How exactly is it decided which alternate is moved forward in the event someone drops out or is disqualified?
Also, last night while working on the villain concept for the next round (as practice) I thought of a Wonderous Item I wish I had submitted. Dang it. There's always next year.
The alts are ranked, unlike the top 32. That way, if one drops out, the next highest ranked alt moves in.
I have to say I'm kind of surprised by how often the judges effectively said "this item is broken it at least a couple of important ways, but I see a creative spark here that makes me want to see what this writer will do in the next round."
We did do that this year, that is true.
Last year we had a consensus of 23 items (of which 18 were dead bang lock consensus picks and the others were consensus by subsequent agreement). The rest we golden ticketed. This year we had a consensus of 20, so each judge had one more golden ticket.
Some of the reason behind the "I want to see what they will do" mentality comes in part from an analysis I did of our picks from last year. While we did get 4 of the top 8 (if I recall correctly) from our top 18 last year, we found that most of the really competitive entries in later rounds came from our golden ticket items and that the vast majority of our top 18 washed out in the second round. That lead me to conclude that while the assignment of round 1 is a good one to help us sort through applicants, it is not the be all end all of design. And it also shows that spark and creativity is an important factor in who may win it all.
Because, remember, the wondrous item task is not so much a normal round as it is an application process to be in the top 32. We pick the field of the competition, so to speak.
...while the assignment of round 1 is a good one to help us sort through applicants, it is not the be all end all of design. And it also shows that spark and creativity is an important factor in who may win it all....Because, remember, the wondrous item task is not so much a normal round as it is an application process to be in the top 32. We pick the field of the competition, so to speak.
For what it's worth, I think that's a really, really good tack for the judges to take. There's only so much a 200-word wondrous item can tell you about a potential designer. Clearly, a poorly-designed and not-so-creative submission can point out someone who probably isn't RPG Superstar material. But the perfectly-designed wondrous item (creative idea or not), doesn't necessarily tell you it's someone who can go the distance. When the later rounds establish lengthier assignments of varying complexity, that's when you really sort things out among the competitors.
Also, in some ways (but not all) the mechanics of RPG design can be learned or picked up through experience. But creativity? Not as much. I think some of the competitors even learned along the way last year. To me, the creative spark among the ideas in Round 1 is really more of an indicator of who's got potential. Of course, you need decent execution, too. Don't get me wrong on that. I'd expect the Top 32 to all have really good ideas...with possibly a handful of mechanical flaws among them...just nothing that's a complete deal-killer.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I have to say I'm kind of surprised by how often the judges effectively said "this item is broken it at least a couple of important ways, but I see a creative spark here that makes me want to see what this writer will do in the next round."We did do that this year, that is true.
Last year we had a consensus of 23 items (of which 18 were dead bang lock consensus picks and the others were consensus by subsequent agreement). The rest we golden ticketed. This year we had a consensus of 20, so each judge had one more golden ticket.
Some of the reason behind the "I want to see what they will do" mentality comes in part from an analysis I did of our picks from last year. While we did get 4 of the top 8 (if I recall correctly)
I think it was 3 of the top 4 (our WINNER Christine's arcane anvil being the exception) and 4 of the top 8 were locks, but of those 18 "dead bang lock consensus items" 11 washed out in the very first round of voting (countries) and 14 were gone after the villains round.
from our top 18 last year, we found that most of the really competitive entries in later rounds came from our golden ticket items and that the vast majority of our top 18 washed out in the second round. That lead me to conclude that while the assignment of round 1 is a good one to help us sort through applicants, it is not the be all end all of design. And it also shows that spark and creativity is an important factor in who may win it all.
Because, remember, the wondrous item task is not so much a normal round as it is an application process to be in the top 32. We pick the field of the competition, so to speak.
I'm about halfway through commenting on items, and I guess we're more commentators than judges since our Superjudges have already done the hard work. Rob, Booms, Christine, and I get to take our time and make more detailed comments than the Superjudges because we only have to do a fraction as many of them! Spark and creativity do count for a lot, but there are a fair number of mechanical issues, some small and one or two pretty large. The mechanical things are easier to critique or offer suggestions about different ways that things could work. Spark and creativity are a little harder to evaluate, but you know it when you see it, and so far the items have done fairly well.
