|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It makes it a decent fit for the trendy up-and-comers...Hear that guys? We're "trendy up-and-comers." :) I'm so hip I can't see over my own pelvis. 
Nonplayer Character (NPC): These are characters controlled by the GM. Asking for FAQs to include things like this is the reason we can't have nice things. 
We don't care if you are tired of edition snarking. There is much valid snark to be made. Paizo cares, Paizo is tired of edition snarking, we run this website and get to make the rules. Feel free to edition snark all you like on your own website.
In addition to sorting avatars by usage and date, you can now filter avatars by things like gender, class and type. Chris Lambertz has sifted through more than 1,800 avatars and countless products to identify where each avatar came from and tag them appropriately. You can now find a male elf bard avatar in just three clicks.
There are some limitations to the current tagging system. The biggest one is that the tags associated with each avatar are currently what the character actually is in the original source product. For instance, this is "Khavith", a female monstrous humanoid wizard from Pathfinder Adventure Path #41, though the avatar could obviously be used for a male character of a different class. At some point in the future we may allow people to suggest tags which would represent "what this image could be used for" rather than the "what this character is" of the current tags. In particular, I can see adding tags to assist in finding avatars which are creepy, angry or can't-see-the-ears-so-could-just-as-well-be-human-as-elf. But I think this is a good start. Please use this thread to report bugs with the avatar selection page or avatars which are incorrectly identified. 
Tend to portray my male characters as people and my female characters as people.
Sara Marie thankfully 9 months of being pregnant means i have no more pride left 
sara marie: We have a cheap french press that we bought on vacation becuase we left areopress at home. We should just bring it in for office because we never use it. gary: but what if the aeropress at home fails gary: then we have backup espresso machine gary: and if that fails gary: we have mr. coffee gary: and if that fails gary: we get aeropress from work gary: and if that fails gary: we have backup french press! sara marie: and if that fails we go to starbucks? gary: and what if there's NO STARBUCKS because ZOMBIES sara marie: then we've got bigger problem than lack of coffee gary: baby, there is no problem bigger than lack of coffee 
What is Paizo's mission statement? I always thought that it was: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women." -Lisa 
To the original poster of this thread: I said this in the other thread you recently started but I think it's worth repeating here as well: Your posts are kind of ... I don't know ... odd. The tone is very self-serving and almost antagonistic in a strange way ... Maybe I'm reading too much into it but if you want to try and break into the Pathfinder 3PP market in a successful and meaningful way, I'm not sure the tact you are taking is doing you any favors ... 
Yuck, this would make the chatroom stricter then Paizo forums. The chatroom isn't a democracy. I pay money for the domain, the hosting, the bandwidth, and put forth a portion of programming time for its custom features—I think following the short list of rules that I have is a pretty reasonable request for the chatroom's use. If people can't abide by them, then there's not much else to say. Oh, here's another rule: No link-sharing of illegal downloads of any sort. I hope I don't have to explain why.
Since you asked for the chatroom rules... No politics.
Others as I think about them. :P 
GMs creating their own material can consider parts of the rules to be guidelines. 
Some of us have taste and can see past her um... more impressive accouterments.That's awesome. Really awesome. Please, if you see Christina Hendricks, let her know FHDM says hey. I sadly haven’t seen Mad Men, but she is certainly one hot lady. It’s great to see a ‘sex symbol’ who actually looks like a real woman.
