Epic Meepo's page

In my games, commoners are always relevant. Sure, 99.9% of the rules are about giving non-commoners ways to do cool things commoners can't do, but no one actually plays using those high-level adventuring rules. This game is about having fun, so players and GM's who know how to play will make an agreement not to use material which makes commoners less fun.

Sure, a party with three fighters and a commoner could go adventuring in a dungeon where the fighters would kill all the monsters and the commoner would suck. But my group just agrees not to do that. We stick to fun stuff like farming and hanging out at the tavern. No one who plays the game correctly actually uses all of those high-level options that let adventuring classes kill things with swords.

In fact, show me one AP where PCs are required to go out and kill monsters instead of ignoring the plot hook and hanging out at the tavern. Nowhere in any AP does it say the PCs can't stay at home and let NPCs handle all of the challenges detailed in the module. There are plenty of rules in the skills chapter which cover running away, hiding, and grovelling, so the PCs never actually have to be heroes who save the day.

Okay, here's a goalpost specifically related to the full-attack complaint in the original post:

If two identically-built, high-level melee combatants who want to kill each other start combat flat-footed on opposite sides of a small room, the melee combatant who moves first should have the advantage in the first round of combat.

Note that the opposite is almost always true in 3.x/Pathfinder. The high-level combatant who acts second has the advantage in the first round of melee combat, because the character who moves first loses his iterative attacks while the character who stands around flat-footed doesn't.

If moving up and hitting an identically-built opponent while he is still flat-footed puts you at a distinct disadvantage against that opponent, that's a bug, not a feature.

This conversation about rudeness reminds me of the scene in The Exorcist (novel) where...

I do understand that folks out there want one single ruleset to rule them all, but that's not the way RPGs work, frankly. They are best when they shift and evolve and change to meat each individual game group's preferences and tastes.

Please forward the above quote to whomever at Paizo keeps insisting that all new spellcasting mechanics must use spell slots. :P

DrDeth wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Selous

Not only killed more big game than any D&D PC, but was a well known explorer and military hero.

By which you mean he mostly shot a lot of elephants.

To be fair, those 78 confirmed elephant kills were worth a total of 249,600 XP, making Frederick Selous a gunslinger of at least 11th level. :P

@Bardess: I've already done multiple gemstone creatures with the elemental subtype.

@DungeonmasterCal: I can address three of your requests immediately: I've already mentioned what stats I'd use for the fossergrim; "nokken" is just another name for the nix, which appears in Bestiary 3 under nixie; and the Vampire Cat of Nabeshima would be a hengeyokai vampire, or a lycanthrope vampire if you want it to turn others into cat creatures.

@Matthew Shelton: If you are referring to my dragon sovereign template which creates humanoid dragons, the template applies to creatures with the dragon type and does not change them to another type.

Which 3rd party has inevitable bloodlines?

I know I've seen one from Purple Duck Games, and I'm fairly sure there are one or two others out there. If you don't have access to those, here is a quick inevitable bloodline I slapped together:

I don't know how big is the market for it, but I think that if Paizo would do such a game, it could get all the customers from the tens of retro-clones that are already out. I hear Castles & Crusades is doing pretty well.

Now imagine Paizo doing a high-quality product, full-color paper, WAR drawings, the works, with streamlined old-school rules.

It would "rule them all".

That's pretty much the D&D 5.0 business plan.

The name Dungeons and Dragons is in the public domain due to its wide use, so it was fair game...

Just a friendly heads up: the name "Dungeons and Dragons" is not in the public domain; it is a registered trademark, which is about as far from public domain as you can get, with even more protections than a copyright. If you use the name "Dungeons and Dragons" in a way Hasbro doesn't like, they have the right to sue you, and they will win.

Man, I disagree about Big Bang Theory's portrayal. While it's not incredible negative, I still feel like it's mocking D&D and Nerds (like everything else in that show).

The problem I have with Big Bang Theory is that it feels like a show about nerds written by people who aren't (and don't understand the subculture of) nerds.