It will be interesting to see what these folks do with a bigger sandbox but a whole lot smaller window to operate. Three days from "Hey I'm in!" to "OMG, my villain is due!" I hope you guys are ready!
Within the boundaries of this contest, I know that explaining your pricing counted toward the word count, so most people didn't include it.Actually, the reason I didn't include a pricing explanation was the fact that, in this thread, a judge warned us against including developer notes:
[W]e wont read and dont want any notes. We want a wondrous item. Providing notes is like having to explain a joke. If we three professional designers dont get your design choices and we need your notes for a wondrous item, then there is a problem.That made it sound as those pricing explanations would be counted against us. Otherwise, I would have included a (somewhat clever) pricing explanation in my entry.
Clark and I disagree on that point--and argued very much the same set of points in our discussion of one of the items. :) Yes, we want to see you design a cool item. No, we don't want your "item" to actually be a framework for how you've used the item creation pricing guidelines to create something that's broken for its price. Yes, we want to see that you know how to use the pricing guidelines. No, that doesn't mean you have to include pricing info in your contest entry. Yes, it does mean that if your pricing looks wrong, you might want to include a line justifying it, just as if your item interfaces with the rules in a weird way you should include a line explaining how to resolve that interfacing.
If you create an item and at first glance it looks like it should be 100,000 gp but you have it priced at 5,000 gp, and you have the room to say "I discounted the price because of {obscure rule #27}," it wouldn't hurt you.
Nobody who included pricing explanations got rejected because of their choice to do so (though one guy did get rejected because his explanation was so long his entry was about 800 words, but that was a word count issue, not a "don't show me your pricing info" issue...).
I recall somewhere in the cauldron of posts that someone posted a legitimate, true-blue, official Pathfinder wondrous item template. Can someone re-post it? I can't seem to find it.
This is what we use in our newest products, including the Beta:
Magic Item Name {"Stat Block Title" style, which automatically applies Small Caps and bold}
Aura [[strength]] [[school(s)]]; CL XXth
Slot XXX; Price gp; Weight XX lb.
Description {"Stat Block Breaker" style, which automatically applies ALL CAPS and the horizontal lines above and below the text}
Make sure this is second person. This should assume the reader is the wielder/wearer/user. {first line is in "Stat Description" style}
Make sure this is second person. This should assume the reader is the wielder/wearer/user. {first line is in "Stat Description Indent" style}
Construction{"Stat Block Breaker" style, which automatically applies ALL CAPS and the horizontal lines above and below the text}
Requirements [[alphabetized feats, alphabetized spells, alphabetized whatever else]]; Cost XXX gp, XXX XP
Obviously, the Beta rules don't include an XP cost, so you wouldn't include that very last bit. The Beta pg 368 has the boat, folding, which is a perfect example of a correctly-formatted item with a multi-paragraph description (so you can see how the indents work) and a Requirements entry with a feat, spell, and a "whatever else." I put a screenshot of it up on my Photobucket account so you can always refer to it. ;)
Some basic stuff you should know from reading the core books, the Beta, and Pathfinder products: feat names are capitalized but not italicized (Power Attack, Cleave). Spell names are italicized but not capitalized (fireball, magic missile).
Also: you never need to use the tab key unless you're formatting a table. Our styles automatically take care of indents at the start of paragraphs, so you don't need to include them. If you put tabs at the start of paragraphs, the developer is just going to have to take them all out.
Also also: As noted in the style information in the above magic item text stat block, our styles automatically take care of Small Caps (like the item name) and ALL CAPS (like the DESCRIPTION line). You never need to manually set something as small caps or all caps, let the style do it for you.
Finally also: Obviously, in a text/web-based contest like this, you're not going to have access to our Word style templates. We understand that and you won't be penalized for it. We didn't care if someone put their item name in Regular Capitalization Rules or if they entered it in ALL CAPS, or if they typed DESCRIPTION in all caps. Simpler is better ... when your submission is (essentially) raw text, you don't need to add the stuff the style guide would take care of (indent tabs, all caps, small caps). It takes maybe 10 seconds for me to put a plain-text magic item into the proper format, that's no problem. It takes significantly longer if I have to remove Capitalized Spell Names, indent tabs, switch DESCRIPTION out of all caps, and so on. ;)
Does this seem like a test or a puzzle? Yeah, there's a lot going on that you have to remember, but most companies should have a style guide they want you to use. Ideally, they actually send you a copy of that style guide when you start a project. Ask for the style guide, it shows you have an idea how the publishing process works. And don't sweat the small stuff, you're always going to make mistakes, that's why there's a developer and editor. The idea is to minimize your mistakes so the dev and ed can work on turning a good manuscript into a great manuscript (rather than turning an average one into a good one). And while it's easy for me to spout off this stuff from "on high," let me point out that I STILL make silly mistakes. Heck, I think I wrote the Calistria article in the default Word style rather than Paizo style, and I wrote it while working here at Paizo, so it's not like I had the excuse of "well, I didn't know what the proper style was!" :)
...
