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]

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".

Same answer as @mamba. Thanks!

 

[Maxperson]

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

Odd. I've read several answers to that question. It seems you have skipped many key posts.

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?".

The "why" has been explained multiple times.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Odd. I've read several answers to that question. It seems you have skipped many key posts.

Possible! Feel free to point to those posts.

The "why" has been explained multiple times.

Not sure that's true. But see above.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it’s an interesting point that all these credits are behind a paywall. Even physical books are to some extent.

I think it’s an interesting question of how the creative community was able to grow to rely on credits unlike virtually every other industry.

But I don’t think it’s a question of whether thats how it is.

 

[Maxperson]

Possible! Feel free to point to those posts.

Not sure that's true. But see above.

Hollywood works the same way. Credits can and do affect work chances. They show the quality of work in ways that calling up an employer just can't. Employers aren't going remember all the details, even if they are in a state that even allows talking about them. Many states don't allow prospective employers to ask those sorts of questions. Questions like "Did X work there?" and "Would you rehire X?" don't reveal quality of work. Credits do, because you can look at the product and see how good or bad the portion worked on by the prospective hire was.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Not sure that's true. But see above.

The best description of why is here.

 

[Incenjucar]

The reverse question is more useful: Why are people not given credits for their contribution to other things? Generally because it's impossible to view their contribution to begin with.

I've helped install equipment in a hospital ER, but you're not able to go into the hospital to examine how perfectly I put the doors or monitors together. Incidentally, it can be hard to prove whether or not someone is a competent carpenter because there's no way to verify if Bob Builder is the person who fixed the roof or the reason it'd broken.

Compare that to Tony DiTerlizzi, who any Planescape fan knows by name because his name is in the book. Any random person can run across his work from the TSR era and say "hey I like this art I wonder if this person is still making art I could put in my book" and find him.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Hollywood works the same way. Credits can and do affect work chances. They show the quality of work in ways that calling up an employer just can't. Employers aren't going remember all the details, even if they are in a state that even allows talking about them. Many states don't allow prospective employers to ask those sorts of questions. Questions like "Did X work there?" and "Would you rehire X?" don't reveal quality of work. Credits do, because you can look at the product and see how good or bad the portion worked on by the prospective hire was.

But that seems to be enough for all other industries.

I agree that having credits provides a straightforward answer to the question though. But as others have said, getting access to credits isn't necessarily easy (see here and here), which negates your point pretty strongly.

Otherwise, it's a good point.

 

[Incenjucar]

All the other industries struggle to find good people because they can't easily verify work. It's part of why some companies have four hour interviews and interview circuits.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

All the other industries struggle to find good people because they can't easily verify work. It's part of why some companies have four hour interviews and interview circuits.

Honestly, that's a pretty weak comment. I have worked in high tech for 30 years, in reasonably senior roles. I have been subjected to day long interview and 'interview circuits' (TripAdvisor... really?). It's not the norm. I have hired hundreds. My interview process is thorough, fair and look upon others with kindness. I get it done in a single interview. I have been interviewed many, many (many) times over the years. The vast majority of hiring processes are one and done. There are a few special snowflakes that make you walk a path, but they are quite rare in my experience.