I have to believe that Lisa, Ryan, and the team they are assembling have taken a good hard look at the financial realities of creating, publishing, and supporting an MMO. The fact that they've decided to go forward indicates to me that they have a strategy they believe will result in victory, profit, and a seriously awesome game. Do I think the announcement was a bit premature? Yes. But I look forward to seeing their vision in the coming years. This in a nutshell. Were we a bit premature? By other company's standards, sure. But if we held onto this news much longer, word would have seeped out. We would be talking to people about investing. We would be hiring folks. And word would have gotten out. Rumors and half-truths would have been given free reign. And that is just not how we want to run Paizo. We like to let our customers know what we are up to before the rest of the world does. So we let the cat out of the bag much earlier than other companies would have. We know that. There is a downside (ie. we don't have much to tell or show at this stage). But the alternative was worse in our opinion. As for all the doomsayers, all I have to say is, "Give us a chance." Nothing is changing at Paizo. We will be making all the same cool products you have come to love. If MMOs aren't your thing, then that is great. Enjoy your regular Pathfinder game. We aren't and can't make an MMO that works for everyone. We know that. We are happy with that. Also, we are aware of what has come before Goblinworks. We know what has worked and what hasn't. We aren't going to spend bajillions of dollars. We have a plan that is pretty savvy and innovative. As we get further along, we will share that plan. Until then, have some faith. I wouldn't do something stupid and wasteful. Many of the comments I've seen are similar to ones posted after we announced the Pathfinder RPG. That turned out pretty well considering all the doom and gloom. Pathfinder Online is a baby. Heck, the baby isn't even born yet. It is in its early gestation period. There is a ton of work needed to get it to market. We want you along for the ride and we want to be upfront about it. So take a deep breath and sit back and relax. I think many of you will really like what we have planned. Some of you won't, and that is totally cool also. We can't be all things for all people. Just like the Reaper minis or WizKids minis or even PaizoCon aren't for everyone, so Pathfinder Online won't scratch everyone's itch. For us to be successful, it doesn't have to. Trust. That is all I am asking for right now. :) -Lisa 
My favorites are the opinions stated as facts and/or the complete lack of perspective. "Recharge mechanics don't work" - Tell me more! Wait, what's that. By "don't work" you mean "I don't like them"? With such a well-reasoned argument, how could we not take that advice seriously. "I Won't Play if There's PVP" - Holy crap, seriously? You, random person on the internet, won't play the game if we do that?!! Well, s%~#, you're by far our most important customer, and you'd better believe we'll jump through every hoop possible to make you happy. And, of course, my personal favorite... "Ryan Dancy raped my dog and everyone on the internets should hate him" - We're sorry to see your still butt-hurt over imaginary incidents and your inflated sense of importance. That said, your 45th straight angry side swipe at the guy who made Paizo's success possible has finally convinced us that he is an evil, unrepentent monster, and must be killed with maximum force. 
It's the logo for Paizo's new restaurant chain, the Gobble Inn. Red Robin doesn't stand a chance, though White Castle might keep them out.
Cosmo: Is this correct? "" Sara Marie: Technically yes, but its kind of confusing. Sara Marie: Try, "" Cosmo: That sounds much better, thanks! Sara Marie: Even functioning on half a brain I am still awesome!
Ross : Customer Service, are we clear for x? Cosmo : Yeah. Pull the trigger I guess... Ross : I noticed you responded in a way that doesn't leave a paper trail.
Gary: i have the common sense to avoid posting stuff that i know will start a s$@$storm
Keep in mind that neither Paizo nor Wizards of the Coast are likely to post in this thread any secret future plans, so everything posted in here is going to be pure speculation, based on pure speculation. So when you feel like disagreeing with someone (and you probably will, I can tell it has the potential to be that kind of thread), keep in mind that it's just their opinion. They're no more privy to the truth than you are. And when you post your awesome idea that Paizo absolutely must do or else we're going to go out of business, please have faith in Lisa, Erik and the rest of us that we got to this point because we're not stupid.
A version that was streamed out with rasterized low-DPI backgrounds/internal art would be awesome, even if we have to wait for production of the next printing of Core/APG (so that the graphic designer work can be streamed into a higher-profit activity). The other books.... are a much tougher sell to Paizo, especially with the reprint policies they have in place. (PDFs are different, but designer time is generally more expensive than writer time).
It's a matter of creating a process that is work-flow friendly for Paizo, also. I won't go into the specifics of how we work, but there are some challenges with making sure the working files aren't compromised when we're getting them ready to be exported as PDF products. Human error can be a detriment and increase time spent on a product. I'd also like to point out that it isn't just a matter of removing background images. Text styles and colors would also need to change. Making a screen friendly PDF simply by stripping out "unnecessary" elements is going to leave you with a funky looking product. Given that it is my job to export, optimize and refine the electronic products (PDFs and ePubs) that Paizo produces, I can assure you that this is an honest assertion. It is one of my priorities to find a solution that works for customers that want screen friendly PDFs, but it has to work for Paizo internally and be an efficient process in order to be viable.