Obviously, the Beta rules don't include an XP cost, so you wouldn't include that very last bit. ...
Just to clarify, we did not have to include the XP cost for the item? (Or at least wouldn't be penalized for following the Beta examples)
*I had this discussion with a friend who was also submitting when we compared items afterwards. I had the XP cost calculated, but cut it out when I compared it against the Beta examples. My friend included his, but then again, he also used SRD formatting.
I don't recall disqualifying anyone for listing or not listing an XP cost.
Whew... I read or skimmed (for the most part) all the posts, and I went through the gamut of emotions ("Ack! I'm done for." and then "Oh, there's hope." And everything inbetween.) And I know, this wasn't done ("this" being this messageboard) as a way to inform we, the contestants, that we did or didn't make it. It was more of an observation thread. And all the judges comments (Clark, Wolfgang, and Sean) plus everyone from the Paizo community were so upbeat and helpful... that by the end I think I still have a chance. (I do feel like I may have fallen into a few of the "earmarked" things that the judges noticed this year.) I've been working on my villain (y'know just in case) and I can't wait to see who made it to the top 32. Good Luck everyone!
By-the-way... what does an alternate do? If I'd be in that line-up... do alternates still submit for the villain concept? (I may have missed it, as I skimmed a lot, but I don't recall seeing what happens with those that are chosen as alternates.)
Thanks again for all your time and effort.
Dean; the Minstrel_Wyrm
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
,
Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
Between this thread and the "Almost Also Ran" thread, I've been bouncing between highs and lows. "Oh, I think I made my item abusable by the PCs." "That item got praise for something I did." "Wait, this is an item someone decided *not* to enter for something better."
I really, really can't wait until the 20th. And not just to find out whether I made it or not. There's going to be a lot of awesome items that advance--I'm sure of it!
Chief Technical Officer
|
By-the-way... what does an alternate do? If I'd be in that line-up... do alternates still submit for the villain concept? (I may have missed it, as I skimmed a lot, but I don't recall seeing what happens with those that are chosen as alternates.)
Thanks again for all your time and effort.
At the same time we publicly announce the Top 32, I'll be sending an e-mail privately notifying the alternates; we'll promote an alternate if one of the Top 32 fails to submit a Round 2 entry, opts out of the competition, or is disqualified for some reason.
We most likely won't know that we need an alternate until after the submission deadline for the next round has passed, so alternates who wish to be considered need to complete the same assignment that the finalists will be working on, and on the same deadline, even though there is no guarantee that their work will be seen by anyone.
Last year, five of the six alternates were offered the opportunity to compete last year (one of the Top 32 elected to drop out of the contest, two were disqualified, one didn't submit a round two entry, and an alternate that would have been promoted didn't submit an entry). Russ Taylor, the last alternate to be activated, made it to the Top 6.
At the same time we publicly announce the Top 32, I'll be sending an e-mail privately notifying the alternates;
Will the email include the judge's comments or a link to them? That information may help (even if it is only slightly) the alternates when creating their later submissions...
|
Some of the reason behind the "I want to see what they will do" mentality comes in part from an analysis I did of our picks from last year. While we did get 4 of the top 8 (if I recall correctly) from our top 18 last year, we found that most of the really competitive entries in later rounds came from our golden ticket items and that the vast majority of our top 18 washed out in the second round. That lead me to conclude that while the assignment of round 1 is a good one to help us sort through applicants, it is not the be all end all of design. And it also shows that spark and creativity is an important factor in who may win it all.
Because, remember, the wondrous item task is not so much a normal round as it is an application process to be in the top 32. We pick the field of the competition, so to speak.
Any thought using a test other than wondrous items for a first round next time?
