Community

Jan 13, 2012 -- 5:45PM, Cailte wrote:

Ok from my pitches, & rejections.

1) Make sure you are very clear about what you mean. Brevity is good but, clarity is better, the responses to my pitches suggest I often stumbled with conveying things due to keeping it brief.

2) 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.

3) I was told " We already have as much runepriest material as we need for the foreseeable future."

4) Avoid pitches that suggest the PCs have a particular role in the world, especially if it's something like Cormeryan noble.

5) From twitter it was observed by Greg Bisland that they have enough adventures to see them through into 2013. I take this to mean getting an adventure pitch accepted is going to be very hard so focus on side treks and other Dungeon content.

Points 2-4 added to the main list. Do you have a link to the tweet for point 5?

Jan 15, 2012 -- 3:36PM, Gadren wrote:

No arcane archers in 4e. I've tried pitching this is every way possible, and Chris finally told me it isn't going to happen, period. Not as a class, not as a theme, not through a series of feats, nothin'. He doesn't feel people are interested in arcane archers at all, and that Seeker already fills the niche.

Well, he's at least partly right - if the Seeker class is what Wotc thinks arcane archers ought to look like, people aren't interested.

• 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.
• 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.
• No articles that reimagine something we've already done in previous editions as their primary goal.
• 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.
• 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.
• Specific beats general; don't pitch an article on "The Astral Sea" but focus on one aspect of the Astral Sea, for example.
• 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.
• General advice articles.
• Unearthed Arcana articles that further complicate or lengthen encounters.
• 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.