There are also a couple of "racial features in a can," though they seem to be a lot less common.
Fun Fact: Pointy-ears-in-a-can were invented by the orcish chef Grindtak as a way of taking his favourite snack with him on horde outings. Since then, several varieties have appeared, including Ranch, Jalapeno, and the less-appreciated Otyugh flavouring.
CR
Well, I managed to trip right out of the gate on the format. I pored over the Wondrous Items rules for weeks and focused mainly on the creation section (especially pricing) and then used a format more like the SRD.
If my item were otherwise stellar (not that it is) would that offer even a chance of salvation or am I doomed?
I guess I must wait and see.
Given our discussion, I can say that you will likely have trouble. We havent finished our final tally and top 32 yet so it is possible that a wrong format item could make the top 32. But I can say that we judges are relatively unforgiving about that mistake. That said, its not a rule set in stone if you came close. Bottom line: if you used the wrong format you should be worried but it doesnt mean there is no hope.
Sorry to hear that, by the way, if you did goof the format. That doesnt mean you are a bad person or a bad designer. You just made a mistake and will learn from it. Your item may well be perfectly good. But if there are 32 other good items that did follow format, those ones are going to make the cut over another one that didnt. Most likely. Again, I am only 1 of 3 judges. I am not the final voice here.
By the way, there has been a recent return of the dreaded camping item. At first we didnt see many, but as we work our way through more and more are cropping up. Though I will say that there is at least one camping item that we moved to the keep pile for consideration in top 32.
Oh man here is a good one to avoid:
Insulting the judges' intelligence. Dont include designer notes providing us with a dictionary definition of a word you use in your item. I mean, really, what is that saying? I have a funny feeling Wolf and Sean and I each have a reasonable vocabulary and if we have some question about a word we are capable of looking it up.
That one set a world speed record for rejection.
And on top of that, to add to the irony, the offending submission wasnt even a wondrous item! So here is a person doing a submission, presuming they have to provide us with a definition of a word they use, while at the same time themselves being unable to even follow the rules of the contest by not even submitting a wondrous item! O, the irony! And the rejection!
By the way, Wolfgang has officially declared beast shape items to be the augury items of this year's contest. We are seeing lots of them and the vast majority are not good enough to make the cut. Like last year's augury item, there may well be a beast shape item in the top 32, but for whatever reason we got alot of these type of items this year. That doesnt mean the item is itself bad (like coin items seem to be). It just means we got alot of them.
I'm not going to lie. I had NO idea spells weren't supposed to be capitalized. I didn't even think about that. I wouldn't have thought grammar would be the weak point of my entry. That would only make me feel better if I actually made the cut. Then my item will have been decent enough to overcome that mistake. Capitalizing spell names seems to have become a pet peeve of Clark after reading some of these posts. :)
Oh man here is a good one to avoid:
Insulting the judges' intelligence.
O, the irony! And the rejection!
Irony:
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2. Literature. a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b. (esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.
3. Socratic irony.
4. dramatic irony.
5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.
6. the incongruity of this.
7. an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.
8. an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.
Rejection
1. the act or process of rejecting.
2. the state of being rejected.
3. something that is rejected.
Insulting the judges' intelligence. Dont include designer notes providing us with a dictionary definition of a word you use in your item. I mean, really, what is that saying?
If I may be the devil's advocate, I don't think you should take it as a personal insult to the judges' erudition. I think the issue likely lies with the fact that if one's submission needs designer notes at all, it possibly has one or more of the following problems.
- It is not clearly written.
- It is poorly conceived.
- The writer is trying to justify dubious design choices.
Then again, it might not.
Either way, I doubt that particular misstep was intended as a slight to any of the judges.
By the way, Wolfgang has officially declared beast shape items to be the augury items of this year's contest. We are seeing lots of them and the vast majority are not good enough to make the cut. Like last year's augury item, there may well be a beast shape item in the top 32, but for whatever reason we got alot of these type of items this year. That doesnt mean the item is itself bad (like coin items seem to be). It just means we got alot of them.
Is there yet a boot/food item of the year? A fashion accessory everyone has suddenly got interested in, while giving them different powers?
I think I avoided most of the pitfalls Clark has mentioned.
Whether my spell-in-a-can-with-a-cool-name is good enough for the Top 32 is another matter.
Might have to start out the 2010 process early...
