Thanks for all the kind words in this thread. OBE was a lot of fun while it lasted.
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
I keep repeating this over and over - stop doing the same thing WotC is flooding the market with and you'll have a shot at some success. I mean I hate to kick a company when its down. Loosing a business hurts but so many companies seem to want to try and step on WotCs toes and then they wonder why they get creamed. If your company makes a fantastically beautiful campaign setting with an interesting twist then you need character classes to support your campaign setting and they should go in the players book - otherwise don't make classes.
There are all sorts of area's were Wizards has not really done much and these could be niches for a 4E publisher.
It wasn't that we were doing things WotC was doing. By way of counterexample, I'll cite you Hard Boiled Cultures, Hard Boiled Armies, Purifiers, and even the Codex Venenorum. WotC has done a good job of putting out a steady stream of excellent products.
And just to put everyone's mind at ease, this wasn't a financial decision (though we were certainly hoping for and indeed expecting better sales numbers). OBE isn't "down". Basically, we decided that the impetus to design was going down at the same time as the draws on our design time from external factors were going up (notably, kids for three of the four of us).
And I know for a fact that Fred's and Rob's work on Dresden Files continues apace but, importantly, that the design was not impacted by any work they were doing for OBE. They have a whole separate staff working on DF.
For my part, I can devote more time to Tokyo Rain.
I know LPJ pretty well. (He's local for me and actually helped me quite a bit when I was starting out, e.g., putting me in touch with freelancers.)
The feud between him and GMS is a long and storied one. GMS's complaints of LPJ are often accurate but obscured by much vitriol. LPJ has always skirted the line between saavy marketing and poor taste. A few months back, he put out a d20 product dealing with the abortion debate. Intentionally sensationalist, and it got exactly the kind of reaction you would expect: some people said LPJ was the devil incarnate, and he got a ton of publicity for it.
He has also had some people complain about his pay rates. They are definitely on the lower side (even for the RPG industry), but they are certainly not the lowest. He prefers to use lesser known freelancers and pay lower rates, which he is certainly entitled to do.
However, I will say this. I have never -- not even one time -- heard anyone even suggest that LPJ didn't pay what he owed under a freelance agreement. If you're comfortable with what he's offering, you should feel confident in working with him. (He also is a very talented layout/graphic design guy in his own right, so his products tend to look very nice overall).
I will continue to do these even though round 2 has started. I'll keep doing until I run out of steam. I'm certainly not there yet; I've just been busy with some other odds and ends.
-Let’s start with the name: "Goblin" is misplaced since it modifies "ears" and not "strand".
Actually it should be Goblin's Strand of Ears as the goblins are the ones making and usually using this item made from human and elf ears of enemies that the goblin has killed.
Really? Where are you getting that from? I read it as goblin ears.
EDIT: Just took a second look and, in light of your perspective, finally read "goblin kills" the way it was intended. Thanks for clarifying, and of course you are right about how the name should read then.
These gruesome braids of horse hair are ornamented with the gnawed upon severed ears of Goblin kills. Strands typically have 1d4 ears when found and grant a +1/ear to listen checks when worn as a necklace. Adding newly crafted ears or removing ears adjusts the bonus check. A strand requires one attached ear for the bonus to function and holds a maximum of five magical ears at one time. As a standard action the wearer can remove and eat an ear to gain the effects of casting a silence spell as a 5th level caster [PHB 279]. If an ear is eaten while not wearing the strand the effect fails and the eater suffers from ingesting poison (DC 15, 1 Con/ 1d6 Con).
-Let’s start with the name: "Goblin" is misplaced since it modifies "ears" and not "strand".
-Similarly "gruesome" is misplaced since it modifies the ornament and not the "braids". Truthfully, this is a case of overwriting since the rest of the sentence does a good job of demonstrating its gruesomeness. "Show don’t tell" is an oldie but a goodie and is particularly apt here.
-"horse hair" should be one word.
-"gnawed upon" should be hyphenated, but I think omitting "upon" works better anyway.
-"when found" is superfluous.
-The bonus should be specified—probably an enhancement bonus.
-"+1/ear" is an odd format. The slash is generally reserved for per day and similar constructions. I think "per" is preferable here.
-"listen" should be capitalized.
-"when worn" should be "while worn" since it is ongoing.