---

15) The X-Files. In one episode, a scene opens with the Lone Gunmen conspiracy club playing an unidentified tabletop RPG (with melodramatic mood lighting and cloaks). The RPG is only included as an amusing way to establish a scene, and doesn't tie into the plot in any way.

Yes, this does mean that in a realistic setting, there should be game-mechanical differences between an int 14 character with a +2 bonus and an int 7 character with a +6 bonus. The GM would be completely justified in imposing higher circumstance penalties (or lesser circumstance bonuses) on the int 7 character to reflect the fact that adaptation to new circumstances is harder.

No. The "circumstance penalty" for having a low Intelligence score is the Intelligence modifier that comes with the Intelligence score. That's what the penalty for having a low Intelligence score is in this game. Period.

Many people in this thread keep saying that someone with 7/7/7 Int/Wis/Cha must necessarily be some sort of dimwitted monosyllabic simpleton with no ability to solve problems and no hope of interacting with other members of society in a meaningful way. Well, if that's the case, then you'd better assign an experience point penalty to every character with low mental stats, and give them a maximum level limit, and give them less feats, and restrict them from taking certain classes, because few of the default character advancement options which the game allows a 7/7/7 character to pursue are things that a dimwitted simpleton should be able to accomplish.

Frankly, I refuse to believe that a dimwitted simpleton as crippled as some people want a 7/7/7 character to be could ever acquire more than one or two class levels in anything, even barbarian or fighter. The hopeless, developmentally-disabled character you are describing should be flat-out barred from ever excelling at anything related to adventuring classes. Which, of course, means that a 7/7/7 character can't actually be that crippled, because the game does allow that character to excel in numerous fields of study that a dimwitted simpleton could never master.

EDIT: There are numerous, game-mechanical drawbacks that a 7/7/7 character will face during play, and the player will have to roleplay those drawbacks because they are actual, numerical penalties that affect the outcomes of actions taken in-game. I can see no reason whatsoever to impose arbitrary roleplaying restrictions that aren't already accounted for by those obvious, numerical penalties the character suffers when attempting actions related to mental ability scores.

Oh, by the way, my halfling barbarian is actually 7'10". Don't worry, mechanically he's Small, but mechanically Small doesn't have to be the same as "fluff" small. Only a Simulationist would say such a thing.

Gamists, narrativists, and simulationists would all agree that your halfling cannot be 7'10" tall in his natural form, because the rules explicitly state how tall halflings can be in real-world feet and inches. In fact, the rules explicitly state how long or tall a Small creature can be in real-world feet and inches (allowing for abstractions in the case of long, narrow creatures like snakes).

That being said, Small (size category) does not equal small (English-language adjective). If that were the case, a character with a small scar on his cheek would somehow have a two-foot long gash on his face, because two feet is the bottom limit for the length of something Small.

When my plot involves a scroll of raise dead as plot device, is that a house rule then? I attach additional meaning to the scroll, and the RAW description of scroll does not state "plot device".

Does defining your scroll as a plot device cause the scroll to have mechanical benefits or restrictions not listed in the rules of the game? If so, then yes, your "plot device" designation is a house rule.

When a roll is called for, and it's an untrained skill, that doesn't change the DC of the roll. A 20 is a reasonable DC. It's quite simple. If you can actually make whatever roll is required successfully, you've performed a skill you were only vaguely familiar with.

If a DC 20 untrained Knowledge check is called for, every character whose isn't trained in that Knowledge skill automatically fails, regardless of Intelligence, because Knowledge is a trained-only skill unless the DC is 10 or lower. So, in the situation you describe, a 7-Int character is exactly as smart as a 17-Int character (and 27-Int character, for that matter).

It is much more reasonable to to enforce the Knowledge rules by requiring untrained DC 10 Knowledge checks in certain situations. That avoids the trouble that arises from requiring higher, trained-only Knowledge checks while still enforcing one of the primary RAW drawbacks of a low Int score. Just realize that high-Int characters also have a reasonable chance of failing untrained DC 10 Knowledge checks, so high-Int characters are also going to fail to come up with clever plans and tactics fairly often when these rules are enforced.