9. Writer who is obviously not that skilled with English. And it was too bad, too. (see what I mean?) Some real good items were marred horribly by some poor writing which most likely was due to the author not being as well versed in English as is necessary. I discussed this in another thread. It is really a drag to have to grade down for this. But this is RPG Superstar and the winner gets a freelance gig for Paizo. So you just have to be able to write in English. Is it fair? I think so, though it may not feel that way to the guy who gets dinged for this. Is it a drag? Yes, even for us judges. There were a couple entries I literally couldn't figure out, or reading them made my brain hurt.
All your rings ruled are by one!!
Yep. Following the publisher's directions are important if you want to get work from them more than once.
* * * MASSIVE TANGENT WARNING * * *
The ideal designer's turnover is:
1) good/on topic
2) on time
3) the proper length
4) properly styled
I couldn't agree more with these guidelines. Following them consistently leads to more freelance work from RPG companies, and even full-time writing positions. =]
BD
Funny story: I originally wrote my entry in second person, then changed it to third person because of the beta. (I doubt that is the reason I don't make the cut though).Description ...
Make sure this is second person. This should assume the reader is the wielder/wearer/user.
Yeah that wasn't an issue for our discussion. It does, however, show that Jason didn't follow the style guide when writing the Beta. Tsk, tsk, tsk, ya big drunkard cheesehead.... ;)
Any thought using a test other than wondrous items for a first round next time?
I'm not the one making the decision about that, but wondrous items give us the greatest amount of variety in submissions, which (1) keeps the judges from being bored, (2) allows people to find cool niches in the game to explore. For example, if the item category was "armor," it would mean we'd have very few sor/wiz/monk items, and likewise for weapons.
Any thought using a test other than wondrous items for a first round next time?
I'm sure we'd be happy to take suggestions for a different first round assignment. Remember, this is sort of an "application" for the contest, so to speak, rather than the contest itself. This is the task we use to help determine who gets to be in the contest from the hundreds of people who want to be in.
So the first round task has to be short and measurable and objective to some degree and should be a good litmus test for many issues: design chops, writing, ability to follow directions, formatting, and most of all creativity and mojo yet all in 200 words or less so that the judges can actually review them all wihtout having to be involuntarily committed at the end of the process. A wondrous item fits that bill better than anything I can think of. But if you have a suggestion, bring it. We'd love to hear it.
But if you have a suggestion, bring it. We'd love to hear it.
Designing a Feat is a lot like designing a wondrous item: it needs to be simple, useful, and applies to all classes. So I'd suggest building a Feat.
I also wouldn't be disappointed in a 'Design a Spell' (or 'Design a Cantrip') contest, but that does exclude the non-spellcasters.
|
Designing a Feat is a lot like designing a wondrous item: it needs to be simple, useful, and applies to all classes. So I'd suggest building a Feat.I also wouldn't be disappointed in a 'Design a Spell' (or 'Design a Cantrip') contest, but that does exclude the non-spellcasters.
I think that designing a feat would be a little tricky because you have to work around mechanics more, so there would be a lot of repeat concepts moreso than with a magic item.
I was actually thinking about designing a spell too, but there seem to be more of those than magic items these days! ;-)
Wondrous items work so well, I guess, because the term is so flexible. What about extending it to more types of magic items? Or would that be too hard to compare?
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Will the email include the judge's comments or a link to them? That information may help (even if it is only slightly) the alternates when creating their later submissions...
At the same time we publicly announce the Top 32, I'll be sending an e-mail privately notifying the alternates;
Hmm. You raise an interesting issue. I'll have to contemplate that.
|
Marathon Voter Season 6
|
Any thought using a test other than wondrous items for a first round next time?I'm sure we'd be happy to take suggestions for a different first round assignment. Remember, this is sort of an "application" for the contest, so to speak, rather than the contest itself. This is the task we use to help determine who gets to be in the contest from the hundreds of people who want to be in.
So the first round task has to be short and measurable and objective to some degree and should be a good litmus test for many issues: design chops, writing, ability to follow directions, formatting, and most of all creativity and mojo yet all in 200 words or less so that the judges can actually review them all wihtout having to be involuntarily committed at the end of the process. A wondrous item fits that bill better than anything I can think of. But if you have a suggestion, bring it. We'd love to hear it.
