Well I am definitely guilty of 2 and very likely fell foul of 9 however; I have no one to blame but my self. I submitted with out a careful proof read from some one who is not dyslexic. This was in my case the very height of arrogance and stupidity, but I will have it live with it. Of cause, the very best spelling and grammar checker I could find was okay with the document so I might be okay.
With regards to 4. ‘Just couldn’t resist the backstory, could ya?’ I think I avoided this but I also tend to feel it shouldn’t be considered an issue.
It is my personal opinion that DnD as a whole underplays the uniqueness and history of every magic items. These items should not be overly common, in fact, very few people can afford to own a first level spell scroll let alone a ring of protection. My very faverate magic item of all time, cloe the growl-growl bear(A toy bear that turns into a mother bear when the children of it maker are in trouble, usually to kill lots of MIB, yay mage!!!) is a perfect example of backstory making the item. It is a simple item but it is made all the more interesting by the little details. How, why and by whom items are made inform them as much, if not more, then their mechanics.
My item is sort of tangentially touching some of the complaints.
My item is closely related to a spell, but it does have some twists to make it more than just a spell-in-a-can. I did my best to avoid it being a home campaign item, though some things might be a bit vague...
I did throw some backstoryish comments in it, though I did put it in the end of the submission and more to tie the item to the world(s).
Cannot comment on "bad execution" and "bad English" issues, I don't think I am horribly bad at either but not top level either...and of course the pricing was pretty much pulled from a hat.
So no "they are definitely talking about my item there" issues yet, but I will definitely be surprised if I make it to the next round.
So no "they are definitely talking about my item there" issues yet, but I will definitely be surprised if I make it to the next round.
I feel the same way, but until Clark or Wolfgang or Sean posts anything that touches on my item I am still a contender.
Woot!
Here are a few more types of items we saw alot of this year for some reason. Not saying they are bad or good, just an unusual amount:
14. Beast shape items. This spell seemed to be everywhere this year. There were tons of items with beast shape in the creation information (unfortunately, often capitalized which is a no no).
15. Soul trapping items. What is it with you guys and trapping souls? That was a popular theme this year.
Clark
Here are a few more types of items we saw alot of this year for some reason. Not saying they are bad or good, just an unusual amount:
14. Beast shape items. This spell seemed to be everywhere this year. There were tons of items with beast shape in the creation information (unfortunately, often capitalized which is a no no).
15. Soul trapping items. What is it with you guys and trapping souls? That was a popular theme this year.
Clark
Still a contender.
Here are a few more types of items we saw alot of this year for some reason. Not saying they are bad or good, just an unusual amount:
14. Beast shape items. This spell seemed to be everywhere this year. There were tons of items with beast shape in the creation information (unfortunately, often capitalized which is a no no).
15. Soul trapping items. What is it with you guys and trapping souls? That was a popular theme this year.
Clark
...and there it came. My item belongs firmly to one of these stereotypes. Hopefully it was at least an unusual treatise of the subject...
|
15. Soul trapping items. What is it with you guys and trapping souls? That was a popular theme this year.
Oh snap. I guess that means my chances are pretty low- though I hope that maybe the fact that i've sent my item early will help me somewhat.
any way, a lot of the other "bad steriotyps" might imply to my item- I knew it was reasky when i've submitted it, but... I don't know, maybe I took one risk too many.
I have found a new type of item called:
16. The adventure-specific item. These items seem specifically created not to be general wondrous items but for a specific encounter in an adventure. We got a couple like this. They arent great overall wondrous items, but I'm sure they would be a great item to include in, say, an adventure module in a sidebar and used by an NPC in that adventure.
But that isnt really what we are looking for. We want to add to the classic list of wondrous items. One that can take its rightful place in the DMG alongside a helm of brilliance or a carpet of flying or an iron flask.
I have found a new type of item called:
16. The adventure-specific item. These items seem specifically created not to be general wondrous items but for a specific encounter in an adventure. We got a couple like this. They arent great overall wondrous items, but I'm sure they would be a great item to include in, say, an adventure module in a sidebar and used by an NPC in that adventure.
