Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Lizardfolk

Seabyrn's page

RPG Superstar 2013 Star Voter. 516 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


RSS

1 to 50 of 516 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Heroes.

Not only was it cancelled, but it's weird how no one ever talked about it again after the first season, almost like I have selective deafness.

Star Voter 2013

wow. That's an impressive amount of work, and an unbelievably useful service!

Star Voter 2013

Anthony Adam wrote:

Yeah, I'm still working on passive myself - with seems and appears, I find that when I read seems, it implies an all encompassing term, including aspects beneath a visible surface, where appears is for me talking about the surface visible layer only... Hope that makes sense.

Im also looking not so much at what is technically passive, but also that hazy, gentle description, where you show a passive style to vaguely say things rather than out right say them. In novels, and flavour text it can be useful, but for items, I personally prefer clean well stated non ambiguous descriptions.

That's why on every review I include the caveat that the opinions are mine and not necessarily Paizo. The public can read, digest and take what they will from my ramblings.

The difference in meaning you describe doesn't not make sense, if that makes sense :)

I just meant to point out that both are similarly passive in style (even the verb 'resembles' which is a more dynamic alternative, falls into the same trap, in my opinion, of describing what something is like rather than saying more directly what it is - which is the problem for both seem and appear).

Star Voter 2013

Anthony Adam wrote:

And half way :)

Not anything really different to what has been raised elsewhere, but I did come up with an "and" tip that might help in the future.

16 / 32 now done

(sorted alpha within score - no ranking is implied)

Cloudwrangler's Gloves 24/25
Shattered Mirror of the Insect Queen 24/25

Gorum's Stompers 23/25 *new*
Map of Refuge 23/25
Rat-Tread Boots 23/25

Ethersnare Dust 22/25
Spell Winding Timepiece 22/25
Wintertide Candle 22/25 *new*

Gloves of the Frugal Healer 21/25
Hell-Shod Boots 21/25

Icon of Aspects 20/25

Skipping Stone 19/25

Cobra-Hood Cloak 18/25

Ghost Ship Binnacle 17/25
Quiver of Spiderkind 17/25

Goblet of the Elements 16/25
Swarm Slurper 16/25

In some ways I think this type of feedback would be far more useful for those who didn't make the top 32.

As it is, I'm not sure what this level of detailed feedback for those who were successful will ultimately achieve - it may be nice to point out general aspects of writing that can be applied to future rounds, but it also might bias voters against some designers who you've given low scores (particularly in the later rounds, when a designer's early work might be taken into account to help decide between the very top entries). I could be wrong here though, and if the top 32 welcome the feedback, then certainly carry on.

I do hope that you'll update your dictionary before you score people's spelling. It's one thing to maintain consistency across reviews, but if the people you're reviewing are consistent with a different standard (i.e., standard English instead of the particulars of the dictionary you choose), then you're doing them a disservice, and you should adapt to their standard, rather than encouraging them (via negative feedback) to adapt to a standard that they don't know and therefore can't meet.

If it were me, I would take more care as well with what I consider passive. To give one example (from Hell-shod boots) - 'seem to be' is not grammatically passive (in fact, it cannot be made passive in English), and is equivalent in structure (and very nearly in meaning) to 'appear to be' which is also not passive (and also can't be made passive). I was a bit confused by your comment that 'seem to be' would be better if replaced by 'appear to be' - they both have the same problem of saying what the item is like, rather than what it is (and are both therefore kind of weak "passive" writing, even if neither can be grammatically passive).

That's just my opinion, and in any case your effort and enthusiasm are certainly inspiring.

Star Voter 2013

First, a belated (but no less deserved) congratulations to the entire top 32!

My personal favorites this time around were:

Quicksand Cloak (seriously seriously awesome)

Cloudwrangler's Gloves (core idea is awesome, too limited?)

Shattered Mirror of the Insect Queen (very creative and cinematic - and hey, it looked great in army of darkness)

Verdant Crown of Oak and Iron (very cool, tight item)

Many-Layered Veil (illusions need more love, and this is a cool way to mess with someone)

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Template Fu wrote:

... the dictionary in my 2010 word processor is calling the shots.

