Sources: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=839396
http://209.221.178.225/showthread.php?t=836769&page=5
Note well: I've distilled these comments from a couple of threads, and they don't represent the time gap between the comments. So, while Scott might not be saying much, his comments may come earlier than Chris's on the same subject.
As a would-be contributer I would really like to know (at the least) which areas of D&D you are going to need content for. Is it: Monsters? Plot hooks? Core class support? Non-core class support? Spells? Magic Items? General Setting Information? Adventures? Or all of the above? I would also like to know what is going to happen to the submissions/ queries that have already been sent to Paizo.
Scott Rouse: All of the above. I don't have exact information on the announcement of submission guidelines.
In the coming weeks/months we'll be talking with Paizo about passing off any submissions they have on editors desks.
On Campaign Settings:
Scott Rouse: No real disgreement from me.Campaign settings are really important. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, Greyhawk etc. we just to balance what fans want and not slicing the audience to thin.
Paper is not going away. We have product plan a longs ways out (years) and there are ream loads of paper products. Table top gaming will not go away.
Did you support the decision?
Scott Rouse: I was involved in the decision making process. It has been said in other threads and on other boards how we make large decisions on D&D. As Bill Slavicsek said in the enworld interview "Bill: This decision followed the same process as anything we do related to D&D. Creative endeavors originate on my team, business initiatives originate on the Brand Team, and at the end of the day myself and the Brand Director come together to agree on a course of action, then we submit our plans to senior management for ultimate approval." Many people have a say and are involved in decisions this big. We have a D&D strategy council whose memebers come from various departments and they discuss/decide on high level issues that affect the brand in the long term.
I do support the decision. I can't say why because that would violate the confendiality provisons of the Paizo contract.
Where might I find writers guidelines for submissions to the upcoming Digital Initiative?
Scott Rouse: I don't have exact information on the announcement of submission guidelines.
I don't have specific info on the "slush pile" transfer of pending submissions. Over the coming weeks we'll be talking with Paizo on this among other things.
Also the is not an exact date as to when we'll be taking new submissions directly. When we do have a date we will post it here, on the DnD main page, and elsewhere.
Zherog: The names Dragon and Dungeon have a lot of value. They represent the game - heck, their names are the game. To that end, the decision was made to brand this on-line content with those names, thereby lending it instant name recognition as well as instant credibility in the market place.
If they had allowed Paizo to continue, WotC would not have the names to use for their stuff. Those names are valuable to WotC, and can provide them an instant market for the on-line content.
Scott Rouse: Thanks. I think your summary is pretty spot on.
WizO_Sith: Will the magazine contain material for Wizards of the Coast's non-D&D RPGs like D20 Modern and/or the Star Wars Saga Edition RPG? Will the magazine be willing to consider submissions for them? Will the new (digital) format allow for larger articles than the current (print) format? Will there be an option for header-free, low-graphic, "Printer Friendly" versions of articles?
Chris Thomasson: I can try to answer some of these.
We don't currently have plans for d20 Modern support, but that could change if demand increases.
We will be accepting submission proposals. We're in the process of transitioning Paizo's slush pile to our desks (I'll have some long days ahead, methinks), and we're getting our own submission process ironed out. I'm hoping to get some good news on that front in the next few days.
Some articles might be a bit longer, but mostly I think the length will run about the same. The shorter length actually works to the reader's advantage. You get more variety, more unique concepts, and just more content, when all is said and done. But we might explore some longer features if, again, we see demand (or get a really killer idea).
We definitely want to allow for a printer-friendly version of everything. We're exploring a couple of different options, and should have more information soon.
Edit: I just talked to Chris P., and he tells me there's a "plethora of SW" online support in the works.
Chris Perkins: In addition to Saga Edition preview articles, we have a good number of web enhancements tied to future products as well as a series of linked Star Wars adventures (call it our Star Wars adventure path).
Merric's Notes: Well, there you have it - a few bits of information that I wasn't previously aware of. You may have been. Oh well.
