|
Based on comments made by the judges so far in this thread, I would imagine that omitting the item name from the body of the entry would be a strike against the entry, but probably wouldn't lead to an automatic rejection on its own.
Let's hope so, because I read the rules, like, three times before submitting and it never registered they wanted the item's name in the body as well as the subject.
Kobold Press
|
We've hit several that just nail it: great idea, great execution, good flavor, balance, and utility. With an awesome name and correct costing. Those are, honestly, the easiest ones to judge.
We throw them over onto the "Keeper" pile and move on.
The ones that have some flaws or "would be better if" or that lack some spark or fall down on some mechanical element but have a great hook --- those are a nightmare to judge.
We're doing our best. There will probably be a little horse-trading and/or Golden Ticketing at the end, when it comes down to a matter of individual judge's preference.
Hmm. The more comments I see here, the more I doubt that there will be a 'top 10' to go through to the next round, let alone a 'top 32'. Are the judges actually seeing any items worth keeping, Clark? I have an idea that I've seen posted somewhere that there weren't very many that all the judges agreed on last time, and that 'the golden tickets' ended up making up the tally of 32 very handily.
Not according to what Eric Mona posted here:
By the time we got to the end of the general folder, I believe we had 71 items in the Keep folder. I went through and counted out the ones all three of us had voted KEEP on, which was something like 21 items. We then looked at that core and removed 5 items that managed to impress us only because they appeared very early in the competion, which left us with 16 items. Via a message board thread that will not be made public, we then started posting lists of our favorites, and each of us took another look to see if we could reach consensus. Some of us were dead set against some items in the folder for one reason or another, so those items did not make the final list, at least up until we got to 26 agreed-upon items.
Then, each of us got two "golden tickets" that we could assign to two items still in the Keep folder. That meant that, by judge fiat, we could promote any item from the Keep folder we liked, even over the objections of the other judges.
I wouldn't say that 26 items--or even 16--is an insignificant proportion of the 32, and I certainly wouldn't say that filling in the last 6 out of 32 items meant the golden tickets were the main deciders.
Honestly, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression you're getting from the comments on this thread. The fact that the judges are listing some things that a lot of entries did wrong (or that were just plain overdone) doesn't necessarily mean there weren't also a lot of entries that didn't do any of those things. Heck, I can honestly say that my item (as far as I know) doesn't make any of the missteps the judges mentioned in this thread (or fall into any of the overused categories). Though I'm still pretty sure it's not going to make the final 32, since apart from the slight mechanical kludge I mentioned in a previous post it's, well, kinda boring...
|
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.
Good lord there are so many posts already!
Anyway, just a quick comment on this. I too do not want back story. Sure Edison invented the light bulb, but when I go to the store I don't need to read the box and see who invented what item that is sort of commonly available. I don't care who invented Oreos, I don't care who invented the ink pen. While wondrous items are a bit more Wondrous than these things, they are still supposed to be relatively common items.
|
|
Let's hope so, because I read the rules, like, three times before submitting and it never registered they wanted the item's name in the body as well as the subject.
I'm with you on this one, cappadocius. It was my interpretation, after several thorough readings of the rules, that the name of the wondrous item was to go specifically in the subject line. Now I'm concerned.
Last night I dreamt about this contest....And then I woke up without ever hearing what the last sixteen were.
So that nightmare spell I sent your way worked? Cool. ;-D
--Neil
Mojo and good ideas count for alot, but we cant just give a pass to big mechanics blunders, because that is as much a part of great design. It reminds me alot of last year. Christine won because she had great huge awesome ideas coupled with a very workmanlike ability to craft the mechanics. Jason, for instance, didnt have perhaps the inspired huge ideas of Christine but he was a shade better at the mechanics (and Christine was no slough). Boomer was off the charts on big ideas, but his mechanic follow through was not as good as Jason or Christine.And where do I fit in there, Clark? Already forgotten after only a year? :)
Hah! No, not at all! You know how I felt about your stuff. You are in the excellent workmanlike ability camp too. You and Jason were about the same like that. Great and awesome ideas 9 out of 10 no doubt, never maybe the mindshattering ideas of Christine or Boomer which were 10 of 10, but that is splitting hairs between A+ and A; but both you and Jason had excellent, excellent ability to craft and write. In the end, those are probably more valuable freelance abilities to possess :)
Sorry I didnt mention you. I feel bad. :(
I think I avoided the obvious pitfalls. I do have a nagging suspicion that I put my item name in the subject line, but failed to put it in the actual submission text.
