I just want to thank Ryan, Clark, Sean, and Neil for all the incredible advice you've given us wannabe Superstsrs over the years. I for one appreciate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate your response, but I think if these people you're defending truly deserved it, they'd be able to demonstrate that for themselves.
Slightly shorter response...
Not true. But you're entitled to your opinion. I engage you in these types of conversations because I'm compelled to defend the integrity of the contest (and its judges) as a whole. And, I've gone through the fire before in such a way that I think maybe I've got some advice I can impart or that I can help you see things from a different perspective. Unfortunately, I think you interpreted the rejection of your item, the subsequent glimpse into the harshness/sparseness of the judge's discussion of your item during the sorting process, and everyone's subsequent reaction to how you posted in response to it as a bit more negative than it really was. To whit...
Clark demonstrated nothing but braggart confidence and ridicule, despite what you may think. You responded to his post and said the same things he did, in a far more respectful manner.
Clark speaks from experience. Not just in the industry, but from being a judge for the first 3 years of the competition. He was there from the beginning. So, he's seen much more than you have on your first foray in submitting for the contest. He also doesn't react well to those who "don't do their homework" or who adopt a more belligerent or "sour grapes" stance...some of which he might have perceived in how you conducted yourself both before the Top 32 were announced and how you reacted after receiving your initial feedback. I think that's what happened, but I'm not sure if I'm right on that.
Regardless, what I do know...beyond a certainty of a doubt...is that Clark isn't out to make himself into a braggart or to purposefully ridicule someone. He's not above holding up someone's situation, however, as an object lesson for others to learn from (and hopefully the original individual as well). But he's not doing that out of a mean-spiritedness or with a condescending attitude. He's doing it in an effort to be helpful. And, again, because of the absence of inflection and what-not on a messageboard, you can't always tell that. Instead, some people imagine far more braggadocio and ridicule...or snark...or whatever...by reading all that between the lines of what he (or Sean or Ryan or even me) actually says. It's a hazard of communicating by way of messageboard post.
Did I always agree with what I perceived Clark or any other judge to say about my stuff during RPG Superstar? No. But did I come back and argue about it on the forums? No. I proved them wrong in the most viable, respectful way. Basically, I took what I could use from their feedback. I analyzed it all very carefully to decide which parts I felt were applicable. And, sometimes, I very specifically targeted certain feedback to change their opinion with my next attempt. My point here is that you show real maturity and professionalism by picking the venue and methods most suited to making your stand. And, with respect to a contest that's voted upon by the public, that's usually not going to be a messageboard forum like this. It doesn't even have to be done by directly engaging those you disagree with. Just go back to the drawing board, make something awesome, buck some of the auto-reject advice, and prove them wrong. You can go pretty far with that kind of strategy in RPG Superstar.
But I digress, this won't get me anywhere. I don't believe RPG superstar is the best way to get into publishing at this point, and have thus turned my attentions elsewhere. But again, thanks.
I'll agree and say that RPG Superstar might not be the best way for you to get into publishing. Not now at least. You've made your philosophical stand here in a public forum for all to see. With regards to adhering to your principles, that hopefully helps assuage your conscience. It won't, however, win you many friends among those who actively vote here on the contest. So, yes...you've probably burned this bridge. And that's unfortunate, because you didn't have to. I think you let your interpretation of the feedback you received burn through you until it provoked this kind of approach. To me, that means you don't yet have the thick skin you need to push through. But that's just my opinion. In the words of Sean, prove me wrong. And, if you can do that by going a different route, more power to you.
However, one last thing before I withdraw from this conversation. Well, maybe two things. First, RPG Superstar might not be the only way to get into publishing, but I would say it's got to be among the coolest ways to do it. Writing for Paizo is big time. And I don't say that to suck up here publicly on the forums. It's just a statement of fact. I take it seriously. A lot of others do, too, including all the hopefuls that take their shot at RPG Superstar every year. Secondly, I'd encourage anyone who's read along with this discussion (as well as noting Vistarius' experiences in receiving and responding to feedback) to use what I've shared here as another object lesson. There are certain assumptions made about the judges' advice and feedback which just aren't accurate. There are certain stands you can take with regards to your own opinions and assessments about the barrier for entry into RPG Superstar, the judges' approach to evaluating and offering feedback, and how awesome you perceive your stuff to be. Just be conscious of when, where, and how you take that stand.
I think it's interesting that my feedback gets singled out as "helpful" and "respectful" when I've always seen Clark as the ultimate cheerleader of this competition. I'm not the only one who views him that way. And it's been like that since the beginning. Regardless, respect is really a two-way street. And, like cars on the highway, you can't control how someone else conveys their respect to you. But, you can control how you convey your respect to them...hopefully, in a way where you're not simply reacting to something you might have misinterpreted in how their feedback came across.
My two cents,
--Neil
I just want to thank Ryan, Clark, Sean, and Neil for all the incredible advice you've given us wannabe Superstsrs over the years. I for one appreciate it.