Very simple. It is because under the RAW there are already HUGE penalties for people who dump physical stats (except arguably Strength for a caster who never intends to enter physical combat), whereas the RAW penalties for dumping mental stats are relatively minor.

It's not about penalizing the Fighter over the Wizard. It's about making the player who CHOSE to take crippling mental stats roleplay the character he CHOSE to make.

By your own admission, the RAW impose relatively minor penalties on low mental stats. Which means low mental stats are not "crippling" scores. Each is a relatively minor step down from a higher mental ability score.

Again, this is very simple. If you don't want to play a dumb character, don't create a dumb character.

Agreed. If you don't want to play a dumb character, don't describe your character as being dumb when you create the fluff for your character. None of which has anything to do with game mechanics.

Every person who has ever arm wrestled would like a word with you.

Arm wrestling? You mean an opposed Strength check where a 7-Str character has a 25% chance of beating a 17-Str character? Opposed Strength checks are pretty much a textbook example of ability scores existing as pure game-mechanical constructs with no direct relevance to actual, real-world capabilities. In fact, Strength (the ability score) is so completely unrelated to strength (the common sense meaning of the word) that you would have to create a new subsystem for PFRPG before you could run an encounter involving a realistic arm-wrestling competition.

Bookmarked.

I suspect I will be visiting this site often.

But when you read a book penned down by someone alive today, and his views of gender are less advanced than those of Shakespeare, there is room to be a trifle upset.

Those are Harry's views of gender, not the author's. The anthology, Side Jobs, which should be read after Changes (book 12), includes a short story written from Karin's perspective, which has very little in common with Harry's perspective. The story also describes how Harry appears to outside observers when he's interacting with others, and doesn't paint an entirely flattering picture of him.

[H]ow do we make the ONLINE gaming community a safe and welcoming place for women?

Regarding the online game space in particular, I'm inclined to say Paizo should consider empowering its messageboard users with some sort of "ignore" list functionality.

I can choose to ignore friends on Facebook if they start cluttering my newsfeed with commentary I find distracting. I can choose to unfollow Twitter users if their tweets start cluttering my Twitter feed with the same. Why shouldn't I be able to do something similar on the Paizo boards? Perhaps by collapsing all posts made by specific posters of my choice, so I am aware those posts exist without having to manually scroll past their full content.

Harassment and trolling (of women and men) are both more difficult in a forum with automated "ignore" list functionality. Harassers and trolls (and harmless but argumentative posters) lose their power to inconvenience others with their own personal banner ads crafted from walls of text and redundant baiting posts. Taking that power out of the hands of harassers and trolls removes one hurdle to safe, welcoming online discourse.

People weren't making the case by saying "Females learn differently than males and thus a separate game session is needed to best utilize learning processes that are most effective for females."

And I am making the case by saying exactly that. Pointing to some other poster's past argument and refuting it yet again does nothing to convince me that my own, unrelated logic is flawed.

You are, however, providing an instructive example of exactly how a man can create a social dynamic that can make a woman feel unwelcome at the game table. I'm not going to call the social dynamic you are creating with your posts "male privilege," because I think that phrase has the wrong connotations for what it supposedly describes, but your posts do fit the operating definition of "male privilege" which Jessica provided earlier in this thread.

Jessica expressed frustration that men talk over women at the game table. Some debate ensued. Several women then complained that they felt they were being talked over in this thread, as well. At least one of them specifically and politely asked that posters refrain from drowning one another out. You (and, to be fair, a handful of others) went on to write a prolific stream of posts that reiterate your talking points so frequently, your own post count in this thread is close to exceeding the total post count of all (declared) female posters combined.

