|
I expected to do my usual 'pick eight or so I love, and agonize over which ones I love least.'
I ended up with five, and one of them was an easy drop because I loved the *concept* behind it, but not the execution.
This year was very different for me, since I'd started thinking about what sort of villain *I* wanted to submit/see, and made a list of things that seemed 'too common' to even consider. That biased me against those things when I saw them, unfortunately, since I'd already dismissed them in my head a week in advance...
I was pleasantly surprised at the number of non-spellcasters in the mix, and the fact that half of the villains weren't flavor-of-the-month races like half-dragon, gnoll or goblin. The inclusion of a green hag was a treat, since hags don't get much play.
It's always neat to me to see what someone can do with an underused classic beastie like the gargoyle or salamander or worg. Bards or Fighters or Monks as villains also is neat to see, since they aren't nearly as overdone as 'evil cleric' or 'tainted sorcerer' or 'power-mad wizard.'
I see two that really impress me and stand out above the crowd, then a bunch which are all "good, but not great", and then a few that fall off the the bottom.
Yeah, I was surprised by how blah many of these were, lack of drive and motivation for the villains brought down a fair few in my estimation, but what can I say, I had a blah wonderous item and didn't get this far. I thought that 6 were good enough to continue overall, so I'm interested to see how things play out with the remainder of the submissions, especially if they garner no votes or minimal votes.
I have to agree. I'm a bit disappointed - I suspected that would happen because even the wondrous items didn't really spark me this time. But the sheer number of awful cliches!
And what is it with druids and bards? They're so overused as villains. And my gaming group - man, when we start fighting a villain and then find out they're a bard, we just laugh, relax, and get to killing them.
After reading 16 entries I had one true villain and a couple of maybe's. The rest doesn't really inspire me to comment on them......that is a bad sign.
Disclaimer up front: This is just a theory.
I think a lot of people seem to have fallen in to a trap of trying to design a literary villain as opposed to a RPG villain. As a result, you end up with a villain with a decent concept and backstory, but it falls flat when you try to envision how you'd work it in to an actual play session or sessions. I'm including in this the villains that were actually plot devices -- another cause of "interesting story, but not an RPG villain."
This may or may not be a result of separating the mechanics section from the concept section. This isn't an excuse though -- the people who will succeed in this contest aren't necessarily going to be the most creative or the most articulate. They're going to be the ones who can produce what has been requested.
CR
At the risk of being contrarian, I have to disagree. The most common reframe I have heard in this act of the contest has been 'this is not a villain.' In almost every case, I would say that the only thing that makes it true is a lack of imagination on the part of the person making the comment. Certainly, there has been an issue with quality. Many of the writers do not seem to have been able to marry up the core element of villainy with the story hooks. However, the core idea has often been good. Certainly, I think we should be overall expecting something better, but then we did not make it this far so hey, what do we know ;)
At the risk of being contrarian, I have to disagree. The most common reframe I have heard in this act of the contest has been 'this is not a villain.' In almost every case, I would say that the only thing that makes it true is a lack of imagination on the part of the person making the comment. Certainly, there has been an issue with quality. Many of the writers do not seem to have been able to marry up the core element of villainy with the story hooks. However, the core idea has often been good. Certainly, I think we should be overall expecting something better, but then we did not make it this far so hey, what do we know ;)
The thing is, I think most of them are villains. I just don't think that they're good RPG villains. There are a lot of classic villains in literature that simply don't work well in roleplaying games. That's not to say that they're not quality -- it's simply a different medium. Absolutely it's possible to imagine a way to work them in to a game, but most of those ways require one of two things. They require utter and complete cooperation on the part of the PCs in acting out the story you want to tell, as in the case of Malgana the Twistwood Witch, or they require a degree of railroading to force the PCs to make and retain contact with the villain, as in the case of Gibnem / Elric the Miller.
As far as a lack of imagination goes, my view is this. If I want to use my imagination, I'll write my own villains. If I'm going to pick up a published work (such as the one that the winner of this contest will be writing), I want a roleplaying game villain that's ready to go and requires nothing more than minor modifications at most. When I'm evaluating the 32 villains, I'm doing it on the basis of, "Would I feel like I had misspent my money if this was part of a published work", not "Does this give me an idea for something I then need to create almost entirely on my own."
CR
I believe the Rabbit has a point about character ideas that would only need minor modifications. One of my favorite's, Dorman's Hecatecaus falls into this category for me. While some of the terminoligy made him seem a bit clownish I can picture this villain mocking me again and again as he defeats me but keeps me alive to humiliate me another day. Still hoping that one gets reviewed actually.
I do agree with Corrosive Rabbit, pretty much all of them would make great stories and adventures (like in fiction) but many were lacking in long-term use.
There were several character ideas which I'd like to use though, but many of them as just regular NPCs or feed for a single adventure.
I cannot say much of the generic level, last year the villain round was hard for many, and then too several entries suffered from "nice monster, poor villain" problem. And some of the entries would have translated into quite cool countries...