-"newly crafted" is ambiguous. Does something special need to be done to an ear before it can be put on the strand? This terminology implies that it does, but there are no mechanics to support it. The next sentence says the ears are "magical". The ears should be the actual magic item with the strand just the color. In any case, the "newly crafted" sentence is superfluous anyway since the prior sentence specifies the bonus is per ear.
-The one-ear requirement is superfluous since the bonus is based on the number of ears anyway.
-"silence" should be italicized.
-"5th level" should be hyphenated.
-The PHB reference is inappropriate. Using the page number is also ill-advised as page numbers can change between editions (and is specifically not permitted under the d20 license if I recall correctly).
-There should be a comma after "wearing the strand" and after "fails". Right now, it’s a run-on sentence.
-There is an extra space after the slash in the poison’s damage. Treating it as poison is an odd choice. I would have gone with a nauseating effect, but that is a minor nitpick.
-"Illusion" should not be capitalized. [We seem to be getting this one a lot.]
-"silence" should be italicized.
-There should not be a colon after "Price".
Here’s my version:
Justin D. Jacobson wrote:
Spoiler:
Strand of Goblin Ears
These braids of horsehair are gruesomely ornamented with the gnawed, severed ears of Goblin kills. Strands typically have 1d4 ears and, while worn as a necklace, grant a +1 enhancement bonus to Listen checks per ear. A strand can hold a maximum of five ears at one time. As a standard action, the wearer can remove and eat an ear, causing an effect equivalent to a silence spell as if cast by a 5th-level caster. Eating an ear while not wearing the strand causes the silence effect to fail, and the eater is exposed to an ingestion poison (DC 15, 1 Con/1d6 Con).
Asmodeus isn't in the SRD... but he IS in real-world myth, just like unicorns or Pazuzu or medusas or thunderbirds or chupecabras. The game mechanics associated with him are closed content, though, so if we wanted to stat him up, we'd have to either find an OGL source or we'd have to do it ourselves.
Originally created by the priests of Lamashtu to bring more horrors into the world, this small bag of powder is made up of dark metal shavings and tiny slivers of candle wax. A handful of this substance flung into the air will float gently to the ground, forming a spell caster’s summoning circle as it settles.
Once the circle is formed (requiring 1 full round) it acts as a Monster Summoning Spell for the user of the powder. The user may then choose from the appropriate IV-IX spell lists of summoned creatures to call forth her monster, but may only choose creatures of evil alignment.
This powder comes in varying degrees of strength (monster summoning IV-IX), and has only a single use per bag. The powder can be thrown 10ft in any direction of the user. It is rumored that the Spherewalkers of Desna have created Summoning Dust, which summons only good aligned creatures, in response to Lamashtu’s evil designs.
Moderate or Strong Conjuration; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, monster summoning (IV-IX); Price 1,400 gp (IV), 2,250 gp (V), 3,300 gp (VI), 5,550 gp (VII), 6,000 gp (VIII), 7,750 gp (IX)
(I should note that it seems like some of the formatting has been omitted by people posting in this thread, e.g., italicization. I have to go on how they are posted here. Obviously, you can ignore any comments that didn’t apply to your actual entry.)
-The sentences are awkwardly sequenced with various components of the mechanics not grouped thematically.
-"Spell caster’s" should be one word, but it should probably be omitted since there is no requirement for the user to be a spellcaster.
-"requiring" should be "taking" since it is not a condition of the event but simply the duration.
-"Monster Summoning Spell" is improperly capitalized, and "monster summoning" should be italicized, and it should be "summon monster".
-The sentence "the user may" is ambiguously written and awkwardly structured. There is a contradiction in number between the two parts of the sentence, i.e., "her monster" and "creatures".
-There should be a space between "10" and "ft." and "user" is superfluous.
-"Summoning Dust" is improperly capitalized and should be italicized.
-"good aligned" should be hyphenated.
-"Conuration" is improperly capitalized.
-"monster summoning" should, of course, be "summon monster" and should be italicized.
Here’s my version:
Justin D. Jacobson wrote:
Spoiler:
Summoning Dust
Originally created by the priests of Lamashtu to bring more horrors into the world, this small bag of powder is made up of dark metal shavings and tiny slivers of candle wax. This powder comes in varying degrees of strength (summon monster IV-IX).