Neil's advice kept ringing in my ears this weekend when I was working on my first paid (yes, paid!) freelance project for Raging Swan Press and I was doing up the feats for the NPCs. I had messed up the number of feats for my round three villain but Neil broke it down for me how to do it and its a lesson I recall every time I stat up a monstrous NPC. Even now, only a few months after Superstar, I shudder about how green and ignorant I was before I entered... This audio clip is a great idea, by the way. Next year's contestants should start researching early. There's a lot of good information out there now to research as you start your item design. Neil provided some really indepth analysis of some items that didn't make the cut last year.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may be seen as being written with a "butthurt" attitude, but that isn't the case. My experience has been somewhat bitter, yes, but only because that is how the contest was designed to be. Apparently, someone can win this contest by making an item from a cartoon and moving their way up the ranks. I wasn't aware that was the kind of designers Paizo wanted, but apparently it is.
Come on, V. At some point you just have to man up and accept things and not be defensive. Your comments about me and Sean are purely the result of us being direct and critical and saying your item isn't as good as you obviously think it is. You denying being butthurt is just silly at this point. No one, other than you, could read your posts and think this is anything but sour grapes. At some point you just have to back up, look at things objectively and say, you know what, you are right. That is how I reacted. I'll learn from it and move on. And the snarky comments about "that's apparently what Paizo wants" ... I mean, just read that for a second. Really? I'm encouraging you to really look critically at your reaction here.
It's like when I used to train young attorney and they would lose a trial and blame the jury. I would tell them: a bad attorney blames the jury, a good attorney looks in the mirror and asks what could I have done better. Which do you want to be? Same thing here. A bad designer blames the judges and Paizo. A good designer looks in the mirror critically and says what could I have done better.
Let me ask you this, what do you think you could have done better? Anything? Or did we just fail to see the genius of your item and invent some unfair process?
Also, learning to take blunt criticism is a necessity. If you can't take this criticism (which was pretty light hearted and supportive), maybe freelancing isn't for you. I'm serious about that. I should point out, the criticism you got was criticism YOU asked for. We keep our comments private unless people want to hear them. Don't ask for what you can't take. I know you will take this as just more evidence (in your mind) of me being a jerk. But I'm not doing it for that reason. I'm not judging you at all. I judged your item. And I am giving you advice based on your reaction. LOTS of people missed the cut. Lots of people got harsh comments. None, other than you, are reacting this way. Doesn't that help show I might be on to something here. That the problem isn't us. I'm trying to help you. I want you, as I have said before to you, to learn from this. Grow. Improve. Come back and try again. And I hope you do. But you won't if you don't learn from the advice that is offered.
I don't have any hard feelings that you are reacting negatively to what I am saying. I've mentored tons of people in my life. Occasionally you have to give direct criticism of a bit of work (never of the person, just the work). And occasionally you get a reaction like this. So I've seen it before. But I'm not doing my job in any of my roles that I have if I am not truthful with you while still being understanding and supportive, when stuff isn't good. It doesn't help to say a person was close when they weren't. You can't lie to people when they ask for honest feedback. Remember, I've always said it is a success just to enter. Just to try. Most people don't do that. You did. Now drop the defensive stance, take what we have to offer and learn from it. Do yourself a favor. Part of helping you is helping you realize you have to get past your defensiveness on this.
I don't expect you to agree with me all the time. Or any of the time. But it's not like I'm alone here. The judges were unanimous on this item. And all for the same reasons, essentially. Put aside being upset that your item was an object lesson and learn from it. If you don't then you have wasted your time.
I hope you look in the mirror, think about this and learn and grow.
Everyone else, don't pile on him. This is a learning process. He didn't have to engage this but he chose to. Respect that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I appreciate your response, but I think if these people you're defending truly deserved it, they'd be able to demonstrate that for themselves.
Or perhaps I realize that I don't need everyone to like me, or even respect me, and I have better things to do than waste time trying to change the mind of someone who's rude to me, my friends, and my peers.
I just wanted to quickly step in and say a few short things.
1) I've never entered RPG Superstar. I sincerely doubt I'd make it far (not for lack of creativity, or inability to follow rules, but more likely because of the format and the amount of time required.)
2) I respect Vistarius for having the bravery to say what he feels honestly and without vitriol. Everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.
3) I share his perceptions of certain high-level people at Paizo. I strongly believe that some of the high-level devs do more to hurt the public image of Paizo than to help it. I also share his frustration at seeing high-level people at Paizo say one thing one day and then the complete opposite the next.
So in short, I think Vistarius has done an admirable job of containing obvious frustration and keeping things civil, and I also applaud Clark for being patient with this matter. Beyond that, I'm nobody, so take what I say with a grain of salt :)
Everyone else, don't pile on him. This is a learning process. He didn't have to engage this but he chose to. Respect that.
Fair enough. I think Neil, and now you, have pretty much said everything that needs to be said with one minor exception. Vistarius commented that Pathfinder (and I'm just paraprhasing here) was basically a reprint of others' work with tweaks. With just a cursory glance at the credits of d20 gaming books and the backgrounds of the Paizo leadership and contributors, members of this team has been deeply involved from the TSR days to the advent of WotC's 4E. It is just naive to claim otherwise.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...sage advice...And it's useful to have these clarifications from RPGSuperstar judges, in easy-to-refer-to posts, now, because if it's so simple to take half-listened to and recalled things out of context only several days after the panel, what's it going to be like in six or twelve months time when the only thing someone vaguely recalls is that a judge said something about sixty per cent name and can't find a working link to a recording any more?