All in all, I found five villains to vote for, unfortunately there were only four votes, so there were some hard decisions for me, and I do hope the fifth one advances too.
There were some other writers who didn't deliver that good entries but which I think do have potential...hope they advance too, or if not submit other stuff later...
My biggest problem reading through the entries for this round was that so many of them are boring. I thought it would take me longer to read through all of them, but I ended up doing it in one fell swoop just to get the pain over with. There were very few that jumped out at me and said this is interesting, and wow, this would be so much fun to play. I really wish that the decision for which to vote for had been harder because that would have meant that the entries had sparkled more. A couple of them struck me as not really villains, but most of them were just dull. Some of those were good concepts delivered with an overly dry writing style, and others were just too cliche to be interesting. I had so much fun reading the magic items and I just can't figure out what happened between items and villains.
The thing is, I think most of them are villains. I just don't think that they're good RPG villains. There are a lot of classic villains in literature that simply don't work well in roleplaying games. That's not to say that they're not quality -- it's simply a different medium. Absolutely it's possible to imagine a way to work them in to a game, but most of those ways require one of two things. They require utter and complete cooperation on the part of the PCs in acting out the story you want to tell, as in the case of Malgana the Twistwood Witch, or they require a degree of railroading to force the PCs to make and retain contact with the villain, as in the case of Gibnem / Elric the Miller.
As far as a lack of imagination goes, my view is this. If I want to use my imagination, I'll write my own villains. If I'm going to pick up a published work (such as the one that the winner of this contest will be writing), I want a roleplaying game villain that's ready to go and requires nothing more than minor modifications at most. When I'm evaluating the 32 villains, I'm doing it on the basis of, "Would I feel like I had misspent my money if this was part of a published work", not "Does this give me an idea for something I then need to create almost entirely on my own."
CR
Show me a literary villain who cant be made to work in an RPG.
Lets focus on Malgana the Twistwood Witch since you brought her up.
She does not require that the players 'play along', certainly she is very fun if they do, but she can funchtion without it. She is very much the kind of villain that functions well in a 'story now' style of game. She is at her core a narrativist villain and gamists or very heavy simulationists will almost certainly not like her because she needs to be used as part of a living and breathing story.
Is this a style of writing that is out of Vogue with DnD? Certainly, does that mean it is bad? No, not at all.
Show me a literary villain who cant be made to work in an RPG.
First of all, let's be clear. I didn't say "can't be made to work in an RPG." I said "don't work well in roleplaying games." One is an absolute statement, the other one admits that while possible, it's likely not worth the bother. Mine is the latter. Here are a couple of examples that spring to mind:
Kurtz (Heart of Darkness): This is a good example of a villain who, while evil, is located in a remote area, and whose evil has minimal effects on the PCs unless they are written up as pre-existing figures in the area. Again, a great villain, but it requires that the PCs go to him, as little he does will affect the PCs if they choose to head in the opposite direction.
Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest): This is a classic "abuse of power" villain. Unfortunately, her power, and as such, her evil only affects that small area of influence. As such, as a GM, you'd have to figure out how to draw the PCs into that sphere of influence. Now that you've done so, this becomes a one-shot combat encounter. Even if she manages to flee, she leaves her power behind and is as such, defeated.
This is not to say that these characters can't be inspiration for excellent villains -- but I think it is fair to say that as written, they don't make for easily used RPG villains. That's ok though, they're not supposed to. My point is that writing an excellent villain concept does not mean that you've written a good villain for an RPG environment.
Lets focus on Malgana the Twistwood Witch since you brought her up.
She does not require that the players 'play along', certainly she is very fun if they do, but she can funchtion without it. She is very much the kind of villain that functions well in a 'story now' style of game. She is at her core a narrativist villain and gamists or very heavy simulationists will almost certainly not like her because she needs to be used as part of a living and breathing story.
Here's the thing. Yes, she might be able to function as a villain without the PCs aiding in her reconstruction. But that's not how she was written. As I said earlier, if the villain can't be used almost entirely as written, it's not much use as a published resource.
Is this a style of writing that is out of Vogue with DnD? Certainly, does that mean it is bad? No, not at all.
I get that you're a fan of a more storytelling type of game, and that's awesome. It's good that you know what you enjoy, and I don't want anything I say to even suggest that that is not a valid and fun style of gaming.
The problem here is that the prize at the end of this contest is a chance to write for Paizo, and as such Paizo's style has to take precedence in evaluating these villains. As I said in an earlier post, these are not bad villains, but I definitely believe that they would not work as a villain in a published Paizo product.
CR
I think where many, if not most of the contributers tripped up was a misunderstanding of the kind of villain the judges were looking for. For most of us, when we hear the words "villain" and "Roleplaying Game," we think: "the BBEG at the bottom of the dungeon." This is a fairly central concept in D&D. The contest rules even state: Design a villain for a fantasy campaign world, as might appear in a published adventure or campaign sourcebook...(emphasis mine) Thus, I think a lot of people went into this with the idea that they were creating a short-term, BBEG style villain.