Maybe design an Intelligent/Cursed item or Minor Artifact contest =p
Or design a spell.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
Design should certainly be the focus of the contest, including its initial round. Poor design can't be fixed with good prose. The contest is about being able to follow directions and submit mechanically pleasing work. Folklore or a 'describe a villain' round as the first round might weed out a lot of mediocre writers or ESL writers whos design experience and tastes are good for the game.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 9
|
But if you have a suggestion, bring it. We'd love to hear it.Designing a Feat is a lot like designing a wondrous item: it needs to be simple, useful, and applies to all classes. So I'd suggest building a Feat.
I also wouldn't be disappointed in a 'Design a Spell' (or 'Design a Cantrip') contest, but that does exclude the non-spellcasters.
The big problem with a "design a feat" option is that there are over 3200 feats and thats just from Wizards of the Coast products alone, so copying a feat is very very likely even when someone thinks that they are being original. Gods knows how many 3rd party feats there are.
|
But if you have a suggestion, bring it. We'd love to hear it.Designing a Feat is a lot like designing a wondrous item: it needs to be simple, useful, and applies to all classes. So I'd suggest building a Feat.
I also wouldn't be disappointed in a 'Design a Spell' (or 'Design a Cantrip') contest, but that does exclude the non-spellcasters.
The big problem with a "design a feat" option is that there are over 3200 feats and thats just from Wizards of the Coast products alone, so copying a feat is very very likely even when someone thinks that they are being original. Gods knows how many 3rd party feats there are.
As it is 3.0 is almost a millipede that does not know where to go.
Designing a deity, or a religion, has been suggested before.
Design a trick or trap (dating myself there)
Design a settlement
Design an encounter location
Too much for us to read. Sorry. There are practical limits. It cant be more than 200 words.
Spells are an interesting idea. The problem is there are so many of them already. There are actualy far fewer wondrous items.
Plus, good spells do one thing, and they follow rules. Good wondrous items break rules.
But feats and spells are good suggestions and I'm sure we will discuss it. (though frankly I think feats are totally unworkable as a submission test, spells might make some sense).
Please feel free, anyone, to chime in why you think either spells or feats might be superior to a wondrous item. I mean, dont change just to change.
I will ask this: What about a spell or feat (as opposed to a wondrous item) makes the process of selecting who gets picked to play in RPG Superstar better? That is the core question.
If you wanted to have a break from mechanics in the submission round, what about 'write a short piece of folklore (no more than 200 words)' - whether about some crazy woman fifty years ago who had a secret recipe for chicken soup, a piece of pirate treachery, a tale of some cruel judge, an explanation for why a noble house has a particular crest of arms, how a man earned his nickname... anything, whether tragic comic, fable, moral, or otherwise but it must come in at 200 words or less.
We HAVE to see some measure of mechanics in the submission round. Frankly, one of the joys of the wondrous item as test is the act of determining price--it is that awesome grey area of art and science that really shows us something about the author. I cant see "a short piece of folklore" working, and frankly I dont even know what that means. Remember, you have to give a very discreet and understandable assignment.
I will ask this: What about a spell or feat (as opposed to a wondrous item) makes the process of selecting who gets picked to play in RPG Superstar better? That is the core question.
You pointed out one problem with these already: spells follow or make rules while wondrous items break them. Designing a spell as a submission would, I fear, be too heavy on the mechanics, infusing interesting flavor while still keeping the submission on a reasonable word limit would be quite hard. So that would favor people who are great at mechanics.
Having a thing like "NPC description" would make interesting results but that would have too little mechanical content, and I guess judging those would be even more subjective than what we are having now here...
I'd allow other types of magic items than wondrous items for those who want to make a weapon or a ring or whatever. Mechanics of potions might be easier, but on the other hand making "wow!" potions would also be much harder, and I guess anyway majority of the more interesting items would be wondrous items...
Designing a spell as a submission would, I fear, be too heavy on the mechanics, infusing interesting flavor while still keeping the submission on a reasonable word limit would be quite hard. So that would favor people who are great at mechanics.
I agree. And if you want to favor anything in the initial round of the competition, I think it ought to be creativity over mechanics. Granted, the mechanical expertise needs to be present as well. And wondrous magic items have a better balance to them...both from a design perspective and for the judges to analyze.
I'd allow other types of magic items than wondrous items for those who want to make a weapon or a ring or whatever.