If the intention of the panel is to raise the level of entries, it seems to me that the more of this stuff is in clearly explained writing (rather than relayed second or third hand in 'Oh, and Sean/Ryan/Clark might have said this' snippets, quoted out of context, the better for everyone.
Any Superstar contestant at this point has FOUR YEARS worth of judges' comments, prior entrants' comments, fan analysis, extra commentary threads, explicit instructions each year on specific contest format and requirements, and on down the list.
The resources are there for anyone who wants to use them. At this point, there is ZERO excuse or justification for anyone messing up on the basics of the contest. They HAVE been gone over, in writing, in literally thousands of posts.
Here's a secret about being a professional freelancer: Nobody is going to hold your hand. You need to be able to take directions and then run with them and do things yourself. You check in, yes. But you need to get it done and turn it over on time. An editor or developer who finds a particular writer needs too much care and feeding just isn't going to use them. They can't afford to. They have enough on their plate herding all the cats working on all the projects they are doing. They can't waste time doing YOUR work for you.
You.
Must.
Learn.
To.
Do.
It.
Yourself.
As a freelancer, that means managing your workflow and product, and knowing the rules and expectations of the company.
As a contestant, that means managing your workflow and entries, and knowing the rules and expectations of the contest.
See the pattern? If you show that you can't handle it without training wheels, you may not be ready to jump into the deep end of the pool (to mix a metaphor).
You want the stuff clearly explained in writing? It's there. Go find it. Be a self-starter. Choosing to ignore four years worth of explanations and advice does nothing but hurt your chances.
This isn't meant to be mean-spirited at all; it's simply meant to be serious. If you fail word count you fail readiness to work as a freelancer. If you can't be bothered to learn what you need to do to meet expectations for your project, you fail readiness to work as a freelancer. If you need someone else to spoon-feed you the resources you need to get your project out the door, you fail readiness to work as a freelancer.
Superstar is supposed to be FUN, and it IS fun, but it's also meant to prepare you for the WORK of doing game design and writing. You can enter it on a lark just for fun, but if you want a serious chance to WIN, you need to look beyond the fun and make sure you do your best to prepare for the JOB at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RPG Superstar does exactly what it is supposed to do: Finds 4+ talented and creative RPG writers. It is a very tough gauntlet. Tougher than many professionals who are in the industry today had to go through. It isn't competent freelancer search, it is RPG Superstar.
That said, there are still other ways to break into the industry. If you think you've got solid adventure designing skills but not magic item mojo, submit a proposal for a Pathfinder Society Scenario. If you have ideas for some interesting archetypes, feats, or other short article, pitch something to Kobold Quarterly. If you want experience collaborating on a project, get involved in a patronage style project at Open Design or Rite Publishing. Or contact one of the many producers of 3PP Pathfinder RPG Products and pitch your ideas to them. There are a lot of good opportunities to practice your skills and get your name out there beyond RPG Superstar.
|
Just wanted to pop in and say I was in this seminar and found it fascinating! The amount of valuable information and advice was, quite frankly, beyond words!
I've never entered RPG Superstar and I found what Sean, Clark and Neil had to say worth its weight in gold!
Heck, I even have some writing / design credits under my proverbial belt and yet I STILL listened to every last word they had to say! I respect the hell out of each of those guys ... being able to sit for an hour and essentially pick their brains (in a completely non zombie way:) was amazing!
Vistarius, all I can say is this. If you feel your talents are better served elsewhere, please go and get yourself published - prove everyone wrong and become the next Monte Cooke (unless of course you don't like or respect him either).
Oh, and from what I saw at PaizoCon, SKR seemed like a very cool and very knowlegable guy. This anti SKR thing you keep spouting is really odd and, in my opinion, completely off-base. He even took time out, in the middle of scarfing down his lunch, to sign my son's Core Rule book. He was very friendly, accomodating and frankly, could not have been a nicer, more decent person!
You know, you asked the question ... "what's the point of working for Paizo?" I think two things are 100% certain on this front:
1 - the chance of that is pretty much zero
2 - Paizo will be quite fine with this fact, as will all their fans
Now, can we please get back to the actual point of this thread? I think Vistarius, as well as the inevitable pile on that came after, has received FAR more time than is deserved ...
+1000, Marc. I'm not sure how what really isn't anything more than trolling has received this level of attention, but I agree that the conversation should probably transition back to people who have interest in the competition.
Just for posterity's sake, the reason it warrants this much discussion from me is that I want to make sure others who stumble across this conversation have it widened out enough for them to view many perspectives on it. That way, they hopefully don't come away with a series of misperceptions about the overall contest or how the judges operate. That's all.
And, on a lighter note, I sound like I'm talking out of a fish tank on that recording. *sigh*
And, on a lighter note, I sound like I'm talking out of a fish tank on that recording. *sigh*
Well, definitely not a substitute for being there, but I think its pretty darn cool of Jeremiziah to offer it up for those who couldn't attend.
Neil, I saw that there was a camera in the back of the room and mikes on the desk; do you happen to know if those recordings will be podcast or something?