It didn’t like pedipalps (which I am sure should be ok). But for consistency, Office 2010 ate a point.

I'm sure that everyone appreciates the tremendous amount of effort you're putting into providing feedback, but it strikes me as unfair and somewhat ridiculous to ding an entry for spelling a word correctly. Your word processor should have an 'add word to dictionary' option, which you could use if you're going to rely on that dictionary as an authority.

(This is likely a side point that it would be best not to derail this thread with, but I would also hesitate to rely on a grammar checker in a word processor to identify passives correctly - I can't think of one that actually does that job accurately - but with an appropriately large grain of salt one might occasionally serve to identify weak or awkward writing, even if for the wrong reason)

Star Voter 2013

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
Anthony Adam wrote:

Widow Wheel

I clocked your item at 301 words. Auto-disqualifiaction!

You body formatting makes me want to challenge you to a fish slapping duel. Why do you seperate everything out so much? Take a cue from existing items.

Throwing dagger, Profession (driver), Turn, broken, wrecked, sinking, and sudden stop should not be italicized. If you want to practice on the Superstar, again look at the published materials for formatting.

The rule for wrecked already calls out the sinking condition, so you can save a few words. Why did you add a new rule to avoid a sudden stop? I think it should have been left out. By the rules if a vehicle is wrecked it comes to a sudden stop. You are adding the chance to avoid a sudden stop without entailing what the effects would be.

I liked your visuals though.

How I would rewrite:

Description
A silken hoop made from spider thread surrounds the splayed carcass of a black widow spider. The spider can separate from the hoop by grasping and tugging the spider body. The body begins to throb and its legs to twitch when separated. The spider must be attached to a vehicle for the widow wheel to function. The spider may be placed or thrown (range increment of 10 ft) as a touch attack onto a vehicle. Once on the vehicle, it scuttles into the steering mechanism in 1d4 rounds and embraces it. Once the spider is attached to the steering mechanism, the hoop warms to the touch indicating vehicle control is possible.

Turning the hoop will force the vehicle to turn. The vehicle’s driver may attempt a driving check to counter your control (DC 15 + your ranks in Profession (driver)). On a failed check, the vehicle turns under your control. If the check fails by 10 or more, the vehicle becomes broken. If already broken, it becomes wrecked. On a successful check, the driver retains control of the vehicle and for every additional 5 points the check succeeds against the DC, the driver is immune to further opposed driving...

Overall I agree that the first few sentences are am improvement over Anthony's latest (though the item has also been vastly improved in that version already!).

Just a brief comment on the bolded sentence. Be particularly careful with nonfinite verb forms (participles like grasping, tugging). In your sentence the subject of these verbs is not expressed - the problem is that the unexpressed subject of those verbs is interpreted (by default) as the main clause subject - 'the spider'.

So it reads as if the spider is grasping and tugging its own body to free itself from the hoop, and it takes some effort to recognize that the intended meaning is that the user is doing the grasping and tugging.

I would rewrite that sentence more simply as:
Grasping and tugging the spider body separates it from the hoop.

or even:
Gently tugging the spider body separates it from the hoop.
(you can't tug without grasping, so the two verbs are somewhat redundant)

Star Voter 2013

Anthony Adam wrote:

Gah, eaten by my own "Fu",

"This barometer can be used..."

- passive passive passive ...

"This barometer IS used..."

I'll fix that up next version.

Just FYI, "This barometer is used..." is also a passive sentence. 'can' is a modal verb, which, while not terribly dynamic or certain, has nothing to do with passive voice. So while removing it may help punch up a sentence, you're not technically removing the passive or making it active.

If you're using 'passive' in the non-technical sense of 'weak' or 'not exciting' then sure, removing 'can' certainly helps, but consider whether or not the active voice is a better choice for this particular sentence (it may or may not be - sometimes passive voice is the better choice).

more explanation/discussion here:
passive advice thread


Thanks for this! I love the artwork from 1st ed, and never had the version of Deities and Demigods with this artwork (one friend had it, and one found it for sale on the streets of NY for about $5, the lucky bastard).