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe expand on the magic item choices designers could submit. That way, some of these items that start to blur the line between wondrous item and ring, armor, weapon, etc. could be allowed. Even potions could be included, as long as they were interesting and creative (i.e., think more along the elixir line than simple spell-in-a-bottle). Regardless, the 200 word limit would still have to apply to keep the judges sane.
(i.e., think more along the elixir line than simple spell-in-a-bottle).
Elixers are wondroud items!
That said, the broader magic item categories (rings and rods) might be a good idea for inclusion.
By-the-way... what does an alternate do? If I'd be in that line-up... do alternates still submit for the villain concept? (I may have missed it, as I skimmed a lot, but I don't recall seeing what happens with those that are chosen as alternates.)
Thanks again for all your time and effort.At the same time we publicly announce the Top 32, I'll be sending an e-mail privately notifying the alternates; we'll promote an alternate if one of the Top 32 fails to submit a Round 2 entry, opts out of the competition, or is disqualified for some reason.
We most likely won't know that we need an alternate until after the submission deadline for the next round has passed, so alternates who wish to be considered need to complete the same assignment that the finalists will be working on, and on the same deadline, even though there is no guarantee that their work will be seen by anyone.
Last year, five of the six alternates were offered the opportunity to compete last year (one of the Top 32 elected to drop out of the contest, two were disqualified, one didn't submit a round two entry, and an alternate that would have been promoted didn't submit an entry). Russ Taylor, the last alternate to be activated, made it to the Top 6.
Thanks Vic, that helps a lot. (And I guess it's good that I am working on my "Villain Concept"... y'know... just in case.)
Dean; the_Minstrel_Wyrm
Elixers are wondroud items!
Yep. That's why I was saying" "more along the elixir line"... ;-D
Actually, I had a very interesting (to me!) potion-esque wondrous item in mind for this go-around that I eventually discarded for fear it might be seen as more of a potion than a wondrous item. If both categories were fully open, these "blurring the lines" concepts wouldn't be held back as much.
And that's why rings, rods, and similar items could make sense as well. Even armor and weapons could be thrown in there as long as they had more wondrous effects to them. And, of course, the 200-word limit would still need to be enforced regardless of which item type a designer selected.
--Neil
Take your ring idea and make it an amulet, now it's a wondrous item.... :)
Take your ring idea and make it an amulet, now it's a wondrous item.... :)
Point taken. But if a ring is essentially an amulet by another name, why exclude rings from the first round? Other than to see if people can follow directions, of course... ;-)
--Neil
Good wondrous items break rules.
Definitely where I believe that I came up most short this time around. Speaks to a lack of time and imaginative investment for me.
Without giving anything away, I would like to have done an adjustment that allowed it to move between two slot areas and played with the price to justify.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Hmm. You raise an interesting issue. I'll have to contemplate that.Will the email include the judge's comments or a link to them? That information may help (even if it is only slightly) the alternates when creating their later submissions...
At the same time we publicly announce the Top 32, I'll be sending an e-mail privately notifying the alternates;
My suggestion would be yes, to allow the alternates to see the judges' comments.
Certainly the Superjudges and also last year's Top 4 have done the feedback, and it would be a little unfair to allow the Top 32 this year to have the advantage of judges' feedback (good and bad) while the Next 5 didn't. They're already behind the 8-ball in terms of fielding a competitive entry, since they aren't guaranteed their submission will ever see the light of day. At least they should be able to submit on an equal footing in case they DO get in.
Plus, having spent time reading and commenting I'd like the Next 5 just to have the chance to see the feedback they've been given, even if they don't get into the regular contest.
That's my two bits on it.
|
Marathon Voter Season 9
|
I am a little confused by the "spell in a can" complaint. I did not participate last year so maybe that is why I am ignorant to this issue. If you look through the DMG I would say that approximately 99% of wonderous items simply replicate a spell affect on a more permanent basis. In fact is not the item creation mechanic for a wonderous item something that is a continuous spell affect or something used a few times a day rather than once for a scroll or 50 times for a wand etc. I appreciate your insight into this matter, perhaps when you are less busy tomorrow after the first 32 have been selected.