But that isnt really what we are looking for. We want to add to the classic list of wondrous items. One that can take its rightful place in the DMG alongside a helm of brilliance or a carpet of flying or an iron flask.
Dodged that one too.
...and there it came. My item belongs firmly to one of these stereotypes. Hopefully it was at least an unusual treatise of the subject...
Remember, I am not saying that was good or bad. I am just saying we saw alot of them. Not sure why. Some were real good. Some might wind up getting kept. Just noting a strange trend.
13. Poorly-thought-through Item (aka Excessively Abusable Item).
I may have been rejected with this one. I submitted late as I knew there was a mechanical flaw with mine, but after a month of pondering I couldn't come up with a resolution.
Some questions:
1. I didn't submit a coin, but what makes them so bad? I couldn't really find a good answer to that when I read through last year's posts.
2. Regarding a "spell in a can", would Boots of Levitation be regarded as such? I think my item was more interesting than this, but I may be in this category too.
...and there it came. My item belongs firmly to one of these stereotypes. Hopefully it was at least an unusual treatise of the subject...Remember, I am not saying that was good or bad. I am just saying we saw alot of them. Not sure why. Some were real good. Some might wind up getting kept. Just noting a strange trend.
I guess if there is an interesting twist for a common stereotype it might even make the chances better for that item and its designer to get noticed...
But it is a bit weird to notice that several others were going for the same direction I was.
That said, that adventure-specific item type also applies somewhat to my entry, as it did to my last year's entry, and fits to my item design interests in general. I don't particularly care to think of big "everyone wants to have one" items, but more odd and ambivalent "we have this thing, what can/should we do with it?" items (while still thinking about their usability for someone, to justify someone botheirng to make that item, even if it is not necessarily for adventuring purposes). A philosophical difference I knew before entering, and because of this I am not considering my chances to be that good anyway :)
OK, I'll start the list.
4. Just couldn’t resist the backstory, could ya? I don’t know how many times a perfectly good item was mucked up with a two or three sentence intro about how “item X was first created by [name of NPC] who had [insert problem], and blah blah blah.” Not fatal, but it shows horrid lack of restraint as a writer. Just design a good item. Wondrous items don’t have that stuff. Artifacts do. Usually not fatal, but it’s a red flag.5. Coin items. Seriously. Actually, Wolfgang lost his mind briefly (or was kidnapped and an impostor was doing his reviews) and actually liked one. He was rescued and/or returned to his senses, luckily.
I'm not in the contest, but I'm so incredibly guilty on number 4. Not so much creator backstory, but some backstory to some items nonetheless.
And... *looks very guilty about number 5*
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8
|
4. Just couldn’t resist the backstory, could ya? I don’t know how many times a perfectly good item was mucked up with a two or three sentence intro about how “item X was first created by [name of NPC] who had [insert problem], and blah blah blah.” Not fatal, but it shows horrid lack of restraint as a writer. Just design a good item. Wondrous items don’t have that stuff. Artifacts do. Usually not fatal, but it’s a red flag.
Doh, I think I might have fallen into that pitfall. Though I claim only a quick 1 line [redacted] reference to set the 'mood' for my cold item.
I think I had my best ideas "after" I clicked submit though, which I've come to realize was after the pressure to submit was gone. SO next year I will be pretty solid I think.
13. Poorly-thought-through Item (aka Excessively Abusable Item). We had alot of items that the designer didnt really think through to their normal result and, had they done so, they would have seen some serious abusability in their item's future, such as a way to use it that wasnt intended but that clearly it would be put to. That is why it is good to think not just does the item do what you are designing it to, but what would a normal group of PCs do with this item whether or not it is what you intended. One of my favorite items submitted had a great name and a great power, but it had an unintended abuse. All the judges agreed that PCs would just do X with the item and abuse the power. And it was too bad, too (see!) because I liked the item alot. But it wasnt well thought through.