The contents of the bag may be thrown up to 10 ft. One full round after being flung into the air, the powder floats gently to the ground, forming a summoning circle. Once the circle is formed, it triggers an effect equivalent to a summon monster spell of the given strength. The user may summon any evil creature from the list for the strength of the powder. Each bag of powder has a single use.
It is rumored that the Spherewalkers of Desna have created a different version of summoning dust, which summons only good-aligned creatures, in response to Lamashtu’s evil designs.
Moderate or Strong conjuration; CL 7th; Craft Wondrous Item, summon monster (IV-IX); Price 1,400 gp (IV), 2,250 gp (V), 3,300 gp (VI), 5,550 gp (VII), 6,000 gp (VIII), 7,750 gp (IX)
Aura faint divination; CL 5th
Slot —; Price 10,400 gp
DESCRIPTION
Also known as the Hammer of Witches, these heavy books are always bound with cold iron, often embossed with the symbol of a lawful deity. The parchment pages within are filled with cramped and ancient writing pertaining to every aspect of discovering and defeating the magics of those who traffic with fey, demons, and other dark forces.
A Malleus Maleficarum grants anyone who can spend 1d4 rounds purusing its pages a +2 circumstance bonus on Knowledge (arcana) checks, and the book itself can be wielded in combat as if it were a cold iron +1 warhammer.
Finally, three times per day, anyone who understands Infernal can command a Malleus Maleficarum to reveal nearby witches. This causes chaotic or evil spellcasters within 30 ft. to glow (as if affected by faerie fire) in the eyes of the book’s wielder. The language requirement of this last power has gaven rise to the rumor that it was Asmodeus himself who penned the first copy of the Hammer of Witches.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, detect chaos, detect evil, detect magic; Cost 6,200 gp, 336 XP
-There are some issues stemming from using a specific real-world book but treating it like a type of magic item. I’m critiquing from the latter view given the context of the entry and the way manuals are treated in the SRD. So, I think "Hammer of Witches" is improperly capitalized, since it’s not referring to the title of the book so much as the name of the magic item, but I can see this going either way.
-The phrase "often embossed..." is vague in that it is unclear what it is referring to. As written, it refers to the binding when it is probably intended to refer to the book itself.
-The sentence "The parchment pages..." is overwritten for my tastes, but it is just a matter of taste. In particular though, "discovering" is used improperly, pluralizing to "magics" is improper in the context of an item entry (as opposed to, say, a literary work), and "traffic" is used improperly and is anachronistic in any case by its current usage.
-The sentence "A Malleus Malleficarum..." is a perfect example of what I refer to above. It’s either "a malleus malleficarum" or "the Malleus Malleficarum".
-In that same sentence, "purusing" is misspelled; it should be "perusing". The circumstance bonus is odd. It should probably be a competence bonus. The text should also clarify if the bonus is permanent, only as to the next check, or whatever. "in combat" is superfluous. This should really be broken into two sentences since they aren’t strongly thematically tied.
-The last paragraph should be combined with the second since they are both dealing with the book’s powers and, thus, thematically linked.
-The faerie fire effect is ambiguous since the spell permits spell resistance and is visible to others. The effect is ambiguous as to activation and, I think, should require speaking Infernal since the character is commanding the book to do something. [I just noticed that the first two Top-32 items I reviewed suffer from these incomplete spell references when direct language would be better.]
-"Gaven" is misspelled; it should be "given".
-Is Asmodeus in the SRD? I didn’t think so, but I assume the judges would have caught this.
-Obviously, the entry is not in SRD format. I won’t judge on that basis since it has been permitted, but I will rewrite my versions in the SRD format for consistency.
Here’s my version:
Justin D. Jacobson wrote:
Spoiler:
Malleus Maleficarum
Also known as a hammer of witches, this heavy book is always bound with cold iron and is often embossed with the symbol of a lawful deity. The parchment pages within are filled with cramped and ancient writing regarding the identification and defeat of those who consort with fey, demons, and other dark forces.
Perusing the book’s pages for 1d4 rounds confers a +2 competence bonus on the reader’s next Knowledge (arcana) check. Additionally, the book itself can be wielded as if it were a cold iron +1 warhammer. Finally, three times per day, anyone who speaks Infernal can command a malleus maleficarum to reveal nearby witches. Issuing the command is a standard action, which does not provoke an attack of opportunity. When activated, all chaotic or evil spellcasters within 30 ft. begin to glow in the eyes of the book’s wielder. The language requirement of this last power has given rise to the rumor that it was Asmodeus himself who penned the first copy of this book.