That is a perfect example of a thing that we might notice but wont get you rejected. That was a common problem. In fact, I dont think we even really marked down for it. Once we saw so many people did it we kind of realized that the problem was that we werent clear enough. When that many smart people goof it up you have to think that perhaps the problem was the instruction. We're not afraid to say its our fault on some stuff :)
I would imagine that omitting the item name from the body of the entry would be a strike against the entry, but probably wouldn't lead to an automatic rejection on its own.
I didnt even count it as a strike. I read the rules when I first saw an item that didnt have the name in the body and confirmed that it is supposed to be there, per the rules. But it is a bit confusing and lots and lots of people didnt put the name in the body. When you have an audience of really smart people and lots of them miss something, you have to presume that the rule was not clear.
I didnt even penalize it at all.
I will say this, when I see a submission done right, name in the body and nice formatting and proper use of codes that does create a favorable initial impression. I say to myself, now here is a person who knows what they are doing. So its not so much a strike for not doing it, but those who did it right certainly started me off reading their entry with a smile on my face.
For example, the difference between,
"The Widget of Incredible Awesomeness was created by the Chelaxian sorcerer Blazzle",
and
"The Widge of Incredible Awesomeness is highly valued by Chelaxian agents working under secret identities."
The first doesn't really add anything to the item, except for information that most GMs would change to suit their campaign. The second gives an indication as to a type of character or NPC who would find the item useful.
Of course, this is just my...
Thats a pretty good example, actually.
The first sentence is irrelevant, unless its an artifact. The second adds a bit of flavor. And if all you had was that one sentence of flavor, that would be fine, in my view. I think Wolf was a bit more forgiving of excessive backstory than I am. I'll be honest, even if it was backstory, if you limit it to one sentence it probably isnt going to hurt you. I'll note it, but it wont hurt you. However, people who love backstory rarely have the restraint to just include one sentence. They cant resist forgetting what the goal is and deciding that telling their story is more important than following the rules and submitting and item -how they want it to be and that should be good enough because they know better- or -because they didnt read wondrous items and didnt realize that wondrous items dont contain that kind of info-. Neither of those two are good.
What you dont want are two or three sentences of backstory like the first sentence. I;ll see if I can find an example and post an edited version later.
... those who did it right certainly started me off reading their entry with a smile on my face.
This makes me nervous, due to the oft-quoted line, "When the GM smiles, it's already too late."
CR
Hmm. The more comments I see here, the more I doubt that there will be a 'top 10' to go through to the next round, let alone a 'top 32'. Are the judges actually seeing any items worth keeping, Clark? I have an idea that I've seen posted somewhere that there weren't very many that all the judges agreed on last time, and that 'the golden tickets' ended up making up the tally of 32 very handily.
Actually, there is more consensus this year in my view. We'll see how it shakes out. The problem last year is we kept too many and were choosing between a larger number. Right now with about 100 items pending final sorting, we have about 40 in the keep folder. I think we are being a bit more disciplined this year and last year was a learning experience for us for sure just like everyone else. And that was the first round, so we werent even the judges then that we were by the end of the process. You guys arent the only ones who grew and learned from the process.
Yes, to answer your question, there are plenty of items we like this year. :)
Though I'm still pretty sure it's not going to make the final 32, since apart from the slight mechanical kludge I mentioned in a previous post it's, well, kinda boring...
That, probably, is the biggest way to get rejected.
I said in a few item reviews that this is like diving or gymnastics. You start with a degree of difficutly and then we see how you execute it. If you start with a really low degree of difficuly, even if you nail the execution you probably arent winning gold.
Now, dont get me wrong. You dont need a high power item to have a high start value. You need and interesting item. And I think Wolf will agree that low level items are some of the hardest to design, frankly they are harder than artifacts since the design restrictions are so much tighter. But we want a great item, low or high level. Something that we say, yeah, I want that in my game. And believe me you know them when you see them. And focus on epic heroic need. A magic wrench that gives you a +2 to craft checks and 1/day lets you cast mending is just not going to get our temperature up. Sure, it is simple and it would exist in a magic world and you may have done a great job with the mechaincs. But its just not that sexy. No mojo. No juice. I will be the first to agree that some of the existing wondrous items are just about as boring. But they exist for lots of reasons, some for no reason better than that they were from the infancy of the game.
So, when you choose an item to submit, make it sexy. Not gonzo. Just interesting. Find a big idea, a theme. Then dress it up. I'll be able to talk abotu this more when we can discuss the individual items.
... What would happen if you got two submissions that had exactly the same word count but one is half a page longer than the other because they use larger words?
...
[educated guess]
This is accounted for in the original word-cap. Publishers know how many characters a column can handle and how many charactes are in the average word (based on their audience). They will add a second column or more likely 'edit' to a more manageable size. They can also adjust the size of a picture/sidebar to make it fit on the page. All of which goes into the word-cap. I am sure it is not an exact science, but accounting is. *grin*[/educated guess]
I would imagine that omitting the item name from the body of the entry would be a strike against the entry, but probably wouldn't lead to an automatic rejection on its own.So its not so much a strike for not doing it, but those who did it right certainly started me off reading their entry with a smile on my face.
