RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There's an entry over there in the "villains famous last words" thread. Something like: "Here, hold my ale. This is going to be fun."
And it made me think of a big rough guy in a seedy dockside dive, about to go over and shove the newbie PC's around and show them who's boss.
And if he were, say, three levels higher than the PC's, and had some skill in intimidation and unarmed combat, and could get the ret of the patrons on his side, I think he'd be able to give the party a miserable evening.
And a couple of sessions later, when they needed information down at the docks, he'd be the crew foreman they'd wind up talking to. And he'd just turn them down flat, laughing at them as he walked away.
A couple sessions after that, they'd take a ship to a remote adventure site, and their equipment would have been loaded improperly. Expensive magical equipment would be missing or ruined, and their rations would have been despoiled.
They'd hate him.
But, yeah, a 5th level thug (that's SRD) dockhand would be a dull villain to stat up. And making him a half-fiend rakshasa assassin in disguise would ruin him.
You know what the underlying cause is?Villains are never presented in a format like this.
As others said, this is a good point.
|
I agree what other said, wrong format for this competition, I'm sure Paizo will learn from this. To me it show that they wanted villains but in an npc format. If Karzoug was presented like this, we'd also say underwhelming, even Demogorgon without a good context is an npc and not a villain. The villain should have been part of the last round. Another fault is, without context you can't say much. If I'd make a Goblin BBN everyone would say: 'monster', unless I can layout my whole adventure concept, yes you are right.
There's an entry over there in the "villains famous last words" thread. Something like: "Here, hold my ale. This is going to be fun."
And it made me think of a big rough guy in a seedy dockside dive, about to go over and shove the newbie PC's around and show them who's boss.
And if he were, say, three levels higher than the PC's, and had some skill in intimidation and unarmed combat, and could get the ret of the patrons on his side, I think he'd be able to give the party a miserable evening.
And a couple of sessions later, when they needed information down at the docks, he'd be the crew foreman they'd wind up talking to. And he'd just turn them down flat, laughing at them as he walked away.
A couple sessions after that, they'd take a ship to a remote adventure site, and their equipment would have been loaded improperly. Expensive magical equipment would be missing or ruined, and their rations would have been despoiled.
They'd hate him.
But, yeah, a 5th level thug (that's SRD) dockhand would be a dull villain to stat up. And making him a half-fiend rakshasa assassin in disguise would ruin him.
I think this is exactly what the villains here needed. A bit of background and a step by step what they are up to, and then their motives.
Here this guys motives are 'be a bully' he is 'mean because he can be' and he is a recurring villain that will be a pain in the characters sides.
Why he is like this is background.
I think this can be done in 500 words, but I am unsure.
Maybe I'm off base, but it makes sense.
WC
A lot of people seem to be commenting that the villains come off as encounters or monsters. Well... with a stat block and 500 words that's all you're really going to get. Villains need context, which is difficult to provide in such a limited space.
On another note I was thinking of trying my hand at writing a villain as an exercise to see where the challenges lie.
Contributor
|
There's an entry over there in the "villains famous last words" thread. Something like: "Here, hold my ale. This is going to be fun."
And it made me think of a big rough guy in a seedy dockside dive, about to go over and shove the newbie PC's around and show them who's boss.
And if he were, say, three levels higher than the PC's, and had some skill in intimidation and unarmed combat, and could get the ret of the patrons on his side, I think he'd be able to give the party a miserable evening.
And a couple of sessions later, when they needed information down at the docks, he'd be the crew foreman they'd wind up talking to. And he'd just turn them down flat, laughing at them as he walked away.
A couple sessions after that, they'd take a ship to a remote adventure site, and their equipment would have been loaded improperly. Expensive magical equipment would be missing or ruined, and their rations would have been despoiled.
They'd hate him.
This is what Kelleck was like for my group in AoW, almost exactly. Boy did we hate him. I don't know how much of that was in the adventure and how much of it was the DM, but when we were finally tough enough to take him, we ripped him a new one.
I wasn't impressed with most of the villains either but for me it came down to two problems:
1. No plot hooks/character hooks. I wanted to see ideas on how the players would come across or first hear about this villain.
2. Too focused. Many of the villains were way too focused. If the villain is only interested in cutting off hands then that makes a really inflexible and narrowly focused villain that I can't really adapt into different situations. Too much of the story, plot, and encounter would be defined by the goal.
Tons of great ideas but I think the stat block accidentally became the focus of this round. Perhaps because of the stress that the judges put on the stat block and the inherent time-consuming nature of writing 3E stat blocks, they became the focus of the writers time and efforts leaving less time for plot hooks and villainy.
Edit: finished post after accidentally submiting
The stat blocks are vital to an encounter with any of these individuals. That said, they take up a lot of space. The higher the CR of the encounter (in general) or the more special abilities of the chosen creature/character/what-have-you, the more space must be devoted to that portion of the entry.