I really don't want this to turn into discussion of my item, but sauce for the goose....
As to the potential for abuse, I think that's subtly the best part of the item. It has a built in scaling system. You have to kill the animal to gain its benefit, and the benefit (in both magnitude and duration) scales with the power of the animal. If you don't look at actual numbers, I can see where the concern arises. Go through the animals in the SRD, and you'll see it actually works pretty well.
Killing a horse grants a +3 bonus to Strength, a +1 bonus to Dexterity, and a +2 bonus to Constitution. Now, keep in mind that these bonuses in turn will generally only translate to a +1 Strength and +1 Constitution bonus due to the quirk of odd/even attribute scores. And that's for only three hours--not exactly a full dungeon crawl.
It's a horribly inefficient item to try and abuse with these limitations.
I suppose it's as well that he didn't make it: He has cover credit on Dawning Star, available in hardcover here.
Now this does raise an interesting point. I'll point out that the specific criteria was presented three different ways in three different locations.
From the Rules:
Rules wrote:
Anyone with a cover credit on a hardcover RPG book is ineligible.
From the FAQ:
FAQ wrote:
If you have received cover credit as an author of a hardcover RPG book, you are not eligible.
(emphasis added)
And then a third way on the actual submission page (which is no longer available for me to quote).
I do have a cover credit on Dawning Star: Operation Quick Launch, but it is as editor not author. Lee Hammock is the author of OQL. I met the criteria as indicated on the FAQ and actual submission page so I felt it was okay for me to enter.
Erik, I'm curious if you think I should or should not have been eligible as a technical matter. You might want to firm up that criteria. (In fact, I meant to point this out earlier, but I forgot about the issue until now.)
I appreciate your attention to language in this thread, and I think it's especially interesting because your own submission was passed over for this reason exactly.
The final sentence in your entry read: "Hunter-gatherer societies often share a communal spirit cup for the benefit of the entire tribe."
Wolf and Clark both thought that the sentence (particularly the word "communal") contradicted your assertion that the cup worked only for the person who killed the animal.
I disagreed, interpreting the sentence the way I believe you intended it, but in the end a slightly different word choice or construction of one sentence of fluff switched off two of the judges and the rest is history.
Well that is ironic. As to the specific point, I recognize that writers are incapable of editing themselves, but I stand by the word choice. "Communal" means "shared by all members of a community". I envisioned a tribe where the communal spirit cup rests in a place of prominence at the center of the encampment. A hunter goes out and returns with a wounded quarry, delivers the coup de grace, and uses the cup. A few hours later another hunter from the same tribe can go do the same thing. But I get how that could have been clearer.
Erik Mona wrote:
The Spirit Cup really was one of the best RPG Superstar items, in my opinion. I think you should post it here and let other posters get a look at some of your mojo.
I was hesitant to do so, but since there is some concensus:
Spirit Cup
This simple wooden cup allows a hunter to absorb the spirit of her vanquished quarry. The hunter must fill the cup with the animal’s blood within two rounds of its death and must drink the blood from the cup within two rounds after that. The person drinking from the cup must have dealt the killing blow. Upon drinking the blood, she gains an enhancement bonus to her Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution equal to the animal’s Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution bonuses respectively, up to a maximum bonus of +6 to each ability. Additionally, she gains the low-light vision and scent abilities. These effects last for one hour per hit die of the animal whose blood is consumed. In order to work, the quarry must have at least three hit dice, must have the animal type, and may not have the aquatic sub-type. Favored by rangers, barbarians, and druids of a particular stripe, spirit cups occasionally bear the symbols of pagan nature deities. Hunter-gatherer societies often share a communal spirit cup for the benefit of the entire tribe.
1) I'm doing the Top 32 in order as they appear on the winning entry page.
2) I'm planning on alternating between a Top 32 and a non-finalist entry.
3) I will do the non-finalist entries in order as they appear in this thread.
4) I'm happy to keep going as long as I can, but I reserve the right to call it a day if 700-odd people post their entries here.
5) I want to clarify my motivation. I've seen some people react pretty negatively to the Top 32. I have no bad feelings for Paizo, the judges, or the finalists. I'm glad they had it; I had fun entering; and I certainly appreciate all of the hard work they put in. I have a very specific gripe, in that I feel like the actual writing part was discounted too much by the judges. That just means we have different criteria--not that mine are better. I'm doing this because I think clarity in writing is critically important to freelancers and something of a dying art. I was disappointed in that I felt the focus on creativity over technical writing merit exacerbates this problem.