Ahhh, now I feel bad that I didn't put a smile on your face ;<
Dedicated Voter Season 9
|
I'm a little confused regarding the whole "backstory" issue. I know there was a suggestion that this was not the best way to go, but it was definitely NOT a rule regarding the contest itself that you could not. In fact, a question was asked that was placed in the FAQ regarding use of Golarion and other Pathfinder products in the contest, and the answer was, yes, you could use the background material. Now, why else would you use the background material if you were not going to extrapolate on the item itself?
Just curious, and hope that backstory was not criteria for immediate rejection as it was not stated in the rules. My opinion; if you can create a decent wondrous item AND background given the confines of the 200 words, you should certainly not be rejected automatically.
As was said earlier in the thread, large amounts of backstory are not part of the wondrous items that appear in the SRD or Beta rules. I don't believe that backstory is a reason for automatic rejection, as if I remember correctly, at least one item that made it into the top 32 last year included some backstory. However, that same backstory was cited as a strike against the item by the judges.
As far as the use of Golarion and other Pathfinder products, I'm guessing that there's a distinction between backstory and flavour/description wherein backstory discusses who made the item and why, and flavour/description factors more into what the item looks like and perhaps brief indications as to how it's used. For example, the difference between,
"The Widget of Incredible Awesomeness was created by the Chelaxian sorcerer Blazzle",
and
"The Widge of Incredible Awesomeness is highly valued by Chelaxian agents working under secret identities."
The first doesn't really add anything to the item, except for information that most GMs would change to suit their campaign. The second gives an indication as to a type of character or NPC who would find the item useful.
Of course, this is just my...
I think what confuses alot of people that add a big backstory is that if you look at "Burnt Offerings", the Sihedron Medallion has a backstory and so do alot of the other items in various issues of Pathfinder and GameMastery modules.
I would imagine that omitting the item name from the body of the entry would be a strike against the entry, but probably wouldn't lead to an automatic rejection on its own.I didnt even count it as a strike. I read the rules when I first saw an item that didnt have the name in the body and confirmed that it is supposed to be there, per the rules. But it is a bit confusing and lots and lots of people didnt put the name in the body. When you have an audience of really smart people and lots of them miss something, you have to presume that the rule was not clear.
I didnt even penalize it at all.
I will say this, when I see a submission done right, name in the body and nice formatting and proper use of codes that does create a favorable initial impression. I say to myself, now here is a person who knows what they are doing. So its not so much a strike for not doing it, but those who did it right certainly started me off reading their entry with a smile on my face.
This has been eating me since I hit submit. After I closed my web browser I closed my word, and realized I had not copied the title. Not winning on mechanics, flavor, even following the rules would not bother me. Losing to a cut and paste error---ack!
I think what confuses alot of people that add a big backstory is that if you look at "Burnt Offerings", the Sihedron Medallion has a backstory and so do alot of the other items in various issues of Pathfinder and GameMastery modules.
I'm not familiar with that module, but is it maybe because the item is specific to the module? It would make more sense for a wondrous item to have a back story if it was also a plot element of a specific story.
CR
|
Dedicated Voter Season 9
|
I think what confuses alot of people that add a big backstory is that if you look at "Burnt Offerings", the Sihedron Medallion has a backstory and so do alot of the other items in various issues of Pathfinder and GameMastery modules.I'm not familiar with that module, but is it maybe because the item is specific to the module? It would make more sense for a wondrous item to have a back story if it was also a plot element of a specific story.
CR
Yes the item is tied to the story.... Mostl likely people who enter this contest are DMs, hence they will see listings like that and go, "Ok so this is what they mean!"
Yes the item is tied to the story.... Mostl likely people who enter this contest are DMs, hence they will see listings like that and go, "Ok so this is what they mean!"I think what confuses alot of people that add a big backstory is that if you look at "Burnt Offerings", the Sihedron Medallion has a backstory and so do alot of the other items in various issues of Pathfinder and GameMastery modules.I'm not familiar with that module, but is it maybe because the item is specific to the module? It would make more sense for a wondrous item to have a back story if it was also a plot element of a specific story.
CR
I think that the distinction is that the items submitted for RPG Superstar are meant to be in the same vein as those found in the Beta rules, which is to say sufficiently generic to be used in any level-appropriate campaign or adventure. This is opposed to an item created to do double service as both treasure and a plot-element in a specific module. Put another way, would the Sihedron Medallion make sense to drop into a treasure hoard as a random item, or to equip an NPC with? I'm actually asking, as I'm not familiar with the item.
