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.

 

[Incenjucar]

What? They are used to demonstrate your skills. Not in question by me, at any point in this conversation. I'm saying that your reputation and people skills are at least as important though.

Again, not scalable. I know people who are among the best in their field, but you're not going to know about them unless you've worked with them.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Again, not scalable. I know people who are among the best in their field, but you're not going to know about them unless you've worked with them.

So no one knows about these paragons besides the select few who sit alongside them? Not their co-workers, who interact with other co-workers? Not members of other teams, who interact with their own team members? Not their managers, who speak with other managers? No one at all? As my kids would say, that sounds sus.

 

[Incenjucar]

So no one knows about these paragons besides the select few who sit alongside them? Not their co-workers, who interact with other co-workers? Not members of other teams, who interact with their own team members? Not their managers, who speak with other managers? No one at all? As my kids would say, that sounds sus.

How many amazing QA testers do you talk up to people outside of your company per month?

Managers in the same company may share that kind of information, as will people who are bringing people over from a previous gig, but that's just keeping people in an existing small circle, not an initial hire.

Nobody at Boeing is talking to people at Apple about how amazing a QA person in Japan was on the the Halo Infinite Japanese port.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Again, not scalable. I know people who are among the best in their field, but you're not going to know about them unless you've worked with them.

Let me phrase this in a different way. There is no one, 'among the best in their field', who fits your criteria. If you are good, your manager will know it. Your co-workers will know it. They will spread the word. That's how it works. If that is not happening for someone, they are not 'among the best in their field'. If they want to achieve more, they need to learn and do more.

But that's not necessary. Not everyone can be the best of the best. The downside of that is that job opportunities are less attractive, and come less frequently. Which is perfectly fine. Happiness in life is not judged by how hawt your job is. Find a niche where you like what you do and you are afforded the time you want to enjoy whatever else it is in life you love.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

How many amazing QA testers do you talk up to people outside of your company per month?

Managers in the same company may share that kind of information, as will people who are bringing people over from a previous gig, but that's just keeping people in an existing small circle, not an initial hire.

Nobody at Boeing is talking to people at Apple about how amazing a QA person in Japan was on the the Halo Infinite Japanese port.

When someone contacts me about a QA tester that I thought was amazing (which happens fairly frequently actually), it's because that tester contacted them for a job. I will be contacted either because the applicant has listed me as a direct reference or because I came up on a LinkedIn search or somesuch as a close relation.

 

[Incenjucar]

In the US, we do not "spread the word" enough to fill the industry. There are six digits of software testers in the US alone, and there are not enough words or mouths to cover them all. I will not claim your local industry works this way, but as was stated earlier, all you get here is start and end dates and employment confirmation.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

In the US, we do not "spread the word" enough to fill the industry. There are six digits of software testers in the US alone, and there are not enough words or mouths to cover them all. I will not claim your local industry works this way, but as was stated earlier, all you get here is start and end dates and employment confirmation.

That's unfortunate. The US employment system has unappealing aspects to it which I can't speak about due to rules on this forum. If you are looking for a job in Canada though, hit me up.

 

[LordEntrails]

Those questions(deliberately) don't allow the prospective new employer to learn about work quality. Credits do.

How? Unless it is a credit for a piece of artwork I can visually look at, writing credits don't tell me much of anything. And they certainly don't tell me anything about the person's work quality.

Let's take an example from the D&D PHB (this image from the FG version):

From this credit alone, is Bruce Cordell a 'good' writer? Or does he produce good ideas written horribly that an editor like Michele Carter has to spend hours and hours making presentable and usable? Did James Wyatt write 95% of the text or did he contribute a single paragraph? Which paragraph?

Did the advantage/disadvantage mechanic come from one of the writers? Or one of the Lead designers or from those credited with Rules Development?

I don't see how credits alone can tell us much of anything other than who worked on a product. Not the extent of what your contribution was or what you actually contributed (except for imagery which is often signed or recognizable). Certainly not the quality of work provided.

Just look at the recent thread about the now infamous DMsGuild release.

And then, bringing it back to RPGs, you have the great Gygax vs. Arneson debate, which is still burning in other threads.

And how did "credits" help solve this?

 

[Hussar]

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?




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

That’s not what I said.

I said that there is a possibility that they did not do significant work in writing the book, which is the heart of this claim.

That they did work to put the product on DnD Beyond has never been in question.

Since the credits were removed for some books and not others, I was raising the possibility. That we do not actually know how much and what work was done by the team in the writing of the book.

Which is why I raised the possibility that internally at WotC someone might have complained the team was getting credit that this hypothetical someone thought they should not get.

Is that impossible?

Is it true? I don’t know. I’m saying that I would like more information before I make a carved in stone judgement.

I never claimed anyone is lying. I’m saying that I want more information. I’m not “dismissing testimony “. I’m pointing to the fact that the “testimony” is uncorroborated. We’ve heard one side of the story.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Is it true? I don’t know. I’m saying that I would like more information before I make a carved in stone judgement.

I never claimed anyone is lying. I’m saying that I want more information. I’m not “dismissing testimony “. I’m pointing to the fact that the “testimony” is uncorroborated. We’ve heard one side of the story.

You're not on a jury. You aren't being asked to make a judgement.

And it would be surprising if we ever got much clarity from WotC on this as commenting on personnel and personnel-adjacent decisions can be legally dicey.