Having been in the publishing industry for over two decades, been responsible for designing and supporting production workflows for multiple newspapers, having run a software company and been responsible for adopting source control and automated build processes targeting multiple platforms, I am well aware of what is theoretically possible with "just bits"... and what is actually possible in a real-world environment even when you have 100% control over every phase of the process. My guess is that Paizo's workflow is simultaneously far less sophisticated than what people may be picturing, and yet is probably more sophisticated than most other companies operating in this market. We're always looking to improve our processes, and in fact as Chris points out above, that's basically her entire job. Doing what people are suggesting would probably require a couple more hires and potentially a lot of custom software. Not that we'll never do it, but the reality is more complicated than what you'd think at first glance. 
My (possibly mistaken) impression is that the Paizo policy is geared toward changing behavior rather than simply removing objectionable content. If one's whole post is removed and one is asked to make one's point again with less inflammatory language, the burden is put on the poster to express him- or herself in a more acceptable manner from here on out. If the mods are simply following after people, cleaning up a word or sentence here or there, there is no inconvenience to the poster and no motive to change. (They might not even realize they're being moderated if they don't re-read their old posts.) In the long run, it leads to less work for the mods if people learn to self-moderate (or get mad and leave). Otherwise, the mods are just the guy in the circus whose job it is to follow after the parade and clean up after the elephants, whereas the elephants are already in the tent basking in applause and not even realizing they left a mess behind. :) 
The thing I appreciate the most about the Beginner's Box (and by extension, Paizo and all the fine folks who worked on this), is that it brings me full circle. I started gaming with Basic D&D with one of the older boxes (i.e., the one with the color picture of a fighter and wizard looking in on a dragon lying atop a big pile of treasure). That year was a magical time for me and my brother. And it served as the entire crux for how and why we got into RPGs. Eventually, we "graduated" to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons...and, after passing through all its iterations...I now have the occasional opportunity to write for a hobby I've grown to really love, which has fired my imagination for more years than I can recount. With the Beginner's Box, it's like everything is starting over again. Only now, I get to relive this experience through the eyes of my children. They're still a little young to introduce to Pathfinder right away (i.e., my oldest is 7 years old). But when we're all ready, I know our game nights will immediately include the Beginner's Box and it'll serve as their first RPG experience. After that, I'm certain it'll fire their imagination just as much as it did for me. So, this is a heartfelt thank you to Paizo. This is another example of how you guys have become the true custodians of what roleplaying has always personally meant to me. And it's awesome to see you embrace the traditions of the game's origins, all while making it fresh and exciting for a whole new generation. Now, it's up to the rest of us "gamers" to go out and introduce that generation to the hobby. And you've given us the perfect tool to do it. Just my two cents,
I just wanted to stop by and thank everyone there at Paizo for these generous donations to our company! We'll be coming by to do free tire rotations for the whole office sometime in the next couple weeks. This was a totally unexpected gift!
Maybe he could also drive over to your house, read the post out loud to you, put the pencil in your hand, and roll the dice. Sheesh.
You always know a call is going to go great when it starts out like this:
Megan: Good morning, Paizo Publishing this is Megan how can I help you? ... Megan: We are a Role Playing Game company. ... Megan: We publish books.
Ross: Sometimes I like to check that my offense detector is properly calibrated. Gary: I had mine removed awhile back because it kept going off. Gary: Like a car alarm, it never prevented any bad behavior, but just led to annoying others.
Gary: Let's make fun of Cosmo! Lissa: I can't make fun of Cosmo. I don't know enough about Cosmo to make fun of him! Gary: It doesn't require much. 
I'm not saying that I don't like pepsi, I'm saying that a 100 dollar bill is more generally useful than a blank sheet of paper. There is a point at which 'everyone has their own opinion' isn't a relevant statement. I want you to tell what about my assessment of the ninja's superiority to the rogue is incorrect, or to accede that my assessment is correct, and therefore acknowledge there is a problem with the new class. Wow you should really get over yourself...
