|
|
|
|
|
Sean K Reynolds's page
Developer. Pathfinder Society Member. 4,686 posts (4,700 including aliases). 21 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 aliases.
|
All of the competitors this round used the "short stat block" method to link to existing stat blocks in other sources. In most cases these links were to the Bestiary or one of the standard NPCs in the Game Mastery Guide. A few were a little more unorthodox: for example, one linked to a creature in a recent Adventure Path, and another linked to a creature in Burnt Offerings.
This sparked a bit of discussion among the judges, as if this were a print product, we wouldn't use a short stat block for a creature that wasn't in a "core" book--we'd either include the full stat block for a creature, or we'd change it to something for which we could use a short stat block.
Technically, the R4 rules allow the competitors to link to any material that's listed in the "allowed sources" section of the rules, and that includes "published content from Paizo's Pathfinder campaign setting," so all of these entries are valid, even though using a short stat block in this way is not something Paizo would do in a printed product. In future competitions, we're going to clarify our stance on this position. For this round, we're allowing it.
Because some of the linked stat blocks are in sources that aren't in the PRD, I've edited those submissions with spoilers at the bottom containing the necessary stat blocks (otherwise you wouldn't be able to playtest those encounters unless you had the books in question). To keep the competition fair, I've also added PRD hyperlinks to all monster short stat blocks in the Top 8 entries. Therefore, whether a competitor referenced a monster in Burnt Offerings or the Bestiary, that stat block is just a click away.
Keep in mind that the PRD doesn't have direct hyperlinks to variant monsters (such as fast zombies), so when following one of these links, make sure you know whether you're supposed to use the standard monster or one of the variants (as using normal zombies in an encounter that's supposed to have fast zombies may create a very different outcome).
Please include the following information when you post feedback about a Round 4 Encounter. You don't have to stick to this format (though that helps), but providing at least this much information helps standardize the feedback and makes it easier for the voters to review everyone's playtest feedback.
Post your playtest feedback as a reply to the encounter you playtested (do not post it as a reply to this thread).
NUMBER OF PCs
The default assumption for the CR system is a party of 4 PCs of the same level. If you had more or fewer PCs, say so.
For playtesting these encounters, please use PCs whose character level matches the CR of the tiered encounter. For example, if playtesting a CR 4 encounter, use 4th-level PCs.
RACE/CLASS/LEVEL OF PCs
Note the race, character class, and level of the PCs, such as "dwarf ranger, elf druid, halfling sorcerer, human rogue." Some race/class/party combinations may have a harder or easier time with an encounter.
By default, characters should be built with the "standary fantasy" 15 point ability score point-buy or one of the ability score arrays used by Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
PCs should have appropriate wealth according to Table 12-4: Character Wealth by Level (Core Rulebook 399), and using the "balanced approach" that they can spend about 25% of their wealth on weapons, 25% on armor and protective devices, 25% on other magic items, 15% on disposable/consumable items like potions, and 10% on ordinary gear and coins.
TIER
This should be obvious by listing the level of the PCs, but please call out whether you playtested the low tier, high tier, or both.
EASE OF RUNNING THE ENCOUNTER
Was it easy to run? Was there anything confusing about the map or encounter? Was there any missing information? If you ran both tiers, did one work better than the other?
CHALLENGE OF THE ENCOUNTER
Did the encounter feel appropriately challenging to the PCs? A CR-appropriate encounter should expend some party resources but shouldn't be too hard to overcome. If you ran both tiers, was one more challenging than the other?
FUN OF THE ENCOUNTER
Was the encounter fun to play? Was it memorable? Any fun, funny, or cool anecdotes you'd like to share from your playtest? If you ran both tiers, was one more fun than the other?
OTHER COMMENTS
Feel free to add other feedback about the encounter. Did any PC tend to dominate the encounter?
And thank you for participating in the playtesting for Round 4! Your playtest reports help inform other voters.
A big thanks to Round 4 guest judges Mark Moreland and Rob Lazzaretti!
Mark is a developer at Paizo and handles all the Pathfinder Society scenarios, so he's best suited for evaluating two-tiered encounters of this challenge.
Rob is a TSR and Wizards of the Coast veteran and has a professional cartographer for many years, which means he's dealt with all kinds of crazy map turnovers, from common dungeons to abstract representations of Hell and the Abyss.
Gentlemen, thank you for spending part of your weekend judging Round 4 of RPG Superstar!
The following is the unanimous ruling of the judges and Paizo representatives following meeting and discussion:
Unfortunately, we have decided to disqualify competitor Bob Drouin from the 2012 RPG Superstar competition.
The Round 3 rules state that a submission may be disqualified if
"Competitor adds to, expands upon, or clarifies the contents of his or her own submission during the voting period, whether this takes place on paizo.com or elsewhere."
The Official Rules for the entire contest state
"5. During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion that could be considered as adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying the content of their current submission. This applies to (but is not limited to) interviews, personal blogs, and messageboard posts on paizo.com or elsewhere, including the paizo.com discussion thread for the entry itself. Any such discussion may result in disqualification, in the sole discretion of the judges and/or Paizo."
The competitors were warned during Round 2 about crossing the line for what is acceptable posting, reminded about the FAQ and its safe-to-post statement.
