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.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

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

This is a top corner own goal of the highest quality.

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.

This, I agree with.

 

[Maxperson]

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):
View attachment 374666
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 how did "credits" help solve this?

It's going to be on the resume.

"Edited races and classes for the 2014 D&D PHB" or whatever. Then they can look at the credit to verify and then look at the sections of the PHB listed on the resume. The credit backs them up. No credit and they could be completely blowing smoke. If they are listed as an editor, that's a big verification step.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It's going to be on the resume.

"Edited races and classes for the 2014 D&D PHB" or whatever. Then they can look at the credit to verify and then look at the sections of the PHB listed on the resume. The credit backs them up. No credit and they could be completely blowing smoke. If they are listed as an editor, that's a big verification step.

But this is how every interview process out there works though right? A resume comes in, has accomplishments and job experience on it. The verification process is to call a reference or, even better, find someone who has worked with this person and get the lay of the land.

The only sound counterargument anyone has posted in this thread is that despite its counter-intuitiveness, the checking of credits is an established part of the hiring process (hypothetically... no idea if this is true or not, that was the claim). If this is the mechanism hiring managers are used to following (i.e. checking of credits), there is an argument to be made that not having credits harms your hiring potential. Frankly, I find this a slightly weak argument, but it does have merit in my opinion.

 

[Morrus]

Stop. Come back when you can be civil. You posted a bunch of stuff after this which may have been worth reading, but after this pettiness I can't be bothered.

So, you've garnered a ridiculous amount of post reports in this thread. A combination of sealioning and general jerkishness. Whether or not the former is true, the latter is certainly true--you're being a jerk. You won't be posting in this thread again.

 

[Maxperson]

But this is how every interview process out there works though right? A resume comes in, has accomplishments and job experience on it. The verification process is to call a reference or, even better, find someone who has worked with this person and get the lay of the land.

No. That's not how every interview process works. In all my interviews, I've never had an employer go look up my credit and check out the quality of my work. The quality of work isn't something most interviewers can determine. For my interviews, they can only look at what I state on my resume, listen to me state how good I am, and find out if I worked where and when I say I worked.

 

[Gradine]

Okay, now that entirely pointless digression has ended and the thread has become readable again, has there still not been any update or comment from D&D Beyond or WotC?

 

[jerryrice4949]

Okay, now that entirely pointless digression has ended and the thread has become readable again, has there still not been any update or comment from D&D Beyond or WotC?

Yes. The only people I want to hear from at this point are Morrus, Ms. Lilley or WoTC.

 

[TheSword]

If there clearly wasn’t enough contribution to get a credit in the book it sounds like there was a thank you on the website as a gesture of goodwill. Without knowing WotCs reasons for removing the credit I don’t know how anybody is in a position to come down strongly on either side. The designer hasn’t chosen to elaborate on the basis that it’s above her pay grade. I really don’t know what that is supposed to mean.

I don’t think it’s particularly classy when someone goes on social media to try and trash their old employers to try and get what they want. That said, it’s been a whole month since some was outraged at WotC so I guess we were due.

I guess the designer and her team have the screen shots to show future employers that they were involved in the books. So Im struggling to see why this is news. There should be a very high bar in any story that features disgruntled ex employees.

Speaking of news, aren’t the designer’s current employer Evil Genius - the folks supposedly trying to sell us NFTs in our games?

 

[LordEntrails]

"Edited races and classes for the 2014 D&D PHB" or whatever. Then they can look at the credit to verify and then look at the sections of the PHB listed on the resume. The credit backs them up. No credit and they could be completely blowing smoke. If they are listed as an editor, that's a big verification step.

Credit and they could still be blowing smoke. "Without me the book would have never seen the light of day. I wrote and edited more than 80% of the content and all the cool stuff about the new rules for underwater travel were my creation!"

No. That's not how every interview process works. In all my interviews, I've never had an employer go look up my credit and check out the quality of my work. The quality of work isn't something most interviewers can determine. For my interviews, they can only look at what I state on my resume, listen to me state how good I am, and find out if I worked where and when I say I worked.

So we are agreed? Credits tell nothing about quality of work, only that a person did some work on that product. No idea how much, what content, or what quality.

 

[kenmarable]

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.

(snip)

That we do not actually know how much and what work was done by the team in the writing of the book.

(snip)

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.

She already said how much and what work was done by the team in the writing of the book. Multiple times. You want proof that what she is saying is true.

Because if this corroborating evidence you keep asking for shows that what she is saying is not true, then... you want proof that she is not lying. Right? Why are you so afraid to just say you want proof that she is not lying?

That is exactly what you keep implying over and over again, but you keep backing away from using that 'L' word. Why? What is the alternative you think might have happened that you need this corroborating proof to rule out that could 1) make what she is saying not true and 2) is something other than she is lying?

I'm lost on what that could be. Either believe her or say you think she might be lying unless you have proof otherwise. Because that is exactly what you keep strongly implying but keep trying to avoid actually saying out loud.