Because clearly someone else's opinion is worth more than my opinion because you agree with them and are a fanboy of the company. Oh, Carty. I've already refuted your alleged points many times over. As have others. Sure, there's an actual argument underlying what you're saying, but you don't have any data to support it other than your over-inflated sense of self-importance. It's sad really. Reminds me of the old chestnut about being silent and letting everyone believe you are a fool instead of speaking to remove all doubt. And yet, you keep speaking. Each time with nothing to offer except your unfounded, self-serving beliefs about the operation of the hobby market. A topic about which you have no background, authority, or credibility. Worse, you somehow believe that the volume and constant repetition of your Very Important Opinion renders you a greater expert than the company that has been most successful at marketing PPMs because of some minor distinction in the type of product. I imagine you also believe you are better than Apple at selling tablet computers with blue plastic cases because Apple only has experience selling tablet computers with white or black plastic cases. You've lost, the home auidence knows you've lost, why not just admit defeat and quit backing yourself into illogical and indefensible corners based on your "understanding" of what price point constitutes an impulse buy for any particular set of consumers. You don't know anything of substance about this topic and, while neither do many of the others posting on this thread, we at least have the humility and self-awareness to acknowledge the limitations of our expertise. Frankly, given your view on the Pathfinder rpg's lack of merit, and it's astounding success, I'm somewhat surprised that you haven't grown more cautious in spouting off. Maybe constantly being wrong has made you numb to the sensation. Maybe the wonder of the myopic universe you inhabit allows you to ignore reality. Or, maybe you just live to annoy other people, and these forums allow you an outlet for that. I guess everyone needs a hobby. I suggest Pathfinder. It's a fun game.
The point is I don't remotely see how selling minis that give no benefit for a game other than character representation would encourage people to buy the game they are representing characters for. There is no driving incentive. For D&D/PF players to buy the minis? Some in that they want character representation. For people buying the minis to spontaneously deciding to pick up rule books for a game they (a) aren't playing and (b) can find the rules for free online simply because they bought character minis is ridiculous. Thankfully, reality is not dependent upon your limited ability to understand or perceive it. Again, you'd have to accept the base assumption that your opinions are not universally held, which, I realize, is well outside what your ego can handle.
..stuff... You've clearly already made up your mind about our company and our products, so I won't even bother responding to your comments. I hope you find another company who will cater to your desires. 
Crystal: That'll get you punched in the junk. Multiple times.
I guess this is as good a time as any to point out that I have coined a new thingie: Sebastian's Law: Anybody who wants to be a moderator is unfit to wield the banhammer.
Paizo will be fine. They produce products people want to purchase. ;-)
I love this thread. It describes the gleeful joy of monk-dom that I wanted to have for the last character I played in a game. Unfortunately I am terrible with the rules and so all I ever did was "I hit it with my stick." But damn I wanted my character to be a badass whirling Marcus from Babylon-5 with a collapsible stick that kicks ass and has fun. But I guess some would have hated having me at the table since I can't hyperoptimize and therefore can't actually have fun with me in the game. I get that. This attitude makes me not want to play at all, even with other supportive gamers at the table. (Maybe they're secretly hating me behind my back but put up with me just because I work at Paizo.) But seriously, raining on somebody's thread because you don't think monks are super awesome? Why not just go to one of the many "monks suck and here's why" threads?
Look, I understand that complex systems are hard to comprehend and that sometimes those who aren't up to the challenge need to boil it down to a simple series of numbers to create the illusion of system mastery. It's a cute trick, and I'm sure it impresses the middle school girls and my mom (who, to be fair, is easily impressed). This can be particularly true if you've never actually played the game with friends (and this challenge is magnified when a lack of social skills prevents a person from having friends), but the way the game is actually played, by most people who play it, most of the time, it works pretty well and is pretty fun. And that's all it really needs to be and do. Not be perfect; not have all options be entirely equal; not allow you to wins the internets. Anyhow, best of luck to you, Tommy. Maybe someday you'll be kind enough to present the pearls of wisdom and god-like skills at game design to us in a new rpg. I for one, eagerly anticipate Enchanter Tommy the RPG, the only 100% balanced RPG that's fun to play and super awesome.
This thread is unnecessary at this point. Pathfinder is what it is. We're not going to revise it or release a new edition anytime soon. If somebody thinks they can make a more balanced game, there's the PRD. It's OGL. Go for it. 