We've reached the point where gentle warnings about "do this one more time and someone is getting disqualified" are not sufficient. While we want this to remain a friendly and pleasant competition, Paizo needs to make sure that competitors can follow the rules of a contest (just as we'd expect them to follow the rules of a work contract or a confidentiality agreement).
In future rounds, competitors will not be allowed to post about about their submissions at all while voting is open.
Bob Drouin's entry is disqualified and he will not advance to the next round. No alternates will be brought in to take his place. To prevent a technical issue where deleting his entry may accidentally redistribute votes for him to other competitors, his entry in the voting booth will have a line through it; if you vote for him, that vote will not count. You are still able to reassign your votes until the voting period ends on Friday, February 20th.
Last year I only had one PaizoCon workshop to cover many different aspects of terrain-building. I'm thinking this year we ought to split them up a bit to give each topic more time and give everyone the opportunity to do some hands-on experimentation with building terrain. Here are some topics; I haven't yet thought about organizing these into related topics for a single workshop (that'll come later, once we've rounded out ideas). Would you be interested in these? Are there other topics you'd like to see?
* epoxy clay/epoxy putty/polymer clay
* casting plaster/using silicone molds
* greenstuff
* wood/dowels/balsa
* found items/salvage
* carving and cutting hard foam
* painting and flocking
* LEDs, robotics, electronics
* glue
* paper/tissuecraft
* painting terrain
* wires and armatures
* storing/transporting terrain
* making furniture
If you need guidelines for stats for CR monsters, check the Monster Statistics By CR table in the Bestiary (page 291).
If you're wondering what constitutes a "Golarion monster," stick to things that (1) fit with the Golarion setting, (2) have a reasonable expectation that it could be found on Golarion, regardless if its home is elsewhere.
A phase spider is a "Golarion monster" even though its home is on the Ethereal plane.
A flumph is a "Golarion monster" even though its home is the Dark Tapestry.
An akata is a "Golarion monster" even though it comes from another planet (it flies through space and lands on other worlds).
Golarion is an inclusive setting--it has guns, vikings, genies, ninjas, mothmen, dragons, and all sorts of crazy stuff... but it's still a fantasy campaign setting. But it doesn't really have steampunk, post-apocalyptic, or other nonstandard fantasy genres (ignore Numeria for the purpose of this discussion). If your monster idea is something that's only found on the Plane of Fire, or on planet Castrovel, or in the future, and never found elsewhere/elsewhen, those aren't really "Golarion monsters" and you should rethink your concept.
Every year we have posts that toe the line with respect to the "no commenting on your own submission rule."
Every year we have to issue a warning to competitors to tone it down and not push the boundaries of what's an acceptable post (even if they're not trying to push them).
Every year we remind them about the FAQ and the suggested copy-and-paste statement.
Every year the judges discuss a prohibition against competitors commenting at all while voting is open.
And every year (so far) we've decided to issue a warning and remind competitors of potential disqualification.
Now here we are in 2012...
Competitors:
Tone it down.
Don't push the boundaries of what's an acceptable post.
Remember the FAQ.
The judges have had a discussion.
Consider this your warning. Remember that your comments can get you disqualified.
I understand your excitement. I understand it's weird to be on this side of the competition and not be able to participate in all the banter during the voting. But you have to deal with it--just like a freelancer has to deal with keeping quiet about the really cool but not-yet-announced book he or she just finished working on.
During the voting period, play it safe, and if you have to post something, use the suggested C&P quote. Once voting is closed, yammer all you want.
During the writing period, that's when you stop playing it safe. :)
(Now I'm going to remove some competitor posts that prompted this discussion.)
Thanks!
Hey, folks! Here's a very early heads-up for a new addition to future RPG Superstar competitions:
You won't be able to re-submit an item you submitted in a previous competition.
Why?
One, because getting the judges and community to help you fix your item means the item isn't just your work any more.
Two, because by posting your item or its name in a request for feedback, your username is now associated with that item, which breaks anonymity. The judges can't objectively judge items unless the submissions are anonymous to us.
(Also, every year when we get a resubmission, we have to ask Ross to check the person's identity against who submitted it before, just to make sure someone isn't posting an item written by someone else. This new rule means we don't have to worry about that.)
We could just say "no resubmission if you got public feedback on the item," but that would discourage people from asking for feedback. So, to encourage feedback but maintain fairness and anonymity, no more resubmissions are allowed.
Ask for feedback. Take it to heart. Use what you learned to create something new--and better.
Sorry for the short notice, but Neil and I are discussing RPG Superstar tonight in the Beautiful Brains Books & Games chatroom tonight at 9pm Eastern Time. It's text chat, no speakers required. :)
For last year's competition I posted a list of 27 "auto-reject" topics for RPG Superstar. I'm linking them here just so these ideas are fresh in everyone's mind.
These aren't really "auto-reject" topics, they're design traps to avoid when designing your item. We judges have to evaluate hundreds of items and narrow the field to just 32 competitors. If you put a target on your back and give us an easy excuse to reject your item, you've made a mistake.
Read what's been done in previous competitions. Avoid these traps, pitfalls, auto-reject categories, whatever you want to call them. There's an incredible amount of advice online for this competition--use that advice to make your item better. There's advice to help you win, and advice to keep you from crashing and burning.