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steve Miller wrote:


Power Word Unzip wrote:
Also, speaking as a copy editor, some of your writing quirks raise flags as I read this.

I suspect that what you found quirky came from me trying to avoid 'to be' verbs. I eliminated all but few to see if it could be done, but some - I just couldn't get around.

I don't mean to sidetrack things (and I haven't gone through your writing in detail), but this is exactly why I rail against writing advice that emphasizes things like "avoid passive" or "avoid to be".

The verb 'to be' is a useful verb - it exists for a reason. Sure, it shouldn't be overused, and if used poorly does contribute to a feeling that writing is weak and not very exciting (which I think is really the issue that the judges want people to avoid). But if it's used well it won't even be noticed, whereas a sentence that awkwardly tries to avoid it stands out like a sore thumb.

I'm sorry that this issue might have tripped you up, but if you want to avoid avoiding them in the future, and instead master their use, I highly recommend this book:

Joseph Williams' Style

(avoid Strunk and White - they'll tell you to avoid passives but don't identify them correctly themselves - it's like taking medical advice from a doctor who calls morphine an antibiotic)

Star Voter 2013

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Congratulations Mike! I see great things in your future - and luckily we all benefit from them too! :)

And commiserlations to the other top 3 (er, top 7) finishers, who will hopefully also have and take the opportunity to do great things.

Star Voter 2013

This was my second favorite entry. I loved the gonzo nature of the human/animal hybrids, and I love pitting high level characters against Wizards.

What ultimately decided against it for me was the perception that there would be too many similar encounters, and too much sprawl in the middle, as the PCs tackle each of the returning Wizards. I think I'd be happier if Acts 2, 4, and 6 were somehow condensed.

I'm a little torn by the science fiction aspects of it. It seemed that you were including elements of relativistic space travel (the wizards haven't aged, while several generations of their descendants have come and gone), which is interesting is a fantasy setting, but somehow doesn't fully work for me.

I do like the invasion aspect of it, and do like the Event Horizon-esque feel to it.

But, I only had one vote, and unfortunately (based in part on prior work as well), I didn't vote for you. But if you win I won't be at all disappointed - this is really a deserving entry.

Edit: I agree too that the name needs to change - the form of the name is great, but the word 'Dustpawn' makes me feel like I have a speech impediment

Star Voter 2013

This ultimately won my vote.

I was torn between this and Doom comes to Dustpawn, but I felt this adventure was a bit more doable for a module (I'll elaborate in the other thread).

I loved the old school feel of it. I'm not worried about the required changes. Based on your prior entries (particularly Eightfingers Tomb), I am confident that you'll make the changes and the final product will be just as good or better.

The death effect didn't bother me. As worded, it sounds like there is only a chance per hour that a PC would have to make a saving throw. So either the effect builds over time or it's random. It was hard to judge how long the PCs would stay in the area of the death effect, but if it's less than one hour, it seems that there is only a small possibility of character death, and the effect is reversible by Wish (not too expensive, if necessary), so I'm surprised people are reacting so strongly to it. It doesn't seem like that big a deal.

Edit: Also, I love the name - it really has a Conan feel to it.


A small number of my favorites -
Slayer
Candlemass
Behemoth
King Diamond/Mercyful Fate
Death
Suffocation
Incantation
Nile
Emperor
Darkened Nocturn Slaughercult
Immortal
Cradle of Filth
Necros Christos
Diablo Swing Orchestra
Ahab
Pseudogod
Iron Maiden
Black Sabbath
Judas Priest
Cathedral
Marduk
Autopsy
Black Pyramid
Lord Vicar
Reverend Bizarre
Asphyx
Megadeth
Overkill
Therion
Celtic Frost

Star Voter 2013

Congratulations to the top 4! Keep it going, you're on a roll and almost to the finish!

Star Voter 2013

Seth White wrote:


And Neil's analysis of each submission is second to none. He has gone above and beyond the call of duty, spending hours and hours to help out future freelancers.