This item appears to be a simple hand-held mirror with an iron setting. A character holding the mirror can use it for scrying, as the spell (Will DC 17 negates), with these alterations:
• The character sets a condition for who the mirror will attempt to record based on a single event tied to a specific person, place, or item (ex. whoever next speaks to the king; the first person to leave the Dark Catacombs; or whoever opens the Abyssal Gate). The person fulfilling the condition becomes the spell’s target.
• Once the condition is fulfilled, the mirror tries to scry on the target exactly as if scrying had been cast at the moment of the triggering event. If successful, a viewable recording of the scry attempt remains until a new condition is set.
• The message spell does not function through the mirror.
Moderate divination; CL 11th; Craft Wondrous Items, contingency, scrying (plus any additional spells put on the item); Price: 54,000 gp; Weight 1/2lb.
Mirror Type Market Price
Base Mirror
54,000 gp
Mirror with see invisibility
62,000 gp
Mirror with detect thoughts (Will DC 14 negates)
63,000 gp
Mirror with true seeing
92,000 gp
-I’d probably go with the simpler "changes" over "alterations", but this is a true nitpick.
-The wording of the mechanics is a little awkward. I’ll make an attempt at clarification in my version below.
-"When" is preferred over "once" since the conduct will be repeated, but this is a minor nitpick.
-Reference to "the spell’s target" is inaccurate, since it is the mirror that does the targeting.
-The reference to the message spell seems gratuitous. I would have omitted it, but if included it should simply read "Message does not function through the mirror."
-"Craft Wondrous Items" should be "Craft Wondrous Item".
-Spells should be italicized.
-Missing space between "1/2" and "lb."
-The formatting for the alternate versions is handled poorly. I know I said I wouldn’t comment on flavor or content, but I should note that this item is awfully similar to a standard crystal ball. I only note that because creating similar items practically demands tracking the language used in the original item, which this did not. Tracking the crystal ball language would have alleviated this problem.
Here’s my version:
Justin D. Jacobson wrote:
Spoiler:
Mirror of Retrieved Events
This item appears to be a simple hand-held mirror with an iron setting. A character holding the mirror can use it to see over virtually any distance or into other planes of existence, as with the spell scrying (Will DC 17 negates), with the following changes:
• While holding the mirror, the character sets a trigger condition, describing a specific event and a target or class of targets, e.g. "the next person to speak to the king", "the first person to leave the Dark Catacombs", "whoever opens the Abyssal Gate", etc. The condition persists until changed.
• When the condition is fulfilled, the person triggering it becomes the target of the mirror’s scrying effect. If the scrying succeeds, the triggering event is stored within the mirror and can be viewed by anyone holding the mirror. The image is stored until it is replaced by a new triggering event.
• Message does not function through the mirror.
Mirror Type – Market Price Mirror of retrieved events – 54,000 gp
Mirror with see invisibility – 62,000 gp
Mirror with detect thoughts (Will DC 14 negates) – 63,000 gp
Mirror with true seeing – 92,000 gp
Moderate divination; CL 11th; Craft Wondrous Item, contingency, scrying (plus any additional spells put into item); Weight 1/2 lb.
This amulet is made of rune-carved bone with two inset rubies like eyes on a fine silver chain. The amulet grants the wearer a +1 bonus on Turn or Rebuke checks. While worn, the talisman may be activated as a standard action three times per day for ten minutes each time. When activated, the user is surrounded by motes of spectral mist which circle constantly and a continuous sound like the whispering of many indistinguishable voices just on the edge of hearing is audible. While the amulet is active, the user gains the following powers: they can communicate magically with any intelligent Undead regardless of language, even if the Undead creature cannot normally communicate. The wearer is invisible to mindless Undead, but this effect ends if the user attacks any Undead creature. The wearer can see any incorporeal or ethereal Undead within 120’, even through walls or solid objects, as they are silhouetted as if with blue faerie fire visible only to the wearer (as the spell, but the effect is not blocked by magical darkness).