I then wrote: "V, I know it can be hard to hear but this is just not a good item. It shows some clear rookie design flaws. Improve. Use these comments. Grow. Come back strong next year." I guess that's not supportive. :) V, I still hope you decide to enter and that you come back strong and that you use our prior HONEST AND ACCURATE advice to improve. Of course, if you choose not to grow from comments that come from some of the people who would be the ACTUAL PEOPLE DEVELOPING YOUR WORK if you won, I guess that's your choice to reject that input. I get it. The creative process is revealing and difficult and it exposes you to the world for critique and that can be difficult. So I know it stings when you get told something isn't good. But you have to learn to take it. Heck, Neil told me part of the adventure I am writing for Legendary Games sucked. And you know what, he was right, so Jason and I are changing it. Just remember, we arent saying YOU suck. We are commenting and judging only the submitted item, not you as a person and not even you as an overall designer. I hope you take that to heart and grow from it and use it and come back and compete. There really is no better way to get into the industry. Good luck, whatever you choose.
Sucked back in... Here were my "braggart confidence and ridicule" comments to vistarius about his item: Vistarius, how was Sean's comments not nearly as helpful as you had hoped? Let me help you more.
First, Lame name. Sure, not everything has to be "X of the Y Z," but your name really tells nothing about the item. So that right there is a big weakness in your item, your writing and your design decisions. [in fact, we address this very issue in the superstar panel discussion--make sure the name tells us what the item is. -Clark] Second, all this should be cut: "Soldiers who have something to fight for are often the most effective; and the same can be said of adventurers. To remind them of whom or what they fight for, many carry with them a memento. These ordinary objects renew their spirit and provide them the inspiration to fight against all odds and emerge victorious." If you'd done your homework from prior years, you would see this content is frowned upon. It doesnt exist in actual published items. It shouldn't be in yours. What it is really is just poor restraint by the author who just can't help but add in some extra story! Learn to write for the assignment, not for you. So that tells us you aren't really following proper design instructions. Now, that said, I won't say an over-written intro sentence is fatal. It isn't. But its frowned upon, and you gave us two such sentences. Third, and here is where Sean is very helpful in his comments, the powers of your item are not well thought out. How can you grant an immediate AoO if you were killed by a range attack and you have no targets near you? You can't. So that power doesnt work. Or is granted a move action. Who decides? The GM? The player? Poorly thought through and broken, just like Sean said. Plus, what is stopping a player from buying 5 of these, keeping them in the pocket and putting a new one on after the last is used up? You have to think through all these metagame elements of items, too. He liked the idea that a momento item, such as a hair or some other token of a loved on, would grant a power. That is a neat idea. But then you have to execute. Your item is a good core idea with really bad execution. This was not a near miss. This is a great example of a clear reject item. I'd be surprised if even one judge voted to keep. The fact your item got little comment from Sean is likely because there is little to discuss. I think you think your item is better than it is. Its not. My comment would have been: "Broken. Reject." Take these comments to heart. Think through all of the powers you grant. Get a better name and some tighter design. Cut out the useless writing that is just showing off and has little to do with item design (show me one actual wondrous item that has the prose in the first two sentences that yours does--you can't, because none exist), and come back strong next year. But don't suggest the judge's comments weren't helpful. Clark
I respectfully disagree and say that you are the one you described. I tend to think you are the better of the judges, but that's not relevant. Lengthy (as usual) response: Spoiler:
I can assure you, in terms of experience, industry insight, and outright ability to identify mis-steps in mechanics, etc., I am dwarfed by these guys. All I know about evaluating wondrous item submissions stems from 30 years of playing the game, my own individual run through RPG Superstar a couple of years ago, and my limited experiences as a freelance designer for Paizo and a handful of third-party publishers. In other words, I'm the junior judge in this round-up. And, perhaps more importantly, I've learned a tremendous amount from these guys both during this past year and from their judging comments in prior years.