You have quite effectively demonstrated the ability of a verbally forward male to drown out the words of multiple women who have been socially conditioned to show restraint during verbal confrontations. In other words, a perfect example of what not to do at the gaming table if you want women to feel welcome there.

however if there is no acceptance to anything being male only because it is "sexist" then it is equally wrong for the same reason when women do it.

I don't know what you're referring to. I haven't seen anyone in this thread suggest that guys can't have "guy's night" events and that public venues can't cater to those events.

The closest I have seen is one poster suggesting that guys don't need venues which specifically cater to "guy's night." (Which is technically true, because a "guy's night" of gaming can easily be arranged in the absence of special promotional events.) But note that even the poster making this statement stopped short of actually denying the right of venues to promote "guy's night" if they so choose.

I'm not understanding the objections some posters are making to women-only events for women who are new to the hobby.

While I don't have the links handy at the moment, numerous studies show that students of both sexes are more likely to participate in classroom discussions of newly-introduced material when separated into single-sex classroom environments. The studies also show that these students are more likely to retain the information under discussion in such environments, and that this retention is not diminished when the two populations are later reintegrated. (DeathQuaker's historical anecdote is a perfect example of this principal in action.)

I'm also not understanding the analogies some posters are drawing between single-sex games for new gamers and racial segregation. There is no functional or biological reason for racial segregation; its only purpose is to perpetuate advantages* bestowed upon one group at the expense of the other. In contrast, the female brain and the male brain have distinct biological differences that lead them to solve problems in differing ways. (See the link posted by StrangePackage, above.) Since learning a new skill is a form of problem solving, it makes sense to give females the option of pursuing female-specific curricula when learning that skill, in the same way female-specific exercise programs should be made available at a gym. Both are simple acknowledgements of biology.

[definition of "privilege" as it relates to gender bias in gaming]

I think your explanation of what is meant by "privilege" is conducive to discussion.

Just be aware that you will need to reiterate your entire explanation every time you use the word "privilege" when discussing gender issues with anyone unfamiliar with feminist literature. Feminist academia did little to facilitate dialog outside its own exclusive circle when its luminaries decided that "male privilege" was good shorthand for "the advantages of being male."

Note that the phrase, "the advantages of being male," implies that "advantages" as a whole are not solely awarded to males, and suggests that different groups benefit from different advantages in different circumstances. By contrast, the word "privilege," being of singular construction, implies a monolithic, indivisible thing that only one group can ever hold at a time. And attaching the adjective, "male," to the word implies that this singular privilege is inherently male in all circumstances, whereas the various advantages one can have are situation-specific.

Also note that outside of feminist literature, the word "privilege" has strong connotations of financial well-being through inheritance. Thus, the use of the phrase, "male privilege," can give some listeners the impression that the speaker thinks the Rich White Guy stereotype defines the entire male gender. Many of them read the phrase, "male privilege," as "male wealth," and get offended that the writer is apparently perpetuating the sexist stereotype that all males are inherently wealthy: "Hey, where do I sign up for all this male wealth you keep mentioning?"

I should also add that I disagree with one part of your definition: misogyny has nothing to do with male privilege. Hurtful speech and actions can be perpetrated by anyone, even if they are not in a position of power. The advantages of being male in a male-dominant venue facilitate the ability of misogynistic males to brow-beat others, but the misogyny itself is neither an advantage of being male, nor a function of having an advantage in general. A misogynist doesn't need any sort of power over others to completely ruin a social dynamic; he could simply sit in a corner and shout slurs. That's sufficient to create a hostile environment for everyone else involved. The misogynist's ability to not be removed when being disruptive is his advantage in certain circumstances, not his ability to shout slurs.

Indeed, actively hostile actions and speech are common tactics used by individuals not in positions of power as a means of feeling better about themselves. (I suspect this has something to do with the blatant sexism in the video game industry. Many of the senior programmers currently in the industry grew up in the era before programming was a mainstream profession, and were likely ostracized as outsiders when they were learning their trade. Their need to belittle others probably developed as a means of coping with their own lack of worth in the eyes of their childhood peers. As younger generations of well-adjusted, socially-empowered programmers ascend into positions where they are able to reshape corporate culture, I suspect we'll see a vast improvement in working conditions for female employees in their industry.)

