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...
OK, I'll start the list.
1. Item Formatting. A good number of submissions didn’t follow the Pathfinder wondrous item format. Not sure how people screwed this one up. We considered this a big error. I mean, this is RPG Superstar. If you cant get the format right, that is a problem.
2. Spell names. I cant tell you how many people capitalized spell names. Don’t do that. Spell names aren’t capitalized. We didnt expect italicizing (though we liked it), but you really need to know that spell names are lower case. This wasn’t fatal, but it didn’t help.
3. Good idea, bad execution. My phrase of the year is turning out to be “Reject, and its too bad, too.” Seriously, I wrote that a number of times in reviewing items. There were a ton of interesting items with bad mechanical execution. These were hard to reject, but generally they got rejected.
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.
6. The Pan’s Labyrinth chalk item. Like last year, we got a bunch of chalk items that let you make doorways.
7. “This Year’s Migrus.” Particularly early on we got a bunch of gonzo items that wanted to be this year’s Migrus. I think all were rejected. Luckily, though, we got very few items that were trying to be gonzo on purpose. I was worried that we would see more of that. Thankfully, I was wrong.
More to come.
|
OK, I'll start the list.
1. Item Formatting. A good number of submissions didn’t follow the Pathfinder wondrous item format. Not sure how people screwed this one up. We considered this a big error. I mean, this is RPG Superstar. If you cant get the format right, that is a problem.
I think I fell into this obvious trap. I used one of last year's submissions (I don't think it mattered last year) as a layout template :(
PS...."cant", "didnt"? The apostrophe key missing on your keyboard, Clark? :P
Sometimes it is the simple stuff that trips you up.
But in a competition with this many entries, format usually is an auto-reject. Pathfinder has a specific format. We expected it to be followed. Not getting it quite right was ok, but missing it entirely was bad.
This list is in addition to all the normal problems you run into that we listed last year: spell-in-a-can, swiss army knife, monster-in-a-boxn, great name that doesnt deliver, random power items, home campaign items, etc.
There was a pleasant lack of augury items this year.
In general, "good names" were up this year. I thought there were a bunch of well-named items. Often leading to my favorite quote of "...too bad, too, cause I liked the name."
Here is another:
8. Not a wondrous item. We got a good set of items that werent wondrous items--many were simply lesser artifacts. Here's a hint: if there is only one of them, its probably an artifact. But the artifact problem isnt the only problem. We got a few that were either new substances or new spell systems disquised as wondrous items. Too bad, too, because they were cool ideas. See, there I go again with that...
Whoo! I didn't do these!
Also, Eric, the apostrophes are there, but they're the slanted kind that means Clark pasted in from a word processor. They might not be in your browser's font.
No, I just type real fast and leave out the apostrophes. :)
There were far fewer modern items disguised as wondrous items this year. Same thing with gag items. We had next to none. Also, we had very few weapons or other items that, by definition, are not wondrous items. As far as I can recall, we also only had a tiny group of psionic items, which are not wondrous items because they are universal items and do not use the Create Wondrous Item feat.
Most of the submissions we got really did a good job of following what I consider the classic template of a wondrous item: a common item that is, by magic, uncommon. It has a relatively constant effect that is lower level and then one or two additional specific effects that are more powerful. The item has a real tight theme and a real good idea behind it and it is tightly designed to that theme. It doesnt try to do too much and it doesnt try to solve all problems. That is a classic well-designed wondrous item.
|
Most of the submissions we got really did a good job of following what I consider the classic template of a wondrous item: a common item that is, by magic, uncommon. It has a relatively constant effect that is lower level and then one or two additional specific effects that are more powerful. The item has a real tight theme and a real good idea behind it and it is tightly designed to that theme. It doesnt try to do too much and it doesnt try to solve all problems. That is a classic well-designed wondrous item.
Now you're giving me faint hope, damn you! <shakes fist at monitor>
Fewer camping items, too. And, if I recall correctly, the one or two camping items we got I really liked. One in particular.
An unfortunate thing we saw this year more than last year was the:
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.
Most of the submissions we got really did a good job of following what I consider the classic template of a wondrous item: a common item that is, by magic, uncommon. It has a relatively constant effect that is lower level and then one or two additional specific effects that are more powerful. The item has a real tight theme and a real good idea behind it and it is tightly designed to that theme. It doesnt try to do too much and it doesnt try to solve all problems. That is a classic well-designed wondrous item.Unless I'm in line for a miracle, this tells me I'm not making the top 32. damn......