CR
|
Dedicated Voter Season 9
|
Yes the item is tied to the story.... Mostl likely people who enter this contest are DMs, hence they will see listings like that and go, "Ok so this is what they mean!"I think what confuses alot of people that add a big backstory is that if you look at "Burnt Offerings", the Sihedron Medallion has a backstory and so do alot of the other items in various issues of Pathfinder and GameMastery modules.I'm not familiar with that module, but is it maybe because the item is specific to the module? It would make more sense for a wondrous item to have a back story if it was also a plot element of a specific story.
CR
I think that the distinction is that the items submitted for RPG Superstar are meant to be in the same vein as those found in the Beta rules, which is to say sufficiently generic to be used in any level-appropriate campaign or adventure. This is opposed to an item created to do double service as both treasure and a plot-element in a specific module. Put another way, would the Sihedron Medallion make sense to drop into a treasure hoard as a random item, or to equip an NPC with? I'm actually asking, as I'm not familiar with the item.
CR
It would make a good random magic item. It just was introduced as a "campaign" item, but could easily fit in any game or game world (gives resistance bonus and false life...off the top pf my head).
For example, the difference between,
"The Widget of Incredible Awesomeness was created by the Chelaxian sorcerer Blazzle",
and
"The Widge of Incredible Awesomeness is highly valued by Chelaxian agents working under secret identities."
The first doesn't really add anything to the item, except for information that most GMs would change to suit their campaign. The second gives an indication as to a type of character or NPC who would find the item useful.
Of course, this is just my...
Thats a pretty good example, actually.
The first sentence is irrelevant, unless its an artifact. The second adds a bit of flavor. And if all you had was that one sentence of flavor, that would be fine, in my view. I think Wolf was a bit more forgiving of excessive backstory than I am. I'll be honest, even if it was backstory, if you limit it to one sentence it probably isnt going to hurt you. I'll note it, but it wont hurt you. However, people who love backstory rarely have the restraint to just include one sentence. They cant resist forgetting what the goal is and deciding that telling their story is more important than following the rules and submitting and item -how they want it to be and that should be good enough because they know better- or -because they didnt read wondrous items and didnt realize that wondrous items dont contain that kind of info-. Neither of those two are good.
What you dont want are two or three sentences of backstory like the first sentence. I;ll see if I can find an example and post an edited version later.
It would be a fine example if magic items where anything like light bulbs. They are not. Each one is an arcane work of art, taking days, perhapes even weeks to construct. They are made by a subgroup of an already realtively rare type of person, in a world where the vast majority of people will never be able to afford them. Wonderous items have more incommon with the works of the old masters than a disposible consumer good.
Detailing the history of one example of an item does not in anyway prevent other examples existing or stop a DM from creating their own background for an item. But providing such details does reinforce the concept that each one of these items is a thing of wonder, a unique work of skilled an powerful magician.
And where do I fit in there, Clark? Already forgotten after only a year? :)
You know, I was wondering EXACTLY the same thing!
;-)
:-j(enni)
Detailing the history of one example of an item does not in anyway prevent other examples existing or stop a DM from creating their own background for an item. But providing such details does reinforce the concept that each one of these items is a thing of wonder, a unique work of skilled an powerful magician.
Here's my thinking on the subject. I've found in the past that if I hand out a magic item as a GM and accompany it with a history like, "This item was created by Jorak the Mad, a member of the Order of the Red Sash, which was housed in the Ruby Monastery ...", I get a dazed look from my players. I've found that as much fun as I may have with writing this kind of exposition, it's really just extra words for the players. The exception to this is if they're actually looking for the Ruby Monastery, or if I plan to send them there at a later date. Then it works.
Generally, I've found that players are more likely to be interested in things like: what the item looks like, if there are any visual or auditory effects when it's activated, and other things that directly relate to their use of it. The reason for this is that these things affect actual play, which is what the players are there for. It's a variant of the "show them, don't tell them" philosophy.
Put another way, if I give the PCs a paper airplane and tell them that it was folded by Jorak the Master Origamist ... it's still just a paper airplane. Wondrous items are wondrous because of what they do, not because they were created by an interesting person.
This is of course just my opinion, driven by my experiences. I know I say that a lot, but I've found that my style of posting makes it sound like I'm trying to read from some sacred text if I don't. :)
CR
Mojo and good ideas count for alot, but we cant just give a pass to big mechanics blunders, because that is as much a part of great design. It reminds me alot of last year. Christine won because she had great huge awesome ideas coupled with a very workmanlike ability to craft the mechanics. Jason, for instance, didnt have perhaps the inspired huge ideas of Christine but he was a shade better at the mechanics (and Christine was no slough). Boomer was off the charts on big ideas, but his mechanic follow through was not as good as Jason or Christine.And where do I fit in there, Clark? Already forgotten after only a year? :)
And I was wondering EXACTLY the same thing!