And understand that there are wondrous items in the Core Rulebook that fall into these traps--and likewise understand that RPG Superstar isn't just "design an item that would be acceptable filler for a big book of magic items." To make it into the Top 32, your item has to be exceptional, not merely adequate.
(I've moved #27 to the top of the list because it's the rule that breaks all rules. To quote myself, "Every single one of these 27 advice posts is here to help steer you away from mistakes that could make the judges reject your item. Going against that advice can be risky. But sometimes taking a risk is the way to get noticed, to make progress.")
Below this list are some other handy links about the competition, submitting, writing, and design.)
One last bit of R1 advice: Include the Item's Name
* Work on your item in a program that allows you to save. Save early, save often. When you're ready to submit your item, copy it from the most recent version of your saved file and paste it into the submission window. We've heard horror stories of people who compose their item in the submission window, and lose their submission due to a browser glitch, power failure, or accidentally closing the window. Don't let this happen to you!
* Make sure you know how to post an item. Posting your submission works just like making a message board post--you can preview how your submission looks before you make that final decision to post. Use the preview function! Use it!!!
* Work on several ideas, and submit the one you like the best. Variety can help your creativity.
* Know the rules. You don't have to know all the rules, but read up on the stuff that's relevant to your item. If you're designing an item for cavaliers, make sure you've thoroughly read the cavalier class...
* Read the judge and fan comments on previous Top 32 items to see why they were kept. If you have time, read the "Judges, please critique my item" threads to see why they were rejected.
* Make sure your item doesn't exceed the word count limit for the round. Seriously--one word over and you're disqualified. Use the word count function in your typing program, they're all pretty close (Paizo uses Microsoft Word, FYI), and if you use the Preview button when you submit, it'll tell you the word count for your submission. If it's over the word count (300 for a wondrous item, including the item name and all the stat block info), edit it down.
* Check your item for spelling and grammar errors. Then check it again. Then hit the Preview button. Then check it again. Then, if you're satisfied, hit Submit.
* Submit something, even if you don't think it's very good, or if you don't think it's good enough. If you never actually submit an item, you have a 0% chance to win the competition.
* Be ready for criticism and try to learn from it.
* Remember the Paizo message board policies, especially unwritten Rule 0, "Don't be a jerk."
* Read Seabyrn's thread about passive voice in writing.
And, just for fun, here's my example from last year of an item submission that fails for many, many reasons.
... from Lead Adventure's "post apoc merchants" group. I don't know why he's called "Chinese food seller" but he has a lot of things that look like potions:
link
Just in case I don't get the R5 rules to Ross in time for him to post them today, I want to let you know:
This year's Round 5 challenge is basically the same as the 2010 Round 5 challenge.
The twist is that your adventure proposal must be for level 4 characters.
Why level 4?
1) Because if we allow any level in the proposal, high-level proposals tend to overshadow low-level proposals simply because the high-level ones can be more WAHOO, which unfairly biases voting.
2) Oddly enough, there is a shortage of Paizo adventures at that level. There are a lot at 1st-level, and a lot in the "sweet spot" of 6th-7th, but very few at 4th level.
One thing to remember about Round 5:
If you've made it to Round 5, congratulations—you're going to write something for Paizo, whether a Pathfinder Society Scenario or a Pathfinder Module. That's pretty cool.
You now have a whole weekend to work on your proposal. Don't wait until we post the vote results on Tuesday... get started! And good luck!
The Round 4 rules should go live later this week.
As a heads-up to the competitors who want to get a head start ahead of the posted R4 rules, know this:
Round 4 this year is going to be very similar to Round 4 from RPG Superstar 2010.
Check them out here!
If you are a competitor in Round 2, you should start working on your Round 3 entry as soon as possible. We've posted the Round 3 rules and format early so you'll have an extra weekend to work on your villain. Otherwise, if you wait until the Round 2 results are announced on Tuesday and you make it into Round 3, you'll have wasted almost four days you could have spent working on your villain!
Good luck!
This is just a last-minute reminder.
Remember that the Official Rules say:
5. During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion that could be considered as adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying the content of their current submission. This applies to (but is not limited to) interviews, personal blogs, and messageboard posts on paizo.com or elsewhere, including the paizo.com discussion thread for the entry itself. Any such discussion may result in disqualification, in the sole discretion of the judges and/or Paizo.
In other words, if you're tempted to clarify something about your archetype, explain a design choice, point out a rule a critic is missing, offer a fix or a variant, or just about anything else that could be considered adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying your archetype submission, don't do so until voting is closed for this round. Otherwise, you may be disqualified.
In the past, we have had to disqualify competitors for breaking this rule. Don't ruin your chances with a disqualification.
Or, to borrow language from the Round 2 FAQ, which says:
Your submission has to get by on its own, even if everyone has the same question and you could answer it with a single word. That's because if you write an archetype and it gets published, the book doesn't include a little copy of you to answer questions or offer suggestions, so you need to make sure your submission is clear on its own. Just grin and bear it--you'll be able to say as much as you want about it once voting is closed. In fact, you may just want to copy this safe-to-post statement: Thank you for your support and please vote for my item! If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them once voting for this round is closed.
You can comment on the other archetypes, of course, just not your own.
Once voting closes on Jan 31st at 2pm PT, you can comment on your own item in any way you see fit.
Good luck!
