Chris Youngs has just posted on his blog the aerticles that they are currently looking for.
Thanks a lot!
Thing is, since the revamp of Dungeon & Dragon, we've heard of some new article types, but haven't actually seen examples of them. Specifically: Winning Races, Power Play, Know Your Role, and Guilds & Groups. I remember hearing that Power Play was just supposed to be a few new powers (though since Class Acts still exists, I'm not exactly sure what they're supposed to be for - a specific class, power source, ???). Know Your Role obviously has something to do with Defending/Striking/Controlling/Leading, but beyond that I'm stumped. Winning Races - is that supposed to be the new name for "Playing X"? Guilds & Groups - I'm really not sure how that's supposed to relate to player content - sounds more like DM material to me, so obviously I'm missing something.
Moreover, none of the above 4 types of articles are listed here: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/tool.aspx?x=dnd/4new/tool/dragonmagazine. Could we get some clarification as to what these are? Or could someone post a link that I missed that explains these?
EDIT: Oh, I bet Guilds & Groups is gonna be like the Sons of Mercy article we got a while back, but just with more PC options. Perhaps more like the White Lotus article, then. Duh. Still, clarification would be fantastic.
Funny how you have to be a DDI subscriber to look. They'll pay you to write for them, but you have to pay for that privilege. ;)
Content Needs
Funny how you have to be a DDI subscriber to look. They'll pay you to write for them, but you have to pay for that privilege. ;)
If you're not reading the magazine, you probably shouldn't be writing for it. I mean, us subscribers don't even know what some of the valid topics are. How is someone who doesn't subscribe going to know?
But anyway, that information was on Chris Youngs' blog. That's not subscriber-only as far as I can tell anyway.
But anyway, that information was on Chris Youngs' blog. That's not subscriber-only as far as I can tell anyway.
I had to login to see his blog post, and AFAIK others had to do the same.
YOu had to log into your account to see the blog post, just like everyone else who participates in the forums. SOme registered members have DDI accounts and some do not. But you have to be registered and logged in to participate in the community, including the Blogs.
YOu had to log into your account to see the blog post, just like everyone else who participates in the forums. SOme registered members have DDI accounts and some do not. But you have to be registered and logged in to participate in the community, including the Blogs.
I think you're wrong on this one, Seeker. I am unable to view the blog post as it is part of a private group, and I'm not a member of that group.
Funny how you have to be a DDI subscriber to look. They'll pay you to write for them, but you have to pay for that privilege. ;)
If you're not reading the magazine, you probably shouldn't be writing for it. I mean, us subscribers don't even know what some of the valid topics are. How is someone who doesn't subscribe going to know?
But anyway, that information was on Chris Youngs' blog. That's not subscriber-only as far as I can tell anyway.
I don't see how submitting a Class Acts article for a class that has never been done before requires a subscription. I can read the books and message boards and see what's missing.
And it's not a blog post on his account blog, but a post on the DDI group blog which cannot be seen by non-members.
I'd personally prefer more information on what's required and formatting. How exactly does one submit an article on powers that's just an abstract?
If you're not reading the magazine, you probably shouldn't be writing for it. I mean, us subscribers don't even know what some of the valid topics are. How is someone who doesn't subscribe going to know?
He doesn't need to know. The editors will tell him if it isn't. They know best what they want to have or want to change, and if more people supply content, this is never a bad thing - they actually get to chose the best articles of the ones submitted, and not the ones that just fit in.
You should stop fostering those class conceits... Nothing good comes from it.
@Chris Youngs: you really should post this on your personal (staff!) blog instead of in the DDI group. (could someone poke him to actually read this sentence?)
Okay, so it's on the DDi blog. I still stand by what I said regarding having a subscription. If you're not subscribing, I see no reason why Wizards should make concessions for you. We subscribers don't even know what some of the topics that Chris mentioned are, how would people who don't even subscribe?
If I were working at Wizards I'd be a bit ticked off that people who don't subscribe are acting indignant that they're not being included in the discussion of what is desired by the magazine. You don't feel any need to purchase a subscription and support Wizards, but it's completely justifiable that they make every effort to pay you for your ideas.
It would be like the executives of Ford coming to work in Toyotas.
There could also be people who occasionally let their subscription lapse, shock.