Oh, and from what I saw at PaizoCon, SKR seemed like a very cool and very knowlegable guy. This anti SKR thing you keep spouting is really odd and, in my opinion, completely off-base. He even took time out, in the middle of scarfing down his lunch, to sign my son's Core Rule book. He was very friendly, accomodating and frankly, could not have been a nicer, more decent person!
Honestly, I can't phase any of this any better.
Actually, on further review, I'll go further than that.
During this year's PaizoCon, I had the pleasure to meet Sean, James, Wes, Jason, Erik, and a host of other Paizo people. To a person, each was as friendly as can be, and was genuinely interested in our enjoyment of the convention -- even camera-shy Sarah Robinson and way-too-early-on-Sunday-morning Mark Moreland -- to both me and to my non-gaming spouse who joined me.
Each took time to not just say thank yous, but to ask questions.
Each took time to listen to the answers to those questions.
Each displayed a passion about what they do and the vision they have of the game. If someone doesn't agree with that vision, that's certainly their prerogative, but it doesn't necessarily mean that vision is short-sighted, nor insular, nor wrong.
Director of Game Development
|
Neil, I saw that there was a camera in the back of the room and mikes on the desk; do you happen to know if those recordings will be podcast or something?
Doug Daulton (of NeonCon) recorded all the seminars in that room during the weekend and is planning on putting them up on YouTube (or somewhere) as soon as he gets them processed. As far as I know.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It doesn't matter how clearly I post my point, it seems it will be missed over and over again.
Your point?
If you'll look at my post, I was replying to Charles Evans' post.
I hadn't seen nor read any of your posts when I replied.
However, since you want to converse, I'll bite.
Thank you Jason for your rant at how hard work it is and how stupid and incapable of reading someone must be to not be an rpg superstar.
If you've followed the contest over the years, you will notice that each year (excepting the first, of course, when it was new to everyone), there are posts from people stating "I didn't know this" or "I didn't expect that" or "How come this rule is this way?" and the like.
Given that there is past history to examine to answer most of those questions, someone who doesn't avail themselves of that resource is doing themselves a disservice. That doesn't make them stupid, but it shows them to be unwise. It doesn't indicate that they are incapable of reading, but it indicates that they haven't done sufficient homework to prepare for the task they are attempting.
Doing game design isn't necessarily a hard task, but doing it in such a way to impress industry pros and the fandom at large can be.
That isn't what I'm saying. I spent hours (literally 5-6 hours) pouring through old contest forums, entries, judges feedback, etc. It's not a guaranteed solution to winning the contest, and there isn't a magical formula involved. I was wanting to be done with this discussion, but then you had to say what you did.
Whether 5-6 hours is enough time to study and prep - who knows?
You're right about one thing, though: There is no magic formula. If there was, it'd be easy. People could game the contest by applying the formula. In some cases, people do try that, appealing to the perceived flavor of the month or things they think the judges will like. One year (year 3) we had a wave of gross-out items; one or two had been popular the year before, so people tried to capitalize on that the following year. It sort of worked and sort of didn't. A number of gross-out items did get into the Top 32, but almost every contestant who submitted one washed out in the next round. They were able to stand out among a large field (all entries), but in comparison to a smaller select field (all accepted top 32 entries) the ones that DIDN'T go the gross-out route were actually the ones that stood out, and most of the designers who relied on what you could interpret as a gimmick entry to get into the Top 32 didn't have a second trump card to play in the following round.
This is nothing new. As far back as the first contest you had contestants who started out as front runners on the strength of their item that busted on their country, or that had a strong country (and item) but died on villains, etc.
You are quite correct - there is no one trick to success in a contest like this. The best thing you can do is prepare yourself, study the past entries and look to avoid obvious pitfalls, turn in clean copy, free of errors and on word count, and make it awesome.
Your item, as I look at the description Clark posted, doesn't measure up in several ways. There's too much prose describing the item's background history. The mechanics are not clearly explained. You don't address some abusability issues (like carrying multiples of a 1/day item). You DO make errors in the item (the feat is Heroic Defiance, not Hero's Defiance). The concept behind it is reasonably interesting but the execution doesn't measure up.
When you were told that your item didn't measure up to Superstar quality in the view of multiple industry pros, you chose to attack the credibility, qualifications, intentions, and personhood of the people making that analysis rather than looking to learn from their critique.
Basically you spent a few paragraphs ranting how hard your job is and how it isn't for "babies" who have to have their hands held. Nobody is saying that, so you can ease off the delusions.
Delusions? You're very quick to insult people.
If you'll read Charles' post, the one to which I was replying, you'll see that it is precisely what is asked for - the judgery to produce a written document compiling all of their advice, suggestions, and interpretations of how they judge entries, rather than relying on recollection of verbal statements in a convention panel.
I said, in a nutshell, that they already HAD done that, in voluminous posts across the message boards (in particular SKR, whom you seem to have singled out as being a bad guy, and has explicitly done a lot of work on making this kind of advice explicit, available, and easy to find) and the information was freely available to anybody willing to do the legwork to review the past years' information.
The judges shouldn't have to do that for a contestant; the contestant should demonstrate the initiative and foresight to do it for him- or herself. The judges already *HAVE* handed out that information, repeatedly. If a contestant thinks they haven't, that contestant has not been paying attention. Those contestants that have been paying attention will have an advantage for having learned from that advice and making good use of it.