In 1996 (during my first attempt at academia) I started out what might have been my most fulfilling campaign with a group of bandits who were trying to rustle a minor lord's show horses. One of the hands was an informant for the bandits named Bran. Just an informant who managed to escape after teh PCs interegated him.
Three years later Bran was still at the center of the Great Conspiracy Wheel of Machinations (yes, one of the players eventually created a bad guy org chart and then a party action flow chart based on the org chart).
Obsessive interaction makes for great conflict. I think that's my concern with many of the villains. The most important aspect is how they interact and challange the PCs, not their backstory, stats, or even their ambitions.
A great villain has a spefic angle in which he/she/it invites obsessive interaction.
Exactly. Some memorable villains are built by design, some occur by chance because there is something about the character that clicks with the players. I've had players that have singled out otherwise nondescript NPCs based on little more than lucky die rolls or a throw-away line from a brief character description. Half of what makes a great villian is how the players react to the character.
That said and turning to the format question, there have been some memorable villains that first appeared in this format. High Inquisitor Tremaine from the WEG Star Wars supplement Fragments from the Rim comes immediately to mind. WW has also had several that appeared this way. Still, a large part of what makes a great villain is character and context. Many of the comments on the villains in this contest have pointed out how a villain either has or lacks a clear context with a clear idea of minions, motivations, and plans.
The stat blocks are vital to an encounter with any of these individuals. That said, they take up a lot of space. The higher the CR of the encounter (in general) or the more special abilities of the chosen creature/character/what-have-you, the more space must be devoted to that portion of the entry.
True, but it seems that the folks that opened with a description of the character and that closed with the stat block did a better job of conveying their characters.
True, but it seems that the folks that opened with a description of the character and that closed with the stat block did a better job of conveying their characters.
I found that two entries with just flavor text at the beginning, then stat blocks, then details worked just fine to get to my top 4 for vote purposes. I'm arguing that there's an inherent conflict in what you have to convey in the paucity of words allowed. That said, I agree that leading with the stat block was a bad idea as I found it offputting.
Exactly. Some memorable villains are built by design, some occur by chance because there is something about the character that clicks with the players.
As a DM I've never had much luck with canned villains. They usually come off as contrived and trying too hard. As you mentioned the best villains are usually happen stance when a bad guy simply 'clicks'.
I remember running the Isle of Dread and the PCs killed a band of pirates, scuttled their ships, and stole most of their booty. They left one pirate alive to tell the tale - alone, on the isle of dread, with a raft and paddle. Needless to stay he was a particularly motivated villain, and of their own creation. Far, far better than any canned villain could ever hope to be.
I actually have a taste for canned villain, but only because mom never made fresh villain when I was growing up.
|
I believe that, as stated earlier, the authors were focused on the stat block due to the judges prior comments. I saw two general issues.
The first was villains introduced too early in their career. I can see the line of thinking that lead to these. It goes, "I need to show how this villain can be introduced to the PCs." The issue here is that the villains future path was never given or skimped on, so all we see is the person who has made the first choice that leads to them becoming a villain. These folks are boring, especially when they are over CR10 and still not the fully realized villain.
This is a writing issue, not a word limit issue.
The second issue was unnecessarily complicated class selections. This lead to very complicated stat blocks, requiring a larger portion of the author's time than the description. Five days of real life and day job means that you need to concentrate on something do-able, where you can concentrate on the coolness of the description just as much as the crunchiness of the stat block. I feel confident in stating that if the description didn't wow us, we didn't care about the stat block. Except maybe the tactics section to see if you had a good trick.
This is a design issue, not a contest rules issue.
There were several villains offered that would have received my vote if they had been presented in their "mature" version (and by mature I mean "fully developed"). I could see where they were going and how cool it would be, but I had to vote on what was presented. The villains who got my vote were "mature" and the author had spent their time evenly between the stat block and the description and it showed.
|
|
I just remembered the other issue: authors who specifically stated that their villain had no ambition.
I can think of two entries that this sunk immediately - the nightmare and the demon-nymph. I have no idea what the authors were thinking and why they typed those words. I'm hoping for an explanation after Christmas.
Exactly. Some memorable villains are built by design, some occur by chance because there is something about the character that clicks with the players.
I can certainly agree that some villains are sometimes just made, not designed. So far my players talk a lot about two specific villains in my campaign. One of them is a mysterious guy they've never seen, but who has tried to kill them recently through a conjured Belker. He was someone I slated for being a thorn in their side for a while...he's actually an agent of the government trying to bring their patron back home because he is the brother of the king, but none of the party knows that yet. That villain is by design.