Yeah, he has really raised the feedback process to both a science and an art form* I think we're all lucky that he's willing to put in so much effort.

*not to be confused with the novel**

**I kid :)

Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Clark Peterson wrote:

Wow, pretty small sample for this exit poll. Not sure you can count on its accuracy.... ;)

Of course, I know if you guys are right or not since I get to see the vote tallies but of course I cant tell you....muuuuhuuuhuhhuhuhhhahahahahaaaaaa!!!

Ah but I can guarantee you'll tell us eventually, and which is more plausible - that we finally broke you with our incessant questions and badgering, or that there was a plan already in place to announce the top four?

I think you don't have to be a supergenius to know it's the former. Bwahahaha.

Star Voter 2013

Saint Trickery wrote:

Exactly what Phloid said. Including who I voted for. Didn't end up play testing any. I'm sure I will, but couldn't get to it with me gamers over the weekend. I wished for more than four votes, but I guess everybody is strong when you get to the top eight.

Steve Miller – Brike Isle
James Olchak – Mushti’s Beguiling Oddities
Tom Phillips – Eightfinger’s Tomb
Russel Vaneekhoven – Hungry Mountain Dragon

Exactly what Saint Trickery said exactly what Phloid said.

Steve Miller – Brike Isle
James Olchak – Mushti’s Beguiling Oddities
Tom Phillips – Eightfinger’s Tomb
Russel Vaneekhoven – Hungry Mountain Dragon

I was really tempted to vote for Sam based on his previous entries, but couldn't justify not voting for what I felt were better entries in this round.


Hi,

I got an email that I could download a new version of the file for this product. But, I don't remember ever buying it or downloading it, and I don't see it anywhere on my assets page in my account.

Can you clarify?

thanks!

Star Voter 2013

I love the map, and the concept is a bit gonzo, which I like. I agree with some of the problems raised by the judges, but this seems like it would be fun to run through (particularly if a party only has limited or no access to flight).

Star Voter 2013

I really love what you did here with the map - the zooming feels quite fresh, and there is lots of good detail.

Star Voter 2013

I freakin' love the style of the map. That alone sold me on this already. It reminds me of the old maps from Iron Crown Enterprises, many of which are still favorites.

Star Voter 2013

A few comments -

I loved the location idea. It's compelling and interesting, and begging for further investigation.

I like the map a lot, both the vertical view and the 2D floor plan. My initial impression was that the floor plan was similar to what I remember from the sample maps in the 1st edition DMG, and so maybe not as interesting in places as it could be, but it is so well done that I don't mind.


and I forgot to add:
Piled Higher and Deeper (so true if you've ever been a graduate student)


Regularly:
Oots
xkcd

Irregularly, but should be more:
Dr. McNinja
Penny Arcade
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal

Star Voter 2013

RonarsCorruption wrote:

Jacob, good points there. Allow me to address most of them in my revised item below:

Alchemical Palm
Aura faint transmutation; CL 4th
Slot hands; Price 4,000gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Description
Collections of copper loops and glass tubes, these complex mechanisms are strapped to the underside of one's wrist. Twice per day, as a standard action, a user can fill either hand's alchemical palm (or both as part of the same action) with any potion, elixir or any contact or inhaled poison held within that hand. Once so charged, the wearer can deliver the potion, elixir or poison to a willing target by touching them as a standard action, or to an unwilling one as a melee touch attack or as part of an unarmed or natural attack.
Once a potion, elixir or poison has been used to charge an alchemical palm, it cannot be recovered - though it can be emptied from the palm as a swift action.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, touch injection; Cost 2,000gp

As to the hardness of the glass tubes bit; I deliberately left that out. It's a magic item, so if someone wants to, say, sunder it they'll have to go through the same process as, say, trying to sunder someone's necklace of fireballs.

I'm having trouble with your first sentence - the first part "Collections of copper loops and glass tubes, these complex mechanisms" makes me think of something big (partly because it's plural), like in a mad scientist's lab. The second part "are strapped to the underside of one's wrist" makes me think of something much smaller.

maybe revise to something like:

"This complex but compact collection of copper coils and glass tubes is strapped to the underside of one's wrist." (I couldn't resist the alliteration, but don't recommend it!)