There were some very good archetypes in this round.
There were some mediocre archetypes.
And there were some boring and/or broken archetypes.
The judges were pretty blunt about all of them. The judges didn't necessarily agree on all of them (but we're often looking at them from different perspective).
So, when you read the judge comments on your archetypes, brace yourself. In many cases, our response was "this ability is too good for what you're giving up." That's not a good thing.
Archetypes aren't easy. One, they're new, so everyone (including us at Paizo) are still feeling out the boundaries of what you should be able to do with them. Two, you're often swapping one class ability for a very different class ability and hoping it's balanced not only against that one class ability, but with the class (and even with multiclassing) as a whole. It's not unusual to drop in an ability that seems balanced but has a big exploit lurking in the shadows.
My advice to the voters: Don't let the judge comments influence you too negatively in your voting this round. This was a new task, a more difficult task than R1, and some people stumbled... but you get 8 votes this round and you should consider using some of them on people whose ideas you liked (in R1 and R2) even if their archetype had problems.
My advice to the competitors: Don't let the judge comments get you down. I recently finished developing about 50 pages of archetypes for Ultimate Magic, and even the professionals are botching parts of this sort of design. You're new. It's new. Learn from this. Keep your chin up!
I repeat: Competitors, don't let this round get you down. This was a tough challenge.
This thread is for people whose wondrous item did not make it into the Top 32 of RPG Superstar 2011 and who would like to get feedback from the judges.
This thread is to help people improve their items and ideas in order to have a better shot at making it into the Top 32 next year.
1) If you want feedback on the item you submitted this year, please copy and paste it into a new message in this thread, without quoting any other text from the thread (that'll help keep this thread uncluttered).
2) I or another judge will provide or summarize the judges' comments on your Round 1 item.
3) Other people (including Clark Peterson, of course!) are welcome to provide their own comments here.
4) However, let's not let the thread get too cluttered with back-and-forth debate about the items or the commentary. If you want to have a more involved discussion about your item, please start a separate thread for it (that'll help keep this thread uncluttered). I make no guarantees that the judges will be able to comment much on these side threads, especially as the rest of the competition continues and we need to judge later rounds.
Be forewarned: Some of the judges' feedback is harsh and curt. In evaluating hundreds of items, we're looking for big mistakes, and we don't pull punches. If you can't handle the idea of a judge declaring your item "boring," a "spell in a can," or "a magical cell phone," or "a complete failure at following the provided magic item template," you shouldn't ask for feedback. If you honestly want feedback so you can improve and avoid similar mistakes, this is the place for you.
Entries must be in by 2pm Pacific Time.
Don't wait until the last minute to submit. You may lose your internet connection. Paizo's servers may go down because of a long-delayed Y2K bug, or a mad rush of people trying to post their item at 1:59pm. We may have a power outage. You may have a power outage. The whole country may have a power outage. We can't make exceptions for that.
Last year, some people found that if they had the submission window open before 2pm, and typed in their item, and hit Submit after the 2pm deadline, it would still submit. Even if that works this year, the deadline is absolute, and items that make it in because of this exploit will be disqualified because it's past the deadline.
Don't ruin your chance to compete this year by waiting until the last minute. Give yourself an hour, just in case.
And good luck!
The standard format for magic items (which is pre-formatted for you in the Round 1 rules document) includes a line for the wondrous item's name.
That means when you copy & paste the standard format for the magic item into the submission window, you should include the line with the item's name. The name goes in the Wondrous Item Name field (which becomes the Subject line of the message board post), and it goes (with the formatting) in the Description field.
We're not going to ding anyone on this right now, and Ross is going to put a clarification on the submission page. But... read the rules. Follow the given format.
I understand you may be doing that because you see the Wondrous Item Name field and don't want to double it up in your post. It's okay, it'll look fine. Maybe you're worried the item's name will count double for the word count. It's okay, it won't. Just trust us. Copy and paste that entire stat block into the Description field for your item, and type its name in the Wondrous Item Name field, too.
Thanks!
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest. This is the last of them.)
27. An awesome item may disregard the previous advice.
If you haven't been reading the discussion for each of these advice articles, this one is here to (1) bring this to your attention, and (2) end on a positive note.
All of these "auto-reject advice" threads are just advice from one of the judges. They're not the rules of the contest. It is entirely possible to create a cool, innovative item that goes against one or more of these bits of advice. It's just not easy to do so.
I wrote this posts based on my experience as a designer, developer, and judge for RPG Superstar. That doesn't mean I've seen it all or that I'm the end-all authority on designing wondrous items. And it doesn't mean I can't be proven wrong.
Various iterations of this game have been around for over 30 years, and people keep coming up with new ideas and new twists on old ideas. People have been writing stories for thousands of years, and still keep creating new stories or new twists on old stories. Musicians take obscure songs and perform covers, and the covers become more famous and popular than the originals.
Does your item fall into one of these "auto-reject" categories? Despite that, do you still think it is an awesome item and has a chance of making it into the Top 32? Submit it.
To quote myself in another advice thread: Prove me wrong. I want you to prove me wrong.
Every year, items make it into the Top 32 that you could consider a spell-in-a-can, or an item with a joke name, or a toy. They make it into the Top 32 because despite that flaw, they do something really cool or new. You can add flavor to a spell-in-a-can, you can change the name of a poorly-named item, you can change the shape of a toy--if the concept of the item is cool, it deserves a second look.
