsistencies and miscalculations, and I'm proud to say that we dramatically reduced the need for clarifications or errata on those books.

I'm not saying anyone on the design or book team was careless - far from it, they're consummate professionals - I am just illustrating the role my team and I had in contributing to the content, quality & success of the physical books, let alone the digital versions.

We should have been in the credits section of the physical printed book. We were part of the creative process. That was something we were actively discussing when I was informed I was being laid off.

Adding the team to the credits pages just on D&D Beyond was, as I mentioned above, a compromise while we figured things out.

My team were fully credited on the Cortex: Prime and Tales of Xadia books when D&D Beyond was still part of Fandom, before the Wizards acquisition.

In fact for those books we made sure to credit the entire digital development team, including developers, community managers and so forth - everyone who helped make the book successful.

I know that Wizards has hundreds of people involved and previously hit issues with the number of people in credits for D&D books, so pulled back from crediting some roles.

Would it be so bad to have to dedicate extra space in a book to the people whose contributions made the book successful?

I really don't think it would.

 

[mamba]

Did I say they had?

no, but my impression was that you asked that…

at this point I feel I have no idea why you even replied to Echohawk’s post

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Is it possible that industries involved in publication have different expectations and traditions around publication credit than, say, electricians do? Perhaps you have noticed publication credits in the music, magazines, comics, games, books, movies, and so on that you have consumed?

Yes it is possible! The reason I asked the question actually. I thought that would be obvious? Not sure what the source of your hostility is.

Here, I googled it for you:

A guide to properly crediting game workers and why it matters

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox

www.gamesindustry.biz

Thanks! Just read it. Doesn't answer my question at all though. There is a section to the article entitled Why is crediting important? It's main thrust seems to be that there are NDAs that prevent people from mentioning they are working on a product. That seems suspect: there are NDAs that prevent anyone mentioning they worked on a game, even after its release? But somehow, there is a loophole to this NDA which is a game developer listing such individuals in the credits?

What about folks who worked on books? There are similar NDAs in place? Seems beyond unlikely. Happy to be proven wrong though.

So I'll ask the question again: what is the reason that having a name listed in credits is so important in this industry when it is not at all in other industries?

 

[mamba]

So I'll ask the question again: what is the reason that having a name listed in credits is so important in this industry when it is not at all in other industries?

this has been answered already, it’s self-perpetuating common practice.

People are used to finding your name in the credits, so if you are not listed you did not work on it (in a way that was important enough to be acknowledged), industry standard.

Anyone looking into your references will then conclude that you played only a minor role and do not have the experience you claim / embellished, as otherwise the credits would mention you

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

this has been answered already, it’s self-perpetuating common practice.

People are used to finding your name in the credits, so if you are not listed you did not work on it (in a way that was important enough to be acknowledged), industry standard.

Anyone looking into your references will then conclude that you played only a minor role and do not have the experience you claim / embellished, as otherwise the credits would mention you

So it's a historical thing then? As in, "it's always been done this way"? Still seems weird to me, as everyone else has to rely on an entry in a resume and a curious employer then has to place a call to the former employer to fact check, or to inquire of a provided reference. Over my career, I've interviewed hundreds (if not thousands) of applicants for various roles. If I know someone who has worked with the candidate, that is worth its weight in gold. It's an instant fact check and character reference.

By the way, do you work in the industry? How do you know that this is how things are done?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So it's a historical thing then? As in, "it's always been done this way"? Still seems weird to me, as everyone else has to rely on an entry in a resume and a curious employer then has to place a call to the former employer to fact check, or to inquire of a provided reference. Over my career, I've interviewed hundreds (if not thousands) of applicants for various roles. If I know someone who has worked with the candidate, that is worth its weight in gold. It's an instant fact check and character reference.

By the way, do you work in the industry? How do you know that this is how things are done?

What exactly is the endgame for you here?

You've been told multiple times that people in creative industries rely on credits to prove they've done the work. You've presumably seen a movie or television show once in your life and seen the (contractually negotiated) credits there.

Is your goal to just keep saying "prove it" until the sun burns out?

I work in a career where credit is absolutely essential to getting more work -- I used to have to physically carry things with my name on them to each job interview in order to have a chance of getting that job.

Stripping someone of their credits is absolutely a big deal.

If you don't work in that kind of field, great. But you shouldn't have any trouble believing it exists, unless you also go around disbelieving in Greenland and places you've never visited personally as well.

 

[Nikosandros]

Yes, it has all been explained multiple times, and Faith herself has provided detailed answers.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh my god. Not every industry has the same standards and practices.

And people with experience in that industry have repeatedly explained how this works and how important being credited is. What is so hard to believe about this? What value is there to be constantly skeptical and dismissive of the situation?

 

[FrogReaver]

So it's a historical thing then? As in, "it's always been done this way"? Still seems weird to me, as everyone else has to rely on an entry in a resume and a curious employer then has to place a call to the former employer to fact check, or to inquire of a provided reference. Over my career, I've interviewed hundreds (if not thousands) of applicants for various roles. If I know someone who has worked with the candidate, that is worth its weight in gold. It's an instant fact check and character reference.

So imagine for a moment that you expected that applicants could point to themselves being credited on a project if they actually worked on it. You obviously don’t, but imagine if that was the common expectation for your entire industry. And then you have an applicant that says they worked on X but aren’t credited anywhere for that. I don’t believe for a second that you’d hire them unless you just happened to know their previous boss or something like that.

It doesn’t really matter why that’s the expectation, only that it is.

 

[gban007]

no, but my impression was that you asked that…

at this point I feel I have no idea why you even replied to Echohawk’s post

My understanding if it helps, is Frogweaver was trying to get a feel for those who were still listed as credited, to compare against those that had been removed - to see if a pattern was there - i.e. was it that only credits where certain people were listed that were removed, and others with different people remained. Only being able to see the removed ones didn't allow for any sort of investigation of patterns.
As it transpires, with the information of the ones that still are credited, it appears somewhat scattershot, which begs the question why any were removed at all really if not all were removed - I hope they restore all of them soon either way though.

 

[Staffan]

If you don't work in that kind of field, great. But you shouldn't have any trouble believing it exists, unless you also go around disbelieving in Greenland and places you've never visited personally as well.

Pfft, Greenland is just something the Danish made up to pretend their country is bigger than it is.