Does that mean they'll win? Nope.
Advice only gets you so far. A contestant still has to execute a mechanically sound, interesting, well-named, eye-catching, fun item that avoids the common design traps that often trip up designers.
However, if Paizo sent a free lance assignment out with ambiguities and the phrase "If S.K.R. doesn't think it's like what he'd write, we'll not accept it" then what's the point of working for Paizo?
Freelancers are fundamentally contractors. We get an assignment, X and such many words on this and that subject for that amount of money. We then execute that project. That's our exchange - they get my creative work-product within the parameters of the assignment, and I get their money (and, if my turnovers are good, their goodwill and interest in continuing to give me work). If what I turn over doesn't measure up to what Paizo wants, they have two choices:
1. Accept it, have somebody in-house fix it, and cross me off of their contributor list because I can't deliver what they want.
2. Send it back to me with revisions. If I can't or won't make those revisions, see #1.
If you want full creative control, you need to self-publish.
And, for what it's worth, I've had EXACTLY that conversation with Paizo. I'm a clever guy, and at one time I thought it was clever to sneak little literary 'Easter eggs' into my turnovers. Paizo does not like that. After one turnover had a particularly egregious amount of Easter egging, SKR, my developer at the time, told me that I could either stop doing it, or stop working for Paizo. They liked the stuff I was doing mechanically and story-wise, but that one bad habit became a breaking point.
I had a choice. I could have decided Sean was being mean and crushing my literary spirit. I could have said, as you say above, "If S.K.R. doesn't think it's like what he'd write, we'll not accept it" then what's the point of working for Paizo? Nobody had a gun to my head forcing me to do work for them.
Instead I decided that, after weighing the ability to keep putting Easter egg gags in stuff I wrote versus the ability to keep writing stuff for Paizo, I'd rather keep writing for Paizo. I accepted direction and correction. From Sean Reynolds. Who phrased it in less than a touchy-feely friendly way.
Maybe if you had been in my place you would have chosen differently.
Any assignment will always have ambiguities; in part, that is where a writer's creativity and art is supposed to come in. If I'm writing a bunch of archetypes for the magus class for Ultimate Combat, I'll get a list of half a dozen placeholder types of archetypes they want, with maybe 5 or 10 words about what that archetype's schtick is. I fill in the blanks and create the archetypes and their abilities, and feats to go with them, or spells, or whatever other trappings are desired. If I have word count space left over, I can include other ideas that I have that weren't on the contract spec.
Sometimes things I turn over that they didn't request make it into the final book; it was something they didn't ask for but liked what I created. Sometimes things I turn over that they DID ask for DON'T make it into the book, either because they were cut for space or because they thought the stuff I turned over was crap. Sometimes they change things I put in and make them better. Sometimes things are changed and I liked my turnover version better than the final product, but that's not my call. Heck, half the spells I wrote for Ultimate Magic ended up cut. I'd have liked to have seen them all in there, because I thought they were neat, but as a freelancer I can't get my feelings hurt if the Paizo devs and editors don't agree for any reason. They paid for it, and now it's theirs, and they can do with it what they like.
I am a writer and a designer, but as a freelancer I cannot be an artiste. If I'm writing for myself, I can do what I like. If I'm writing for someone else, I have to do what THEY like. Evidently my "good stuff vs. crap" ratio is good enough that they keep coming back for more. If I give them too much crap, then the question isn't "what's the point of working for Paizo," the question is Paizo asking "what's the point of working with Jason Nelson."
Do you understand my point a little more clearly now?
I was never addressing your point in the first place, so perhaps your misunderstanding of that fundamental fact was what caused you to jump into an attack. In the future I'd suggest you should read things carefully and see if someone is even talking to or about you before flying off the handle at them. It's just good manners and part of civil conversation.
To your question, sure, I understood your point all along. Hopefully you understand mine as well.
It doesn't matter how clearly I post my point, it seems it will be missed over and over again.
Thank you Jason for your rant at how hard work it is and how stupid and incapable of reading someone must be to not be an rpg superstar.
Vistarius, just a little suggestion. Don't presume every post in a thread you posted in is a direct response to you. I didn't read Jason's post to be a response to you. I think his comment was general.
[oops, looks like he already posted]
V, I'll tell you what. If you want more help, revise your item from the prior year that we critiqued, post it here and I'll give you more feedback if you want.
|
That isn't what I'm saying. I spent hours (literally 5-6 hours) pouring through old contest forums, entries, judges feedback, etc. It's not a guaranteed solution to winning the contest, and there isn't a magical formula involved. I was wanting to be done with this discussion, but then you had to say what you did.
I suspect most of the winners spent more like 10-20 hours or more on this. I did. It's a pretty small window of opportunity with a huge amount of competition.
However, if Paizo sent a free lance assignment out with ambiguities and the phrase "If S.K.R. doesn't think it's like what he'd write, we'll not accept it" then what's the point of working for Paizo?
That's not far from the way freelancing works. If you don't meet their expectations with regards to deadlines, layout, and quality they don't reject it, they either have you fix it or just don't call you back.
Heck, isn't that pretty much any reasonably creative job?
