Who looked at all 32 critters?
Who wrote a review/analysis/left a substantive comment?
What do you think now that the round is over?
I found a few interesting trends:
-Guts 'n gore was in.
-Gotcha Monsters were popular.
-Monsters hiding in monsters (subset of the above) took place.
-Some concepts seemed to start in the same place and then go in really different directions.
-Entries that needed work (combined a beastie with terrain, an item or a hazard) or that seemed to be incomplete drafts I didn't generally go back to.
-The best entries presented a cool critter that had not been done well, or not been done well in D&D before.
-Writing mattered. Good powers mattered. At the end of the day, the stuff that held together reasonably well in both sections but that grabbed my interest best as if I was going to use it in my own game led me to my votes.
-I was really critical all the way through, with some fair amount of sarcasm at times. I hope I didn't offend anyone.
-There's a lot of imagination out there. If I ran across any of these critters in a book I would certainly give it the time of day to read and think about whether I might use it someday.
I offer a hearty 'congratulations' to everyone for making the excellent effort 32 times. I look forward to the next round!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I read all 32 and commented on each one. I agree on all your observations. I wish I had more than 4 votes, cause there were easily a dozen creatures I would have voted for without hesitation. I too hope I wasn't too critical, and tried to provide constructive feedback to even the entries I thought were weaker.
I genuinely wish everyone could make it to the next round, as I think the opportunity to apply feedback and show adaptability is a great test of a superstar's ability to write, but to those that don't make it to the Top 16, congrats on getting this far and don't be discouraged. Apply the feedback from this year to your submissions next year.
I made a point after the first few entries to stop telling people whether I was going to vote for them or not. It seemed like I could not only not accurately predict that before reading every entry, but it is also a little bit mean to someone who I didn't vote for. When they're tallied, people will know who got votes and who didn't. Rubbing people's noses in the fact that I am not voting for them seemed too much.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I did read em all, and I left fairly substantial comments on each, some more than others. I think I had something positive to say about most or maybe even all of them, but I'd say only about 10 or so really stood out as rock-solid good.
I'd say gross was definitely in, and some people did a lot more with it than others. The entries that were icky but cool should do well; the ones that just seemed to be gross on principle... not so much. For that matter, it made the well-done non-gross candidates stand out all the more for simply being different, which is ironically probably what the gross-out monsters were striving for - to stand out from the crowd.
Writing quality did vary a lot, but that's more of a tiebreaker issue to me, not a primary consideration, especially in a short piece in the early rounds. That said, you can really see who can be economical with words while still saying a lot, and that bodes well for their chances later on.
The key point to remember is that everyone is still building a portfolio here - we have one item and one monster; you can squeak through here and still hit it out of the park in later rounds. I have found some where I've liked both of their entries so far, but nobody is lapping the field just yet. We shall see what the next round brings.
I'd say gross was definitely in...
This is an interesting trap/trick for monster and adventure designers - I guess game designers in general really. It's very easy to use gross details to cover up a boring idea. Your typical "room with a skeleton" very quickly turns into "room soaked in the gore blasted remains of a bleeding blasphemy, the walls coated in an eruption of crimson entrails except for two thin white swatches, the pale, oozing trails of what might be smeared eye guts." What's in the box though? The same bland cereal.
It's kind of like the argument between good horror movies and torture porn: you can come up with a cool, subtle, legitimately scary story, or you can subject people to movie guts and gross noises for two hours.
I'm not suggesting that any of our submitters did this, but it is definitely a road often traveled by designers - both amateurs and veterans - and one I have little patience for. I'd much rather know that a creature or adventure has guts from cool descriptions and neat ideas, not from hearing about them spilled across the floor from word one.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'd say gross was definitely in...This is an interesting trap/trick for monster and adventure designers - I guess game designers in general really. It's very easy to use gross details to cover up a boring idea. Your typical "room with a skeleton" very quickly turns into "room soaked in the gore blasted remains of a bleeding blasphemy, the walls coated in an eruption of crimson entrails except for two thin white swatches, the pale, oozing trails of what might be smeared eye guts." What's in the box though? The same bland cereal.
It's kind of like the argument between good horror movies and torture porn: you can come up with a cool, subtle, legitimately scary story, or you can subject people to movie guts and gross noises for two hours.
I'm not suggesting that any of our submitters did this, but it is definitely a road often traveled by designers - both amateurs and veterans - and one I have little patience for. I'd much rather know that a creature or adventure has guts from cool descriptions and neat ideas, not from hearing about them spilled across the floor from word one.
Hear hear.
It's what's inside that counts, and taking the insides OUT and spilling them all over the room doesn't make it cool.
I too really like the analogy between good Horror and "Gore Porn" this pretty much nails my opinion on the gross for grossness' sake monsters.
I will soon compile some of my thoughts while reviewing the top 32 and explain my voting / review approach a bit
See, I actually enjoyed the gross monsters. I agree that simply BEING gross doesn't make something good, but at the same time, I think that you can't necessarily take the gross elements out of a "good gross monsters" and still have a good monster. What makes the monster 'good' is that it executes its gross elements in an awesome and usable way. It's the same as with creepy monsters, or surreal monsters, or evil monsters, or highly-magical monsters, or what have you. And I thought this years abominations were awesomely executed in their grossness.
Of course, I enjoyed the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (and my little sister has watched Hannibal as a bedtime movie since she was 12), so my opinion is probably suspect.