I'm letting mine lapse for a while, for example, to get a better end date for it than the 25th since I tend to subscribe monthly when stuff really interests me since my budget forbids the three month/yearly subs. Whether I pick it up again November 1st or December 1st depends on the content calender for November. I don't think a gap of one month will leave me scratching my head as to what a Channel Divinity article is, for example. And the types nobody knows what they are, well, the current DDi subscribers don't really seem to be any more up on what it's about than someone who's never had a DDi sub.
I give WotC money and I get a DDi subscription. I don't read everything or use everything. None of this makes me inherently better or worse than anybody else or any more or less qualified to write stuff. *shrug*
I'd submit a proposal for something they're looking for that I'd be interested in writing, but I'm more fluffy than crunchy so I probably won't.
you don't get it. this is about submitting articles - doing work. not about deciding which articles are in dungeon or dragon.
you don't need to buy the results of your work to get it done. It's like telling every D&D author that he can only write a book of his own if he read ALL the other novels there are. This is just snobbishness on your part, nothing else. non subscribers can write as good or bad articles as anyone else.
@nai_calus: 1) ninja'ed. 2) please submit fluffy articles... our DM (subscriber) is missing them a lot. :-)
But if you're not a DDi subscriber, how ever will you know what's in a particular type of DDi article you might be interested in trying to write? Oh, wait, I know, you find someone you know who does have DDi and ask them about it. Don't even have to get them to show you the articles in question, just let you know what the general info covered in them and the setup of said info is. *shrug*
No WB, you don't get it.
Why should Wizards hand you their money for your work if you refuse to pay them for theirs?
This has nothing to do with the ability of a person to write an article. I'm not a major league baseball player, but I write a heckuva lot about the sport. It's got nothing to do with ability to write about a topic. At all.
It does have everything to do with Wizards choosing to make the details of what they specifically want only available to their subscriber base. You know, those people who put food on their table.
In reality, the publicly available submission guidelines on the site tell you enough to submit an article. What Chris talked about isn't all that revelatory anyway.
I'm really tired of reading all the whining about how Wizards is terrible for putting their stuff behind the subscriber firewall. Get used to it. This is the future of the game. If you don't like it, you have many other options. This is the fast-approaching future of everything online, as I know I've explained to you a couple times already. One of NY's local newspapers (Newsday) just announced this week that the majority of their content online will now only be available to subscribers. Don't like it? That's tough luck. Companies are in business to make money, not to give you free stuff.
As American Express would say "Membership has its privileges."
Why should Wizards hand you their money for your work if you refuse to pay them for theirs?
this year alone saw me buy about 10 items off their dungeon tile series, and about the same amount of books. Stop that stupid suggestion that they don't make money OFF of me. It's just not true, they just don't gain anything from their online program because they do not offer the more restricted packages that I'd want currently. Probably once the Encounter+Dungeon Builder is out, I'll subscribe longe ... I really love using maps and need to do everything by hand...
I'm really tired of reading all the whining about how Wizards is terrible for putting their stuff behind the subscriber firewall. Get used to it. This is the future of the game.
Look, noone whined here except you. Because you fear that your inside-superiority could be somehow damaged. Keep the thread on track, instead of mingling it with other discussions where I'm involved.
Don't like it? That's tough luck. Companies are in business to make money, not to give you free stuff.
NYTimes is a good example of how to do this WITHOUT going paywall. Also, i want to add again: I have no problem with new content staying behind the paywall, I just think that it's not the smartest of things to post such "what we need" posts behind a paywall.
As American Express would say "Membership has its privileges."
And as my mum would say: You can buy almost everything with money, except for realism and a decent behaviour. Can we get back on topic now?
@nai_calus:well, there are some options on how you know what they want from you.
A) this kind of article has been there before, either in the free issues or back when you were a subscriber (if you were a sub once).
B) the editors just outright tell you. It's not like people are chosen to write such stories for their will alone - you'd need to submit a pitch first, and if it's not liked, well, then you'll probably get no answer, or at best, a simple "no, sorry, not good enough". If it is liked, you'll get more information anyway, as the editors have specific goals in mind with their articles anyway - and with that it does not help to be an insider anyway.
C) just ask. If a pitch is submitted and you don't know exactly where it should go, this is the best option - but again, it has nothing to do with actual knowledge of previous articles. More Fluff? More Crunch? More Feats? More Powers? You can't be sure if you don't communicate.
I think that the idea that you need to be a subscriber to be a contributor is completely absurd. That said, I think its always a good idea to have more than a second hand familiarity with recent articles, no matter what you're trying to contribute to. Its not exactly hard to get access to them; a one month subscription provides you access to all the magazines, and if you don't want to do that, you could always ask a friend to read his copies.