The second was a throwaway villain I added to introduce a sage character who was fleeing the hamlet of Turvin. The party saved the sage from this guy and he escaped. They've been talking about going down to Turvin as soon as they freed up their obligations to others to "teach that guy a lesson". Originally he was going to be nothing more than a spoiled nobleman who was fodder for a role-playing introduction, but with the party itching to get down to Turvin I knew I needed him to be more than that. Dungeon readers should recognize Turvin as the starting locale for Wingclipper's Revenge. With a little bit of story tweakage I turned my nobleman fodder into Wingclipper himself. This villain grew completely out of the party's fixation on him as a nasty, bad guy. He wouldn't have been such if it weren't for them believing him to be so.
I just remembered the other issue: authors who specifically stated that their villain had no ambition.
I can think of two entries that this sunk immediately - the nightmare and the demon-nymph. I have no idea what the authors were thinking and why they typed those words. I'm hoping for an explanation after Christmas.
The Ghoul Suicide Bomber who is only amused if he accidentally sparks social change and revolution, otherwise he could care less. And the fungus dwarf, who only seems to want to get high.
It's a trend. We sacrifice quality for innovation for it's own sake, harkening back to the first round.
Honestly after some flawed first round entries got high praise, was it any surprise that someone tried a Blink Dog Nation? Don't blame that guy, he looked and saw what was generously praised in the first round and then did likewise.. only it didnt pan out. And so on in this current round.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I just remembered the other issue: authors who specifically stated that their villain had no ambition.
I can think of two entries that this sunk immediately - the nightmare and the demon-nymph. I have no idea what the authors were thinking and why they typed those words. I'm hoping for an explanation after Christmas.
sigh
Yep. There really was a reason, but it all went terribly wrong in the writing. Oh the cost of a poor turn of phrase.
More to come after the comment moratorium...
I saw two general issues.
The first was villains introduced too early in their career.
This is a writing issue, not a word limit issue.
The second issue was unnecessarily complicated class selections.
This is a design issue, not a contest rules issue....
Gotta disagree. I suspect though that this is one of those issues like powergaming versus story telling that people will not concur on.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4
|
A Short & Incomplete List of Great Literary Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Comic Villains
(not yet mentioned here and in no particular order):
David Lo Pan, Big Trouble in Little China
Jody, Preacher by Garth Ennis
Agent Smith, the original Matrix
The Mayor, Buffy: Season Three
O-Ren Ishii, Kill Bill Vol. 1
Sephiroth, FF7
I tossed this together because I think that each of these villains is directly personal to the experience of the story - a living, important part of the tale potentially MORE important than the hero(es). When each of these villains finally dies, you have a moment of absolute elation, mingled with a kind of sorrow - their part of the tale is over, their uniqueness gone from the world.
Never again will you have them to hate, to define heroism by perfect opposition.
I think that a great storyteller can create that level of conflict, usually tinged with empathy, in a long-running campaign; but "canned villainy", as was commented earlier, is tough to make work that way.
I, for one, am anything BUT disappointed by the villains of this round - because I see so very much potential in them.
One more fun list, because I was bored:
Some genre films that, interestingly, have no distinct "villain":
Descent,
Heat,
Starship Troopers,
Akira
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Honestly after some flawed first round entries got high praise, was it any surprise that someone tried a Blink Dog Nation? Don't blame that guy, he looked and saw what was generously praised in the first round and then did likewise.. only it didnt pan out. And so on in this current round.
Except that it did pan out, because Erik's Blink Dog Nation sailed through to this round.
Sephiroth, FF7
Ooh, I HATED that guy. He might even be #1 on my list of all time best villains.
This thread just killed Santa Claus. I swear, when I read some people talking, I feel like Milhaus being lectured by the comicbook guy on the Simpsons about the "first appearance of Radioactive man's sidekick." I'm going to drink myself into a stupor now.
I totally understand where you are coming from. I feel like a lot of post and 'critiques' I read on this board anymore are people just trying to say "Why don't you just take the villain I have in my mind." I hardly find any posts anymore in this competition that are more along the lines of "I don't like this, this is how I feel you could make it better, thanks for putting yourself on the line to bring me some of your creativity." It kinda makes me want to stop reading people's opinions at all.
A Short & Incomplete List of Great Literary Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Comic Villains
(not yet mentioned here and in no particular order):David Lo Pan, Big Trouble in Little China
Jody, Preacher by Garth Ennis
Agent Smith, the original Matrix
The Mayor, Buffy: Season Three
O-Ren Ishii, Kill Bill Vol. 1
Sephiroth, FF7
All great examples of villains made to stick in your mind because they were based on a long running plot. This is why I find it so harsh when people read the villain ideas in this round and totally degrade the villains made. None of these villains were given stories, thus how can they be 'epic' now?
I totally understand where you are coming from. I feel like a lot of post and 'critiques' I read on this board anymore are people just trying to say "Why don't you just take the villain I have in my mind." I hardly find any posts anymore in this competition that are more along the lines of "I don't like this, this is how I feel you could make it better, thanks for putting yourself on the line to bring me some of your creativity." It kinda makes me want to stop reading people's opinions at all.