I also tend to dislike Sean K. Reynolds, not only in a judging capacity but as a developer in general, along with his general attitude. I think as a professional in any industry, not only should you be supportive of others seeking to get into the industry, but open to criticism as well. First, you should know that I've got tremendous respect for Sean. He's tough, but always fair. He's also a realist and a no-nonsense kind of guy. He tells it exactly how it is, because that's the kind of medicine people realistically need. So, as a potential freelancer, you need to develop some thick skin when receiving and interpreting his feedback. But, you know what? You need that in this industry regardless. That's a trait which an RPG Superstar candidate should clearly demonstrate. Thus, it's not worthwhile to question or argue over the semantics of how these guidelines are given, how supportive they're interpreted to be, or the perceived attitude in which they're given (which is just a perception gleaned from a messageboard posting most of time and therefore absent of much of the inflection and nuance you'd normally need). In my opinion, Sean does everyone a favor by making it very clear what he's looking for (or not looking for) as a judge. He does the same for his freelancers. So, it's a very applicable trait for both this contest and beyond. And, perhaps more importantly, after he's given you these guidelines and instructions, it passes to you to incorporate them. A responsible freelancer does exactly that. And a proper RPG Superstar candidate does so as well. As judges, we can usually tell when someone has done that. It's usually pretty clear when someone violated the auto-reject advice, for example, by not bothering to do their homework and incorporate those guidelines vs. when they're actually bucking that advice to bring something that's so awesome it overrides it. That's what I think a lot of people miss when reading and evaluating our preliminary advice for RPG Superstar. Clark's particular response to my queries was not supportive, instead was mocking, insulting, degrading, and from a "better than you haha" stand point. You're welcome to review said post and explain to me (if you care to, I don't care either way) and inform me how he was aiming to be supportive and not just a giant, over-glorified troll. I think you (like a handful of others in the past) read too much into the perceived snark behind Clark's responses sometimes. Same goes with Sean when he adopts a tough stance on an issue. In the heat of that particular moment, people sometimes take offense when none was actually meant. Instead, they were very clearly trying to help everyone...and, by that, I don't just mean the original poster. Sometimes, the situation is applicable to the general public that's following along. So, sometimes their messages aren't nearly as individually-"targeted" as some might assume. They're object lessons. Now, sometimes it hurts to be an object lesson, not only because it's somewhat embarrassing to find yourself in that position...and what it might cause others to think of you. But, in addition, it's a situation that makes you feel singled out in an unfair way. That makes you interpret what they're saying as much more personal and offensive than the underlying lesson they're actually trying to convey. In turn, that often makes people miss the lesson and become defensive enough that they want to argue back. Sometimes, they argue against the perceived "rules" or advice that's being given, because they philosophically disagree with it. That's okay. But understand it's unlikely you're going to educate the judges and get them to bend on whatever stance they've adopted. Far more often than not, they're exactly right. Are they always right? No. We're human like anyone else. But when all three (or four) adopt the same stance, I'd suggest you might want to reconsider your own position. Either they're right. Or, you may be right, but you'll have to take a risk to prove them wrong. In the meantime, publicly arguing with the judges to keep pressing your point isn't a win-win effort for anyone. It winds up detracting from the contest. It makes everyone more defensive and hyper-sensitive...i.e., you wind up feeling persecuted and the judges wind up feeling like they have to defend the contest or their own integrity. It also calls far more attention to yourself (in a negative way) than you'd want the general public to see (which might very well sway their support against you in later rounds). I also don't believe Sean should be listing things that he absolutely is against, and then voting for over half of the top 32 list to include those things. It's misleading to publish a list of things you don't want to see, then endorse them. If you truly believe this, then I'm left wondering if you bothered to read auto-reject advice #27, whereby Sean basically asserted he wants people to prove him wrong. He also said that items which flirt with those things he's against will still get through. They've always gotten through, even in the year which Sean didn't participate as a judge. So, the lesson here is that it's okay to risk some of those auto-reject categories...as long as you're awesome in doing so. You've got to stand out somehow. And you don't accomplish that by coming back and arguing that the auto-reject categories are wrong. Or, by arguing against items that make it in, which "violated" such advice, as if