;-)
:-j(enni)
(Semi-Official Superstar Cheerleader for Rob McCreary)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
(Semi-Official Superstar Cheerleader for Rob McCreary)
If I had known that there were cheerleaders involved, I would have tried harder.
;-)
Well, one point for the boy; one point for the dad. He included his item name in the body and in the subject line but he capitalized his spell names. I did the opposite.
If only we had listened to each other's opinions on this, we would have made it without hitting any of the strikes against. (Though, we both might have a bit of the 'spell in a can' thing working against us but I don't think so.)
Anyways, it's been a lot of fun so far and we both submitted items we'd really like our characters to have.
It would be a fine example if magic items where anything like light bulbs. They are not. Each one is an arcane work of art, taking days, perhapes even weeks to construct. They are made by a subgroup of an already realtively rare type of person, in a world where the vast majority of people will never be able to afford them. Wonderous items have more incommon with the works of the old masters than a...
How so? The works of the old masters are unique. Wondrous items aren't. (Major artifacts are, but not wondrous items.) Sure, only a few people can create wondrous items, while there aren't too many things in the real world nowadays that only a few people can create, but, well, now you're looking at the difference between a preindustrial crafting society and an industrial society with automated manufacture. In a typical D&D society, maybe only a few people can make, say, a masterwork kama. Certainly on most D&D worlds I'd think only a very few places would have the (relatively) advanced technology necessary to make a decent spyglass. So should spyglasses and masterwork kamas have a several-sentence description of who first made them? The comparison to the "works of the old masters" really doesn't hold up at all.
But aside from that, look at things from a practical perspective. A published book has limited space; it's generally planned for a specific page count, which means a specific word count. There's only so much you can fit in there. Including a couple sentences of backstory for every single item means you're going to have to cut from somewhere else to make room for it. Would you rather know the names and histories of the first people to make each item, or have more items included in the book? Even if you'd rather know the names, I'm guessing you're probably in the minority. (Especially since, judging from the threads on rejected items, the backstories mostly seem pretty samey and repetitive anyway. Endless litanies with minor variation of "A gnome/bard/noble named Such-and-such had this problem, so he created this, and then other people started making them too" really wouldn't add much value to a book.)
Besides, I think what it ultimately comes down to here is what Clark Peterson pointed out a few pages back. The contest rules involved creating a wondrous item using the presentation for magic items found in Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta rules. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta rules do not include backstory for wondrous items. Neither does the DMG, for that matter. It's not a standard part of wondrous item descriptions. (Heck, even the minor artifacts in the DMG don't get histories--only the major artifacts do.) One might conclude that there is a reason for that. But even if you disagree with that reason--even if you think that every wondrous item should include an account of its creation--the fact is that you're asked to follow the guidelines, and if you include all those backstory details, you're not doing that. (True, the guidelines don't explicitly say not to include the backstory, but they don't explicitly say not to write your item description in Pig Latin, either. In this case, it's pretty clear by following the examples of the existing wondrous items that backstories don't belong.) In other words, you're not following the directions.
Honestly, no offense, but I'm kind of surprised anyone is still arguing about this...
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
I can see this as an honest mistake--the item itself fit within the 200 word limit, but maybe there was some other information the author wanted to impart (perhaps behind a spoiler tag).
Honest incompetence is the worst kind. It's that much more likely that the culprit is incapable of learning better. It's kinder to assume it was wilful laziness in not reading the rules or discussion. That's correctable.
Please take as read a suitably humble disclaimer that my submission might display either one.
Put another way, if I give the PCs a paper airplane and tell them that it was folded by Jorak the Master Origamist ... it's still just a paper airplane. Wondrous items are wondrous because of what they do, not because they were created by an interesting person.
This. The only exception might be if it's Jorak's Airplane instead of Airplane of Awesomeness.
Smeazel, I was just saying that, based on what Clark posted, it seemed that items might be rejected for having a backstory. The idea that under production you have a certain limitation of space is certainly valid, but that was covered in the 200 word limitation, and is not under question. My submission certainly has more creative, Wondrous Item details than backstory, but I am a creative person, and the item I made just fit so well with the backstory elements that they became one and the same. It is not "So-and-so the Archmage created this for X use" at all.
I was just concerned about an item being dropped for having a backstory period, as it was not listed in the criteria for the contest. It certainly is not the same as writing in pig-latin just because it doesn't say you cannot, or any other extrapolation of what is NOT listed. The item in question will work anywhere, and for anyone, and can be incorporated into any world or campaign. It is not limited by the backstory, it is enhanced.