Guilty as charged!
I do this, and you are right, it would be nicer of me to offer suggestions how it could have been made better. But after reading 32 items, 32 countries and 16 villains you stop being nice and just say yes or no to the entry.
Besides, the writers are getting great critiques by three experienced editors, that should make them better each round. And yes, I wanted to compete in this event, the judges decided they were better, they've got to prove that to me every single round.
And maybe some people are all out of suggestions, the "Losing Items" thread sure took a few of mine. This is just saying that we are maybe suffering from judging fatigue.....
I think perhaps it is a mistake to compare the writing of a literary villain to the writing of a role-playing game villain. There are extremely significant differences to writing a novel as opposed to arranging a pleasurable and long-lasting role-playing game experience.
It's like comparing apples and oranges. They're both fruit, and they're both round, but that's where the similarity ends.
It's a lot easier to work out a literary villain than it is to work out a role-playing villain, in my opinion, and the virtues of one are not necessarily the virtues of another. For instance, in a literary work, or a movie for instance, you can spend time developing the villains away from the PCs. You can also be comfortable in having the villains be as cool, or more cool, than the PCs. Honestly, who was more cool ... Darth Vader, or Luke Skywalker? Heck, Joseph Campbell aside, even George Lucas has come out and said that the whole series basically was about the story of Darth Vader.
I know on the occasions where I get to play instead of running the game, I would be annoyed if I felt that the story was all about the villain and not about my character's role in defending truth, justice, and the kingdomian way. That's not to say that the villain shouldn't be an interesting character in its own right, but really, the person running the game has to be careful to not overshadow the importance of the PCs and to keep in mind that their super-kewl villain is not only pointless but actually detrimental to the game if it makes the players feel that the game is all about the exploits of the nifty villain and its schemes.
The typical D&D campaign starts with the PCs being low level and works up to higher and higher levels. A recurring villain will need a way to fit into the PCs' stories over the course of the campaign.
At first they need less earth shattering plots that hit close to home to the budding PCs, and also a built in reason why the villain wouldn't just wipe out all the PCs right off the bat.
As the PCs grow in strength and influence and develop beyond their early chapters, they will likely reach further into either politics or exploration or any number of other things. Does the villain have any interest in opposing the sorts of things that PCs protect and are interested in accomplishing?
When the PCs gain enough strength and knowledge to pose a direct threat to the villain, does the villain have what it takes to escape and continues its schemes when the PCs come knocking? Does it have the raw might necessary to stand up to them (without executing a ruthless TPK)?
Finally, when the villain is defeated and the story is told, what do the players take home with them? Are they going to remember how they fought that neat monster, or are they going to remember how they were heroes and saved the day in the end?
I really do think its a big mistake to view game villains in literary terms, without first considering how they fit in with the PCs (who are the big-name stars) over the course of the campaign. A good game villain is definitely not something that is easy to design in 500 words with so many factors to balance.
Except that it did pan out, because Erik's Blink Dog Nation sailed through to this round.
Honestly after some flawed first round entries got high praise, was it any surprise that someone tried a Blink Dog Nation? Don't blame that guy, he looked and saw what was generously praised in the first round and then did likewise.. only it didnt pan out. And so on in this current round.
I have to chime in here and say that I did not expect the blink dog nation to evoke such claims of way-out-there'edness, and in fact, I think of myself as a rather "conservative" gamer.
I did know that some people would like the idea (aka Blink Dogs are cool -- thank you AncientSensei) and some people wouldn't (aka Blink Dogs are dumb -- thank you Sebastian!). And I am guilty as charged of having purposefully picked something I thought would be "controversal" in that sense. However, I didn't expect that the idea of blink dogs having a culture would come across as "gonzo" to so many people.
So to sum up:
- Blink Dog Nation wasn't intended to be gonzo, just quirky.
- I self-identify myself as having a conservative game-design philosophy.
- Summarizing your ideas at the beginning and end of a document never hurts!
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I do hope the 3 monsters don't have as technical a focus.
Well, once again, this is superstar and I think the contestants have to give great ideas AND lock down the rules portion. You can't submit an adventure with sloppy or errant stat blocks. And I think that's especially true for new monsters. In Crown of the Kobold King, Logue can just say 'Dude - there are ghouls in the room.' But he can't screw up his presentation of the forge-spurned, cause that adventure is essentially the only place to find it.
In this round, I judged on villains and interesting concepts first, and accuracy in the ststa block second. In some cases I was so underwhelmed by the villain that I didn't bother with the stat block. In one case, the presentation of the stat block and math was the tie-breaker over another entry.
I should point out that I haven't noticed, or seen mention of, an egregious math error or broken rule. At this point, you would expect the stat block to be accurate. If someone can't do that, they clearly aren't in the same league as contestants who aren't challenged by the stat block.