My recommendation (which I have failed to follow, but I'm not a superstar) to any would be superstars is to create a magic item every month between now and the contest. Give yourself time between items, but once you are done don't go back and tweak it. Save them all for right before the contest. Then when the contest starts, look over your items again. Is there one that really stands out? Polish it and submit. Not satisfied with any of them? Use your experience to write a new one.
Practice really does make perfect. Start thinking (and practicing) now to be ready for next year.
My recommendation (which I have failed to follow, but I'm not a superstar) to any would be superstars is to create a magic item every month between now and the contest. Give yourself time between items, but once you are done don't go back and tweak it. Save them all for right before the contest. Then when the contest starts, look over your items again. Is there one that really stands out? Polish it and submit. Not satisfied with any of them? Use your experience to write a new one.
Practice really does make perfect. Start thinking (and practicing) now to be ready for next year.
DankeSean recommended this and it worked for him :) Come join us. :)
My recommendation (which I have failed to follow, but I'm not a superstar) to any would be superstars is to create a magic item every month between now and the contest. Give yourself time between items, but once you are done don't go back and tweak it. Save them all for right before the contest. Then when the contest starts, look over your items again. Is there one that really stands out? Polish it and submit. Not satisfied with any of them? Use your experience to write a new one.
Practice really does make perfect. Start thinking (and practicing) now to be ready for next year.
I also think this is a good idea (I'm trying to help out and give feedback in between busy times). I do think though that it's a very good idea to practice revising your item. It's one thing to come up with an idea and write a first draft (that's hard enough!), but it's a different skill to be able to read your own writing and see where and how it could be improved. Learn to see formatting issues before they're pointed out. Read your writing like someone else would (who doesn't know what you know about the item), and learn to see what's confusing or unclear (this was very hard for me to learn to do), and then change it.
I used to think that since the first complete draft appeared to be 90% of the finished product, then of course it was about 90% of the effort of the final version. The last 10% was just spit and polish to make it look nice. Now I know better. The first complete draft for me is usually about 10% of my final effort in any project (some papers I've published have gone through 50 or more drafts). The spit and polish is about 90% of the effort, and was a harder skill to develop than coming up with a first draft.
To all and sundry,
I think it is very important to have a thick skin if you intend to enter the RPG Superstar contest. Even when you do well the comments posted by not only the judges but by others can be crushing if you let them. Try to take it as advice on how to be a better writer and game designer. If you do that then you win, even if you don't progress very far in the contest.
OK lets get this back on track.
Hopefully Doug from NeonCon will post the video and you can hear what the audience has to say. There were some really really good comments.
Clark
I'll also add that if there's a question or two that folks at the seminar discussion didn't think to ask...or, if someone who wasn't able to attend wants to bring up...feel free to do so here, particularly as it relates to what the judges shared in that recording or just RPG Superstar and item design in general.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I'll also add that if there's a question or two that folks at the seminar discussion didn't think to ask...or, if someone who wasn't able to attend wants to bring up...feel free to do so here, particularly as it relates to what the judges shared in that recording or just RPG Superstar and item design in general.
Why did this panel have to be held while I had a game going on? :)
|
|
I'll also add that if there's a question or two that folks at the seminar discussion didn't think to ask...or, if someone who wasn't able to attend wants to bring up...feel free to do so here, particularly as it relates to what the judges shared in that recording or just RPG Superstar and item design in general.Why did this panel have to be held while I had a game going on? :)
Why do you think they had you submit your game times before they announced the schedule ;)
|
|
Any Superstar contestant at this point has FOUR YEARS worth of judges' comments, prior entrants' comments, fan analysis, extra commentary threads, explicit instructions each year on specific contest format and requirements, and on down the list.
The resources are there for anyone who wants to use them. At this point, there is ZERO excuse or justification for anyone messing up on the basics of the contest. They HAVE been gone over, in writing, in literally thousands of posts.
I don't think anyone is justified in complaining, if they fail on wordcount, or submission date, or not being a wondrous item (or even wonderous), or not spell checking, or using the wrong dialect to spell check in.
Those are truly the basics, that should be treated as instant rejection, as they failed to follow instruction.
I'm OK with not getting through, since I don't think I'd have had the time to devote to the later rounds, but I do think Vistarius' point got missed.
Many are annoyed that they do read the forums, do absorb the advice, do create their item based on that, then find the top 32 are full of the exact things they diligently avoided.
If you passed over your first awesome idea, for an item with lesser wow-factor, because your first choice was straddling the line between spell-in-a-can, monster-in-a-can, class-in-a-can, etc, then you're going to be less than pleased to see the Top 32 contain exactly those elements.
In effect, they believe they hurt their chances, by doing their homework. And if the pass criteria are going to be based on judges' whim, shouldn't they just cut to the chase, and tell the public what they do want, rather than tell them what they don't want, only to ignore their own advice?
|
|
To be honest, while I think it's awesome that Sean and Clark put so much time and effort into helping people I'm not certain it really makes a difference. I suspect a fair number of people work the contest backwards, focusing on the details which they can grasp and while scrambling to make sure they follow all the suggestions they forget all about the most important bit.
Make a cool item.
Once you have a cool item take a gander at the judges suggestions and think about how they relate to your item. Can you make a small change to steer it out of the pitfalls they suggest? Is your item cool enough that it can succeed in spite of being 'flawed' in some way?