Cheers!
http://209.221.178.225/showthread.php?t=836769&page=5
Note well: I've distilled these comments from a couple of threads, and they don't represent the time gap between the comments. So, while Scott might not be saying much, his comments may come earlier than Chris's on the same subject.
As a would-be contributer I would really like to know (at the least) which areas of D&D you are going to need content for. Is it: Monsters? Plot hooks? Core class support? Non-core class support? Spells? Magic Items? General Setting Information? Adventures? Or all of the above? I would also like to know what is going to happen to the submissions/ queries that have already been sent to Paizo.
Scott Rouse: All of the above. I don't have exact information on the announcement of submission guidelines.
In the coming weeks/months we'll be talking with Paizo about passing off any submissions they have on editors desks.
On Campaign Settings:
Scott Rouse: No real disgreement from me.Campaign settings are really important. Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Eberron, Greyhawk etc. we just to balance what fans want and not slicing the audience to thin.
Paper is not going away. We have product plan a longs ways out (years) and there are ream loads of paper products. Table top gaming will not go away.
Did you support the decision?
Scott Rouse: I was involved in the decision making process. It has been said in other threads and on other boards how we make large decisions on D&D. As Bill Slavicsek said in the enworld interview "Bill: This decision followed the same process as anything we do related to D&D. Creative endeavors originate on my team, business initiatives originate on the Brand Team, and at the end of the day myself and the Brand Director come together to agree on a course of action, then we submit our plans to senior management for ultimate approval." Many people have a say and are involved in decisions this big. We have a D&D strategy council whose memebers come from various departments and they discuss/decide on high level issues that affect the brand in the long term.
I do support the decision. I can't say why because that would violate the confendiality provisons of the Paizo contract.
Where might I find writers guidelines for submissions to the upcoming Digital Initiative?
Scott Rouse: I don't have exact information on the announcement of submission guidelines.
I don't have specific info on the "slush pile" transfer of pending submissions. Over the coming weeks we'll be talking with Paizo on this among other things.
Also the is not an exact date as to when we'll be taking new submissions directly. When we do have a date we will post it here, on the DnD main page, and elsewhere.
Zherog: The names Dragon and Dungeon have a lot of value. They represent the game - heck, their names are the game. To that end, the decision was made to brand this on-line content with those names, thereby lending it instant name recognition as well as instant credibility in the market place.
If they had allowed Paizo to continue, WotC would not have the names to use for their stuff. Those names are valuable to WotC, and can provide them an instant market for the on-line content.
Scott Rouse: Thanks. I think your summary is pretty spot on.
WizO_Sith: Will the magazine contain material for Wizards of the Coast's non-D&D RPGs like D20 Modern and/or the Star Wars Saga Edition RPG? Will the magazine be willing to consider submissions for them? Will the new (digital) format allow for larger articles than the current (print) format? Will there be an option for header-free, low-graphic, "Printer Friendly" versions of articles?
Chris Thomasson: I can try to answer some of these.
We don't currently have plans for d20 Modern support, but that could change if demand increases.
We will be accepting submission proposals. We're in the process of transitioning Paizo's slush pile to our desks (I'll have some long days ahead, methinks), and we're getting our own submission process ironed out. I'm hoping to get some good news on that front in the next few days.
Some articles might be a bit longer, but mostly I think the length will run about the same. The shorter length actually works to the reader's advantage. You get more variety, more unique concepts, and just more content, when all is said and done. But we might explore some longer features if, again, we see demand (or get a really killer idea).
We definitely want to allow for a printer-friendly version of everything. We're exploring a couple of different options, and should have more information soon.
Edit: I just talked to Chris P., and he tells me there's a "plethora of SW" online support in the works.
Chris Perkins: In addition to Saga Edition preview articles, we have a good number of web enhancements tied to future products as well as a series of linked Star Wars adventures (call it our Star Wars adventure path).
Merric's Notes: Well, there you have it - a few bits of information that I wasn't previously aware of. You may have been. Oh well.
Cheers!