Every single one of these 27 advice posts is here to help steer you away from mistakes that could make the judges reject your item. Going against that advice can be risky. But sometimes taking a risk is the way to get noticed, to make progress.
But there's a difference between taking a risk with a category you know is likely to get rejected, and just being lazy by submitting an item that is exactly the sort of thing the judges will auto-reject if they see it. Let's take RPG Superstar Neil's item from two years ago:
Spice, Spice, Baby wrote:
Last Leaves of the Autumn Dryad
Aura moderate divination and transmutation; CL 10th
Slot —; Price 53,500 gp; Weight —.
Description
These multicolored leaves retain their vibrant autumn hue regardless of season. Once per day, their possessor may place a single leaf on the tongue to assume tree shape for up to 8 hours. This transformation incorporates the remaining leaves into the tree, but all other equipment changes with the owner.
While in tree form, the owner may release the leaves upon the wind, consciously controlling them as a scrying device. The leaves fly overland up to 10 miles per hour, but use the combat movement, defenses, and special abilities of a locust swarm with plant traits, regeneration 5, and vulnerability to fire.
The leaves may also form a three-dimensional representation of the owner’s face to communicate. They speak with a dry rustle, but otherwise convey the owner’s natural expressions. Fey descendants or those with wild empathy may cast ghost sound, speak with animals or speak with plants through the connection.
The leaves must return before the owner resumes normal shape or lose their enchantment.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, arcane eye, tree shape, whispering wind; Cost 26,750 gp
At its simplest form, this item is a spell-in-a-can, and a Swiss army knife. But Neil brought more to it than its simplest form. Here's that same item in its simplest form:
simplest version wrote:
Leaves of the Scrying Tree
Aura moderate divination and transmutation; CL 10th
Slot —; Price 53,500 gp; Weight —.
Description
This a bag of leaves. Once per day, the bearer can use tree shape.
In tree form, the user can send a patch of leaves out as a remote sensor like an arcane eye. The user can communicate through the patch of leaves as if using whispering wind.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, arcane eye, tree shape, whispering wind; Cost 26,750 gp
That's... dull. It's three unrelated spell effects that are sort of tied together. And it has a mediocre name. If the judges saw this item, it would almost certainly be rejected because we'd have 40 or more other wondrous items that were more interesting than this.
But Neil's evocative name, (concise) description, and excellent flavor text tied these three abilities together and made the item cool, innovative, and stand out in the eyes of the judges. And he made it into the Top 32. And then won the competition for that year. And we've been hurling more writing work his way ever since. So, it is entirely possible to submit an item that goes against this "auto-reject" advice and make it to the next round of the competition. But you have to bring your A-game.
That's the whole point of these advice posts. If you just submit a simple SIAC or SAK like the leaves of the scrying tree, you're not going to make it. And now you know that. So give your item a hard look before you hit "Submit." Does it fall into one of these "auto-reject" categories? If so, is there some way you can make it better, cooler, more innovative, more eye-catching, more... Superstar? If there isn't, maybe you should submit a different item. If there is, make those changes... and look at it yet again. This isn't high school, where a passing score is enough to let you move forward--you have to be one of the best in each round.
You don't want to compete against the hundreds of other people trying to get spots 30, 31, and 32 of the Top 32... you want to compete against the people in the Top 16, or even the Top 8. While technically a "head start" on Round 1 doesn't put you in a better position in Round 2, it's a fact that your previous performance does influence the voters in later rounds. I can't count how many times people have said, "I'm giving you a vote in this round because I really liked your wondrous item." It makes a difference.
I'm going to be spending the next 45 days judging all of the wondrous items submissions. I've stated this before and I'll state it again: I'd rather have 500 good submissions than 400 mediocre submissions and 100 good submissions. I want you to make me work hard selecting the best 32 wondrous items from this year's competition. Submit an item that makes the judges click "Keep" without any dissenters.
Show me you have the design chops to be this year's RPG Superstar.
Eye of the tiger, man.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
26. Item encourages metagaming.
This is a broad category, and it's a doozy. Examples are items that analyze a trap and tell the players its DC ("I have a 75% chance of making that save!") or expected damage ("have the barbarian set it off, she can take that much and the cleric can heal her afterward"), or let players use player knowledge of monsters that their PCs wouldn't know ("this wolf has way too many hit points, it must be a barghest in wolf form").
Don't create an item that encourages the players to metagame, or rewards them for doing so. The short definition of "metagaming" in an RPG context is, "actions made by a PC that rely on player knowledge rather than character knowledge." You can read up on other examples of metagaming on Wikipedia here.
Don't make items that encourage this.
This category is another example of creating an "arms race" between the GM and players. Which is bad.
Related to this are items that make playing the game easier, but aren't necessarily things that people in the world would need. Items like magical moneychangers that transform all your coppers into silvers and your silvers into gold, so the player just has to write one number in the Money area on the character sheet.
Items like auto-mapping devices that record all dungeon rooms the PC passes through, so the player can justify knowing exactly how far it is from here to there and the best way to get there because he's looking at the overhead map on the tabletop.
Items like magic walkie-talkies so a PC can justify knowing the table talk of other players/PCs even if the character is far away from the other characters.