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
Oh man here is a good one to avoid:
Insulting the judges' intelligence. Dont include designer notes providing us with a dictionary definition of a word you use in your item. I mean, really, what is that saying? I have a funny feeling Wolf and Sean and I each have a reasonable vocabulary and if we have some question about a word we are capable of looking it up.
That one set a world speed record for rejection.
What would you rather we insult?
I mean I didn't submit the gavel of professionalism that each time you hit it it used prestidigitation to clean the judge in case he forgot to shower and add hair to his head. :-)
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8
|
Now that's a Superstar item.
I mean I didn't submit the gavel of professionalism that each time you hit it it used prestidigitation to clean the judge in case he forgot to shower and add hair to his head. :-)
Sounds campaign specific too me :P
But then again, I had an idea to do a "court" game where everyone plays the lawyers defending their PCs action against a besmirching villain with political power and influence.
So I may in fact borrow that item, as it does add some flavor.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Well, I managed to trip right out of the gate on the format. I pored over the Wondrous Items rules for weeks and focused mainly on the creation section (especially pricing) and then used a format more like the SRD.
If my item were otherwise stellar (not that it is) would that offer even a chance of salvation or am I doomed?
I guess I must wait and see.
Given our discussion, I can say that you will likely have trouble. We havent finished our final tally and top 32 yet so it is possible that a wrong format item could make the top 32. But I can say that we judges are relatively unforgiving about that mistake. That said, its not a rule set in stone if you came close. Bottom line: if you used the wrong format you should be worried but it doesnt mean there is no hope.
Sorry to hear that, by the way, if you did goof the format. That doesnt mean you are a bad person or a bad designer. You just made a mistake and will learn from it.
This is something I would implore everyone in the contest going forward to take heed of going forward. This is a competition, and sometimes you get a second chance and sometimes you don't. If you make a mistake, you might very well be out, and you can live and learn for next time.
This should be a great advantage for people this year vs. last year, in that you can look back at last year's threads and see ways that people messed up. Sometimes there's no predicting it; people just love or hate a particular thing and you never know for sure why. A lot of times, though, you can look at the judges' comments and see particular reasons why a thing did or didn't get through.
Look at last year, you had James Mackenzie who did a great item and a dynamite country and looked like a front-runner, but got knocked out in the villains round for having a villain who in the eyes of the judges (and apparently the voting public) was too much a monster and not a villain, thereby not fulfilling the task of that round well enough. His dwarf vampire was a neat concept too, so it's not like he submitted a paraplegic kobold child with a cane fetish, but it missed the mark enough and he was done in the competition. I dunno if James entered this year but I hope so. Same for a lot of other talented folks with great ideas just from last year's top 32.
That's the hardest thing about this kind of competition. You never want to just play it safe, because you gotta be outstanding (cuz B+ ain't gonna get there), but you also need to be careful. There are a lot of smart, creative people out there, and your margin for error is small. Still, you can't win if you don't play, so as Clark would say "Make it awesome!" and let the dice fall where they may!
I think I've avoided everything on the list. Yippeee!!!
The closest I came is spell-in-a-can but I used 2 spells that were directly from the book and then made up my own power. I think it's got a good strong name, formatting is good. It could be more of a villian item (imagine that when the whole contest after this point is about villians) but I know a lot of players that would like to use it.
So I'm feeling good. I only have 1 worry but I don't want to mention it because I don't want to be disqualified or give the judges a reason to dump my item.
1. Its not that coins themselves are bad, its just that the coin items we get always seem to be horrible. Generally, they are tied to either random results (which is bad design, usually), or they have some type of compulsion or money-related non-heroic design focus. They never seem to be good items. But hey, maybe someone will knock me out with a coin item one day (and actually there was at least one good one this year).
Anyone do a coin that gets monsters to chase it while it rolls along the floor? I made one of them up once and my players had a blast using it.
(shakes tea leaves in a cup)
I predicted Erik saying that over an hour ago.....
Give that back!
I dunno if James entered this year but I hope so. Same for a lot of other talented folks with great ideas just from last year's top 32.
Last year, my item made it in because one of the judges used his 'Golden Ticket'. Hopefully, this year's item will be as fortunate, but even if I don't end up in the running, I've encouraged several others to enter. I hope that I see them in the final rounds!
What happened to that 'ecology of the rust-monsters of the Stained Peaks' which you promised?
After I roughed that idea out, I wasn't sure what I wanted to do with it. Since the Land of the Stained Peaks belongs to Paizo, I didn't want to write something that would just languish, collecting dust on the back pages of Paizo's forums.