As for why Chris used the DDI Insider's group blog instead of his own, he probably didn't think much about it when he posted. In any case, there is probably a considerable overlap between DDI subscribers and DDI contributors (and potential contributors).
Why should Wizards hand you their money for your work if you refuse to pay them for theirs?
this year alone saw me buy about 10 items off their dungeon tile series, and about the same amount of books. Stop that stupid suggestion that they don't make money OFF of me. It's just not true, they just don't gain anything from their online program because they do not offer the more restricted packages that I'd want currently. Probably once the Encounter+Dungeon Builder is out, I'll subscribe longe ... I really love using maps and need to do everything by hand...
I'm really tired of reading all the whining about how Wizards is terrible for putting their stuff behind the subscriber firewall. Get used to it. This is the future of the game.
Look, noone whined here except you. Because you fear that your inside-superiority could be somehow damaged. Keep the thread on track, instead of mingling it with other discussions where I'm involved.Don't like it? That's tough luck. Companies are in business to make money, not to give you free stuff.
NYTimes is a good example of how to do this WITHOUT going paywall. Also, i want to add again: I have no problem with new content staying behind the paywall, I just think that it's not the smartest of things to post such "what we need" posts behind a paywall.As American Express would say "Membership has its privileges."
And as my mum would say: You can buy almost everything with money, except for realism and a decent behaviour. Can we get back on topic now?
@nai_calus:well, there are some options on how you know what they want from you.
A) this kind of article has been there before, either in the free issues or back when you were a subscriber (if you were a sub once).
B) the editors just outright tell you. It's not like people are chosen to write such stories for their will alone - you'd need to submit a pitch first, and if it's not liked, well, then you'll probably get no answer, or at best, a simple "no, sorry, not good enough". If it is liked, you'll get more information anyway, as the editors have specific goals in mind with their articles anyway - and with that it does not help to be an insider anyway.
C) just ask. If a pitch is submitted and you don't know exactly where it should go, this is the best option - but again, it has nothing to do with actual knowledge of previous articles. More Fluff? More Crunch? More Feats? More Powers? You can't be sure if you don't communicate.
Get back on topic? The topic is solely to direct people to a post that is located behind the subscriber wall. You're whining about it. It's not me diverging from the topic. Well, unless you think the topic should be someone posting up what Chris said so you can get that information for free. (Which someone already did anyway, didn't they?)
As for my "inside superiority" I should have inside superiority. I pay for it. That's why I'm a Dungeons and Dragons Insider. I've bought more than what you've listed in physical products, in addition to subscribing to DDi, this year.
As far as what you think is right to be located behind the subscriber wall, it doesn't really matter what you think. What matters is what Wizards thinks, and this was put behind the wall. (A move I agree with as an Insider.)
Personally, I think WotC should put the submission process behind the paywall. That way no one could even submit an article without subscribing. Why? Because why should an editor waste valuable time reading an article submission having absolutely nothing to do with anything they're looking for, but the author feels is a "great idea?" I'm sure there are more than enough aspiring authors who are shelling out their hard-earned money for a subscription who deserve their shot. (And I don't submit anything, so I don't mean me.)
Save your indignation.
We subscribers don't even know what some of the topics that Chris mentioned are, how would people who don't even subscribe?
So... your argument is: since nobody knows what half the suggested articles are how can non-subscribers submit?
Doesn't that mean non-subscribers know just as much as subscribers? Doesn't that mean I'm on equal footing with, say, someone who has read every word of every article.
If I were working at Wizards I'd be a bit ticked off that people who don't subscribe are acting indignant that they're not being included in the discussion of what is desired by the magazine. You don't feel any need to purchase a subscription and support Wizards, but it's completely justifiable that they make every effort to pay you for your ideas.
I can support WotC without dumping money on a monthly basis for a magazine that has articles I *might* like every 2-3 months.
I am also a student living on a very fixed income. How fixed? I just found out my grant for the winter term isn't covering my full tuition and I need to pay for half of it myself, and now the cost of a $5 Footlong breaks my budget. I'm not going to pay twice that for a magazine subscription for the chance to get a paying gig.
Additionally, most freelance writers receive a free author's copy of their work. If you're a DDI subscriber and writer not only will you NOT receive a free author's copy buy you'll be paying to see your work.
Why should Wizards hand you their money for your work if you refuse to pay them for theirs?
