Submission letter.

I definitely prefer the first letter to the second because it is more direct.

In this first paragraph you're telling them what you want. You should be more specific. You don't simply want them to evaluate it: you want them to consider adding it to their line. Go ahead and say so.

Up to 4 players control (by means of a special deck of "Program" cards) a squad of four robots called Chase-Bots. There are no dice in this game.

Accomplishing this goal won't be easy, for all players must navigate passed the powerful IT-Bot! The last player to get at least one of his robots into the main area of play is the first to be IT and takes control of the dreaded IT-Bot. If the IT-Bot tags another player's Chase-Bot, the victim is imprisoned and control of the IT-Bot transfers to the player just tagged. The only way she can once again regain control of her own squad of Chase-Bots (and to release her robot prisoner) is to tag yet another player's robot with the IT-Bot. If that weren't challenge enough, each player periodically upgrades their robots with cutting edge technology, increasing the way they move around on the board, interact with other robots, protect themselves from being tagged and more!
I like all this.

I don't know enough to say if you have several unique mechanics. I will say I'm immediately suspicious of such a claim. A game company likely will be, too. Perhaps you can back it up. If so, great. More likely is that you have "a unique blend of several mechanics." That's for you to determine. You don't want to overstate the case and then have the buyer begin to mentally question every statement you make.

I'll agree with the connotations of "laugh out loud fun." "Raucous, 'take that!' fun" or something might be more what you're trying to convey.

I'd take the hyphen out of replayability.

This is good. It says you've honed things and it suggests that it can be produced inexpensively. You might say how many cards are in each deck.

Infinite is a large number. Again, overstating your case calls into question everything you're claiming. Substitute "excellent" for "infinite."

You probably took too many words to say this, and Jeff's criticisms are certainly well taken here, but I found the fact that your game is in regular rotation with your gaming group to be a good selling point. The fact that you've blind-tested the game, rather than simply rely on your friends is good. I like that you say it's balanced, well thought out, and fun. That doesn't smack of hyperbole, though every designer will make that claim. It demonstrates confidence without being arrogant.

You end by asking for the sale. I'd be a little more specific in closing. Something like, "I look forward to hearing from you soon. Upon request I can send you rules, photos, and the prototype." Others might recommend you be even more aggressive here. I think that's risky.

In any event it sounds like you have something worth pursuing. I hope I've helped. Good luck.

Steve Bennett

You are not using "passed" in the context of the past tense of "pass".

Past is an adverb. Passed is the past tense of a verb. (Or, as you might argue, the passed tense. ;) )

Look at your example:

Before the colon is the definition. After the colon is the example.

It (coincidentally, I think) provides the proper context for the two words we're discussing and is certainly not validating both as interchangeable. It even uses past within its definition for passed - signifying that the two are distinctly separate words.

Would you ever write: "The sports car past on the right?"

~Josh

I'm with Josh, it's "past" ("the horse passed the finish line" refers to the horse's action, while "the last horse past the finish line" refers to position, which you're referring to) and also "tagged, and more." In this case the serial comma (before the "and") clarifies what "more" refers to. You don't mean that players must protect themselves from being tagged and they must protect themselves from more, you mean that they periodically upgrade in order to do x, y, protect themselves from being tagged, and z.

Only a couple of grammar styles recommend never using the serial comma. Most recommend it when it clarifies, which in this case it does, imo.

Good letter, btw!

-- Matthew

Josh is correct in all cases, and he has done an excellent job of explaining why he is correct. I'm a former English teacher. I don't always get it right when I post in forums, but I make every attempt to be technically perfect when I write cover letters.

These grammatically points are small details, but you don't want to give the reader any excuse to ignore or reject you. You want every advantage you can muster.

I agree that it's a pretty good letter and it sounds like a pretty good game. I hope you can get someone to look at it.

Steve Bennett

I am a very bad salesman. I make great games though!

Carl
Actually, I think you're doing a good job of selling your idea. And I appreciate that you're taking criticism in the spirit in which it is intended.

Steve Bennett

I'd suggest that shorter is better, in most instances. I'd hypothesize that publishers receive numerous submissions. If you do them a favor by writing a concise letter, they may have more time to spend looking at the prototype.

Carl, my mind started to wander when reading the paragraph "Accomplishing this... more", so I suggest shortening it.

Also, what makes this different from RoboRally? I know what makes it different from RoboRally, you got a squad of robots instead of just one, there's this IT-bot you can control, and I'm sure you are able to list a dozen of other differences. Still, it is a racing game with robots and program cards, and I can imagine that a publisher might reject your proposal based on the argument "it looks too much like RoboRally". Not much you can do about this except changing your game and certainly not something you can or should address in your pitch.

The fact that it is only for 2 or 4 players, not for 3, is another reason why a publisher might reject it. Why include the possibility of adding a third player in an expansion and not in the base game? I'm certain a game that is for 2, 3 or 4 players is much easier to sell than a game for 2 or 4 players.

Carl, it's only natural that you want to defend your game and explain how it works, but you don't have to convince me, you have to convince the publisher. And you have to do it in a few paragraphs. I have sent submission letters to different publishers for different games and I know how they react.

Most of my submissions get turned down because "it looks too much like game X". Even when the game is *nothing* like game X, if the publisher gets that impression then they have a reason to turn it down. You don't want to give them reasons to turn your game down. If your theme is a lot like game X, then focus your pitch on the mechanics. If your game has a mechanic that looks a lot like the mechanic in game Y, then don't mention it, or only briefly. In other words, mention the stuff in your game that is unique, not the stuff that is not unique.

The 2 or 4 player board is square with square spaces.

That's why the 3 player game is an expansion. I've also considered a Hex or Octogon shaped board as well.

Again, don't try to defend your game, because publishers *will* turn down your game on things like this. Try to think about ways to solve it instead. Have you considered a double-sided board? On one side it shows the square board, on the other side the triangular board. You might need a bigger board to fit both shapes, but it certainly is a lot better then a game that doesn't work for 3 players. Heck, even including two boards would be a better solution.

In any case, good luck!

Is the base length of the triangle board significantly larger than the side length of the square board? If it is, does it need to be? I think Rene's intuition is correct, that printing on the back of the board to allow a 3p version in the same box is probably a good option if it can fit. A tringle board will be an expensive component to make compared to a rectangular or square board.

-Jeff

Sounds like you've got everything under control. Good luck.

-Jeff

Well, threads going off track is just something you have to get used to at BGDF! But in this case, I don't see anyone trying to change your game. (we don't even really know much about it, so it's hard to imagine how we even could do that) It appears you have a 3p version of the game ready to go. It is played on a triangular board. All Rene and I are asking is, "can you just put the triangle board on the back of the square board"? If you could do this (or at least mention it as a possibility), it would make the game playable by 3p in the same box, which may be attractive to a publisher.

Or it may not matter. Or they may just ask "what needs to happen to make this playable with 3". The point is that several of us latched on to the fact that you presented the 3p version as an expansion. I don't think that's a selling point, and would strike that clause altogether. Then, if a publisher asks "can't it be played with 3?", you can say "well, it takes a triangular board, which could be back-printed on the board or packaged as a separate expansion."

-J