I'll pull up my notes about the lumbering rust behemoths of the mountains and see what can be done with them.
|
Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
|
Woo, narrowly dodged the beast shape, I was origianlly going to put a Treant form to my [redacted by Vic Wertz], but it was too expensive, so I dropped it.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
Ah whoops, I blame that on being sick...hope I didn't just disqualify myself...but if I did, then good luck to the rest of you =D
|
Star Voter Season 6
|
It is a blast to review all the submissions. And it is funny how much you learn. Last year I started a "bad item stereotypes" thread. I dont want to do that again because I didnt use a good name. The name implied that those types of items are always bad. They arent. Its just that we kept seeing them over and over that year.
So this year I am just going to note some things I am seeing over and over that are holding some items back. These things arent always fatal. But they are areas needing improvement.
So here goes...
It seems to me that last year was a crap shoot. We were told to design a wondrous item. You ended up getting a huge variety of items.
Anyone thinking they wanted any kind of shot this year looked at the winning items from last year, and designed accordingly. So, it became more of a "design something that your audience (the judges) will like" rather than "design an item you (the contestant) thinks is cool".
I rejected several of my own ideas based on what passed last year. Given the feedback I'm seeing in this forum, I can see that, based on the items I had to submit, I chose wisely.
Anyone thinking they wanted any kind of shot this year looked at the winning items from last year, and designed accordingly. So, it became more of a "design something that your audience (the judges) will like" rather than "design an item you (the contestant) thinks is cool".
I disagree with that actually and really I do not the think the two have to be mutually exclusive. If you are being creative under the presumption of what someone else may like, rather than what you like, I would think it is doomed. Really what the judges are asking for are correctness, clarity, and something original. There is no reason a cool item (to you) should not be all three. It is simply a matter of making it curt enough to fit in the 200 word limit, and elegant enough sell itself.
I disagree with that actually and really I do not the think the two have to be mutually exclusive. If you are being creative under the presumption of what someone else may like, rather than what you like, I would think it is doomed. Really what the judges are asking for are correctness, clarity, and something original. There is no reason a cool item (to you) should not be all three. It is simply a matter of making it curt enough to fit in the 200 word limit, and elegant enough sell itself.
shakes fist!!!
Easy for you to say now that every campaign from here to Narnia has a naked cat construct in it!....viva la migra...
The capitalization bothers Clark more than it bothers me. Designers need to have powerful imagination and an iron grasp of mechanics and flavor.
If they can spell and capitalize, it's a bonus and it makes a Superstar more likely to advance. But it's not the first thing on my list.
It actually doesnt bug me that much, but I do frequently comment on it and point it out. To me, though, those things are editorial issues. I'd prefer we not have them, but they wouldnt disqualify an entry I wanted to be in the top 32.
|
|
This should be a great advantage for people this year vs. last year, in that you can look back at last year's threads and see ways that people messed up.
Not just that but looking back helps get a clear idea of what a wondrous item really is. My item from this year is exponentially better than last year's item simply because I was able to learn from my mistakes. My submission from last year was one of the "spell replacement" items and wasn't really even that good. My submission this year was at least more unique and definitely more creative. Even my mechanics (my weak point) got a bit better; I'm quite satisfied to have learned what I have whether my item is chosen or not.
|
Star Voter Season 6
|
Anyone thinking they wanted any kind of shot this year looked at the winning items from last year, and designed accordingly. So, it became more of a "design something that your audience (the judges) will like" rather than "design an item you (the contestant) thinks is cool".I disagree with that actually and really I do not the think the two have to be mutually exclusive. If you are being creative under the presumption of what someone else may like, rather than what you like, I would think it is doomed. Really what the judges are asking for are correctness, clarity, and something original. There is no reason a cool item (to you) should not be all three. It is simply a matter of making it curt enough to fit in the 200 word limit, and elegant enough sell itself.
No, you can still be extremely creative, you just have some boundary conditions. Remember, the ultimate prize is a contract to write something specific. As a writer who wants to sell something, you always have to write to an audience. I'm just saying that if you ignore past advice and submit an item that, to you, is really cool, but falls under any of the myriad of "do not do this" suggestions that we saw last year, well... tell me how that works out for you. You can still make a cool item, just don't submit a beast-shaped coin that has augury powers and gives warriors the ability to cast magic missile.
I approached the contest this year from more of an engineering perspective. I have more complete specs and working examples, so I can better fashion an item that has a chance at winning.