If you don't have a cool item no amount of guidelines are going to help you.
If you don't have a cool item no amount of guidelines are going to help you.
Quoted for truth.
I've mentioned several times now that I think the first thing you have to nail down right out of the gate is an innovative, "cool" idea. That's paramount or the whole thing falls apart. Now, that said, there are plenty of people out of the hundreds who submit that have cool ideas. It's how they present them, in their item name, flavor text, game mechanics, and use of the provided template that helps set them apart. And, in the course of all those things is where certain items start to land in the auto-reject advice categories. Sometimes, the coolness of an innovative item (i.e., the idea behind something) is great enough that it pushes aside those presentation elements to make the judges say they want to see more from that contestant over the course of the entire competition. And, hopefully, as they go through each challenge, they can continue to learn and grow into an RPG Superstar.
That's why I liken this "contest" to more of a process. No one's ready to go on day one of the competition. Everyone learns things as they compete round by round, both from the feedback of the judges and the voting public. They also learn from watching how others approach each design challenge and comparing it to theirs. The wondrous item round is what we use to decide who gets the opportunity to go through that experience. Then, we present them with challenges meant to both test and refine their capabilities in certain core elements of game design and what it means to write as a freelance designer.
Now, that said, there's nothing good about flirting with the auto-reject advice categories. If you can weed out those elements or find ways to minimize them or be just a little different than a true Spell-in-a-Can or Monster-in-a-Can, that'll be enough for us to set aside that concern. Sean's done a lot of work giving everyone insight into what those different categories are. We see a lot of items that jump headlong into those pitfalls. And not even in a moderately good way...i.e., they're just blatant Spell-in-a-Can items or Monster-in-a-Can items...or joke items...or whatever. Clark's on record saying, the items sort themselves pretty easily into the Keep and Reject piles. And I agree. As judges, we can discern pretty quickly when someone didn't even bother to do their homework to understand what a Spell-in-a-Can item is...vs. someone who did their homework and took steps to adjust their item so it wouldn't just be a Spell-in-a-Can, etc.
Therein lies the difference between making the Keep pile and having a shot at the Top 32 vs. a quick trip to the Reject pile and having to wait again until next year.
Hope that helps,
--Neil
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As judges, we can discern pretty quickly when someone didn't even bother to do their homework to understand what a Spell-in-a-Can item is...vs. someone who did their homework and took steps to adjust their item so it wouldn't just be a Spell-in-a-Can, etc.
Therein lies the difference between making the Keep pile and having a shot at the Top 32 vs. a quick trip to the Reject pile and having to wait again until next year.
You see, that right there, is a good answer, and it's what I expected you to say, given the discussions I've seen from all the judges over the last four years.
That's the message that doesn't get heard very often, or isn't getting through.When someone comes on the boards, and asks words to the effect of 'What are all these fail items doing in the top 32?', they're not trolling, they are genuinely upset, that they believe they played by the rules, and got passed over by someone who broke those rules.
One side thinks the other are obsessive compulsives, one side think the others are 'cheaters'. And that's a schism that isn't easily bridged.
That's why I think the judges should be careful about using terms like auto-reject categories. 'Auto-reject' should be reserved for those things like late submission, word-count, that get your entry bounced out without appeal, and coin a new term, like 'Very Bad Ideas' for those things which the judges can, and do, sometimes ignore.
That's why I think the judges should be careful about using terms like auto-reject categories. 'Auto-reject' should be reserved for those things like late submission, word-count, that get your entry bounced out without appeal, and coin a new term, like 'Very Bad Ideas' for those things which the judges can, and do, sometimes ignore.
That's why I like to call them danger zones.
|
|
That's why I think the judges should be careful about using terms like auto-reject categories. 'Auto-reject' should be reserved for those things like late submission, word-count, that get your entry bounced out without appeal, and coin a new term, like 'Very Bad Ideas' for those things which the judges can, and do, sometimes ignore.
Good point and a VERY good idea!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I think the judges should be careful about using terms like auto-reject categories. 'Auto-reject' should be reserved for those things like late submission, word-count, that get your entry bounced out without appeal, and coin a new term, like 'Very Bad Ideas' for those things which the judges can, and do, sometimes ignore.That's why I like to call them danger zones.
dammitsomuch - now I have that song stuck in my head...
/good idea though
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 51 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hate how this keeps coming back to my item.
This really isn't about why or why I didn't get rejected.
The reason it keeps coming back to you—and it's you much more than your item—is that you came onto our boards, trashed our judges and employees, and called us a bunch of glorified copy-and-pasters, with posts dripping in sarcasm and attitude, painting yourself as the victim all the while.
I'd especially point out these parts:
...looking over the stuff [Clark's] company has published and the comments he's made before, and listening to his stuff here, I just don't see how his opinion is worth anything.
And in your very next post, you state:
Now nothing I said so far has been inflammatory...
Either you don't understand how you come across, or you don't understand the meaning of the word "inflammatory."
And then you write this:
I think you should realize that you are representing yourself and your company to your audience, the people that buy your stuff.
You know, you also need to realize that people are judging you by the things you say, and though you called Clark a "a giant, over-glorified troll," well, I'll just note that the trolling being done here is all by you.