I'm sad to hear this. I bought the first 26 books as a subscriber, and had been hoping to pick up the rest - I guess just 7. (I was too broke to continue my subscription at the time, and I was a bit disgruntled by all the typos).

I'm definitely interested in whatever you have planned for the future - whether ebook or print book. Hopefully more of the footballs will be caught this time - but even if any new books are only as outstanding as the old ones, I'm happy to support the line.

Star Voter 2013

Andrew Christian wrote:
To be fair, I don’t think his description was unclear at all. I think the term adjacent is very explicit when looking at Pathfinder game mechanics. To try and read more into it is either trying to justify why a judge may have made a snap judgment error in the mechanics of the item or an unclear understanding of how the rules in Pathfinder work.

Actually, re-reading it now given your comment I see how it might be interpreted as intended.

Just to be clear, I was not trying to interpret it uncharitably or unfairly, and it is certainly possible that I have an unclear understanding of the rules, which contributed to me missing the strict game-mechanic interpretation of 'adjacent' (though I'm certain this is not true of the judges). That said though, I do still think that if phrased more simply it might have been even clearer, and might have more clearly avoided this misinterpretation.

I do like the idea behind the item quite a bit, but I still don't think the mechanics or the presentation of the mechanics were fully there.

Star Voter 2013

terraleon wrote:
Seabyrn wrote:
I think you're also assuming that a creature's shadow will fill all of those adjacent squares. This is not the case (as the judges and I indicated). It depends on the direction of the light source. If the only light is from someone facing me, then my shadow will be behind me. So even if I had understood your sentence restricting the area of the shadow, it still requires a lot of work from the GM to determine which squares the shadow falls into based on the direction of the shadow.

I'm not assuming, I'm dictating. I've abstracted the need to calculate light source vectoring and simply indicated adjacent surfaces are acceptable targets-- much in the same way we don't worry about facing.

That said, your revision about surfaces within 5 feet is cleaner, even if it doesn't handle the "directly above/below" option. Thank you.

-Ben.

No problem. This is intended to be constructive :)

If you're going to dictate something like that I think you need to say it very explicitly - something like: "For the purposes of this item, all adjacent squares [or however you say that] are acceptable targets, regardless of light source or whether the target's shadow actually occupies the area." The assumption may avoid the need for new rules about shadows, but conversely since there aren't any such existing rules as far as I am aware (other than what I assume is the default for most people, which is that they work as in real life), without saying it really explicitly either the GM has to assume your intended meaning (which they may or may not realize), or has to make up their own (potentially very complex) interpretation.

You may also consider the case of overlapping shadows. What happens for a group of creatures standing close to each other, such that a given square may be an acceptable target for more than one creature. Are all of them pinned by a single spike? If so, it's a more powerful effect. If not, how do you choose which target is affected?

Star Voter 2013

terraleon wrote:
Seabyrn wrote:
terraleon wrote:

Except the item specifically accounts for that, saying:

terraleon wrote:

The surface must be directly above, beneath or adjacent to the target, like a 5-foot square of wall, floor, or ceiling, but not attended objects.

For me the text you point to really doesn't do much at all to clarify the point - "surrounding" can be a very big or very small area.

Those are game mechanics-- a surface "above, beneath, or adjacent to the target" creature is a very clear area. Medium-or-smaller creature? Then its square and the surrounding 8 squares are valid, as is the square over the creature with the ceiling (if the ceiling exists in the setting). An adjacent attacker's shield? No, as it's an attended object. That table or the door? Sure.

You're conflating the mechanics of the item with my comment. Only my quoted portion is from the item. A space "adjacent" to a target is pretty clear within the rules and requires no calculation of shadows and light sources. "Above and below" are pretty clear, too.

The item can't target the shadow stretching 90 feet down a hall. It can only target the shadow on a surface "directly above, beneath or adjacent to the target, like a 5-foot square of wall, floor, or ceiling, but not attended objects."

