NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jffdougan" data-source="post: 5777295" data-attributes="member: 79208">In the interest of trying to help people out, I thought I'd share some  of the results from my DDI pitch responses. This thread is intended to  provide a list of things that the DDI team has told people won't be  considered because they've either been very well supported in the recent  past or haven't caught traction with the player base and won't be  supported further.The following has been sent to me through  other channels, excerpted from a rejection e-mail sent to another  contributor. It may be of use to everybody:FYI:  In 2012, we’re looking to provide less game support for the D&D 4E  “core world” (as described in the Nerathi Legends articles and featured  in the Conquest of Nerath Board Game) and more support for DM’s  home games (in the form of generic, non-world-specific content) as well  as classic D&D campaigns (FR, Eberron, Dark Sun, and to a lesser  extent out-of-print settings).1) I pitched two psionic item sets -- response: item sets didn't catch on with players and won't be further supported.2) I pitched a Vestige Pact Hexblade -- response: warlock very well supported in print products & DDI; not interested.3)  Mark Meredith of DiceMonkey.net pitched both mass combat and naval  combat rules. These both got responses of "if we tackle something this  large, we'll do it in-house."4) Mark Meredith also pitched an  Unearthed Arcana on grievous wounds, based on the disease track rules.   Response: Already in the works.In the related ENWorld thread <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-discussion/312317-rejection-dungeons-dragons-insider-article-isnt-so-bad.html" target="_blank">here</a>,  Craig Campbell (who wrote the Baba Yaga's Hut adventure in November)  listed these points. I've renumbered them to be consistent with this  list.5)  Avoid things that hearken to D&D's past of devil  and demon worship. Adventures that play into devil worship (including  "deals with the devil") will be summarily rejected. 6) Regarding  Backdrops, Wizards folks favor articles that describe locations in  previouly-published material over all-new, custom-designed backdrops  that aren't specifically tied to published campaign settings. 7) Content built around seafaring is already in the works. 8)  Sidetreks and adventures built around the D&D trope of "road  bandits" has been done before. There's a sidetrek in the works in this  theme.9) Bazaar of the Bizarre articles are submitted often. Don't  propose such an article unless you have a GREAT hook for such an  article.Brian Liberge (who write a fair amount of 4E stuff for Kobold Quarterly) adds this:10) Wizards is absolutely not interested in getting more material about the Abyssal Plague.From Cailte:11) If you pitch Dragonlance make sure it is clear when it is set and it is best to take into account the current events in DL.12) I was told " We already have as much runepriest material as we need for the foreseeable future."13) Avoid pitches that suggest the PCs have a particular role in the world, especially if it's something like Cormeryan noble.Per Gadren:14)  No arcane archers in 4E. Chris (Perkins?) has finally said that people  aren't interested and the Seeker fills the niche already.On the cross-post thread at ENWorld, Joshua Randall has added15)  "We’re not interested in exploring optional initiative rules at this  time, and the game already allows strikers and others who tend to roll  high initiative to delay and act later in the round."From the 17 January 2012 Rule of Three column:16)  Articles that take a class or race and turn them into something that  they are not; for example, don't pitch "I want to design a wizard build  that is a striker" or "I want to design a halfling subrace that is  geared toward being a fighter." That kind of material is really better  suited to the books, and requires a lot of expertise and development  time to pull off well.17) Redesigning something that exists as  something else; we're not interested in seeing an "arcane archer" class  when we have the seeker, even though there's a power source difference.  Something smaller that does something similar—to continue the above  example, new material for the bard that focus on songbows—would be  better.18) No articles that reimagine something we've already done in previous editions as their primary goal.19)  Highly scripted adventures are likely to be rejected. If your adventure  pitch reads more like a short story, reconsider. The players need to be  able to have an impact on the adventure.20) Articles that  require a lot of campaign context to pull off; it's OK to pull ideas  from your own campaign, but be aware that articles of that nature  sometimes would not work without the context of your own campaign. If it  relies on a lot of other elements of your campaign, it probably won't  work as an article.21) Specific beats general; don't pitch an article on "The Astral Sea" but focus on one aspect of the Astral Sea, for example.22)  High-impact story elements; if dropping it into the world has a huge  impact, it's harder to use and makes more work for the DM.23) General advice articles.24) Unearthed Arcana articles that further complicate or lengthen encounters.25)  Right now we're full up on Bazaar of the Bizarre, Tavern Profiles, and  Bestiary articles. Also, don't pitch articles for the "Eye on..."  Columns. Those are columns tied to specific authors.Comments to John duBois (removing duplicates)26)  Articles dealing with one particular area of a campaign setting are  better than articles that are literally all over the map.27) Thumbs down on articles that are too "niche" (in particular in reference to an article on Small-size barbarians)28) Thumbs down on articles that try to fill a perceived mechanical void without story development or flavor attached.29)  Strong hints that articles containing system-agnostic content may be  viewed with a more positive eye (which was confusing to me in early  December, but makes a lot more sense now).Last update: 17 January 2012; 10:00 AM CST</blockquote>

Verification