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.

 

[Umbran]

Get off this forum and get some help.

Mod note:
Wow. Living up to the name.
You are done in this discussion.

 

[Umbran]

Stop. Come back when you can be civil.

Mod note:
Stop yourself.

Be aware that you have generated a ton of reports.

I am on my phone right now, which makes modding difficult. You have until I am back at a proper computer to listen more and de-escalate.

 

[gban007]

I'm not trying to lump you in with anything. Chill.

I don't know anything about US regulations. That is eyebrow raising. I get asked questions that would violate what you are saying regularly when I am used as a reference. What you are saying makes the presence of credits more important for sure. Speaks to a systemic problem with the hiring process in the US though (as a throwaway comment based on what you've just told me).

Or it may point to a systematic problem with the way you recruit? Maybe there are flaws with your process, such as relying on someone's ability to interview well, to sell themselves well - yes people should be honest, and from my experience it is clear when they're not, but I know I bring my own unconscious biases through when interviewing / recruiting, and prospective employees will only offer up references that they know will give a good report, not ones who won't - thus the US laws may be trying to prevent interpersonal relationship problems from effecting someone's ability to get a new job? Prevent the idea that just because you upset someone in the company you worked for, and whether you did anything actually wrong or not, they won't go 'you'll never work in this industry again'!
Thus can you outline why your system of recruiting is superior to industries where everyone is credited and it is clear what they worked on, and not subject to someone's power to say what someone worked on, whether true or not? And not subject to a one shot interview which can be make or break depending on how confident you are on the day, whether external factors may be giving you a worse day that may come through? (Kids gave a bad nights sleep the day before, just heard some upsetting news, etc). Or also seemingly without giving prospective employees any tests of skills to see if despite their poor interview they may be really strong at what the have tried to say they are really strong at, in lieu of credits that would give a clear answer?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Or it may point to a systematic problem with the way you recruit? Maybe there are flaws with your process, such as relying on someone's ability to interview well, to sell themselves well - yes people should be honest, and from my experience it is clear when they're not, but I know I bring my own unconscious biases through when interviewing / recruiting, and prospective employees will only offer up references that they know will give a good report, not ones who won't - thus the US laws may be trying to prevent interpersonal relationship problems from effecting someone's ability to get a new job? Prevent the idea that just because you upset someone in the company you worked for, and whether you did anything actually wrong or not, they won't go 'you'll never work in this industry again'!
Thus can you outline why your system of recruiting is superior to industries where everyone is credited and it is clear what they worked on, and not subject to someone's power to say what someone worked on, whether true or not? And not subject to a one shot interview which can be make or break depending on how confident you are on the day, whether external factors may be giving you a worse day that may come through? (Kids gave a bad nights sleep the day before, just heard some upsetting news, etc). Or also seemingly without giving prospective employees any tests of skills to see if despite their poor interview they may be really strong at what the have tried to say they are really strong at, in lieu of credits that would give a clear answer?

Why my personal system is better? My 'system' takes into account nervousness, perceived lack of ambition which comes across on a flat sheet of paper, etc.. I speak to the candidate and bring him or her out of their shell. I make them feel comfortable, because I genuinely want them to be. I want to hear who they are, regardless of what kind of day they are having. My 'system' is being a human being.

Skill tests? As in programming tests? What is far more valuable to an employer is a candidate's ability to interact with a team. Having both is ideal, but one trumps the other. To be clear, there is a base minimum of coding skills that are required. And frankly, I look for more than that. An A+ candidate shows me that they have the ability to do more than 'code'. They understand the higher level design skills required to graduate from a junior role to a senior one.

Depending on what's required for the current position, a candidate who can fill the current role and nothing more is great. But if you are a person who wants to advance their career, it's to your advantage to teach yourself more skills than the bare minimum.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm not 100% sure where you are going with this.

shareing a bit of myself and showing that different people in different industries have different experiences.... and spreading the story of the "I was a manager at circuit city"

You want to do yourself a favour? Go into an interview with confidence. No lies, admit what you don't know.

100% true

Don't worry about having credit you would kill for. That isn't what's going to get you the job.

until it does.... there is a reason people exaggerate.

Why my personal system is better? My 'system' takes into account nervousness, perceived lack of ambition which comes across on a flat sheet of paper, etc..

and this is why in the real world CHA is the most important stat...

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

until it does.... there is a reason people exaggerate.

Exaggerating in an interview... just don't do it. It might seem right in the moment. "I feel like I'm disadvantaged somehow, so I'm going to tell a white lie here." 100% don't do that. Whatever justification is happening in your mind space is not reflected in the real world, and will never be looked at kindly by others. Just don't do it. If you get caught, you look like a clown. Worse, you develop a reputation. Dishonesty is the surest way to end your job prospect and harm your future career opportunities.

and this is why in the real world CHA is the most important stat...

Yeah, stop that. Getting along with people is important, yes. Not a justification to state that the world is against you, as this statement seems to intimate. It isn't. A few basic social skills goes a long way.

 

[Incenjucar]

My whole career is correcting the results of successful interviewees without the skills to back up the enthusiasm. A lot of very poor interviewees are also amazing at tasks. As such, companies frequently lean more on proof and less on persuasion. There's a lot of gray area, as neither method is fool-proof, but having solid evidence you can accomplish something is a big deal.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

My whole career is correcting the results of successful interviewees without the skills to back up the enthusiasm. A lot of very poor interviewees are also amazing at tasks. As such, companies frequently lean more on proof and less on persuasion. There's a lot of gray area, as neither method is fool-proof, but having solid evidence you can accomplish something is a big deal.

Solid evidence of being able to accomplish something comes primarily from word of mouth of those who have worked with the candidate. Barring that, it comes out of the interview. That is where interviewing skills and experience come in. In my experience, the ability of a candidate to intelligently describe how a project works, both from a business and technical angle, is what most shows this person knows what they are about.

 

[Incenjucar]

Solid evidence of being able to accomplish something comes primarily from word of mouth of those who have worked with the candidate. Barring that, it comes out of the interview. That is where interviewing skills and experience come in. In my experience, the ability of a candidate to intelligently describe how a project works, both from a business and technical angle, is what most shows this person knows what they are about.

Word of mouth is really easy using credits.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Word of mouth is really easy using credits.

Okay? It's also easy using, you know, word of mouth. Like it works everywhere else.