Crap on toast, I think my item may fit that niche. I found, after hacking down to 200 words, that maybe what I submitted might have been a bit too grand rules-wise for the initial go... *still crosses fingers*
But hey, I at least made it to number 13 on the Potential Mistakes chart! Not bad for the first time entry :D
|
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8
|
Clark, this is a question that came up last year--will we get to see the judges' comments on our items? My guess is "no" because there might be comments you don't want us to see. I thought I'd check to see if things might have changed from last year.I am terribly afraid of this one. Clark, please tell us about this item you like and rejected. Because well, if it's mine, I least I have that consolation... And no matter whose item it is, it'd be pretty cool to have a professional dig your submission, even if it didn't go farther!Sorry, I dont want to identify items in advance of the final decision. Besides, the other two judges may have a change of heart, yank it out of the Reject pile and advance it to the final 32. I doubt it, but its possible. So no identifying now. I'll happily talk about it after the round is over.
While I doubt it'll happen, I'd love comments or feedback on submissions. Positive or negative.
Some may see it as a slap, but I love criticism.
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I find the number 4 issue rather odd....
I know the inventor's name comes up in each and every one of my conversations about Xerox machines.
Sarcasm aside, I get you, but if you look in the Pathfinder Beta, none of the items have that one or two sentences about who created them and why. Perhaps the company thinks it's restrictive ("You can't have that item, it was created by priests of Norgorber."), or that GMs will just make up or ignore origins at their whims, or that ink costs money. Probably a combination of the three.
I'm never bugged by a one sentence introduction of an item that gives it a little history, but then I'm always happy to get straight to the item and give it my own personality. Maybe I'll post an example of an item I didn't enter as an example in the thread for items that didn't get entered. But I'm loath to give up the item over that. Maybe.
Doubt has funny ways of creeping in. I feel sure my item is not really a spell in a can, or doesn't just benefit one style of play....but suddenly I can see someone making the argument.
It's a blessing and a curse, this submission process. Hope I make it, cause I got a darn good villain's lair going right now. : }
Clark, this is a question that came up last year--will we get to see the judges' comments on our items? My guess is "no" because there might be comments you don't want us to see. I thought I'd check to see if things might have changed from last year.I am terribly afraid of this one. Clark, please tell us about this item you like and rejected. Because well, if it's mine, I least I have that consolation... And no matter whose item it is, it'd be pretty cool to have a professional dig your submission, even if it didn't go farther!Sorry, I dont want to identify items in advance of the final decision. Besides, the other two judges may have a change of heart, yank it out of the Reject pile and advance it to the final 32. I doubt it, but its possible. So no identifying now. I'll happily talk about it after the round is over.While I doubt it'll happen, I'd love comments or feedback on submissions. Positive or negative.
Some may see it as a slap, but I love criticism.
Seconded. This is my first time out of the gate and I'd love to see what I did, or what I can do, to make my stuff better.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
While I doubt it'll happen, I'd love comments or feedback on submissions. Positive or negative.
Some may see it as a slap, but I love criticism.
Have to be careful with that. Last year people begged for feedback and were told "Nah...you don't really want that. We don't have time. We're not doing it."
Someone asked over and over and said they could take it. So they posted that they hated my item, and hoped I got malaria*, and were even harder on the other guy, who's item was pretty bad. I don't think he was this mean about it, but it seemed like Clark's message was "Fine. Here's your review. You were warned."
So..careful what you wish for. I don't iagine it's fun to pan a rejected item. It can't be fun to have to repeat yourelf.
This comes with the caveat that Clark and company were very gracious to answer questions from tons of 'rejects', and behaved very professionally the whole time. Except where that one guy wouldn't take no for an answer.
*
Have to be careful with that. Last year people begged for feedback and were told "Nah...you don't really want that. We don't have time. We're not doing it."
Someone asked over and over and said they could take it. So they posted that they hated my item, and hoped I got malaria*, and were even harder on the other guy, who's item was pretty bad. I don't think he was this mean about it, but it seemed like Clark's message was "Fine. Here's your review. You were warned."
So..careful what you wish for. I don't iagine it's fun to pan a rejected item. It can't be fun to have to repeat yourelf.
This comes with the caveat that Clark and company were very gracious to answer questions from tons of 'rejects', and behaved very professionally the whole time. Except where that one guy wouldn't take no for an answer.