That's a good approach. I like taking a sort of scientific approach to the project.
For instance, you can start by looking at all the wondrous items.
Many of them are not that exciting. Boots of speed, bracers of armor, etc. But even the ones that arent exciting show how to use mechanics. For instance, boots of speed dont apply a continuous haste, they have a limit of 10 rounds per day and they require an immediate action. It is important to notice those things. Bracers of armor, on the other hand, do provide a continuous buff. What can we learn from that? Well, generally, if the wondrous item provides a buff it can be continuous, but if it provides a spell effect, there should be some sort of limitation and it generally shouldnt be continuous (though there are exceptions, see the darkskull for instance).
There are lots of ways to make limitations. Some are boring--they just track the duration of the spell. Others, like boots of speed, have the heel clicking and a total number of rounds that the effect can apply per day, without listing a specific number of uses. This is a real flexible limitation and makes the item more interesting and well-designed: the character can use it 10 times for one round each, or a couple times for different durations not exceeding 10 rounds. That type of limit, so long as it makes sense for the mechanic, is more interesting than just saying 10 rounds or 3 times per day per the spell cast at 12th level, or whatever. So even the "boring" items have something interesting to offer in terms of learning about design.
Also, make sure you think through how the item is used and what game info you will need to supply to use it. For instance, if you make an item that locks something in place, make sure you include the Str check DC to pry it off (see, for instance, the DC that is provided to break out of dimensional shackles, which is a rather bland item).
Then maybe pick your favorite wondrous items and figure out why you like them. Sometimes it is just the power curve. A cube of force is cool because it is powerful. But it is also well-designed. The cube breaks some normal rules--it is kind of a swiss army knife. But it works. Why? Because it has a theme--cubes and walls. And it is tightly designed to that theme with appropriate restrictions. (i happen to think the prismatic spray is not as tightly tied to the theme of the item and I would have said that had it been submitted to this contest).
There is alot you can learn about design just by reviewing the existing wondrous items.
Do yourself a favor. Read them. Review them as if you were a judge here. Question why they do what they do. Think about them. Think about their creation requirements. Did they use the right spells? Is there a better one? Ask yourself what restrictions are on them and why. It is a great exercise. I did something like this when I first asked myself, "so what is a wondrous item anyway."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Then maybe pick your favorite wondrous items and figure out why you like them. Sometimes it is just the power curve. A cube of force is cool because it is powerful. But it is also well-designed. The cube breaks some normal rules--it is kind of a swiss army knife. But it works. Why? Because it has a theme--cubes and walls. And it is tightly designed to that theme with appropriate restrictions. (i happen to think the prismatic spray is not as tightly tied to the theme of the item and I would have said that had it been submitted to this contest).
Wait, cube of force and prismatic spray?
You're making me think of the helm of brilliance, which has always been an item I've loved, is a swiss army knife, and having it do prismatic spray is kind of wonky now, but maybe there just weren't enough good fire and light spells in 1st Ed to use.
Of course, the weirdest thing about the helm is the super-ultra-mega booby trap function, which is hardcore 1st Ed style. If you ever Ever EVER fail a fire save while you're wearing it... it's kinda bad.
Actually, I applied for a job at WotC about 2 years ago, and one part of the "developer test" was asking to redevelop the HoB, which was fun to do with a broader palette of resources than EGG & Co had back in 1979. It was a neat exercise to rethink an iconic item and how to estabish and design it more tightly to a theme.
As an aside, I think the only published adventure that I've ever seen with the helm in it as treasure is the final hoard in Tiamat's lair at the end of H4 Throne of Bloodstone, with a good chance that it would be destroyed if you actually completed the adventure. Ah, but a neat and fun concept, since riffed numerous times in FR (helm of darkness, phoenix helm and probably elsewhere).
Oh, Jason, sorry I wasnt clear. A prismatic spray drains extra charges from the cube. The others that do are passwall and other stuff that is more tight to the design idea of the cube. Not sure why prismatic spray affects the integrity of the cube. Sorry I wasnt clear on this.
|
Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
|
Oh, Jason, sorry I wasnt clear. A prismatic spray drains extra charges from the cube. The others that do are passwall and other stuff that is more tight to the design idea of the cube. Not sure why prismatic spray affects the integrity of the cube. Sorry I wasnt clear on this.