Do you really think all the regular freelancers who have monthly articles in the magazine pay for their subscription?
Do you think WotC doesn't provide its employees free access?
This thread devolved into exactly why I make the arguments I do. Some false sense of entitlement allows people to actually believe they have a right to these things.
I'd be curious to know just how many people write for Dungeon or Dragon who aren't also subscribers at the time. I'd be even more curious to know those percentages for the old print versions of them.
Before the uproar about the images going behind the paywall, and now this, I was completely indifferent to what was offered for free by Wizards. Either way I was getting all of the content, so I had no problem with things being given away for free. Threads like this and the artwork ones, however, have only pushed me into the camp of "well, now I hope they put every single thing they own online behind the paywall."
I don't have it easy financially. I have a wife and three kids, two of which go to private school, one of which is a baby. I have rent, bills, and transportation costs. I need food on my table every night. My salary is on the low end of my skill/experience scale. My wife hasn't had a job in over a year. So what? I don't expect anyone to care.
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but if you don't have the money, you just don't have the product. That's the way the world works, not just D&D Insider. I definitely feel for your personal situation, and I sincerely hope that your situation will be at least bearable, but I'm not going to feel bad that you can't afford your hobby. When I was a newlywed with two children I didn't have enough money to both pay the rent and eat in the same month. It wasn't easy for me. But I worked my tail off and went back to college while working full time and being a full time father/husband. I've paid off my debts and now I can make sacrifices for my hobby. I earned that.
Again, if you're struggling financially, I completely feel for you. I truly hope that you find a way to afford the things you need. I know what it's like to struggle.
I don't feel any great need to continue discussing this topic. Honestly, from the start I figured it was as someone previously said, that this was posted to the DDi-only crowd by accident. It's the indignation that stems from this that completely irks me though. And if this was a decision WotC consciously made, I support that.
BTW: I've posted it previously in the artwork threads, but it bears repeating here. All online content worth viewing will be behind a paywall in the future. The most generous estimates are 5 years from now, with most estimates being around 3 years. And that's everything from news outlets, to hobbies, to whatever.
a) I've heard that estimate before the year 2000 as well. More paywalls also means less customers, less audience, and really - there are many out there that won't pay for every single bit. So far, i still have to see it happen anywhere that I can't get what I want for free. I'll always be able to get free art, free software and free news. You should also note that for example TV networks like NBC started streaming their series and movies for free, so NO, I can't see that development. I'd be interested where you get those estimates from - any official sources? Also, the two most successful newspapers in our region are those that are available for free.
b) I'm sorry that you don't have enough money. The answer you'd give now would be along the lines of "Stop whining and start to live with it." Maybe it's because you don't expect anyone to care, that you don't care for anyone? It's not like the people who don't subscribe are all worse off than you - in fact, the price matters little to me. It's on principle that i don't subscribe to stuff I don't need or use. I don't need to have that badge to feel superior or do something I like.
c) btw: many of the authors of articles do not actively read other articles. It's their job to write them, not to like them or read them. again, it's like telling a construction worker that he'll have to live in the house he's currently building.
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but if you don't have the money, you just don't have the product. That's the way the world works, not just D&D Insider. I definitely feel for your personal situation, and I sincerely hope that your situation will be at least bearable, but I'm not going to feel bad that you can't afford your hobby.
I'm not complaining about my inability to support my hobby. I've accepted that DDI and monthly books are temporarily beyond my means and rely on friends and local libraries to keep relatively up-to-date. When I'm better off I can sink more money back into the hobby.
However, what I do dislike is being essentially cut-off from something that might help me earn an extra $100 (which would go to minis and books). It's all probably a moot point because of very limited free time, but if I wasn't excluded I might make a pitch and do some serious writing over the winter break.
BTW: I've posted it previously in the artwork threads, but it bears repeating here. All online content worth viewing will be behind a paywall in the future. The most generous estimates are 5 years from now, with most estimates being around 3 years. And that's everything from news outlets, to hobbies, to whatever.
Very doubtful.
People just don't like paying for what used to be free. The art galleries are a minor quibble, but maps are a larger problem. It sucks content away from the D&D Website and hurts young and new players who might baulk at a financial commitment. I really don't like seeing content that was a free Web Enhancement or feature of the website having a price-tag attached since the release of DDI.
And as long as one place offers it free people will avoid paying, or go for the cheaper alternative. There is a strong contingent of pay-internet supporters, but far more who want a free wall-less internet. And WotC doesn't have the clout to combat and deal with piracy and are especially vulnerable to it.