I would also think that a small percentage of people would be disappointed with the judges' comments, if their item got the axe early. What I mean is that in the first go-round, the judges probably aren't doing detailed notes on every aspect of each item, as they're probably just trying to cull the herd as much as possible. As such, their notes on many items are probably limited to such things as "Spell-in-a-can. Reject." or "Improper format. Reject.", as they just wouldn't have time to do a full and detailed review of items that they know they won't be putting forward for further consideration. I would think that the only items that would get full and detailed review in the judging process are those that are being seriously considered for inclusion in the Top 32, and that this probably won't have happened yet. Just my opinion, of course.
CR
|
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8
|
While I doubt it'll happen, I'd love comments or feedback on submissions. Positive or negative.
Some may see it as a slap, but I love criticism.
Have to be careful with that. Last year people begged for feedback and were told "Nah...you don't really want that. We don't have time. We're not doing it."
Someone asked over and over and said they could take it. So they posted that they hated my item, and hoped I got malaria*, and were even harder on the other guy, who's item was pretty bad. I don't think he was this mean about it, but it seemed like Clark's message was "Fine. Here's your review. You were warned."
So..careful what you wish for. I don't iagine it's fun to pan a rejected item. It can't be fun to have to repeat yourelf.
This comes with the caveat that Clark and company were very gracious to answer questions from tons of 'rejects', and behaved very professionally the whole time. Except where that one guy wouldn't take no for an answer.
*
** spoiler omitted **
I'd thrive on being wished a disease if my item deserved it. It would certainly help me step my game up. I don't think it would be that bad however.
** spoiler omitted **
I did. But only a mild case, such that you might not compete in Iron DM and recover in time to go home. I had to settle for narcolepsy, and it still wasn't enough. That's what I get for using diseased livestock in that ritual.
Lesson learned. Always use healthy livestock in bartering rituals.
-Ben.
|
Marathon Voter Season 7
|
A backstory on a magic item is useful if the magic item is specifically tied in to a specific campaign or world. If the item is meant to be ported from campaign to campaign, then the backstory is more harmful to its usability or concept.
And I might add, if I was an editor (which I'm not - at least not professionally) if a person cannot accept the limitations of the assignment that in and of itself is a mark against them. A profesional writer is one who can take an assignment and make it their own within the parameters given. It seems to me a lot of people don't want to be professional game designers, they want to be artists, unconstrained. Which is fine. Excepts artists often don't get paid.
13. Poorly-thought-through Item (aka Excessively Abusable Item). We had alot of items that the designer didnt really think through to their normal result and, had they done so, they would have seen some serious abusability in their item's future, such as a way to use it that wasnt intended but that clearly it would be put to. That is why it is good to think not just does the item do what you are designing it to, but what would a normal group of PCs do with this item whether or not it is what you intended. One of my favorite items submitted had a great name and a great power, but it had an unintended abuse. All the judges agreed that PCs would just do X with the item and abuse the power. And it was too bad, too (see!) because I liked the item alot. But it wasnt well thought through.
I fear this one. I put what you could and couldn't do with my item pretty clearly, but there are several ways to use it intelligently. I think I put the price high enough, but... who knows?
|
While I don't think my item was adventure specific, there's a good chance it's being considered as such. Also, depending on some context I don't want to reveal for fear of hinting to the judges which item is mine (if it wasn't rejected out of hand), I may have hit the backstory trap.
Once again, I think I submitted a good item, but I just don't think I'm capable of nailing superstar for the judges.
Director of Narrative
,
Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
Excepts artists often don't get paid.
I know what you mean and fully agree, however, artists get paid far more than writers or designers. Then again, those artists getting paid work to spec as well, so I guess I'm supporting your point.
10. Channeling items. There were a lot of items that worked with channeling mechanics. Like the augury items last year, there's nothing *wrong* with that mechanic, but seeing it fairly often means we probably set the bar higher.