Not necessarily. That is just what MOST did, which tells me that the overall competence of the audience is rising from last year. Some of the ones that are getting shuffled into the KEEP pile, though, have broken that mold. And breaking the mold can be a good thing.
Dont use this discussion to find a way to rule yourself out of the contest :)
Submitting a great wondrous item was the most important criteria of all.
Fewer camping items, too. And, if I recall correctly, the one or two camping items we got I really liked. One in particular.
An unfortunate thing we saw this year more than last year was the:
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.
Jeps, that's why I refrain for summiting. Althought there were some brave friends that submited anyway. Kuddos!
|
Kobold Press
|
Oh, sure, I'll chime in.
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.
11. Spell in a Can. The perennial problem of items that really just do what a spell already does. Some were really well executed (one summon monster variant sticks in my mind). But as a whole, these are more scrolls or wands than they are wondrous items.
|
|
Oh, sure, I'll chime in.
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.
11. Spell in a Can. The perennial problem of items that really just do what a spell already does. Some were really well executed (one summon monster variant sticks in my mind). But as a whole, these are more scrolls or wands than they are wondrous items.
...and thus I am undone. <collapses>
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6
aka Eyebite
|
Oh, quit being so melodramatic you guys. :)
It aint over until the top 32 (and the alternates!) are announced. (And even if you aren't chosen, that's just when the real fun begins.)
I've been looking forward to this thread since the contest started. Superstar season is upon us!
Thank you to the judges for the design commentary.
This looks to be just as exciting, if not more so, than last year.
One you forgot:
12. Judges who ate something weird for lunch on review day.
Woe to those were reviewed by the judge to ate nine-day-old chicken tikka masala instead of his usual Hotpocket and shot of tequila. For his idea of a good wondrous item is a mountable clockwork raccoon that shoots black puddings out of its orifices. Tremble beneath the might of his hunt-and-peck typing and denial of your perfectly good wondrous item.
- - -
Eh, seriously folks, don't take it too rough if you get denied. You can't predict what someone will dislike or what someone will absolutely love. Competence goes a long way but at the end of the day opinion will ultimately rule.
welcome, have a tissue......
...and thus I am undone. <collapses>
Ha! cheer up, you still have better chances than me :D
|
|
Same here. It makes me wish I had submitted an item, which always ends up being a spell-in-a-can variant...
I've been looking forward to this thread since the contest started. Superstar season is upon us!
After I submitted my item, I looked over last year's Top 32, and it finally hit me that they all introduced new magical effect mechanics, rather than relying on the existing spell mechanics (well except for that one guy who knocked off ranged legerdemaine, and the judges all said mea culpas over that one), and I realized I had missed the boat again.
Here is another. It cropped up last year, but this year I think I can better explain what I mean:
12. The home campaign item. This is an item that normally (though it doesnt have to) come from a DM's home campaign. What makes it a problem, and earns its name, is that such items usually were designed by the DM and work great for the play styles of his or her particular game group. Such items also tend to have very general and undefined limits. That works fine when you are the creator of the item and you know waht it does. But you have to convey that in print to others who didnt create the item and only understand it from what you write. Often times, these items reveal themselves by having poorly defined restrictions or conditions such as "requires a close relationship" or "requires a friendly relationship with the wearer" or "influences like-minded individuals" or other similarly loosey-goosey vaguely defined conditions. Those arent game terms. I am sure those are terms the DM that created the item understands, but that isnt good enough. Sometimes an item is labeled a home campaign item when that isnt really what it is, but when it demonstrates these loosey-goosey DM-interpretation restrictions or conditions which often characterize home campaign items.
Related is the:
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.
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
Oh, sure, I'll chime in.
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.
11. Spell in a Can. The perennial problem of items that really just do what a spell already does. Some were really well executed (one summon monster variant sticks in my mind). But as a whole, these are more scrolls or wands than they are wondrous items.
Hey, not doing too badly. Of course that's what I thought last year.
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.
A little worried about this category, though as far as I can tell, all the excessively abusive player uses were intended and costed for. We'll see.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8
|
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 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!
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.
Contributor
,
Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
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.
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.
OK, I'll start the list.