-Ben.

I think your sentence as written doesn't quite convey what you just described here. Your sentence specifies that the surface must be adjacent to the target, and surfaces can be pretty big. You say "like a 5-foot square of wall, floor, or ceiling" which doesn't really explicitly state an adjacent 5-foot square.

While I think I might get now how you intended the item to work, it is a hard sentence to write, particularly since there is a need to cover the case of airborne targets as well. I would rephrase it or revise the underlying concept. (it would be far simpler, for example, if you just say that shadows can only be pinned on a wall, ceiling or floor within 5 feet of the target. Then it doesn't matter how high the ceiling is or if the target is flying - it's much easier to say.

But, I think the mechanics are still overly complicated, and at least two things still need some thought.

First, it seems a bit weird that a creature can only be pinned from an adjacent square, but can then move up to 30 feet. If they can move that far while pinned, why can't they be pinned from that far away? This also makes the sentence about pinned creatures being pulled towards the spike less clear. Wouldn't a creature only be pulled towards the spike if they were farther away than their allotted distance? If they can't move that far beyond the spike, how would they get that far away in the first place? Also, if the ceiling could be 50 feet above a target, why couldn't a wall 50 feet away be used? If they are flying 1000 feet up, can they still be pinned from the ground?

I think you're also assuming that a creature's shadow will fill all of those adjacent squares. This is not the case (as the judges and I indicated). It depends on the direction of the light source. If the only light is from someone facing me, then my shadow will be behind me. So even if I had understood your sentence restricting the area of the shadow, it still requires a lot of work from the GM to determine which squares the shadow falls into based on the direction of the shadow.

Star Voter 2013

terraleon wrote:
Neil Spicer wrote:
terraleon wrote:
Umbral Spike

*You realize of course the introduction of this item will now necessitate the GM measuring all of the lighting angles to determine how long of a shadow an individual creature casts to determine which squares can be targeted by this spike? Creature size would also need to be factored in, as a dragon's shadow is likely to stretch much further than a man-sized creature....

*Yeah, this introduces a lot of issues with measuring/guessing the location of shadows.

Except the item specifically accounts for that, saying:

terraleon wrote:

The surface must be directly above, beneath or adjacent to the target, like a 5-foot square of wall, floor, or ceiling, but not attended objects.

Which pretty clearly limits the target area to the floors, walls, and ceiling either surrounding the creature or directly above or below it.

For me the text you point to really doesn't do much at all to clarify the point - "surrounding" can be a very big or very small area.

Imagine how a shadow looks when light is directly overhead - it's a small pool directly at someone's feet. Now imagine the shadow when light is coming from the side and slightly above shoulder height. The shadow will stretch all the way across the floor and up the wall (assuming one is present), and will be larger the farther from the target it is.

In the first case, the spike will be very difficult to use. In the latter case, the spike could be used from 50 feet away or more with ease.

What if there are two or more light sources? Everyone in the room casts multiple shadows, in a variety of angles/lengths. Can any one of these shadow be pinned for a particular creature?

An easy strategy then is to surround the target with torches or magical lights (of any sort), adjust the lighting to move any one shadow to the Umbral spike wearer's feet, then use it. I think that's a very easy way to abuse this item (though it would reduce the GM's bookkeeping, if the players auto-succeed on manipulating where the shadow goes).

edit: for that matter, could a target casting multiple shadows be spiked by multiple Umbral Spikes at one time?

Star Voter 2013

Neil Spicer wrote:
Kevin 'Hitler' Mickelson wrote:
Pharasmian Tomb Stone

Finally the name 'Hitler' acquires a positive connotation! :)

Star Voter 2013

excellent - no more problems for me, I can see the message that my vote has been recorded :)

Star Voter 2013

Midnight_Angel wrote:
Seabyrn wrote:
I only selected six to vote for. Could it be because I'm voting for less than 8 entries?
I don't think so. My vote went through, and I ticked seven.

If you go back to the voting page, do you still see the message that your vote has been recorded?