I am a little confused by the "spell in a can" complaint. I did not participate last year so maybe that is why I am ignorant to this issue. If you look through the DMG I would say that approximately 99% of wonderous items simply replicate a spell affect on a more permanent basis. In fact is not the item creation mechanic for a wonderous item something that is a continuous spell affect or something used a few times a day rather than once for a scroll or 50 times for a wand etc. I appreciate your insight into this matter, perhaps when you are less busy tomorrow after the first 32 have been selected.
The problem with these items is not that they are illegal, it's that they are not very creative.
I am a little confused by the "spell in a can" complaint. I did not participate last year so maybe that is why I am ignorant to this issue. If you look through the DMG I would say that approximately 99% of wonderous items simply replicate a spell affect on a more permanent basis. In fact is not the item creation mechanic for a wonderous item something that is a continuous spell affect or something used a few times a day rather than once for a scroll or 50 times for a wand etc. I appreciate your insight into this matter, perhaps when you are less busy tomorrow after the first 32 have been selected.The problem with these items is not that they are illegal, it's that they are not very creative.
That's pretty much it. The fact that so many existing items follow the pattern just shows why pushing that envelope is so important in demonstrating superstar status.
I am a little confused by the "spell in a can" complaint. I did not participate last year so maybe that is why I am ignorant to this issue. If you look through the DMG I would say that approximately 99% of wonderous items simply replicate a spell affect on a more permanent basis. In fact is not the item creation mechanic for a wonderous item something that is a continuous spell affect or something used a few times a day rather than once for a scroll or 50 times for a wand etc. I appreciate your insight into this matter, perhaps when you are less busy tomorrow after the first 32 have been selected.
Good question. We throw terms about that we understand that we kind of presume everyone gets what we mean.
"Spell in a can" is shorthand for a rather uninspired item that simply replicates a spell effect. Notice the two components there: 1. uninspired, 2. replicate spell effect.
But wait, you might say. The DMG is full of those!
And you would be right.
So why, then, is that a "bad thing"(tm)?
A couple reasons.
First, though, lets back up to what we are doing here and why there are such items in the DMG. The magic items in the DMG come from lots of places and fill lots of needs. Some of those items are inspired by the fantasy stories that inspired D&D itself (rings of invisibility, wish rings, magic staffs, flying carpets, etc.). Other items have existed since the infancy of the game. Both of these types of items (the "fantasy cliche" item and the "its always been in D&D" item) HAVE to be in the DMG. You cant really have a DMG without elven cloaks and boots, gauntlets of ogre power, rings of invisibility, etc (well, I guess you can, but they call that 4E :) ). So just because it is in teh DMG does not mean it is the height of inspired game design. The DMG is full of items that we often say would not make the Superstar cut. So dont just point to the DMG and say "mine is as good as that." The real question is, is your item good enough to be added to that iconic list of wondrous items.
Second, this is RPG Superstar. It is NOT a wondrous item open call for submissions. We are not trying to put together a book of magic items. We are using this taks as the "application" if you will for who gets to compete in the top 32 of a design contest, the winner of which gets a freelance gig with Paizo. So simply submitting an item that is a spell effect, no matter how prevalent in the DMG, is just not good enough. This is your chance to impress us. This is your moment on the stage. You get a guitar, an amp, lights and 1000 adoring fans. Do you play "Mary Had A Little Lamb" or do you play "Eruption." A spell in a can item is "Mary Had A Little Lamb." Now, sometimes simple can be legendary. Think Hendrix playing the "Star Spangled Banner" or SRV playing "Mary Had A Little Lamb." The bottom line is: this is RPG-Freaking-Superstar! Bring your A-game and submit an A-game item. I am always amazed at the people who submit another type of figurine of wondrous power. I always post: "This is RPG Superstar, your time to shine, and you submitted another figurine of wondrous power. Really? That's it? That's all you've got?" Knock my socks off! And I dont mean gonzo. But come with something strong. Not weak sauce.
Third, while many wondrous items are spell in a can, the best wondrous items break design rules or rules of the game in a small way. They are how exceptions happen. Great wondrous items use mechanics or tweak rules in a creative way that is hard to do otherwise. So spell in a can means you are kind of using a boring, tried and true way to power your item.
In the end, "spell in a can" is really shorthand for an item that fails to show inspired design chops and that fails to set itself apart and fails to impress or break rules or do anything cool. Now, that said, just like Hendrix with the anthem, a spell in a can item can have tons of chops and mojo. And you know it when you see it.
That is what we mean by that reference.