Clark has a birthday? I had always assumed he just emerged fully-formed from whatever dark corner of the Abyss spawns fiendish judges and game designers who enjoy tormenting player characters.

(Happy birthday, Clark.)

"Men have it difficult in areas outside of gaming." (What does this have to do with making gaming spaces friendlier for women?)

This actually touches on one of the biggest hurdles there is to making male-dominated gaming spaces friendlier to women: the differences between female and male psychology can result in men and women talking past one another unless they each take care to properly interpret what the other group is saying.

For example, when a man makes the statement, "Men have it difficult in areas outside gaming," he sounds rather dismissive and self-centered... until you realize that one of the primary psychological underpinnings of male bonding is banding together in the face of shared adversity. To the average male, a declaration that he has faced challenges resembling your own is a profound statement of solidarity. Rejecting such declarations as off-topic Bingo, while certainly anyone's right, can lead to some men feeling that their sympathy is unwelcome.

Conversely, I'm sure there are plenty of statements women make that contain complex emotional and social nuances which are lost in translation when the listener is a male to whom those nuances have not been properly explained. And I'm sure the women making such statements feel just as unwelcome when those statements fall on deaf ears.

The "spores" suggestion has been made many times in this thread and it baffles me. Neither pollen nor spores are used by any real animal.

In game, vrocks are real creatures, and they have spores.

Huzzah! The folks whose items made my Round 1 Keep folder are still doing well.

Of the twelve contestants in Round 2 who made my Keep folder, six have advanced to Round 4. Which means, as of Round 4, contestants whose items made my Keep folder have outperformed contestants whose items did not make my Keep folder by a five-to-one margin.

Go, Keepers, go!

I was referring to the niche of the monster, not the mechanics.

There are plenty of niches the caliban can fill. For example:

You could use the caliban in a mixed-race tribe of calibans and mongrelfolk, with calibans representing Lamashtu's influence on the tribe and mongrelfolk representing a rejection of that influence.

You could use a caliban as an Igor-like assistant to a golem-constructing wizard or as a disturbing jester in the court of a fey lord, as the caliban fits those roles better than most other monsters.

You could have a caliban serving as a deputy to a local sheriff in a puritanical community, where the sheriff instructs the caliban to brand miscreants with the share deformity ability as a temporary punishment for minor crimes.

You could have a caliban wizard based on "Flowers for Algernon" who goes around sharing his deformity with terrified victims because that's the only way he can get his Intelligence high enough to cast his best spells.

You could have a caliban witch who goes around stealing beauty from young girls in order to enhance her own appearance using her share deformity ability, which, like many of her class features, is a curse effect.

You could have a gang of calibans working with sinspawn of envy, and perhaps being transformed into sinspawn of envy at the end of their natural lives, as calibans share the theme of envy with those sinspawn.

And that's just off the top of my head.

@Scott Fernandez: This monster illustrates how to adapt real-world material into a superstar monster submission. Even before I read up on the Surinam toad, I thought this monster was interesting, but the fact that you did such a good job turning a real-world phenomenon into your monster just sealed the deal. The only misstep I see in this entry (and it's a minor one) is that the feed ability doesn't require a hulk with the young template to lose the young template before spawning; it allows a young hulk to produce young without first advancing it to maturity, which seems like a slight oversight.

In any case, this monster easily earns the Epic Meepo seal of approval, and will be getting one of my votes this round.

@Michael Pruess: The name "cocktail" is absolutely dreadful, but you've managed to overcome that handicap with some interesting mechanics. I'm ambivalent about the addiction mechanics in general, but the idea of having an addictive ooze shows creativity. But the truly ingenious part of this monster is the glob special attack, which I think is clever and well-executed.

This monster gets the Epic Meepo seal of approval, and one of my votes this round.