While some of these devices are useful to PCs (the map and walkie-talkie items definitely are), they're really there to make life easier for the players by dealing with things they can't hand-wave away (things like why your character never has to use the bathroom); players don't have to announce potty breaks for their characters, but they do have to write down "25 gp, 130 sp, 210 cp" on a character sheet, so while you'll probably never see a wondrous item that removes the need to visit a lavatory, you may see a moneychanger item because the moneychanger fixes a "problem" the player actually has to deal with.
When your item has the PC thinking like a player rather than a character, you're opening the door to metagaming.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
25. Item is a child's toy.
I have no idea why, but every year we get several items that look like children's toys. Jack-in-the-box. Doll. Spinning top.
It's weird and a little creepy. And maybe that's what the designer is going for. Unfortunately, it usually provokes an "oh, it's another toy!" reaction from the judges.
If your item's effect is related to its shape as a toy, it's been done before (for example, a jack-in-the-box that you can wind up to enthrall a creature or explode like a trap, or a doll that answers questions or protects children, or a top that emits a nauseating or enchanting spell effect while spinning).
If your item's effect is NOT related to its shape as a toy, then its toy shape is a just a gimmick (your jack-in-the-box that breathes fire could just as easily be a mask that breathes fire).
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
24. Item repeats existing rules text in its description.
If your item grants the bearer darkvision, you don't need to copy-paste (or worse, paraphrase) the rules for darkvision.
If your item lets the wearer become incorporeal, you don't need to explain the rules for being incorporeal.
If your item lets the wearer use spell X once per day, you don't need to repeat the effects, range, or duration of spell X.
Racial abilities.
Feat descriptions.
Class abilities.
Combat rules.
And so on.
People know how darkvision works. And how incorporeal works. And how spell X works. And if they don't know, they should know where to look it up. By repeating that text, (1) you're wasting words, (2) you're introducing the chance that you're going to make a mistake in those rules, (3) the reader may think you're including all that text to show how this ability is slightly different from the standard version, such as a customized darkvision that lets you see color, (4) you're not being innovative or creative--by definition, copying or paraphrasing someone else's text isn't creative.
If you find yourself re-explaining existing rules text in your item, stop, delete it, and use those words for something else.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
23. The item has a drawback that is actually a benefit.
This category is related to category #13, in that it's giving you a "drawback" that actually is a mechanical benefit to the character.
The perfect example of this is an item that slowly turns the bearer into a lich. As in, "Oh no, now I have darkvision, a +5 natural armor bonus, DR, immunity to cold and electricity, undead immunities, phylactery rejuvenation, fear aura, paralyzing touch, a bonus to three caster ability scores, and a +8 bonus to three handy skills! Poor me!" Yes, we've had a submission like this. Yes, it's technically a drawback because it makes the character evil, and some characters don't want to become undead... and those characters will give or sell the item to someone who does want that. If the creepy, not-quite-evil necromancer PC is eying the item hungry despite the "drawback," it's not a a drawback, it's a free power-up.
If your item has a drawback, think about giving the item to the most hardcore minmaxer/rules lawyer you know. Could they use this drawback as an advantage for their character in some way? Perhaps not as a direct benefit to his character's stats, but as a way to use it as an attack against his character's enemies? If the answer is "yes," you should reconsider the drawback, because there's one of those in every gaming group, and they're going to find ways to exploit it that you've never thought of.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
22. Item makes adventuring safe.
Every year we get several item submissions that are essentially "scouting" items, creating a creature, construct, spectral servant, or whatever, that you use to move ahead of you, set off traps, and manipulate doors just in case they're trapped.
You're an adventurer. If you don't have a rogue in your party, just open the damn door! And if you *are* a rogue, have some self-respect and do your job, search for traps and accept the potential consequences of failure!
These sorts of items are just a subset of items that take the risk out of being an adventurer. Adventuring isn't supposed to be safe. You have to take risks to get the treasure.
Another item in this category is items that make you safe while you camp. News flash: Sometimes adventurers get attacked when they camp--deal with it! Adventuring is not a pleasure cruise with great meals and fluffy warm beds. Monsters are going to jump out of the dark and try to eat your face. It's your job to kill those monsters and take their stuff. A "safe camp" item is basically a big cowardly badge that says "I don't want to fight monsters at night, and I'm okay with not getting treasure for those fights."
Don't submit an item that makes adventuring safe. That's not what the game is about.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
21. Item gives a class ability or a feat.
The game is designed so characters can easily multiclass to get the class abilities they want (if you've never played previous versions of the game, you don't know how weird the rules used to be for multiclassing). Creating a magic item that gives away a class ability does an end-around that multiclassing functionality and punishes the character who actually did the work of multiclassing. And, because at higher levels you have plenty of gold to spend on items, you could simply buy the class abilities you want without having to make sacrifices to your primary class's abilities.
This sort of item is a variant of Spell In A Can: it's Class In A Can. Why take two levels of rogue if you can just get a ring of evasion? Why take levels in monk if you can get a monk's belt? Why take 4 levels in fighter if you can get a scabbard of Weapon Specialization? Why take levels in barbarian if you can wear a cloak of rage. It's not creative, and not innovative. You're giving PCs an easy way to get something they can already get in the game through a more difficult process (multiclassing).