The judges keep saying how this is Superstar, and it seems the idea here was to delve into your creative side and show your stuff. If I don't make it to the top 32 because my item doesn't have Superstar quality, I'm okay with that. If it was dismissed due to some added flavor, that's a whole different story. So, I thought I would ask. Of course, unless I am in the top 32, I will probably never know. Either way, it has still been interesting and fun (as well as wracking certain nerves due to the length of time!) and I can't complain over much, even if it seems like I am.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
I was just concerned about an item being dropped for having a backstory period, as it was not listed in the criteria for the contest.
I believe it's been said that that did not happen.
If I don't make it to the top 32 because my item doesn't have Superstar quality, I'm okay with that. If it was dismissed due to some added flavor, that's a whole different story.
Superstar quality is following the assignment and giving the absolute best response you can to it with the resources available. Any use of word count that doesn't contribute to what was requested certainly should count against you.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
aka flash_cxxi
|
That is a perfect example of a thing that we might notice but wont get you rejected. That was a common problem. In fact, I dont think we even really marked down for it. Once we saw so many people did it we kind of realized that the problem was that we werent clear enough. When that many smart people goof it up you have to think that perhaps the problem was the instruction. We're not afraid to say its our fault on some stuff :)
I'm sure that I read in another Thread that someone (Vic or James I think) said that the Item Name only had to go into the Subject Line, not in the Item Description Text. That's the reason I didn't include mine in the DT.
The contest rules involved creating a wondrous item using the presentation for magic items found in Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta rules. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Beta rules do not include backstory for wondrous items. Neither does the DMG, for that matter. It's not a standard part of wondrous item descriptions. (Heck, even the minor artifacts in the DMG don't get histories--only the major artifacts do.) One might conclude that there is a reason for that. But even if you disagree with that reason--even if you think that every wondrous item should include an account of its creation--the fact is that you're asked to follow the guidelines, and if you include all those backstory details, you're not doing that. (True, the guidelines don't explicitly say not to include the backstory, but they don't explicitly say not to write your item description in Pig Latin, either. In this case, it's pretty clear by following the examples of the existing wondrous items that backstories don't belong.) In other words, you're not following the directions.
Honestly, no offense, but I'm kind of surprised anyone is still arguing about this...
Right.
Smeazel, I was just saying that, based on what Clark posted, it seemed that items might be rejected for having a backstory.
I wasn't responding to your post; I was responding to a post suggesting that every item should have a backstory, and that it was unreasonable to suggest that there might possibly be anything wrong with including one.
I infer from what the judges have said that a backstory isn't cause for automatic rejection--it's just a cause for concern. (There were some items that made the top 32 last year that included some (brief) backstory, after all--such as the deadstring shears.) That being said, there's also a difference between "background" and "backstory"--see this post. I get the idea from your posts (though, not of course having read your entry, I could be wrong) that what you included was background, not backstory, and that's another matter altogether. A full paragraph detailing how the kobold sorcerer Eepop the Unobservant made the item because he was pining over a lost love who was eaten by a roper, and then some adventurers came by the lair and found his notes and blah blah blah... well, that's probably going to get rejected. If your only "backstory" is a passing mention of how your item is commonly used by a certain organization of Golarion, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
Anyway, again, my post wasn't directed at you, and it I'm sorry if it came across as any sort of attack; that wasn't my intent. It just seems there's been a spate of posts insisting on the Importance of Backstory that have been hostile and downright insulting to the judges. (Well, that's how they've been coming across to me, anyway, though admittedly intent is difficult to read on web forums. Also note I'm not saying your post was one of those I'm referring to.) I'm just getting tired of all the posts insisting that the judges are fools for having a problem with longwinded backstory.
As for the Pig Latin comment... yeah, okay, I admit that was a silly example. Still, I think the main point holds; if none of the wondrous items in the Pathfinder Beta Rules or the DMG include backstory, then it should be pretty clear that backstory doesn't belong there, and that by including backstory you're not following the guidelines, even if it's not explicitly stated. Again, though, my post wasn't directed at you.
I was just concerned about an item being dropped for having a backstory period, as it was not listed in the criteria for the contest.
Actually, not true.
First, I've clarified that I cant think of an item that was auto-rejected for too much backstory. It was a strike, not an auto-reject.
Second, it really it was covered in the instructions. We asked for a wondrous item usinig the SRD and the Pathfinder Beta. NONE -- not a single one -- of those items has the type of backstory that is being discussed. If an author did their homework they would realize that. If they checked out last year's items, they would see that. If they read my bad item stereotype thread from last year I think that was either number 1 or 2 on my list--"item of the overdone backstory." There really is no excuse.
Excessive backstory is not a part of wondrous items. Period. There really shouldnt be any debate about this.