There are plenty of solid designers this year, but only three I see pulling ahead of the pack. As of this round, they are:

1. Nicholas Herold. Best wondrous item in the competition. Best archetype in the competition. Best monster in the competition. Unless he drops the ball in later rounds, Nicholas is the designer to beat this year, and could give any previous winner a run for his or her money.

2. Michael Pruess. One of the eight best wondrous items. One of the four best archetypes. One of the four best monsters. Aside from Nicholas, the only designer I'll have voted for in all of the first three rounds this year. He's performing as well or better than last year's winner.

3. Matthew Duval. One of the sixteen best items. One of the sixteen best archetypes (just shy of earning my eighth vote in Round 2). One of the monsters I'll be voting for in Round 3, despite a few minor errors. He definitely has the potential to take the lead in Round 4.

Also...

Think like a publisher who's looking for a new freelancer and less like a GM who's examining a bunch of monsters...

I can't really approach Superstar as if I were a publisher looking for a new freelancer. I would want candidates for that position to pitch multiple ideas for each assignment instead attempting to guess which one of their ideas would best fit my needs. I would also want to test a candidate's ability to recognize and pass on assignments that don't play to the candidate's strengths. Neither of which is possible in the Superstar framework.

So I can't really treat this as a search for a new freelancer. My only choice is to treat this as a search for new content and hope that the best new freelancer will be the one producing the best of the new content.

Eric Morton wrote:

I don't dislike any of the monsters this round. Given a few minutes, I could tweak any one of them to fit it into my home game. But as with the archetypes, I'm not voting for monsters that require me to make adjustments. I'm voting for the ones I can use more or less as written.

Just a point I'd like to raise...but, why are you voting for the monsters at all? And I say that whether it requires anyone to make adjustments to them or not... Instead, isn't it more important to be voting for the designers behind these monsters?

There are two reasons I'm voting for monsters instead of designers:

First, the strongest designer will be the one with the strongest portfolio, and the strongest portfolio will include one of the strongest wondrous items, one of the strongest archetypes, one of the strongest monsters, etc. A vote for a strong monster is, by definition, a vote for a strong designer. If I vote for the strongest entries each round, the strongest designers will inevitably rise to the top without my having to look at their portfolios before voting.

Each round so far, I've decided how to cast my votes before looking at the designer names attached to each entry. And guess what? The strongest designers have earned my vote each round, because the strongest designers have submitted the strongest items, the strongest archetypes, and the strongest monsters. (Three designers have done so in this year's competition. In fact, one of them has submitted what I consider to be the best wondrous item in the contest, the best archetype in the contest, and the best monster in the contest. If I'd had only one vote each round, and if all submissions were anonymous, I'd have still voted for that designer each round.)

And second, the prize in this contest is a contract to write a module. I won't buy modules because I like their designers; I'll buy them because they're good modules. If someone who wrote a module I do like then writes a module I don't like, I'm going to skip that module and wait to see what their next module is like.

I wouldn't want someone buying something I've written just because they like something I've done in the past, and vice versa. If something an author has written isn't up to snuff, the sales numbers/votes need to reflect that so the author knows to make adjustments when working on future projects. And if that means the author has to be knocked out of consideration for a particular contract, then so be it. That just means the author will have more time to make adjustments, and will be able to return as an even stronger candidate for some other, future contract.

Only twelve of the Top 32 were in my Keep folder from Round 1, but eight of those twelve are in the Top 16. What's more, four of the official Top 16 (Matthew Duval, Michael Pruess, Nicholas Herold, and Rorik Moore-Jansen) were on my personal Top 16 list from Round 1.

As the designers I liked and Kept in Round 1 start pulling ahead, I'm starting to feel much better about my Superstar instincts. So it appears I have some horses in this race, after all. Go, Keepers, go!

I voted for the eight archetypes I thought were most polished, even if their flavor and mechanics didn't particularly excite me. In alphabetical order by archetype name, they were:

The only site I can think of that specializes in short Golarion fiction is pathfinderchronicler.net, but I don't think that site gets any traffic these days. Your best bet for finding readership would be to submit your short story to Wayfinder. Beyond that, there's not really much of a market for Golarion fiction.