Moderate Divination and Necromancy; CL 9th; Craft Wondrous Item, Detect Undead, Speak With Dead, True Seeing; Price 50,000 gp
-The first sentence is awkwardly written. “Rune-carved” is an ambiguous phrase as to whether it implies that the bone is carved with runes or by runes. “Inset” is improperly used as an adjective. “Like eyes” is ambiguous; indeed, I’m not sure how to correct that as I don’t know what the author was intending to convey. “On a fine silver chain” is a floating prepositional phrase; it is unclear what it is referring to.
-The +1 bonus is unspecified. Presumably it should be an enhancement bonus.
-“Turn” and “Rebuke” are improperly capitalized.
-The fourth sentence (“When activated...”) is a mess, principally the result of overwriting. “User” should be “wearer” to keep consistency with terminology from the second sentence. You can’t realistically have “motes” of “mist”. And this is a run-on sentence with “user is surrounded” and “whispering ... is audible”.
-The fifth sentence introduces “the following powers” but then only introduces one. The successive sentences should have been combined and separated by semicolons, or the wording should have been changed.
-“Undead” is improperly capitalized.
-The nature of the “communication” is unspecified. Is it speech? Telepathic? What is the range?
-The last sentence (“The wearer can see...”) is a mess. 120’ should use “feet” instead of the apostrophe in keeping with SRD formatting. The effect suffers from too much ambiguity by both trying to shorthand in referencing the spell while still carving out exceptions. In what way is it like the spell exactly? The range, area of effect, and duration are all different, and faerie fire doesn’t work through walls. The silhouette effect seems unnecessarily complicated when the ability to see them alone works well enough.
-“Divination” and “Necromancy” are improperly capitalized. The spells are improperly capitalized. There is no period after "gp" (because it is the end of the sentence).
Here’s how I would rewrite the entry:
Justin D. Jacobson wrote:
Spoiler:
Talisman of Whispering Souls
This amulet is made of bone, carved with runes, inset with rubies, and strung on a fine, silver chain. The amulet grants the wearer a +1 enhancement bonus on turn or rebuke checks. The wearer may activate the talisman as a standard action up to three times per day for ten minutes each activation. When activated, motes of spectral energy circle the wearer, and a thousand indistinguishable voices whisper constantly. The amulet grants the following abilities when activated.
-The wearer can communicate telepathically with any intelligent undead within a range of 120 feet.
-The wearer is invisible to mindless undead. This effect ends when the wearer attacks any undead.
-The wearer can see incorporeal and ethereal undead within 120 feet, even through walls or solid objects.
Moderate divination and necromancy; CL 9th; Craft Wondrous Item, detect undead, speak with dead, true seeing; Price 50,000 gp.
For those who don't know me, my name is Justin D. Jacobson. By way of credentials: I am an RPG designer and publisher under my company name, Blue Devil Games. I've written Poisoncraft, Passages, and several others. I've published the critically acclaimed Dawning Star line. My publications have been nominated for seven ENnies. I've won a game design award (for my traditional-style game Golem). I've had material published in Monte's Year's Best d20. I'm an attorney by trade (where have we seen that before?) and a very experienced writer.
By way of full disclosure, I did submit an entry and (obviously) was not selected among the top 32. I confess, I was personally disappointed with the quality of the writing of some of the finalists, which was exacerbated by some of the judges’ comments. It's pretty clear that creativity was the top priority and actual writing was a pretty distant second. I don’t begrudge the judges for using their own criteria for selecting the top 32; this isn’t a manifestation of sour grapes. I hope it is taken in the spirit in which it is given: an opportunity for growth and development.
I’ve decided to go through the top 32 and offer my critiques. This will be unexpurgated criticism. I won’t be intentionally mean or dismissive, but I will not pull punches either. These critiques will focus on the writing, which is comprised of two components: (1) fundamental writing issues such as grammar, spelling, etc. and (2) presentation of the game elements, including mechanical flaws, omissions, and proper word usage. I will NOT be engaging in criticism of the underlying concepts, game balance issues, costing, etc.
Why am I doing this? Mostly for kicks. But I also think it can be helpful to potential freelancers to see some honest criticism of their work. I’m doing this from the perspective of a game publisher. These are things I’d be concerned about if I got these submissions for publication myself. I confess I’m a bit of a stickler about these things, and I don’t like to see them glossed over.
By way of standing offer, if you entered the contest and were not selected for the top 32 and would like me to critique your entry, feel free to post it here and I will do so.