And the contestants can correct me on this, but I don't think a stat block is draining at all. Maybe you should script the concept first to be fresh (and to make only design choices thatmake sense in the description), but a stat block should be fun and easy to put together. It's like leveling a character. A lot of players and DMs roll out chracters and advanced monsters just to flex their mechanics, or just cause it's fun. Getting to stat the nightmare, to me, would really be like a reward for putting its story together.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I remember running the Isle of Dread and the PCs killed a band of pirates, scuttled their ships, and stole most of their booty. They left one pirate alive to tell the tale - alone, on the isle of dread, with a raft and paddle. Needless to stay he was a particularly motivated villain, and of their own creation. Far, far better than any canned villain could ever hope to be.
That's a great example Sam. I was thinking of a bodyguard to the khazark's wife in my FR game. He was planned all along to have this helpless love for his charge, but then you don't go hitting on the Red Wizard's wife. And he is very lawful and loyal to the Red Wizard, just in love with his helpless slave wife.
Anyhoo, one of myplayers up and decided he had a thing for the poor creature. Instant rivalry, with the bodyguard showing up and giving menacing glares. Everyone knew there was a fight in the making.
That guy never became a villain, but I see how easily he could have if the campaign had taken a slightly diferent direction. The 'love affair' ambition fizzled just because the player skipped the next week for work. The party moved the football quite a ways that week, the next time they saw the bodyguard, she'd been murdered (by the khazark, in his ritual to become a lich). The scene was dramatic and memorable, but the opportunity for villainy pass him by randomly.
Thanks for that - it was a good trip realizing all of that. I will be more aware of those chances in future campaigns.
Except that it did pan out, because Erik's Blink Dog Nation sailed through to this round.
I stand corrected. I guess I drew too much from the judge's initial reaction.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I did know that some people would like the idea (aka Blink Dogs are cool -- thank you AncientSensei) and some people wouldn't (aka Blink Dogs are dumb -- thank you Sebastian!). And I am guilty as charged of having purposefully picked something I thought would be "controversal" in that sense. However, I didn't expect that the idea of blink dogs having a culture would come across as "gonzo" to so many people.
hey - I think that was a great decision. Every part of the 'game' is in play. While we learned early that the judges were wary of clear brown-nosing (better not submit the Brooch of the Neutral Archmage), you have to play to your audience, and your writing and unique concept got easy votes.
And I still don't think 'gonzo' applies. Maybe more to the magic item round, but then what is gonzo? We had a pillow, an undead cat (for lack of a better descrition), a forge, a tea, a book that hits like a hammer.
Uniqueness sells. And I think it's naive not to assume that one in 32 isn't going to take a big chance to distance themselves from all the human kingdoms. Just like we didn't see a lot of successful robes, cloaks, belts, etc. Oh, and pillows. I note that no pillows made it to the second round. : }
Beynd all of that, Kinships didn't get my vote because it was weird. It was well-presented. It clearly had DnD staples in it. It made a smooth shift from displacer beasts to phase spiders.It had heroes and villains and a reason for nonblink dogs to adventure there. It was a complete choice. I think its only flaw was the blink dog populations were about ten (even a hundred!) times what they should be. How many blink dogs do you need to secure your borders? 200 is a badass army. 20000 could not be stopped. But really, that situation could have been less unusual than blink dogs and its presentation still would have at least gotten an honorable mention from me. Well done.
I think perhaps it is a mistake to compare the writing of a literary villain to the writing of a role-playing game villain. There are extremely significant differences to writing a novel as opposed to arranging a pleasurable and long-lasting role-playing game experience.
I wouldn't even qualify the statement with perhaps. It is a mistake. Here's my LiveJournal entry from last night (which is a rewrite and expansion of comments made here).
Round Three got me thinking about its titular subject: villains.
First, let's get a definition or two. Merriam Webster says (among others): "a deliberate scoundrel or criminal". Wikipedia has a good article on villains. Some key points:
-villains are evil characters in stories
-villains oppose the heroes
-villains are important agencies in the plot
-supervillains have powers and usually appear in comic books*
I think there's a low incidence of villains in D&D. The Big Bad Evil Guy (or Gal) is a better design goal for D&D adventures. BBEGs invariably die once the party encounters them, unless they have a dimension door or other equivalent power or spell to get out.
Villains continue.
PCs dislike ongoing opponents that they can't remove permanently (or at least for a long while without a justification like raise dead). Hence I often don't use villains. I especially don't set out to create them. They happen organically. You luck across a character that somehow gets away or annoys the party. The party comes to hate them because they get away, because they are still out their hoarding their internal experience points away from the deserving (greedy?) PCs, or because they have opposed the PC's goals somehow, perhaps even in the smallest of ways.