---

And, on a completely different note...

I'm going to spend the next two days analyzing and poking holes in all of your archetypes. I don't think I'll have time to post very many of my critiques, so don't take my silence to mean I'm not ruthlessly tearing your archetype apart and finding reasons not to vote for it.

Have a nice, stress-free weekend. :P

EDIT: If, after tearing apart all the archetypes, there are two I find to be equally good, the one whose name is closest to the start of the alphabet shall be assigned to the San Fransisco 49ers, while the other is assigned to the Baltimore Ravens. The archetype whose team wins Super Bowl XLVII wins the tie-breaker.

Well, this archetype certainly demonstrates creativity, but...

I have to completely disagree with the judges' recommendation. Did they just skip the entire horology paragraph when judging this archetype? The horology paragraph isn't a class feature; it's a wish-list of game mechanics that weren't actually included in the archetype.

Alchemists don't cast spells. You can't just declare that your archetype grants spells to a non-spellcasting class without stopping to explain how that works. You can't wave your hands and say, "Oh, by the way, this non-spellcaster casts spells now. Of some sort, off some list, somehow... On to the next ability."

That's not a game mechanic; that's a rough outline telling the developers that they have to invent an entire spellcasting mechanic from scratch if they actually want a finished archetype. And that text would push this archetype way past the word count limit if it were actually included.

This reads like an entry that was hundreds of words too long, so multiple paragraphs were condensed into a single block of text written in shorthand. This archetype would be way too long if it actually included the game mechanics for the horology ability instead of just implying things and hoping readers subconsciously fill in all the gaps.

This archetype doesn't even say it replaces the alchemist's extract ability! As written, a forecaster gains some sort of unquantified spellcasting ability in addition to all of the normal alchemist extracts. Nothing that needs to clarified for this archetype to work is actually written anywhere.

This archetype should NOT advance; it's not even finished.

I don't have time to critique every item in this thread, but I figured I'd review a few that have been posted which made my own person Keep folder yet didn't make the official Top 89.

Paint of Discerning Demise: See ointment of last sight, above.

Incidentally, I bumped the bloodthief gem from my Keep folder after reading the vest of mongrelkind; the mechanics used by the vest convinced me that those used by the gem were not as clear as they could have been.

The following is an alphabetical list of the names of all items I saw during the course of this year’s competition. Items whose names are followed by an asterisk may or may not have been culled when the bottom 25% of all items were dropped. Items whose names are not followed by an asterisk were definitely not culled.

Interesting.

Roughly 40% of the judges picks were in my Keep folder.
Roughly 33% of the voters picks were in my Keep folder.

I would say I'm even more out of touch with the voting public than I am with the judges, except I connected with the voting public on the most important level of all: I designed an item they voted into the Top 89.

(My item was the disappearing weapon cord. I suppose I should post it in the Critique thread for posterity; future contestants may want to compare critiques of the Top 32 to critiques of the other Top 89.)

EDIT: Also, before I forget, thanks for posting that list.

Currently in the process of getting laid off...

The word "off" makes this phrase much less funny than it seemed when I started reading it.

Same here I think, went solid and long term scalable rather than shine flash bang :(

Which is now my quandary, if I try again, do I aim for crowd pleaser or stick to the principles I have spent the last few years learning... It is a tough one.

I have some firsthand experience with this.

Discounting my Top 16 run in 2009, which I attribute to beginner's luck because I clearly had no idea what I was doing at the time, I've submitted four items to Superstar. Three of those items were items I enjoyed writing, and which I thought were mechanically sound. Each would have been kept for many levels by various characters in games I've run, would have added lots of subtle but interesting utility to a PC, and incorporated well-defined rules. All three of those items were rejected.

