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.

 

[Faith Elisabeth Lilley]

I understand the value of being credited and I am in no way suggesting that credits should ever be randomly deleted, or that the D&D Beyond staffers don't deserve credit.

However, as had been clearly illustrated by the last few pages of this thread, almost all of the D&D Beyond staff credits we are talking about here are hidden behind a paywall, so they would be hard for any prospective employer to verify in any case (unless that employer happened to be a D&D Beyond user who has unlocked those releases).

So maybe this is a question for @Faith Elisabeth Lilley — are those credits still useful even when they are behind a paywall, and how would one of those staffers reference those credits in such a situation?

Yes.
In a similar way to physical books also require a purchase.
Also worth noting that rpggeek is effectively the imdb for ttrpg

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I literally answered that, as have multiple people.

Actually, no they haven't. Thanks for your civil response by the way.

Saying "I assure you that the lack of a visible credit in a book/game/other product prevents future employers from verifying the employment of Person X" is not an answer, regardless of how many multiple people reply with that. The route that employers generally take when they doubt the claims of an applicant is to call/send an email to the employer that the applicant claims they worked for and ask "was Person X employed by you between dates A and B on Project C in the role of D?".

All I was asking was what is the reason that people think that this mechanism used by virtually all employers doesn't work for this type of role? Not an unreasonable question in my opinion, and certainly not a question that should be upsetting anyone.

I get that it is insulting to have your credit removed, particularly given that the credits were posted, then erased without warning or explanation. It's that extra leap from tone deaf to genuinely harmful that I am not understanding.

 

[mamba]

The route that employers generally take when they doubt the claims of an applicant is to call/send an email to the employer that the applicant claims they worked for and ask "was Person X employed by you between dates A and B on Project C in the role of D?".

and that is done because you have no access to credits listing the person in other industries. If you had that, how often would you do that instead of checking the credits and relying on them?

Since here it is apparently common practice to use the credits for this, removing them is the equivalent of the employer you called telling you ‘no, they did not’ even though they actually did

 

[Umbran]

I mean, one possiblility is someone who worked on these projects complained that the Beyond Team was getting credit for work they didn't do.

You think it is a serious possibility that the Digital Design team, that adapts products for presentation on their platform, didn't do work on any of the products on the platform?

So, WotC removed the credit based on the complaint. Is that true? I have zero idea. I don't know.

You came up with a complete hypothetical, and then dismiss testimony because you have no other proof that your hypothetical isn't true?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

and that is done because you have no access to credits listing the person in other industries. If you had that, how often would you do that instead of checking the credits and relying on them?

Since here it is apparently common practice to use the credits for this, removing them is the equivalent of the employer you called telling you ‘no, they did not’ even though they actually did

That makes sense. Path of least resistance is certainly what you should expect from the average human (or even the tired and over-worked above average human).

If I was @Faith Elisabeth Lilley (and I'm sure she has), I'd get after HR at Hasbro with this.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

That makes sense. Path of least resistance is certainly what you should expect from the average human (or even the tired and over-worked above average human).

If I was @Faith Elisabeth Lilley (and I'm sure she has), I'd get after HR at Hasbro with this.

Although this might weaken that case. I agree though that there is still an effect on what future employers might think. I'd still pursue it.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Actually, no they haven't. Thanks for your civil response by the way.

Saying "I assure you that the lack of a visible credit in a book/game/other product prevents future employers from verifying the employment of Person X" is not an answer, regardless of how many multiple people reply with that. The route that employers generally take when they doubt the claims of an applicant is to call/send an email to the employer that the applicant claims they worked for and ask "was Person X employed by you between dates A and B on Project C in the role of D?".

All I was asking was what is the reason that people think that this mechanism used by virtually all employers doesn't work for this type of role? Not an unreasonable question in my opinion, and certainly not a question that should be upsetting anyone.

It could have worked that way, but it doesn't. Employers in these fields are used to checking credits rather than references when hiring, and they have no reason to change. There's no answer to your question other than "that's just how it is".

 

[Echohawk]

It could have worked that way, but it doesn't. Employers in these fields are used to checking credits rather than references when hiring, and they have no reason to change. There's no answer to your question other than "that's just how it is".

How do employers in the RPG field typically check credits? (I'm genuinely curious.) Do they check somewhere like RPGGeek (as @Faith Elisabeth Lilley suggested)? If so, then arguably it is more important that the credits are correct on RPGGeek than behind the D&D Beyond paywall.

 

[Mannahnin]

@Faith Elisabeth Lilley Thank you. Very clear explanation and I agree with your stance on this and wish you well.

The only question I still have, and it don't matter in this case, is you say anyone who contributes. (And I again I don't think it applies to you and your team) But what constitutes contribution? Bringing coffee to an artist while they work on the cover? (Nope!) Providing detailed editorial notes after a few hundred hours of work that include grammar, playability and formatting? (Yep!)

But their is somewhere in between those two and that's where my curiosity lies. Something like; What if I spend an hour drafting an NPC personality that is later used in the work but significantly changed?

She did describe (twice, IIRC) up-thread exactly how her team contributed to the physical books.

I expect that in borderline cases like your "one hour drafting an NPC" example there might be a discussion internally about whether credit was being given or not.

Are these credits included in the physical books?

She answered up-thread that how they would be credited in the physical books was under discussion, and they were credited digitally as an interim measure.

 

[Incenjucar]

Companies don't always respond to inquiries, if they even continue to exist. TSR, for example, is not going to return a call.