(I saw it briefly, now I"m back to checkboxes)

Star Voter 2013

Gary Teter wrote:
If you select more than 8 entries this round your vote won't be recorded. We should probably display a message to that effect once you click the vote button but I don't think we do currently. Could that be what you're running into?

I only selected six to vote for. Could it be because I'm voting for less than 8 entries?

Star Voter 2013

Gary Teter wrote:
If you see checkboxes, your vote hasn't been recorded and you need to vote again.

Something's still not working for me then. I've hit the vote button about 15 times each in Safari and Firefox, and each time the page refreshes with the checkboxes coming back up.

Star Voter 2013

PhineasGage wrote:

Really? Posting to try and get votes in the thread advising you to keep quiet and get to work?

Unless I'm missing some humorous tone not explicit in the text, all that does is very much make me NOT want to vote for you.

Despite the glaring flaws in my item design, I'd still very much love to be where the top 32 are, and every time I see post after post after post from a competitor all I can think is, "why aren't you using this time to work on your submission rather than beg for votes!?"

I'm voting for the well written and creative submissions. The kind of stuff I'd want to see in a module that I'd actually want to play. The desperate cries for votes are really only a distraction from the work itself, and since that's how I place my votes, you should probably stop distracting me!

Then again...I'm just one guy...

Joke or not, I've got to agree with this. It's not the best time or place for a joke (and I have almost no sense when it comes to that, so if I get it....)

I had the same feeling about the top 32 commenting on the organizations that their competitors submitted. It may not be against the rules, and the comments may be generally (but not always) positive, but it rubs me the wrong way.

Pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of your competition while voting is going on just seems like it's in poor taste. If you really have something you need to say, why not at least wait until voting is over. Again, even if it's not against the rules, it's not going to endear me to the person(s) doing it.

Star Voter 2013

Hmm. I went back to the voting thread, and saw checkboxes again instead of the message that my votes had been recorded.

I signed out and signed back in again, and still see checkboxes. Is this what I should see?

Star Voter 2013

I only voted for six this round, that really grabbed me in one way or another -

Bob Drouin - Fear, Fist and Flame
Sam Polak - Riders of the Black Steppe
James Raine - Besmara's Chosen
Tom Phillips - Sisters of Chana-Zhol
Jacob Michaels - The Unfettered
Russell Vaneekhoven - The Foulgrip Rangers

Star Voter 2013

I tried Safari and it didn't take, then tried Firefox and the votes hadn't been recorded and weren't accepted.

I'll mash the buttons a bit more.

edit: and I hit the vote button one more time in Safari and it worked.

Star Voter 2013

Crazy man, just crazy. I'm not sure about the details of this organization, but I'd love to see what you do with a full adventure proposal.

Star Voter 2013

Interesting idea. For me, the rules-specified difficulty in breaking the bond between a summoner and their eidolon isn't a big deal. It's easy enough to imagine that the organization has found a (secret) way to break that bond (if made public, maybe it could be countered, so they keep it close within the upper ranks).

Star Voter 2013

I'm not a huge fan of the name, but I like the concept. A bit small in scope, but cool for a wasteland type area.

Star Voter 2013

You had me at "sisterhood of demon-worshipping cannibal pirates". I can't resist a tag line like that :)

Star Voter 2013

I'm with Ryan on this one - I loved the name and the structure of the organization. I think the name stands out as an unusual one, that nicely avoids any kind of cliched structure, and makes it easy to remember the different parts of the organization. Good job!

Star Voter 2013

Really excellent! This is the first one I've read, and you definitely have my vote. I love the concept and the added planar angle!

Star Voter 2013

Evil Lincoln wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Celestial Healer wrote:
Evil Lincoln wrote:
toccada and fugue of the danse macabre
*twitches*

The real shame there is that bardic masterpieces are a phenomenally great mechanic, with much-needed appeal to real musicians. And that name... that name... is just not "superstar."

I hate to admit that I enough of a nerd AND music snob that it really ruined my day. :(

What is your problem, yo?