1. Item Formatting. A good number of submissions didn’t follow the Pathfinder wondrous item format. Not sure how people screwed this one up. We considered this a big error. I mean, this is RPG Superstar. If you cant get the format right, that is a problem.
Maybe it is that tiny voice in the back of my head saying go ahead...just ask...but on formatting, I used the beta release PDF, according to the rules and they also had the magic items web enhancement PDF. But one thing confused me on the formatting and I didn't know which PDF to follow in formatting.
Web items enhancement PDF used the word CREATION instead of CONSTRUCTION which was used in the Beta PDF. Are either of these words acceptable? Maybe it was intended like that because the Magic Items Web PDF examples were items that were made from others. So that might be the difference. I followed the full blown PDF for formatting but was always curious if you wanted CREATION or CONSTRUCTION?
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.
This is up to Vic and Gary and Erik and Lisa. My guess is that we will "sanatize" our comments. I think guest judges will also comment on the top 32 as well, but I may be wrong. So you will likely see some if not all of our comments.
Web items enhancement PDF used the word CREATION instead of CONSTRUCTION which was used in the Beta PDF. Are either of these words acceptable?
I dont think we dinged anyone for that.
Breathe out. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8
|
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.
That's fine. If it were mine, I'd just want the consolation prize. Later or sooner, either is better than not. Thanks!
I haven't given up, though I still don't see superstar in my item. On the other hand, there are plenty of items other people rave about that I just don't see the appeal of, so maybe one of the judges will see superstar potential where I do not.
It's these little hopes that keep me submitting.
- Ashavan
|
Star Voter Season 6
|
Here is another. It cropped up last year, but this year I think I can better explain what I mean:
12. The home campaign item. ... Such items also tend to have very general and undefined limits. That works fine when you are the creator of the item and you know waht it does. But you have to convey that in print to others who didnt create the item and only understand it from what you write. Often times, these items reveal themselves by having poorly defined restrictions or conditions such as "requires a close relationship" or "requires a friendly relationship with the wearer" or "influences like-minded individuals" or other similarly loosey-goosey vaguely defined conditions. Those arent game terms....
I have a bad feeling I fell into this by mistake, thinking back to my item. Oh well, it was a lot of fun making it, and I had just had my wisdom teeth out and on codeine, so I'm just glad I click submit and wasn't in fact clicking buttons on my television and reading an encyclopedia instead of the magic item rules.
Ack! I hit number 2...
Wait. Item 2.
At least I went with a better item name this year. I sanitized it too much last year. I should be ok in regards to the rest of the pitfalls so far...
|
|
I would really like to thank the judges for commenting on this thread and elsewhere on the RPG Superstar forums. Your comments on last year's "bad item thread" helped me avoid a few mistakes I made with the early items I chose not to submit. I'm not exactly holding my breath at this point--I picked out a few things on my submitted item from this year's list. Still, all this great advice will help out my magic item creation skills for my home campaign.
OK, I'll start the list.
1. Item Formatting. A good number of submissions didn’t follow the Pathfinder wondrous item format. Not sure how people screwed this one up. We considered this a big error. I mean, this is RPG Superstar. If you cant get the format right, that is a problem.
2. Spell names. I cant tell you how many people capitalized spell names. Don’t do that. Spell names aren’t capitalized. We didnt expect italicizing (though we liked it), but you really need to know that spell names are lower case. This wasn’t fatal, but it didn’t help.
3. Good idea, bad execution. My phrase of the year is turning out to be “Reject, and its too bad, too.” Seriously, I wrote that a number of times in reviewing items. There were a ton of interesting items with bad mechanical execution. These were hard to reject, but generally they got rejected.
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.
6. The Pan’s Labyrinth chalk item. Like last year, we got a bunch of chalk items that let you make doorways.
7. “This Year’s Migrus.” Particularly early on we got a bunch of gonzo items that wanted to be this year’s Migrus. I think all were rejected. Luckily, though, we got very few items that were trying to be gonzo on purpose. I was worried that we would see more of that. Thankfully, I was wrong.
More to come.
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 - Xerox
An 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.
|
Star Voter Season 6
|
I find the number 4 issue rather odd....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.More to come.
Let me comment on this as a GM and purchaser of books and supplements.
Unless the item is part of a bigger campaign setting, I'd rather not have a backstory, as it's almost certainly not going to fit into my campaign.
Artifacts, however, often need a story.