Likewise, items that give you feats aren't innovative, and (given the precedent items in the game already) they're fairly cheap, so a high-level character with 20,000gp to spare could buy several feat-items... and the guy who actually spent his precious feat slots on those feats is cheated. Feat In A Can is no more innovative that Class In A Can or Spell In A Can.
Note that this advice doesn't apply to monster abilities such as gaze attacks, pounce, push, pull, rake, and so on--things standard PCs normally can't get because the standard classes don't give those abilities. It doesn't mean these items are innovative, it just means their existence isn't a cheesy way to get around the drawbacks of multiclassing. A monster-ability item can be clever (like the batrachian helm from last year, which had a frog theme). Of course, in a world where everyone is playing a monstrous character, you could make the same argument against these as you would against class-ability and feat items, but we have to assume a standard fantasy setting for this contest, which means these powers are normally off the table without the help of magic.
So:
Class ability in a can? Not innovative, cheesy way to avoid multiclassing, probably rejected.
Feat in a can? Not innovative, cheesy way to avoid having to actually select a feat, probably rejected.
Monster ability in a can: Not necessarily innovative, not a cheesy way around a PC limitation, not auto-rejected.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
20. Item Makes GMing Harder.
Being a GM is a lot of work. So don't create an item that requires the GM to do even more work, especially difficult work on the spot. Examples of this are:
* Item requires GM to create a riddle, puzzle, or rhyme for the item to work/PC to answer.
* Item requires the GM to make a ruling on something that the rules don't define anywhere (such as "this gives a +2 bonus against mouth-based attacks." Is dragon's breath a mouth-based attack? Is a harpy's song a mouth-based attack? Does this just refer to bite attacks? What about a poisonous bite? Or a vomit attack? Swallow whole?)
* Item allows PCs to view the past of an item, person, or corpse, requiring the GM to spontaneously create a backstory for anything the PCs could find during the adventure.
* Item allows PCs to roll back time, reversing their last round's of actions and making different choices (it's enough of a pain to reverse damage taken and spells spent on one PC, but the GM has to reverse-track that for everything on the battlefield).
When designing your item, ask yourself, "Does this make it harder for the GM to run the game? Does this add more work to the GM's busy job?" If the answer is "yes," you should reconsider your item--or rework it so the player takes the brunt of that extra work (if you do that and it's still a cool item, *then* you may have something interesting...).
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest. Now we're starting to get into some of the weirder, specific categories.)
19. Item involves vomit.
If your item makes the user vomit as a side effect, or makes the target vomit, or requires you to vomit to activate it, or vomit to end its effects, or lets the user vomit as an attack, or lets you vomit for no reason whatsoever, I'm going to reject it.
The same goes for other bodily functions that you wouldn't perform in front of guests at a classy party. Rather than providing specific examples, I'll just leave the specifics to your imaginations.
Last year we had at least two vomit-themed items, perhaps three. All were rejected. We will maintain this fine tradition in this year's competition. Show some class, don't submit a vomit item. Yes, this category overlaps with #14 (mature or offensive content) a bit, but I think it merits a special mention on its own.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
18. Your item means it's impossible for the bearer to become lost.
Every year we get several item submissions that prevent the bearer from becoming lost. Examples are maps that constantly update to show your current location, magical compasses that point at a user-defined landmark (often with distance indicated), devices for ships that do the same, and so on.
These items aren't good items because they take away a GM's ability to have any sort of adventure or encounter that relies on the PCs being lost (as in, "You're lost!," "No, we're exactly 230 miles south of Sothis, we just need to follow the coast up and we'll be home in no time"). They also take away the element of excitement and danger when PCs are exploring a new territory. In general, an item that eliminates an entire category of encounter/adventure premises aren't fun. Yes, they make life easier for the PCs because they know how to get back to where they were, but they take fun aspects out of the hands of the GM's hands. One, this means no smart GM will allow PCs to find this sort of item. Two, PCs able to craft magic items will pick this as a no-brainer item.
There's nothing wrong with an item that augments or relies on the other direction-finding elements in the game (such as pointing north, or using the Survival skill to track or follow a trail). But the items in this auto-reject category don't do that, they just say, "you can't get lost." And absolutes like that in game rules can have problematic consequences... especially when getting lost and/or wandering around the world/dungeon is sort of what adventurers do for a living. Anyway, we've seen this kind of item over and over... submitting another one isn't likely to appear innovative, cool, or clever.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
17. Your item is modern technology presented as magic.
Every year we get many submissions that are technological items presented as magic items. Cell phones. Radios. Personal data assistant. GPS. They're not innovative or exciting--in the same way that the goggles of night are basically night-vision goggles, and are neither innovative nor exciting as a magic item.
Arthur C. Clarke's third law is:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
By "inventing" a magic item that does exactly what a piece of modern technology does, you haven't really invented anything, you've just reskinned it. It's not superstar to design a magical train, or a magical telephone, or magical cold medicine.
This goes for near-future or theoretically-possible technological items. Spider-Man's web-shooters technically don't exist, but they're plausible enough that someone could invent them, therefore wristbands of the striking webs aren't superstar (they also run into #9, the intellectual property violation). Batman's utility belt isn't superstar. And so on.