The one item I wrote in the past four years that did well was a formulaic item that was painstakingly boring to write. It was was all style and no substance, with flashy but redundant mechanics that added nothing to the game. It was an item which any character I played would have sold for cash at the first available opportunity, and its mechanics had huge holes which I recognized but willingly ignored. The only thing the item did well was intentionally parrot things the judges said they liked about previous years' winners. That item made the Top 32.

Ideally, if you want to make the Top 32, you'll create a well-designed, publishable-quality item that also has a bunch of shiny flash bang. Failing that, ignore "well-designed" and "publishable-quality" and just go straight for shiny flash bang tailored to the judges, even if it results in something that makes your inner designer cringe. (I couldn't bring myself to do this two years in a row, which likely contributed to my poor performance this year.)

But (and here's the lesson I didn't learn in time in 2012), as soon as your shiny flash bang item gets you into the Top 32, immediately ditch shiny flash bang and start writing well-designed, publishable-quality stuff. Include shiny flash bang in Round 2 if you can, but the primary goal in Round 2 should be demonstrating the solid design principles you could completely abandon in the previous round.

EDIT: Or, if you're less cynical, just go with what Clark said up-thread.

Of the 84 items in my Keep folder, only 12 made the Top 32.

I'm a bit dismayed that my tastes are so different from those of the voting public and the judges. (I'm not angry or bitter about anyone's preferences, mind you; I'm just dismayed that I operate on such a different wavelength when it comes to wondrous items.) In previous years where I didn't make the Top 32, it was disappointing, but in the end, it was just a single idea being rejected. As a freelancer, individual ideas I propose get rejected all the time, to the point that it doesn't phase me anymore.

But this year, the voters and judges didn't just reject my item; they rejected 72 other items I thought had Superstar potential. That doesn't feel like having a single idea for a wondrous item rejected. That feels more like having 73 consecutive ideas for wondrous items rejected. At that point, I have to wonder if it's even worth trying again. I could submit an item a year for the next 72 years without creating a single one which impresses the voters and judges.

Frozen Bottle Of Ketchup With Christmas Tree Lights

This bottle of ketchup is frozen and has Christmas tree lights wrapped around it!

I'm putting this in my Keep folder for this year's Post-Modern Superstar competition.

All of this "Are they? Aren't they?" Marathon Voter talk makes me want a "Schrodinger's Voter" forum tag.

Good luck to exactly 31 of you.

And all the Superstar contestants anxiously attempt to pass the night...

All except Map Guy, who's been celebrating all day now.

This Guildhall requires 24 hours from the time of this post to attune to this year's Top 32.

Once this year's Top 32 have been attuned and announced, they are invited to hang out here in the Guildhall. As usual, Top 32 finalists and alternates from all years of RPG Superstar are also welcome to stop by and join in the conversation. In addition, this year's Guildhall is open to all 2013 Champion Voters, regardless of their Top 32 status.

If you are a new Guildhall patron, please note that the Guildhall is a public thread that anyone can read. Be sure not to post anything herein that would be grounds for disqualification. Also, please refrain from damaging or removing the golden filigree which was added to the Guildhall during recent renovations. Thank you, and enjoy your stay.

I'm much more nervous this year than I was in any previous year. In previous years, I just had to worry about my own item not making it. This year, I also have to worry about all of the other items I like not making it.

Because, let's face it. If none of my favorites make the Top 32, what's the point in trying again next year? The rejection of my favorites would demonstrate that my own idea of a Superstar item is at odds with the judges' idea of a Superstar item, so my previous Round 1 success was achieved despite my item design skills, not because of them.

I think if we do get a sub-forum and get to start our own item threads, it would be nice if the community-at-large could agree to a format...

Having read hundreds of items this year, do you really think all of the people asking for feedback on their items are going to follow an agreed-upon thread format? :P

Rodger that, Andrew.

What is the backstory of the Kindling's original creator?

Over.

Eric Morton wrote:

9 feet and 900 pounds of pure awesome...

However, you forgot Wonderous...

I'm saving that for the greater cliche golem whose powers change based on the ioun stone you attach to its forehead.