they're somehow less cool than your item or someone else's item that perfectly avoided all of those auto-reject categories. Now nothing I said so far has been inflammatory, but I will go ahead and add this: This is Pathfinder, something pretty much copy and pasted from someone else. I understand creativity goes into this thing, but few, if anybody involved is a pioneer of anything strikingly original. Wow. There's so much I disagree with in your assertion that I don't know where to begin. And, considering I'd just ramble on and on and probably just go in circles, I'll distill down my feedback to the following points: 1) It's true that Pathfinder is built on 3.5 D&D, but the Pathfinder RPG itself has introduced a large number of innovations, too. Many of those innovations are great places for an RPG Superstar candidate to play around in so they can stand out. 2) As judges, we've always said that no one comes into RPG Superstar as a fully-formed Superstar designer. It's a process. The contest itself is designed to be a crucible, through which the competitors will hopefully come out stronger and more prepared for a career as a freelance designer. Sometimes we see a few pioneers and strikingly original designs over the course of RPG Superstar. And that's what we want to see. That's what we, as judges, are attempting to discover in those who submit their wondrous items. But it's also what we hope to encourage out of those who compete in each round of the contest. 3) On the subject of posting "inflammatory" stuff, I get where you're coming from Vistarius. I've been on the outside of this contest looking in and wishing I could compete while others go on to do so (i.e., I submitted in 2008 and didn't make the cut). I've also gone through the contest from beginning to end (in 2009), so I've seen how it plays out, what the judges expect of you, and understand what the contest is trying to achieve. Lastly, I've served as one of the main judges and that's given me insight into all the varied submissions, conversations, and feedback loops on the contest (including those from the general public, the competitors themselves, as well as my fellow judges). With all of that in mind, I can tell you there's nothing else like RPG Superstar. The judges are all absolute professionals. To a man, they want all of you to succeed. Their comments to you (no matter how you or anyone else have chosen to interpret them) are meant to help. Not just you, but everyone else, too.
Just my two cents, --Neil
I would not call that a particularly fair summary of the comments. Sure, Ryan said name is 60%. That's not to disregard the other 40%. And, while I can't speak for him, you can tell a lot about the design of the item and the quality of the contestant's entry by the name, so frankly I agree with his assessment. As to other judges just falling in line behind Ryan and Neil, that's hardly true. I tend to agree with Neil's mechanical analysis, and the comment of us following what he says is more a comment that Neil is a machine and is so fast in his review that we are nearly always second to post in an item thread, as opposed to how you seem to present it that we don't exercise independent analysis and somehow just adopt what others say without using our own judgment, that is just not true. And as for rejecting if the first power isn't good enough, I think it was nice of us to tell you that. Good designers, Superstar designers, don't "bury the lead" as Sean explained. We are trying to HELP you by telling you that. The choice of presentation is yours, if you choose weak presentation, get ready for the reject button. The whole point of this panel is to help you understand the process and design better. In fact, I can tell you that a competently executed version of the item the audience hashed out in an hour would almost certainly make the "keep" pile (would it be top 32, that depends on the other submissions). Not going over word count IS more important than a "perfect submission" because you can't have a perfect submission and be over word count. The two are mutually exclusive. Besides, there has never been a rules perfect submission that I am aware of. A perfectly designed +2 stat buff item is just not superstar. An interesting and unique item that has some flaws, on the other hand, is. Again, absolute perfection of design of the item is not the point. Having your item result in your selection to compete in RPG Superstar is. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if that is what you took away from your listening to the seminar, that is your choice. I, however, don't feel your summary is at all correct. 
Not going over word count is much more important than turning in rules perfect stuff, If I call you up to interview for a job, and one of the things I tell you is "show up in a formal business attire," and you DON'T show up in formal business attire, you have failed an incredibly easy task, whether out of... laziness ("eh, I didn't want to deal with that")
If you can't or won't follow the most basic task ("your item must be 300 words or less") that even a 10-year-old child should be able to follow, why should I bother to try evaluating any other aspect (for example, the harder parts of designing a magic item, such as making it cool or pricing it correctly) of your submission? Why should I risk paying you hundreds or thousands of dollars for an assignment when you've shown you can't follow a simple limitation?