Just wanted to make a quick comment about this one. I have a feeling that the reason there are so many of these items (as well as the beast shape items mentioned later, to a lesser extent) is that Channel Energy is a new mechanic that replaces a mechanic that didn't work in the original 3.5. I think a lot of people (including almost me) saw the new mechanic and got a lot of cool ideas for how to use it since it was much more flexile than the horrible Turn and Rebuke Undead mechanics.
I find the number 4 issue rather odd. I don't really consider that point a rule of thumb but rather a matter of opinion. Grant it I am merely an observer in all this but as a successful filmmaker I find this statement flies in the face of story development. Since Rping is a story driven concept it stands to reason one might want to add that element to an item. Nothing is created from nothing. To say a wonderous item should not have a creator, which is in fact a backstory, is like saying the following should not be mentioned when discussing what they created:
Light Bulb – Thomas Edison
Automobile – Henry Ford
Camera Film – Eastman Kodak
Photocopier - XeroxAn artifact is something that cannot be dupicated, not something that can only reserve the right of having a name or backstory associated with it. No offence Mr. Peterson.
In a rulebook telling you how a car looks and functions, Mr. Ford is superfluous. Especially if this rulebook might need to be used for a world that isn't Earth.
Besides, who invented the Chariot? Cement? The grain-mill? Pasta? The futon? Lots of inventions have origins that are lost to time.
I find the number 4 issue rather odd. I don't really consider that point a rule of thumb but rather a matter of opinion. Grant it I am merely an observer in all this but as a successful filmmaker I find this statement flies in the face of story development. Since Rping is a story driven concept it stands to reason one might want to add that element to an item. Nothing is created from nothing. To say a wonderous item should not have a creator, which is in fact a backstory, is like saying the following should not be mentioned when discussing what they created:
Light Bulb – Thomas Edison
Automobile – Henry Ford
Camera Film – Eastman Kodak
Photocopier - XeroxAn artifact is something that cannot be dupicated, not something that can only reserve the right of having a name or backstory associated with it. No offence Mr. Peterson.
In a rulebook telling you how a car looks and functions, Mr. Ford is superfluous. Especially if this rulebook might need to be used for a world that isn't Earth.
Besides, who invented the Chariot? Cement? The grain-mill? Pasta? The futon? Lots of inventions have origins that are lost to time.
Especially in a 200-word summary of the object in question. I think you'd be more concerned with, you know, a very brief summary of what the object is or does.
My entry could possibly hit one or two of the issues mentioned so far, but hopefully not or not enough to reject it automatically.
Even if you're sure your entry falls under one of the issues mentioned by the judges, maybe your item is the one that is just different enough that it doesn't get automatically rejected for that reason. Further, maybe some other quality of your entry pushes it over the hump to the top 32.
I've got to believe that not every top 32 entry will be 5 stars in all ways (write-up/grammar, uniqueness, execution, formatting, etc.) So even if your item is a 2-star in one way, if it is a 5 star in another way it may make it over the hump. Looking at last year's results and judge comments, that seems to be the case.
I'm in this just like everyone else, but let's keep our collective chins up.
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor...?"
Even if you're sure your entry falls under one of the issues mentioned by the judges, maybe your item is the one that is just different enough that it doesn't get automatically rejected for that reason. Further, maybe some other quality of your entry pushes it over the hump to the top 32.
This is important to remember. Augury Items were on the list last year. On the other hand, I made the top 32 with an Augury Item.
|
|
My entry could possibly hit one or two of the issues mentioned so far, but hopefully not or not enough to reject it automatically.
If the judges can find 32 items in the slushpile that don't fall into *any* of these pitfalls or cliches, then it becomes less likely that any of the multitude that did will make the cut (unless they're amazingly good).
14. Beast shape items. This spell seemed to be everywhere this year. There were tons of items with beast shape in the creation information (unfortunately, often capitalized which is a no no).
Well the good news is that I can focus on my other freelance work. And there is 2010. And there is the chance that my item is the one exception, but I'm not holding my breath.
If the judges can find 32 items in the slushpile that don't fall into *any* of these pitfalls or cliches, then it becomes less likely that any of the multitude that did will make the cut (unless they're amazingly good).