It's easy to design a BBEG. It's preferred. You need a set of stats that the PCs can kill. They die so well after all. You need people to die. That's the point. Without justifiable homicide, what good is tabletop? Anyway, BBEGs have remarkably similar roles to villains - they are evil (meaning they stop PCs from doing what they want), they oppose the PCs (at least once), and they are important agencies in the plot.
Or are they? Let's look at the last part.
They are important agencies in the plot. Well yes, except it's more important that the BBEG be the sacrificial lamb of the evening's slaughterfest, offering up their neck to the swords and spells of the invaders to justify their existence. Until they die. They have to do it with style, and make it hard for the invaders...PCs to kill them. At the end they die or surrender. Probably never to be seen again.
Unless they return. Then they start down the path to true villainy. Will they make it? That depends. I bet everyone has known at least one memorable villain in their roleplaying game experience. I bet at least half of those were not the ones intended by the DM to fulfill that role.
My point? It's a very subtle but important distinction. Villains evolve: BBEGS emerge from whole cloth.
*Coming someday - D&D is just Champions with everyone picking up a lot of foci. ;)
I finally read through this post. The only things I like to say are 500 words isn't a lot. I'm seeing reviews of my piece and others and I'm like "well for me to put that in, some else has to go." I agree a true villain is build up over time. You either know him or are trying to stop the evil things he/she/it are doing. in 500 words there isn't a lot of time for the amount of built up everyone wants.
Also, a few complained about our stat blocks. That their party would defeat this villain in 3-4 rounds. But I think a villain doesn't have to be combat based. that is what goons and minions are for. Everyone stat block shouldn't be designed to be the best fight ever for the pcs. It should simply reinforce the description of what the villain is. If you are added abilities and effects that I think are really cool or can give the villain an edge in battle, but your villain isn't about combat, then you aren't being true to your villain. Look at my guy. By himself, two good melee attacks and he is done. But by his description, he is never by himself. Add in some golems and you have a fight.
Just a few of my thoughts.
I have to chime in here and say that I did not expect the blink dog nation to evoke such claims of way-out-there'edness, and in fact, I think of myself as a rather "conservative" gamer.
I did know that some people would like the idea (aka Blink Dogs are cool -- thank you AncientSensei) and some people wouldn't (aka Blink Dogs are dumb -- thank you Sebastian!). And I am guilty as charged of having purposefully picked something I thought would be "controversial" in that sense. However, I didn't expect that the idea of blink dogs having a culture would come across as "gonzo" to so many people.
So to sum up:
- Blink Dog Nation wasn't intended to be gonzo, just quirky.
- I self-identify myself as having a conservative game-design philosophy.
- Summarizing your ideas at the beginning and end of a document never hurts!
Yep yep yep, I have egg on my face. Everybody boo and hiss Watcher, he didn't know what he was talking about.
I didn't hate your Dogs, Erik Anderson. I did see them as a reaction to "innovation for it's own sake." I didn't vote for them, but I in no way begrudge your passing to the next round. I was neutral to your country, I didn't have a specific dislike of it.
As for your self-identification, my regrets. I didn't read your follow up comments. I didn't read any follow-up comments in Round Two (or if I did, I gave up fast). I only read your entry (and those of the others), and then I made my decision not to vote for you. If the Blink Dog Nation wasn't intended to be gonzo, then I accept you at your word, with my regrets. I am not a mind reader to claim otherwise.
Round One made me pretty angry, and I washed my hands of Round Two other than casting my votes. Now in Round Three, I've come back and participated actively in the process. In the case of your Second Round entry, I assumed that the Judges' comments would reflect the voting, and I was dead wrong. (And for those in the audience, spare me that time worn cliché about assumptions)
Again, my regrets at the mischaracterization. For what it's worth, I haven't decided my fourth vote yet. Your very civil reply has got you a careful re-read from me for this Round, that's the only way I can apologize with any substance.
*************
To Erik Mona:
Gosh I'm in an untenable position here. Bear with me, because I'm really trying to be respectful and courteous.
Some of this is 'beating a dead horse', but I'm going to comment briefly because discussion is part of the process. I'm still bothered by the First Round, and I don't think that's going to go away until the contest is over, hopefully before next year (should you do this again). All three judges and I have discussed this, but for the benefit of anyone else.. In Round One, there were multiple requirements. Ultimately, 'attention getting creativity' trumped the other requirements. I don't disagree that it should, it would be ludicrous to say otherwise. What I disagree with is my own perception that 'attention getting creativity' was a free pass to be really sloppy with all the other requirements.
That sort of judging bias wasn't discussed up front. So anybody who was trying to meet ALL the requirements might have ended up with a dry boring entry. This isn't even about my entry, which was munchkin-plot device bait, but a comment on the whole first round. If people knew 'attention getting creativity' was 80 to 90% of the judging criteria, then your results would have been significantly different. Why waste word count on plausible mechanics when they count for significantly less? What was tested was not the ability to make the best magic item, but who can write into the judge's bias, outguess the gaming industry, and endure judge's fatigue.
