Dungeon and Dragon submission guidelines are up

DM-Rocco said:

Now, I do have a problem with WOTC taking back the rights to the magazines, not because they are trying to turn a profit, but because they are failing to print them. I have nothing against digital material, but I don't want, nor will I buy, a digital magazine.

So, condem them for trying to make a profit? No, let them. Condem them for taking the magazines out of print? Hell yes!

QUOTE]

Problem with keyboard tonight ...

No way will I ever spend a cent on a digital mag. ESPECIALLY if it involves an "Ugly Max tm" green brain. I feel insulted over this.

I have everything against digital material. If it comes from a small publisher, mmm. Might consider. But WOTC ???

BTW, before that announcement, I used to buy every WOTC D&D Product. I was traumatised by TSR demise years ago. but since they are having such HUGE savings by sabotaging the mags ...

Why should I care anymore ?

They are already filthy rich, so they obviously don't need my money.

Regards.

Click to expand...

Dungeon Submission Guidelines said:

Adventure Level:
Describe your villain in two sentences or less.
Describe your villain’s goals and motivations in two sentences or less.
Describe your villain’s lair in five sentences or less.
Describe one or two encounters in this adventure, each in two sentences or less.
Provide a plot synopsis of your adventure in one paragraph.

Click to expand...

MatthewJHanson said:

(Also from a consumer perspective, the focus on villains makes me worry that we will see a lot of go to the dungeon and fight through until you reach the BBEG adventures. While these can be fun, I hope to see more verity.)

Thank you.

(P.S. Shout out to Firefox for making sure I spelled "villain" correctly.)

Click to expand...

Cassander said:

Firefox may have corrected "villain", but it didn't take care of "verity" I'm assuming you want to see more different kinds of adventures rather than more truth in them.

Click to expand...

Thornir Alekeg said:

Typos aren't that big a deal if you are looking to write for them. That's what proofreaders and editors are for.

Click to expand...

Even today said:

"Dear Biggus, Are you still a retard? I just bought a gold plated Lamborghini. Ha ha ha!"[/i]

Click to expand...

JustinA said:

Speaking as both a publisher and a freelance writer, allow to me assure you that this is not a good attitude to have.

Click to expand...

Chris Thomasson on WotC's boards said:

Re: Dragon/Dungeon Submission Guidelines

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, sorry about jumping in here after a few-days hiatus. I'm super slammed right now. I'll try to answer a bunch of the questions I've seen.

First off, a couple points I wanted to clarify. The references to an auto-reply were erroneous. We're working with our fantastic TS team to get an auto-reply function built into our email system, but it's not there yet. I thought it was when I posted the guidelines, and I was wrong. That's my bad. So I've modified the guidelines now so that you should get a confirmation email within a week saying that we've received your submission. We're hoping to have a beta version of an auto-reply solution working this week. Until it's completely up and running, I've been sending out a reply manually when I get a chance. That's why it's been coming intermittently. Thanks everyone for your patience. Technology ftw!

Samples for the encounter template are incoming. I have them, and I hope to have them up today.

As for a non-Word version of the encounter format and samples, I'll try to get a pdf version up shortly.

Proposals can be sent as a Word attachment or in the body of an email. We're not picky (about that).

We don't accept whole campaign setting submissions. Dragon never did either. We will, of course, accept submissions for Eberron and Forgotten Realms, as well as Campaign Classics proposals. In fact, Nick Logue is working on an Eberron adventure for me right now! (Or at least, he better be!)

Proposals can be emailed separately in individual emails or batched together in one email. We're not picky about that either.

You can always send a proposal to update a monster from a previous edition. That said, I'm of the opinion that that well is pretty dry. Let me go one step farther and say that I think the well was dry a couple years ago. But there's no harm in asking. You might have a new spin on an old monster we haven't considered. Feel free to send in your pitch.

Feel free to send proposals for all the class Dragon and Dungeon recurring series. Bazaar of the Bizarre, Class Acts, Spellcraft, Ecologies--we're read 'em all.

I'm not sure about the question for the Design and Development test. Can someone clarify?

For articles green-lit by Paizo that they will no longer accept: You can send them in to us. However, know that we're coming at these ideas with fresh eyes. We're going to weigh each article and adventure like it's a fresh proposal, which means, unfortunately, that we'll likely be rejecting a fair number. That's one of the unfortunate side effects of a new staff handling submissions now. But it's happened, to greater or lesser extent, whenever new editors took over each of the titles. I remember having to reject a couple of articles Jesse Decker had asked to see, just like I'm sure he did the same for articles Dave Gross had requested.

Regarding the specific types of articles we want to see: We'll have more information on this in a bit. In the mean time, if you have an idea, send it in.

Everything Mike McArtor said is true (in the post quoted in this thread), even the part about sending in proposals of his own. I take no responsibility for stuff he says anywhere else. Mike's da man.

The Vorpal Tribble: If you're the one who has sent me something like 30 proposals already, good God man! Give me some peace! Gah! Nah, I'm just kidding. Keep 'em coming.

If you want to pull something from consideration, just send another email to submissions@wizards.com. Note that once our auto-reply is up and running, you'll get a "Thanks for submitting" response. Feel free to disregard it. Include the name of your proposals in the email please.

Regarding multi-part proposals: I'm not as partial to these as most folks. If you come in mid-stream as a reader, it's easy to get confused. If you have a single idea and want to pitch it, I'd rather see it as one single proposal. And if your pitch is bigger than would normally fit in a regular recurring feature (like Class Acts), then it's probably not a Class Acts article. It's probably a feature and should be pitched as such. That said, we're mostly pretty sharp around here (at least on days when Bart and I aren't playing shot glass checkers), so if we see an article series that would be better served as a feature, we'll likely propose that to the author. We're not going to reject an idea out of hand because you thought it would be a good Bazaar of the Bizarre and we think it would be a better feature.

I'd rather not see proposals for updated MMII (or other 3.0 books) monsters. I'd rather see a proposal for new monsters.

You can pitch stuff you've posted on the boards. If you do, please mention this in your pitch letter.

Always use the most recent relevant product for your template for articles. So use MMV for monster pitches, for example, or Magic Item Compendium for magic item pitches. If you're not sure, and we're at the point where you're writing up a complete article, just ask us and we'll let you know.

Whew! Thanks again for your patience. I'm going back to my in box now to read more submissions.

Chris

Click to expand...

MKMcArtor said:

Regarding sending rejected proposals to Wizards of the Coast: I totally would. Different editorial department, different tastes. Not sending a query Paizo rejected to Wizards of the Coast is essentially the same thing as not asking out Girl B because Girl A rejected you.

Click to expand...

Shade said:

Chris Thomasson on WotC's boards said:

You can always send a proposal to update a monster from a previous edition. That said, I'm of the opinion that that well is pretty dry. Let me go one step farther and say that I think the well was dry a couple years ago. But there's no harm in asking. You might have a new spin on an old monster we haven't considered. Feel free to send in your pitch.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...