Doesn't prismatic spray have a disintegration component? And a wall of force can be destroyed by a disintegration spell... (no books at work to verify my memory)
That's it if I don't make this year, next year its going to be an augury coin item. *nodnod* That'll assure victory! ;)
Hmmmm...I'm pretty sure I avoided most of the pitfalls. I almost fell to the backstory trap. But limited the flavour creation text to something generalized.
I'm not sure how my item will fair on the abuse area. When I did the first draft of mine I saw some major abuses that could occur. So I did my best to limit the abuse. But still whether the intent can still be abused, or the judges see an abuse I failed to catch I'm not sure.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Oh, Jason, sorry I wasnt clear. A prismatic spray drains extra charges from the cube. The others that do are passwall and other stuff that is more tight to the design idea of the cube. Not sure why prismatic spray affects the integrity of the cube. Sorry I wasnt clear on this.Doesn't prismatic spray have a disintegration component? And a wall of force can be destroyed by a disintegration spell... (no books at work to verify my memory)
I was gonna say beat me to it, but it turns out we're wrong.
It does do 3 kinds of damage (fire, acid, electric) plus poison, insanity, petrification, and send to another plane. I guess since wall of fire affects it I could see it... but it's kind of an arbitrary list - WoF and PS don't really fit with the other spells on the list.
In 1st Ed. fireball, lightning bolt and maybe 1 or 2 other damage spells could knock charges off a cube, and in 3rd total damage does affect it (1 charge per 10 points over 30), but yeah, I'm not sure why PS would do EXTRA charges because it "affects the integrity of the screen." Weird.
I was gonna say beat me to it, but it turns out we're wrong.
It does do 3 kinds of damage (fire, acid, electric) plus poison, insanity, petrification, and send to another plane. I guess since wall of fire affects it I could see it... but it's kind of an arbitrary list - WoF and PS don't really fit with the other spells on the list.
In 1st Ed. fireball, lightning bolt and maybe 1 or 2 other damage spells could knock charges off a cube, and in 3rd total damage does affect it (1 charge per 10 points over 30), but yeah, I'm not sure why PS would do EXTRA charges because it "affects the integrity of the screen." Weird.
It doesnt just drain extra charges, it drains the MOST extra charges. I think this hearkens back to the OD&D days of the "find the secret weakness" trick they often built into items and monsters. I think this is an example. There isnt much logic to it, but if you happen to know the trick you know that PS is awesome against cubes of force. Just like certain spells are good against golems or whatever. I think this is a holdover of that.
See how interesting it is to review the actual wondrous items? ;)
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
I do think it's the disintegrate component that explains the spray's charge cost - since that color distintegrates non-living objects in the wall/sphere. Only creatures are sent to other planes. A carryover from the general prismatic text, as it were. Just one poster's opinion :)
As an aside, I think the only published adventure that I've ever seen with the helm in it as treasure is the final hoard in Tiamat's lair at the end of H4 Throne of Bloodstone, with a good chance that it would be destroyed if you actually completed the adventure. Ah, but a neat and fun concept, since riffed numerous times in FR (helm of darkness, phoenix helm and probably elsewhere).
I've never actually used a HoB in any campaign I've ever run, in all my (albeit limited) years of gaming. No particular reason why either, but I think my players have always thought that it looked far too gaudy for any of their particular characters to wear. :)
[Tangent]
Though in all fairness I have created horribly situationally boobytrapped items. One item (magically fused into the character's ankle) was cursed to detonate if the user was ever physically attacked by a deity or deity's avatar. There was backstory and reason for it, but a year or two passed and it was largely forgotten. Till very late in the campaign and the player and one other found themselves face to face with an avatar of Garyx. I don't recall the act that triggered it to go off, but there was a sudden calm at the table and around three people realizing the implication at once, followed by some darkly amused cursing and me asking for a few minutes break to figure out exactly what was going to happen. End result were the PCs being down a pair of true res spells and Toril was missing a mountain (and an avatar of Garyx). [/Tangent]
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I do think it's the disintegrate component that explains the spray's charge cost - since that color distintegrates non-living objects in the wall/sphere. Only creatures are sent to other planes. A carryover from the general prismatic text, as it were. Just one poster's opinion :)
Maybe that's what crossed me up, cuz the wall/sphere disses objects, but the spray doesn't. It's either "send to another plane" or nothing.
But yeah, Clark is right on this being most likely a "secret weakness" loophole legacy for the cube. Very 1st Ed/OD&D.
*chuckles* I think that would be a considerable challenge to create. I'm half tempted to try it myself right now. Better yet try to include the whole list and make it a functional item. lol