Nevertheless, I've talked about this with all three judges. I understand your reasoning. I'll do you one better! I never had to read that many magic items to see how objective *I* would be if the shoe was on the other foot. I'm not trying to go backwards and revisit this argument. I'm trying to tell you, and everybody else, why I was so irritated that I didn't participate in the Round Two evaluations other than to cast my vote.
Side note: Don’t let them change your mind about the judge’s comments on Round One. Keep those things sealed. Your instincts are correct.
Bringing this forward to the present- if an entry isn't a villain by my standard, I'm going to kick it right in the can! That would be a failure to meet the objectives of the round. Granted, for myself, I'm not doing the game mechanic scrutiny as I did in the First Round. However, if the entry isn't a villain in my estimation, all the creativity in the world isn't going to get my vote.
Thanks for listening.
****************
It occurs to me that maybe this bold talk will draw ire from the crowd (the Judges actually have been pretty gracious with me in the past). I'm not a publisher, or an author. I got nothing to speak for the merit of my opinions other than my gut. Since that is all I have, that's what I have to work with.
Now I owe Erik Anderson another review of his villain.
You don't owe me anything, Watcher, don't be silly!
You don't owe me anything, Watcher, don't be silly!
Well I felt like a jackass for saying that! Doh.. teach me to fact check.
What was tested was not the ability to make the best magic item, but who can write into the judge's bias, outguess the gaming industry, and endure judge's fatigue.
The general quality of round 2 would seem to say otherwise. Some very good stuff in my opinion, which I will gladly use. I think just about everyone found something they enjoyed quite a bit in round 2. If the predisposition was to only allow a certain kind of pandering into round 2, I doubt you would have had that sort of reaction.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
And the contestants can correct me on this, but I don't think a stat block is draining at all. Maybe you should script the concept first to be fresh (and to make only design choices thatmake sense in the description), but a stat block should be fun and easy to put together. It's like leveling a character. A lot of players and DMs roll out chracters and advanced monsters just to flex their mechanics, or just cause it's fun. Getting to stat the nightmare, to me, would really be like a reward for putting its story together.
Well said, and yes, you can count me as one of those people who enjoys leveling characters, pimping out stat blocks, and all of that as entertainment. Such is the depth of my D&D nerdity...
Putting together the nightmare was fun for me, though a couple of mechanical complications combined with the time limit (and the fact that I was essentially unable to work on it for 3 out of the 5 days we had) made it much more stressful than usual (having to rework some things late in the game) and led to a couple of small but sloppy and wholly unnecessary errors.
Honestly, the text part was much harder than the stat block, just trying to hack it down to 500 words without losing flavor or necessary information, which ended up not entirely successful anyway.
But overall I agree. Making monsters, making NPCs, making spells and magic items... this is part of the fun of D&D and probably why over the course of 26+ years of playing D&D I have much more often been a DM than a player, and when I have been a player often torturing the DM with spell and magic item research. Even just planning out your next couple (or dozen) levels of your character can be fun!
Well, it can if you're a little crazy...
As a player I find PCs draining to put together (all those damn synergies!) and monsters/NPCs an irritant (combat modifiers, argh!) so I can fully empathise with the contestants.
What was tested was not the ability to make the best magic item, but who can write into the judge's bias, outguess the gaming industry, and endure judge's fatigue.The general quality of round 2 would seem to say otherwise. Some very good stuff in my opinion, which I will gladly use. I think just about everyone found something they enjoyed quite a bit in round 2. If the predisposition was to only allow a certain kind of pandering into round 2, I doubt you would have had that sort of reaction.
I was in my local used bookstore yesterday, and someone had offloaded a LOT (50+) of RPG books. I snagged 4 of em, all Sword & Sorcery stuff.
One of the books was Relics and Rituals, which as a whole section of magic items, of course. Having read through many of those, it's my opinion that overall they're of higher quality than the 32 we got here. But not of the top 4 or 5.
Reading the items in that book, I can see that the standards are a lot higher than I thought when I made my own ill-advised Kylix, but I do think there's a good shot at getting someone out of this contest that can produce work at the level that book promises.
I just wish I'd been paying attention to that line of books sooner. I suspect at least one of the judges wishes we all did. :-)
But the stated bad-guys could have easily become villains if some of them had been given some stories or plots, and some ambition.
I see what you are saying. But how can they do all that... with 500 words? Especially when they are taking hints from last round to make their entries stronger. Its a puzzle game really.
|
|
I've been finding it increasingly necessary to not read anything other than the submission before making my selections.
Sometimes, after voting, I've gone back and seen an entry in an all new light after reading judge or voter reactions to it, but I'm not voting based on what Erik Mona thinks of the submission, I'm voting what *I* think of the submission. To continue picking on Erik, he'll notice things I didn't, he'll gush over thematic details that I didn't find that interesting, and he often seems to throw points off for what I consider to be the least important aspects of the submission. All fine and dandy, 'cause he's not me and has different priorities, but I don't want my opinions of an entry colored by 1) agreeing with, or 2) knee-jerk disagreeing with, the judges (or other voters) opinions.