Not to say that these items aren't cool, but being cool only gets you so far in RPG Superstar.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm posting them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
16. Your item's name is the same as a generic real-world item.
Bolt cutter.
Hex key.
Spirit level.
Rock tumbler.
Tuning fork.
All of the above are cool item names. I'm sure you could come up with an interesting magic item based on these names. But you shouldn't, because each of these names already has a specific meaning on Earth, and creating a magic item with that name is just going to confuse players when they hear about it.
GM: "The dragon's treasure trove includes a bolt cutter, hex key, spirit level, rock tumbler, and tuning fork."
Player 1: "Wow, I've always wanted a bolt cutter, a magic glove that cuts in half incoming crossbow bolts!"
Player 2: "And I've always wanted a hex key for my witch PC, so she can channel her hexes to unlock doors!"
Player 3: "Can I use the spirit level even though my cleric doesn't channel positive energy?"
Player 4: "Does the rock tumbler stack with Improved Trip?"
Player 5: "I want the tuning fork for my bard cohort."
GM: "Guys, these are just the mundane items the dragon had, I haven't even gotten to the magic stuff yet."
(This is the reason why most prestige classes have two names, otherwise you could confuse the single-name prestige class with the common meaning of the word. For example, if the GM says, "Four assassins appear out of the shadows," the players may say, "Run, they all have prestige classes and we're only second level," even though the GM just means "guy paid to kill you" rather than "guy with the assassin prestige class." Unfortunately, some names--like assassin--are so iconic that we're stuck with them and have to accept this sort of ambiguity and interpret it in context of the statement, just as we interpret the many uses of the word "level" in context.)
You could be naming your item after a real-world thing because you're trying to be clever; this falls dangerously close to auto-reject reason #12: item is a joke. You could be naming your wondrous item after the real-world item as inspiration for a magic item that has a similar-but-greater effect; that's okay, but the name is still confusing. You may be coincidentally naming your item after a real-world item; you should avoid this by doing an internet search for your item name, just to see if a real-world equivalent exists (this is also a good way to avoid naming a major NPC "Conan," "Elric," or "Harry Potter" and getting mocked for it by your players).
You can avoid this confusion by adding more descriptive elements to your item's name, such as dragonscale bolt cutter gauntlet or hex key of dire escape. But it's best to avoid it altogether by changing the name so nobody thinks you're trying to be cutesy. Cutesy--even the perception of cutesy--may be fine for a home game, but it isn't RPG Superstar.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm going to post them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
15. Your item doesn't clearly explain how often it can be used, such as "constant," "at will," "once per day," "10 charges," and so on.
This seems like a no-brainer, but we had to reject several items last year because you had no way of knowing how often the item could be used. Do the gauntlets of black flame let you shoot flames once every round? Once for each of your attacks per round? Or just three times per day? Or are they a charged item? Or are they constantly aflame? Without that information, we have no idea what the Cost of the item should be... and a GM introducing the item doesn't know how often it's supposed to be used.
Reread your item before you submit it, and see if some crazed powergamer can interpret is uses-per-day as something other than your intent... which can easily happen if you don't actually state how often it can be used. It's a simple mistake that'll get your item rejected.
(Last year I compiled a list of things that would instantly disqualify your item. I'm going to post them one by one as we approach Round 1 of this year's contest.)
14. Your item is something Paizo wouldn't want to show off as part of the contest.
This is a strange line in the sand. A core element of the game is combat, and it's okay to have a contest about magic items used to kill your enemies. Killing, in this context, is acceptable. Paizo's campaign setting contains mature themes, and you'd think it would be okay to base your item on some aspect of those mature themes. But in some cases, it's simply not a good idea.
I'm tempted to call this category "Item is potentially offensive," but that's so vague and subjective as to be meaningless. You really have to think about this from the perspective of a publisher who wants to use the competition to promote their company and the game in general. Which means that some subject matter is going to be off-limits because Paizo isn't going to want to use it to "advertise" the company, the game, or the competition. For example, ogres are incestuous torture-loving monsters that enjoy raping their captives. It's right there in the Bestiary. But you'd never see back cover text or advertisement text that spells this out, like "In this adventure, the heroes must destroy a family of torturing, incestuous, rapist ogres that have been attacking a nearby town."
So if your wondrous item protects the wearer against rape, or requires the wearer to rape someone to activate, or creating it requires a dead baby or stillborn fetus, or killing a child, mutilating your genitals, or similar things, we'll have to reject it, even if the item game stats are otherwise cool. Mainly for the reason that Paizo posts a press release and prominent link to the Top 32 finalists, and Paizo doesn't want someone to look at that list and say, "Really, one of the 'best' items they got in their contest was made out of a dead baby? Really?" If you make an item that protects your life force against level draining, that's cool, but if crafting it requires a dead fetus, it's not making it into the Top 32.
Some contestants go for the shock value in the hopes of making a strong impression on the judges. That's fine (though if we get a lot of those, it tends to get old, and shock value just for the sake of shock value doesn't mean your item is actually interesting on its own). But there's a difference between shock and bad taste, and we're going to err away from bad taste if at all possible.
Standard violence and drug use don't trigger this response, but sexual violence, pregnancy, abortion, infanticide, and harm to children do. Them's the breaks, folks--don't include these elements in your wondrous item design if you have any chance of progressing to the later rounds of the competition.
|
|