Subscription-based payments are, well, old fashioned and dated. The magazines don't come out every month so why pay on a monthly basis? The content is already broken into individual articles and chunks. It would be very, very easy to switch over to a micro-payment system. People pay for individual components or the articles they want, so wizard players wouldn't pay for 2-3 months of fighter and barbarian articles and DMs could focus on content that fits their current tier.
You know, the hilarious thing is that the person with the biggest entitlement complex in this thread is the one decrying it in others.
Seriously though, non-subscribers are perfectly capable through friends or a one-month sub or whatever of finding out what the article types we do know about are about and how they're laid out if they're interested in writing them.
The ones nobody knows about, non-subscribers are as qualified as I am, since hey, I don't know wtf they are either.
Period, end of story.
I'd be curious to know just how many people write for Dungeon or Dragon who aren't also subscribers at the time. I'd be even more curious to know those percentages for the old print versions of them.
So far, for what I can see, almost all authors for the magazines are estanlished wriyters. It seems really hard to break through to them if you haven't written something already. You need many ideas and submissions, and just hope to get noticed.
What Chris posts is helpful in providing what they are looking for and increasing the chance to get noriced. Still, I hope that what I submit is enough, as you need to be brief, but at the same time being brief means you can hardly provide enough info to make it sound enticing.
Oh, and if you want to make money, writing for Dragon is probably not the most lucrative choice.
Gomez.
hehe. If you want to make a lot of money, writing is probably not the best choice of careers 
hehe. If you want to make a lot of money, writing is probably not the best choice of careers
depends. if your name is j.k. rowling, stephen king or one of those... then well, it might be a good idea to keep on writing. but in fantasy, you'd rather be very lucky or have another income.
So, despite this debate... has there been any discussion on what a Power Play is?
So, despite this debate... has there been any discussion on what a Power Play is?
I can see it as being one of three article types:
a) analysis/help for players which powers to choose, maybe alongside with additional feats to spice it up.
b) branch out to the nhl, and tell what happens when someone draws a minor...
c) tipps and tricks on speeding up your play, or getting the most out of your characters. (could be kinda similar to option a as well)
I will poke Trevor to see if the post was meant to go behind the paywall, or if it was done without thinking.
According to this month's Dragon editorial, "Power Play" is an article series that centers on a particular power source, so it would be stuff that would apply across classes within a power source like power source specific feats, martial practices, familiars, channel divinity powers, etc.
According to this month's Dragon editorial, "Power Play" is an article series that centers on a particular power source, so it would be stuff that would apply across classes within a power source like power source specific feats, martial practices, familiars, channel divinity powers, etc.
Well, I can see why they are having problems getting people to write one, then. In order to get it done, It sounds that Power Play just wants to steal stuff that the other article types do. While I could think of some things that might fit, they'd be better off in other catagories.
I will poke Trevor to see if the post was meant to go behind the paywall, or if it was done without thinking.
Thanks for that.
@shroomy: thanks for the information, but I am with oni on this one: It's no wonder that they still need "all" articles for that. This series might just be a bit to unspecific.
btw, what I'd really like to see for "my alltime setting", Eberron, would be a lot more of background articles. Our old DM wanted to plug them out of Dungeon/Dragon into our game, and never got any good out of it except the Graywall one... When his subscription lapses, I'm not sure how we'll continue with the whole DDI bunch, but as of now, i have little incentives to start buying into DDI magazines as I'm personally not getting enough fluff out of it. Looking at what the articles are searching for, it seems to me that it will even be further reduced than enhanced.
I'd be curious to know just how many people write for Dungeon or Dragon who aren't also subscribers at the time. I'd be even more curious to know those percentages for the old print versions of them.
I can't speak for any other freelancer, obviously. But when I started writing for the print magazines I didn't yet have a subscription. I bought a copy from the local book store and attended a seminar at GenCon to get the low down. However... by the time my first article saw print, I was a subscriber.
Hey guys. MB poked me, and I spoke with Chris before reposting his blog, with some additions, on the D&D group page. I'll start working on getting some more info about those article types that we haven't seen yet.
Thanks Trevor
@trevor: good to see that this was rather an oversight than intentional.
Thank you kindly.
As for my "inside superiority" I should have inside superiority. I pay for it. That's why I'm a Dungeons and Dragons Insider. I've bought more than what you've listed in physical products, in addition to subscribing to DDi, this year.
Dude. Wow. Yikes.