What this boils down to is gamer ego, really. And that ego makes for bad freelancers. The project here was a wondrous item written the Pathfinder way. Not YOUR unique special gem of specialness written in that way that pleases you with the content that you absolutely must have to show its specialness, without any rules that limit your or your item's specialness. This is RPG Superstar. It is a design contest at the end of which a person gets a freelance gig with Paizo. As such, there are guidelines to follow. That is part of the test. An author who cant follow those (either by willful disregard or by lack of knowledge) does not a good freelancer make. There are some authors who are so fond of their item and backstory that they simply couldnt live artistically without presenting it. Those people make bad freelancers. They confuse their own "creative need" with an implied ability to ignore the design constraints because the beauty of their creation requires it.
But lets back up...
For the most part, my guess is that most people really provided some extra background. A sentence of that is fine with me. That is different from backstory, such as:
Emmalir's Earings of Enrapture
Slot, aura, cost blah blah.
These magic earrings were originally created by Orlof the Old for his young bride to be, Emmalir. She was slain at the hands of orc raiders and her dying tears infused these amythest earings with her love and longing for Orlof. It is said that elderly nobles seek out these items or their duplicates to inspire thier young consorts to love them despite their advanced age.
Appearing as a matching pair of amethyst earing, anyone donning them has a iniitial reaction of friendly towards the person giving these earrings to them so long as the giver is at least Old or older and the recipient is not yet subject to aging effects. See Influencing NPC Attitudes and Vital Statiscics, Age.
Cost, creation, blah blah.
Yes, I just made that item up as I typed and it is lame. But It shows what I consider to be overdone backstory.
Lets say it just read like this:
Emmalir's Earings of Enrapture
Slot, aura, cost blah blah.
It is said that elderly nobles of Golarion seek out these items or their duplicates to inspire thier young consorts to love them despite their advanced age. Appearing as a matching pair of amethyst earing, anyone donning them has a iniitial reaction of friendly towards the person giving these earrings to them so long as the giver is at least Old or older and the recipient is not yet subject to aging effects. See Influencing NPC Attitudes and Vital Statiscics, Age.
Cost, creation, blah blah.
That is just a sentence of backsground and, while unnecessary, is not overdone. And it actually includes a Golarion reference.
It would be a fine example if magic items where anything like light bulbs. They are not. Each one is an arcane work of art, taking days, perhapes even weeks to construct. They are made by a subgroup of an already realtively rare type of person, in a world where the vast majority of people will never be able to afford them. Wonderous items have more incommon with the works of the old masters than a...How so? The works of the old masters are unique. Wondrous items aren't. (Major artifacts are, but not wondrous items.) Sure, only a few people can create wondrous items, while there aren't too many things in the real world nowadays that only a few people can create, but, well, now you're looking at the difference between a preindustrial crafting society and an industrial society with automated manufacture. In a typical D&D society, maybe only a few people can make, say, a masterwork kama. Certainly on most D&D worlds I'd think only a very few places would have the (relatively) advanced technology necessary to make a decent spyglass. So should spyglasses and masterwork kamas have a several-sentence description of who first made them? The comparison to the "works of the old masters" really doesn't hold up at all.
But aside from that, look at things from a practical perspective. A published book has limited space; it's generally planned for a specific page count, which means a specific word count. There's only so much you can fit in there. Including a couple sentences of backstory for every single item means you're going to have to cut from somewhere else to make room for it. Would you rather know the names and histories of the first people to make each item, or have more items included in the book? Even if you'd rather know the names, I'm guessing you're probably in the minority. (Especially since, judging from the threads on rejected items, the backstories mostly seem pretty samey and repetitive anyway. Endless litanies with minor variation of "A...
Each item is a unique example of that variaty of item.
Much in the same way that van Gogh painted numerous paintings of sunflowers in a single style, so to can bob the enchanter make many examples of his boots of epic coolness. Each is slightly different, even if he used identicial materials and rituals, variations in craftsmanship mean that each is slightly different. Each should have an individual name and as they move out into the world they develope there own history.
As for the question as to if a masterwork weapon should have a history, well they are more common than most magic items so they require it less, but the truth is that if you want it to have any emotional significiance to the owner of the item then it is probably a good idea for it to have one.
After all, a significant portion of the plot of both Kill Bill and crouching tiger, hidden dragon are devoted to discussing the history and importants of a single weapon. Alteast one of which is almost certainly not magical.
With regards to page count. Well there are publishers who do make the choice of more background, fewer items. For instance White Wolf. So i can answer that from experience. Given a choice between many chimes of opening(No background at all, not even what it looks like) and one cloe the Growl-Growl bear(a tedy bear fetish that becomes a large manitfested spirit bear when its owner if threatened; it has extensive background including, who it was made by, how it was made, who it was made for, what adventures the bear and its owners got up to, how the owners have reacted to cloe since growing up and many other details which make the item live and breath.) i would take cloe every time.