Sometimes I'm amazed to see other posters completely agreeing with me. Other times I'm amazed to see other posters violently disagreeing with my favorite / least favorite choices. And that's cool. 'Cause I'm just voting for me.
What was tested was not the ability to make the best magic item, but who can write into the judge's bias, outguess the gaming industry, and endure judge's fatigue.The general quality of round 2 would seem to say otherwise. Some very good stuff in my opinion, which I will gladly use. I think just about everyone found something they enjoyed quite a bit in round 2. If the predisposition was to only allow a certain kind of pandering into round 2, I doubt you would have had that sort of reaction.
Your logic is thus: You feel Round Two entries were of quality; ergo the criteria evaluated in Round One must have been exactly what it should have been.
Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it.
For example:
for example, in using specific propositions such as:
This ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
...to infer general propositions such as:
All ice is cold.
All billiard balls struck with a cue move.
The fact is, neither you nor I can predict how the overall quality of Round One entries would have been changed had the relative value the criteria (creativity versus mechanical design versus presentation) been prioritized rather than left to intuition of the contestant.
Ergo the statement: What was tested was not the ability to make the best magic item, but who can write into the judge's bias, outguess the gaming industry, and endure judge's fatigue.
I have to keep to restating this so I'm not taken out of context: I don't dispute that creativity and attention getting should not have been paramount. I do question whether it merited a free pass on everything else.
And Sam, I think you're example number one of that with the Migrus Locker. A creative entry that fell down on other criteria, but was accepted anyway. And I completely understand the judge's rationale; it's only the fact that their rationale came after the judging rather than before it, that bothers me. 'Outguess the process.'
It wouldn't surprise me if no one anywhere agreed with me, but I can say this to you with a clear conscience. I evaluated your Second Round entry fairly like I said I would. I voted for it, regardless of how I felt about Round One. It was clear to me it was one of the superior Round Two submissions. We may be on opposite sides of this, but I didn't let it get in the way of integrity
**************************
Sam,
Last minute edit. I'm clearly forgetting that there is a person on the other end of this comment. I'm not angry with you, I'm angry at the process that took place in Round One. As I've said, I've had it explained to me after the fact.. but it doesn't change anything other than I understand it now. Understanding the judging process in Round One doesn't equate to agreeing with it, alas, there's nothing to be done about it
Anyway, you personally don't deserve the grief. I might be just voting in future rounds, but not commenting. That is not leaving the boards or the community.. but just stepping away from this specific contest. I feel too strongly about it and there's no use in trying to impose my values and feelings on to anybody else.
I'm not angry with you, I'm angry at the process that took place in Round One.
I figured the judging criteria lay along the lines of 'we shall pick the 32 that we like and it shall be known', or some such vagary. I'm fairly oblivious if they had a set process.
And Sam, I think you're example number one of that with the Migrus Locker.
I do generally write towards a certain je ne sais pas, which sometime clicks, sometimes not. With that in mind I do think you are putting too much weight on mechanics. The line between the Migrus Locker and Horns of Valhalla (which I modeled) where not that great in my mind. I mean I gave the matter some thought, but I did not hesitate to opt for flavor over function. I really have no idea if the judging opted for the same priorities or not.
Anyway, you personally don't deserve the grief.
No offense taken! I enjoy the discussion on the forums here.
|
|
OK, I haven't read over all of the posts, and much of what I'm about to say has probably already been said. I, like others, was disappointed in the villains presented in this round. Most of them are not what I would call a villain: in my book, a villain respresents an active force working at odds against the protagonist(s). Interesting villains are complex characters, with hidden or misunderstood motivations. Rarely, save in bad fiction, is a villain simply out to "cause mayhem and destruction". The best villains have a plan. My all-time favorite villain is Lord Foul from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. He has a goal; he has a plan; he is willing to do what it takes to achieve his goal. He uses, manipulates, outwits, plots, schemes, and generally perseveres, even through seeming setbacks and "defeats". He suses every avenue to his advantage. Lord Foul is a villain; many of these are not. Some other notable villains at least to me:
John Doe (Kevin Spacey) from Se7en.
Gollum from the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.
Louis Cyphre from Angel Heart.
Khan Noonian Sihgn from Star Trek II and ST:TOS - Space Seed.
The Cigarette Smoking Man from the X-Files.
That said, there were still some gems here, and some great encounters. While most of the entries were intriguing, only three or four really make it as villains, and only two are really interesting villains. I think we could have seen better out of just about everyone here. Still, you've at least made it this far, and that's something to be proud of. I have placed my votes, and I wish the best to you all. I can't wait to see the lucky eight in the next round!