I appreciate your response, but I think if these people you're defending truly deserved it, they'd be able to demonstrate that for themselves. Slightly shorter response... Spoiler:
Not true. But you're entitled to your opinion. I engage you in these types of conversations because I'm compelled to defend the integrity of the contest (and its judges) as a whole. And, I've gone through the fire before in such a way that I think maybe I've got some advice I can impart or that I can help you see things from a different perspective. Unfortunately, I think you interpreted the rejection of your item, the subsequent glimpse into the harshness/sparseness of the judge's discussion of your item during the sorting process, and everyone's subsequent reaction to how you posted in response to it as a bit more negative than it really was. To whit... Clark demonstrated nothing but braggart confidence and ridicule, despite what you may think. You responded to his post and said the same things he did, in a far more respectful manner. Clark speaks from experience. Not just in the industry, but from being a judge for the first 3 years of the competition. He was there from the beginning. So, he's seen much more than you have on your first foray in submitting for the contest. He also doesn't react well to those who "don't do their homework" or who adopt a more belligerent or "sour grapes" stance...some of which he might have perceived in how you conducted yourself both before the Top 32 were announced and how you reacted after receiving your initial feedback. I think that's what happened, but I'm not sure if I'm right on that. Regardless, what I do know...beyond a certainty of a doubt...is that Clark isn't out to make himself into a braggart or to purposefully ridicule someone. He's not above holding up someone's situation, however, as an object lesson for others to learn from (and hopefully the original individual as well). But he's not doing that out of a mean-spiritedness or with a condescending attitude. He's doing it in an effort to be helpful. And, again, because of the absence of inflection and what-not on a messageboard, you can't always tell that. Instead, some people imagine far more braggadocio and ridicule...or snark...or whatever...by reading all that between the lines of what he (or Sean or Ryan or even me) actually says. It's a hazard of communicating by way of messageboard post. Did I always agree with what I perceived Clark or any other judge to say about my stuff during RPG Superstar? No. But did I come back and argue about it on the forums? No. I proved them wrong in the most viable, respectful way. Basically, I took what I could use from their feedback. I analyzed it all very carefully to decide which parts I felt were applicable. And, sometimes, I very specifically targeted certain feedback to change their opinion with my next attempt. My point here is that you show real maturity and professionalism by picking the venue and methods most suited to making your stand. And, with respect to a contest that's voted upon by the public, that's usually not going to be a messageboard forum like this. It doesn't even have to be done by directly engaging those you disagree with. Just go back to the drawing board, make something awesome, buck some of the auto-reject advice, and prove them wrong. You can go pretty far with that kind of strategy in RPG Superstar. But I digress, this won't get me anywhere. I don't believe RPG superstar is the best way to get into publishing at this point, and have thus turned my attentions elsewhere. But again, thanks. I'll agree and say that RPG Superstar might not be the best way for you to get into publishing. Not now at least. You've made your philosophical stand here in a public forum for all to see. With regards to adhering to your principles, that hopefully helps assuage your conscience. It won't, however, win you many friends among those who actively vote here on the contest. So, yes...you've probably burned this bridge. And that's unfortunate, because you didn't have to. I think you let your interpretation of the feedback you received burn through you until it provoked this kind of approach. To me, that means you don't yet have the thick skin you need to push through. But that's just my opinion. In the words of Sean, prove me wrong. And, if you can do that by going a different route, more power to you. However, one last thing before I withdraw from this conversation. Well, maybe two things. First, RPG Superstar might not be the only way to get into publishing, but I would say it's got to be among the coolest ways to do it. Writing for Paizo is big time. And I don't say that to suck up here publicly on the forums. It's just a statement of fact. I take it seriously. A lot of others do, too, including all the hopefuls that take their shot at RPG Superstar every year. Secondly, I'd encourage anyone who's read along with this discussion (as well as noting Vistarius' experiences in receiving and responding to feedback) to use what I've shared here as another object lesson. There are certain assumptions made about the judges' advice and feedback which just aren't accurate. There are certain stands you can take with regards to your own opinions and assessments about the barrier for entry into RPG Superstar, the judges' approach to evaluating and offering feedback, and how awesome you perceive your stuff to be. Just be conscious of when, where, and how you take that stand. I think it's interesting that my feedback gets singled out as "helpful" and "respectful" when I've always seen Clark as the ultimate cheerleader of this competition. I'm not the only one who views him that way. And it's been like that since the beginning. Regardless, respect is really a two-way street. And, like cars on the highway, you can't control how someone else conveys their respect to you. But, you can control how you convey your respect to them...hopefully, in a way where you're not simply reacting to something you might have misinterpreted in how their feedback came across.
My two cents, --Neil
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