Let's pull back.
The point of this thread is to share some things I am seeing and to begin discussion of what is or is not good item design. It is intended to be helpful. It is NOT intended to start disagreements or to make people anxious about their items. :)
So lets keep it there.
I think the backstory issue has been discussed. Lets move on.
Here is something else I am seeing. Names are definately better this year in general.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
aka KissMeDarkly
|
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.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...
I definately messed up with #2. I also had to reign in my item's original concept, because the PRICE & COST was slowly gaining Epic Level proportions and I feared I had an artifact on my hands.
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.
17. Class Features in a Can. That is, items that give the more interesting features of a particular class to anybody who can afford the item. Blurring the lines between classes isn't generally a good thing. While I suspect the designer probably sees the item as a way to bring more options to each player, it comes at the cost of making each player less unique.
I may have a problem with #11 and Vic's #17 has got me more than a little worried. I'd like to think my concept will get me past these.
It would be a fine example if magic items where anything like light bulbs. They are not. Each one is an arcane work of art, taking days, perhapes even weeks to construct. They are made by a subgroup of an already realtively rare type of person, in a world where the vast majority of people will never be able to afford them. Wonderous items have more incommon with the works of the old masters than a...
Actually, in a pre-industrial society, almost evey item was made with a degree of individual artistry seldom seen since the advent of mass production. Something as humble as a hammer would have been custom made to a specific use, rather than generic. Even common nails were made to specific requirements. Obviously, adopting the idea that "everything's unique" would produce unwieldy rules.
Here is something else I am seeing. Names are definately better this year in general.
Well, in my case, at least, that's thanks to reading the posts about last year's entries. Just before submitting my entry the morning of the deadline, I browsed some of the main threads from last year. When I hit the Bad Item Stereotypes thread, I was relieved to see that my item didn't hit any of the stereotypes listed there. Except... that there was a lot of emphasis put on having an evocative name. And my item's name... well, it was kind of bland.
Fortunately, I still had a few hours to go before the deadline, so I managed to come up with (what I think is) a catchier name. (And yes, in retrospect I should have realized that bland names were bad before reading the thread.)
Had I read that thread earlier (as I really should have), I probably would have tried to think of a more intriguing item in general, though... I was thinking of creating an item that would be, well, publishable, but not really focusing on making one that would really stand out, and the thread showed me the error of that thinking (though, again, I probably should have realized that before reading it). I didn't have time to develop a whole new concept then, though, so I went ahead and submitted what I had (after spending way too long obsessing over pricing and making endless minor edits) and hoped there might be some slim chance the judges might somehow find it interesting enough to slip by. Still, like I mentioned before, if (when) I don't make the top 32 (and I'm not really expecting to), I'm pretty sure I'll know why... not because my item hit any major pitfalls, but just because it was too boring. (Well, okay, and maybe partly because of one unnecessarily awkward mechanic. But mostly the boring thing.)
(On the other hand, if I had read that thread earlier, maybe I would have ended up erring in the opposite direction and creating something too "gonzo". Who knows?)
Names are definately better this year in general.
How well are names matching with their items? Have people generally done a good job of meshing the coolness of their item names and their items?
CR
I appreciate that names are better this year, but can names be too good? A lot of wondrous items (and yes they have probably been with the game since its infancy) have perfectly acceptable, but somewhat bland names: cube of force, helm of brilliance, bag of holding, among others. Can a name imply too much of the much reviled backstory?
Chad
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
I appreciate that names are better this year, but can names be too good? A lot of wondrous items (and yes they have probably been with the game since its infancy) have perfectly acceptable, but somewhat bland names: cube of force, helm of brilliance, bag of holding, among others. Can a name imply too much of the much reviled backstory?
I actually like at least the first two of those. A good name doesn't have to be flashy or bizarre. In fact, the simpler and shorter the better. They're good names, I think, because they're easy to say and remember, use well-chosen terms with just a hint of legend and poetry to them, and touch on all aspects of the item's concept without being mere physical and functional descriptions.
|
Kobold Press
|
The only way a name can be too good is if it oversells the item.
The Helm of Corruscating Flame, for instance, might be too much for a helmet that lets you, oh, light normal fires 1/day.
In other cases, I've seen things like (making these up here) The Greater Boots of Lamashtu that just improve spellcasting.
You want a name that grabs the reader's attention without going overboard. Cube of Force does that for me, but I'll give you that naming is pretty subjective. It's easier to mess it up than to do it right.
We had some real-world names added to wondrous items this year. That was odd.