Much respect Sean, but:

1) A toccata's not a dance, neither is a fugue. It makes no sense.

2) Combining the title of an extremely well-known work by Bach with the the title of an extremely well-known work by Saint-Saëns is a little like writing a novel in which the main character's rockband has a hit called Stairway to Freebird. Either one of thses used alone would have been a little easter-egg for the music snobs. Together, they're a little like "Song of the Ephemeral Phlebotomist" if you catch my meaning.

I don't think it makes the mechanics of that masterpiece bad. As I said, I really, really love those mechanics. But as far as a title... I'm with Celestial Healer.

It also exacerbates a long-standing problem with music and mechanics that I've ranted about at length before... so I *am* blowing it out of proportion.

I have a lot of sympathy for people who screw up the name right now... but I also know that they gotta be told so they don't make the same mistake twice.

So, pretending I'm judge for a second:

*Rejected! On name alone.

1) But, but, it's *macabre*. What's more grim or ghastly than dancing to that which cannot be danced to?

2) FREEEEBIIIRD!!! (ow, stop punching me)

Star Voter 2013

that was an excellent video - well done!

Star Voter 2013

Jay159 wrote:
Seabyrn wrote:

This is not so much about the items, but more a comment on organization (ok, maybe more of a cranky rant than a comment).

I'm really surprised by the number of people in the critique my item thread who either don't have the final submitted version of their item, or aren't sure if what they have is the final version.

Computer crashes and viruses are somewhat understandable, but that's why backups are important.

Editing in the submission box instead of on your final draft copy (and/or not transferring those changes to your final draft copy) is a bad idea, and is bound to leave you without the final version. It's just a recipe for confusion.

Simply not knowing if you have the final version or not? Really? You're essentially applying to be a professional game designer and you didn't keep track of what was a rough draft and what was final?

I don't know how you can expect to succeed as a professional without this basic level of organization.

There is simply no good reason for anyone not to have a copy the final version of any work that they do for hire or profit.

My mind is boggled.

Even if you didn't make the top 32, start building your portfolio with your best examples of finished, polished writing! Would you tell a potential client/boss that you entered the contest, and then show them a rough draft of your work? Or worse, tell them that you don't know if what you showed them is final or not? You'd never get hired.

(If I remember correctly, this was even mentioned last year by one of the judges)

I'm guilty of this. It was in my top five submitter's remorse thoughts that occurred. I understand why this is a problem and I agree everyone should have the final copy. Well, this was my first year. I'll learn.

EDIT: Just checked to see how off the copy I had was. I removed it so that no one's time would be wasted.

I don't mean to be harsh to anyone in particular - and I wouldn't have suggested that anyone remove their item from a feedback thread, or that it would have been a waste of anyone's time to solicit feedback - I think it's ok to work with what you have. I also don't intend to discourage anyone from soliciting feedback even if they don't have their final version.

But I would encourage everyone in your position to adopt your attitude.

Star Voter 2013

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This is not so much about the items, but more a comment on organization (ok, maybe more of a cranky rant than a comment).

I'm really surprised by the number of people in the critique my item thread who either don't have the final submitted version of their item, or aren't sure if what they have is the final version.

Computer crashes and viruses are somewhat understandable, but that's why backups are important.

Editing in the submission box instead of on your final draft copy (and/or not transferring those changes to your final draft copy) is a bad idea, and is bound to leave you without the final version. It's just a recipe for confusion.

Simply not knowing if you have the final version or not? Really? You're essentially applying to be a professional game designer and you didn't keep track of what was a rough draft and what was final?

I don't know how you can expect to succeed as a professional without this basic level of organization.

There is simply no good reason for anyone not to have a copy the final version of any work that they do for hire or profit.

My mind is boggled.

Even if you didn't make the top 32, start building your portfolio with your best examples of finished, polished writing! Would you tell a potential client/boss that you entered the contest, and then show them a rough draft of your work? Or worse, tell them that you don't know if what you showed them is final or not? You'd never get hired.

(If I remember correctly, this was even mentioned last year by one of the judges)

1 to 50 of 516 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.