It's kind of like the argument between good horror movies and torture porn:
You did not really just reference torture porn :) Wes, your mom would be shocked. Rinse out your mouth, young man! ;)
I found a few interesting trends:
Varianor, that is an excellent analysis and tracks my feeling. You might not have made the top 32, but you might just get honorary judge :) Well done here and in the comment threads. Nice work.
Over the years I've come to have a lot of respect for varianor's opinions on games and gaming. Getting one of his votes was an honor.
(much edited)
Smurf. Analysis removed.
<Wanders off from the happy throng>
@Clark - hat tip. Thank you sir. (Slightly embarrassed now, but also pleased.) @Hydro - More embarrassed, but thanks! Your small unmarked gold pieces will arrive in the mail. ;)
@Matthew Morris - You'll note that yours wasn't one of them - and the lahamu was one I had a tough time deciding amongst for my four votes. :)
I define a Gotcha Monster as a critter - like the Pit Fiend - that lets the DM get the last word in as the players hack his prized enemy(ies) to bits. It explodes, it tosses negative energy, or it does something to screw them for killing things. The PCs get their reward (yay, we killed it!) followed by a nasty surprise. It's a good thing when used sparingly. Best done when foreshadowed. There were a surprising number in this round.
I have done it myself. I had a clockwork golem full of steam pressure. When they took it out, the thing blew up, raining pieces everywhere. Another example - a mental creature that gives off a dying screech that paralyzes or deafens something. Think "wizard with contingency to get a 'From Hell's Heart I stab at thee'" moment.
Ah! See, I thought "gotcha" referred to monsters who tricked the PCs. As in, "Haha, you thought I was a chest/wall/floor/ceiling/stump-with-a-bunny-on-it, but I'm actually a monster!"
Or "You thought I was creature type X but I'm really creature type Y!" (several monsters this year are going to provoke a lot of wasted Turn Undead attempts)
I think that's also a reasonable definition Hydro! Yes, there's lots of those here too.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
..."You thought I was creature type X but I'm really creature type Y!" (several monsters this year are going to provoke a lot of wasted Turn Undead attempts)
Perhaps the best reason for the change in Channel Energy from the Beta rules to the final Pathfinder RPG. Trying to damage the "undead" in Beta would have healed the fey-spawned abomination, which would have discouraged clerics from using that otherwise-reasonable tactic.
I can't help but hope that many of these critters get statted up somewhere. Some may require some scrubbing, and a good coat of polish..but there were MANY that deserve to become official monsters, and several that I could see as futureclassics.
|
|
The gory monsters made me realise just how hard being a judge must be. By the third one I was pretty much turned off gore and despite reading all of them, I know that I started to struggle paying attention to what was actually written.
For me though I have nothing but respect for every one of those 32 entries put together in three days with such creativity. Maybe one or two had been prepared way in advance but I doubt most were that proactive in their designs.
Cheers to one and all
In addition to an abundance of "gross" monsters, there were also quite a few based on various kinds of bugs. It's odd how so many in a large field are inspired to create similar things.
There were a lot of monsters I wanted to vote for beyond the four votes we all got as well, though the limited amount of votes inspired a creative solution: my husband pooled our votes and decided together which were our top 8, instead of each of us individually choosing 4. Had we roped a couple gaming friends into it we could have decided our collective top 16.
I purposefully withheld commenting on each monster submission for a variety of reasons this round. One, I threw down a metric ton of advice before Round Two got underway, so I've said more than was probably warranted already. Two, I have a few writing assignments of my own I needed to focus on this past week. And three, it occured to me that it's probably better if I comment after the voting is done.
Why that last one? Because I'm thinking I'd like to go back and check the previous two round's for each competitor who makes the Top 16. Then, after noting any trends in their work, I think I'll post another piece of advice, tailored to each remaining contestant on their perceived strengths and weaknesses, with suggestions on anything I think could help them in later rounds. Nothing specific to the next challenge for Round Three...rather, general advice on what I think could help them round out their skillset to take them to the end of the competition and win over the voters. Or...something like that. We'll see how well I'm able to do that after tomorrow.
In the meantime, I really enjoyed the submissions this round. We didn't have a "monster" round last year as we focused mostly on "villains" until the final assignment. Having worked on a few monster designs for Paizo recently, I've come to both love and hate it. So it's definitely a skill freelancers should hone right alongside adventure design, magic item design, the crafting of new rules mechanics, and so on. So, good work, everyone! Best of luck in the voting. And I'll comment on the Top 16 (or more if there's a tie again) tomorrow evening sometime.
Thanks,
--Neil
While I'm not the greatest at composition, hopefully my repeatedly asking of why and the line by line dissection comments were found useful by everyone. I am sorry for the Haga 20' wingspan thing, as it wasnt meant to be anything more than casual observation. The one thing that bugged me the most was far to many concepts were made more intelligent/smarter than they needed to be. I considered it a feature creep similar to that of what many video game designers encounter. I was amazed that almost every entry had a competing entry with similar elements.
2 mouth monster entries
2 fey-spawned aberrations
2 cat like beast
2 bee/wasp like creatures (although the similarities end there)
2 grubs/larval creatures
I was also kind of surprised that there wasnt more avatar-esqe monsters. Although I do beleive the chakakahn was probbaly the closest
- John
BTW if anybody needs to yell at me just start a thread, I've gotta flame suit but be civil :)
Dammit. Post got eaten. Interpose some thoughtful comment I might have made.
I have backspaced in search of your pain. Yes, a head bowed to insight now lost.