Some of these are outright no-nos. Others are just 'we saw a lot of these'. If you're the best of the 'lot of these', you still have a shot. As I said, look at me last year.
Besides, who invented the Chariot? Cement? The grain-mill? Pasta? The futon? Lots of inventions have origins that are lost to time.
...though there are different types of backstories, not necessarily about invention but also how they are used. Is mentioning that pasta is usually eaten cooked backstory, or that it is significant in Italian and Chinese cooking?
Or why would anyone use a car, cannot they ride horses?|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8
|
Besides, who invented the Chariot? Cement? The grain-mill? Pasta? The futon? Lots of inventions have origins that are lost to time.
EXCUSE ME?!? Have we forgotten the great contribution of Phineas T. Futon so soon?!? I mean the man practically built the art of dormroom combination furniture from the ground up and all he gets is forgotten?!? HOW DARE YOU, SIR?!
I SAID GOOD DAY!
|
|
Some of these are outright no-nos. Others are just 'we saw a lot of these'. If you're the best of the 'lot of these', you still have a shot. As I said, look at me last year.
Yeah, I just did a quick breakdown.
Pitfalls:
1. Item Formatting
2. Spell Name Formatting
3. Bad Mechanics
8. Not A Wondrous Item
9. Bad English
12. Home Campaign Item
13. Abusable (Abusive?) Items
16. Adventure-Specific Items
Cliches:
4. Backstory
5. Coins
6. Gateway Chalks
7. Gonzo Items
10. Channeling Items
11. Spell In A Box
14. Beast Shape Items
15. Soul Trapping Items
...though there are different types of backstories, not necessarily about invention but also how they are used. Is mentioning that pasta is usually eaten cooked backstory, or that it is significant in Italian and Chinese cooking?
Or why would anyone use a car, cannot they ride horses?
I agree with you on the embellishment. How an item is used is not the same as where it came from.
Oh, Winterwalker, you might want to edit your post before the judges see it. If that really is text from your item you just de-anonymized yourself, and the judges aren't done deciding who is in.
EXCUSE ME?!? Have we forgotten the great contribution of Phineas T. Futon so soon?!? I mean the man practically built the art of dormroom combination furniture from the ground up and all he gets is forgotten?!? HOW DARE YOU, SIR?!
I SAID GOOD DAY!
Well played.
|
|
"quote about an item"
Setting specific items, while not forbidden, are a tough sell due to the setting-neutral nature of the PFRPG rule book.
Also, actual quotes from your item are bad because it lets the judges know what item is yours. If you just made that up for your example, then IGNORE ME. :)
But, I don't think I would of like either if I had said this item was created by [redacted] to do something...etc.
Oy. Yeah, that sort of thing is right out.
Also, actual quotes from your item are bad because it lets the judges know what item is yours. If you just made that up for your example, then IGNORE ME. :)
Cappa, you might want to redact your quote, too, to avoid 'outing' Winterwalker if he goes back and edits his post.
Edit: Wicht, you too.
|
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8
|
Ya, if you could unquote that or delete it I'd appreciate it. [i deleted my post actually as a result until I re-word it.] I didn't think it would be a harm in posting it, but see the points about decisions not being final yet.
To rewrite what was deleted, if I made say a sun amulet I would of started the item desc. off with.
"This amulet can typically be found around the withered husks of long dead kings, the Pharaohs of the desert, Untarnished despite the long years dwelling in darkness."
And then go on to describe what the item does and look like.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
gave an example of a quote from his item description
I think that amount of little descriptive drop is a perfectly acceptable dash of flavor. It gives a momentary sense of place and theme, one that is generic enough to not get in the way. Itr's more like a quick shout-out to the Golarion setting than a full-on backstory (who made it, why, where, for what... NOBODY CARES!).
So if I were judging I wouldn't ding you for that.* Then again, how daer I build up a little boys dreams and then smash them to pieces. I'm an inhuman monster!
and again... I SAID GOOD DAY!
(well, I guess I AM judging, but only in terms of commenting on the items Clark, Wolf, & Sean select - I ain't got no pull in the "will it fly or will it die" debate)