I'll tell you this: if Paizo *had* ever given you an assignment, after seeing the way you conduct yourself on our forums, I'd ensure that we never gave you another one.
I don't look forward to the next contest knowing he is a judge.
I hope you follow through with the indications you've given that you won't be entering. You'd be wasting everyone's time, because you're disrespectful, and in comportment, you're as far from an RPG Superstar as you can be. I'm glad you think highly of Neil, because you could learn quite a lot from him—and I'm talking about in life, not just in game design.
...I think the judges should be careful about using terms like auto-reject categories. 'Auto-reject' should be reserved for those things like late submission, word-count, that get your entry bounced out without appeal, and coin a new term, like 'Very Bad Ideas' for those things which the judges can, and do, sometimes ignore.
I hear what you're saying. However, I think an RPG Superstar candidate should be able to discern what Sean means by "auto-reject" categories well enough. Clark used to refer to these exact same things in his "Bad Item Stereotypes" thread. Sean's list is no different than that. He just codified them for everyone on the boards and happened to refer to them as "auto-reject" categories. It's just an issue of semantics (in my opinion) if people get confused by that moniker and skip his rule #27.
I can also tell you that when we, as judges, come across an item that is just a Spell-in-a-Can...or clearly just a Swiss-Army-Knife of Spells-in-a-Can...or any of the other categories that Sean mentions, they are pretty much an "auto-reject" just as much as going over word count, late submissions, not following the template at all, etc. would be. We hit the Reject button on those just as fast and just as definitively as we do for those other things you mention.
The crux of the matter lies in it just being those things. That's why Sean listed rule #27 for everyone...i.e., to denote that you can flirt with these categories. And, depending on how good your core idea happens to be...how well you present that idea in terms of innovative mechanics and awesome flavor and your item's name...it can all make enough of a difference that we may pull your item "out of the fire" and into the Keep pile. And, if it stands up to everything else that comes into the Keep pile (and has a better idea behind it), we may let those items through over some of the more technically sound, but slightly less interesting items. That's because we're looking for an RPG Superstar...i.e., someone who swings for the fences on big ideas. We want to see those kind of ideas play out over the course of the contest as these designers go through a grueling multi-week crash course on game design. We expect them to learn and grow. And the contest, as a whole, will help them prepare for the final prize and a future career as a freelance designer. That's the goal.
Also, remember, Paizo's developers can always teach someone the rules of the game. They can even teach them slight variations on how to improve their writing. What they can't teach...and what's basically an inborn talent...is the creativity to think big and innovate within the rules and story of the game.
So, the judges have been quite clear (in my opinion) that the "auto-reject" categories are advice...not rules. They're only auto-rejects when that's all an item has going for it. Those get auto-rejected, and that term most definitely applies. I'll also tell you another "secret"...
...when an item includes one of those "auto-reject" elements in it and still slips through on a big idea or some innovative mechanic, we still mark it down in our own internal system of ranking and comparing Top 32 items to one another. That's because these "auto-reject" elements don't actually improve the item. It would be much stronger if it didn't include those things, as well. So, it's not like we're encouraging folks to go ahead and throw a Spell-in-a-Can ability in there, just because you're confident you've got a big enough idea to override our concerns around that. You're better off taking Sean's advice and avoiding the "auto-reject" categories entirely, if you can, because those are far more often the definitive Superstar items...which are more representative of the Top 5 than the Top 32.
But that's just my two cents,
--Neil
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been staying clear of this discussion. I have some advice for freelancers, would-be freelancers, and people who want to try working in this business:
1) Criticism takes time to prepare. Every critic who has taken the time to tell you where you screwed the pooch by the numbers has paid you a compliment. That compliment is "I think you can do a better job next time, if you take some feedback." If you can't listen to critical feedback, this sure as heck isn't the field for you.
Or, if they really thought what you wrote was s#%%, they wouldn't take the time to reply.
2) Half of life is showing up. You'd be amazed at how many otherwise talented freelancers fail on this. Publishers would rather have someone who's less talented and is reliable than put up with a diva game auteur.
3) The other half of life is following through. If you can't make your deadline, tell your editor as early as possible. Don't try to 'rush it' at the end. Own up to your mistakes. Be honest enough to say "I can't finish this..." if you can't. I guarantee you, if you back out on a project because you can't complete it, but tell everyone involved with enough time to find a replacement, you won't burn any bridges that can't be fixed up later.
Finally, if you're really that concerned about having Your Best Idea Evvahr being glommed by submitting it into RPG Super Star, there is nothing keeping you from forming your own third party publishing house and making a swing for the fences on your own. The OGL, and Paizo in particular go out of their way to remove barriers to entry to people who want to get into this field.
Ken Burnside
Head of Design: Ad Astra Games
1) Criticism takes time to prepare. Every critic who has taken the time to tell you where you screwed the pooch by the numbers has paid you a compliment. That compliment is "I think you can do a better job next time, if you take some feedback."
Ken Burnside
Head of Design: Ad Astra Games
QFT. And this applies in all walks of life. I have a lot of friends who are professional dancers; they all recognized when a dance instructor hounded them on a particular technique, it was exactly as Ken stated above: they wouldn't waste the time if they didn't think they had more in you AND you had the passion to take the critique and work with it.