However, it's obvious from the judges comments, that this isn't what they are looking for. They're looking for long-term antagonists with plots and plans, the defeat of whom is the culmination of an entire campaign. This kind of misunderstanding is not entirely unexpected. Most of us are not career writers or game designers, so it's not unusual to thing that professionals in those fields would have a more refined definiation of villain than we would. One of the goals of this contest is to find people who have that kind of insight. Another is to give everyone involved, the voters and the contestants, a peek into the world of game writing, which they can then take away and use in future writing. I know I'm taking the judges comments to heart and I'll be thinking about them when I write my next piece, whether for potential publication or for my home game.
Kurtz (Heart of Darkness): This is a good example of a villain who, while evil, is located in a remote area, and whose evil has minimal effects on the PCs unless they are written up as pre-existing figures in the area. Again, a great villain, but it requires that the PCs go to him, as little he does will affect the PCs if they choose to head in the opposite direction.
Kurtz can be used verbatim along with the initial story premise of either heart of darkness or apocalypse now. He isn't so interesting in a character driven, do as you will game, but even then subtle use of suggestion can have the players running towards him.
Nurse Ratched (One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest): This is a classic "abuse of power" villain. Unfortunately, her power, and as such, her evil only affects that small area of influence. As such, as a GM, you'd have to figure out how to draw the PCs into that sphere of influence. Now that you've done so, this becomes a one-shot combat encounter. Even if she manages to flee, she leaves her power behind and is as such, defeated.
Nurse Ratched is a brilliant Call of Cthulhu villain. You could base an entire campaign set in an asylum around her. Ratched is a Cultist of Nyarlthotep who has been tasked with ensuring that number of investigators who where recently admitted to the hospital suffer and become indoctrinated, ensuring that the never again interfere with the workings of the Cult.
This is not to say that these characters can't be inspiration for excellent villains -- but I think it is fair to say that as written, they don't make for easily used RPG villains. That's ok though, they're not supposed to. My point is that writing an excellent villain concept does not mean that you've written a good villain for an RPG environment.
I cannot agree, I don't think any of the good concepts can't be used, they just have difficulties. Often their hooks let them down. However, in at least one case, the underlying idea is so cool and creepy that I want to see what they do with it.
I get that you're a fan of a more storytelling type of game, and that's awesome. It's good that you know what you enjoy, and I don't want anything I say to even suggest that that is not a valid and fun style of gaming.The problem here is that the prize at the end of this contest is a chance to write for Paizo, and as such Paizo's style has to take precedence in evaluating these villains. As I said in an earlier post, these are not bad villains, but I definitely believe that they would not work as a villain in a published Paizo product.
It never says that we should be judging the Villain on if it makes a good Vallain for convential linier plot paizo product. We are judging a good villain, that is all. Just because this villain works better for a different style of play to the core paizo product line, doesn't mean the writer should be cast aside, they might well have breadth to their talent and they might well be able to produce a more conventional story to a high standard as well. As much as anything at this stage, we should be looking at is this idea inspired, original and cool. I haven't yet seen one of the peices that doesn't have problems, and i would rather have something flawed, but inspired than something less flawed but dull.
It's not that they're "literary," it's that they suck. Once again, let me reiterate that this doesn't reflect on the authors, just their creations.
I salute your honest assessment.
I think where many, if not most of the contributers tripped up was a misunderstanding of the kind of villain the judges were looking for. For most of us, when we hear the words "villain" and "Roleplaying Game," we think: "the BBEG at the bottom of the dungeon." This is a fairly central concept in D&D. The contest rules even state: Design a villain for a fantasy campaign world, as might appear in a published adventure or campaign sourcebook...(emphasis mine) Thus, I think a lot of people went into this with the idea that they were creating a short-term, BBEG style villain.
Even the BBEG at the bottom of the dungeon has plans and desires far greater than "I'll just stay here until the PC's show up".
And if you paid attention to last year's efforts you would know what 2/4 of the judges seek in a villain.
The quoting got kind of crazy, so I've redacted a bit here:
Kurtz can be used verbatim along with the initial story premise of either heart of darkness or apocalypse now. He isn't so interesting in a character driven, do as you will game, but even then subtle use of suggestion can have the players running towards him.
The thing is, we're talking about a published work (which is the pot of gold at the end of the RPG SS rainbow). In a published work, it's not enough to say that "subtle use of suggestion" will get the PCs to the villain. What kind of subtle suggestion? How do you craft a subtle suggestion that works for all groups that might try to play this published adventure? What do you do if the group says, "Screw this" and heads off in another direction? One of the key problems with some of the villain entries is that they don't make any allowance for this.
Nurse Ratched is a brilliant Call of Cthulhu villain. You could base an entire campaign set in an asylum around her. Ratched is a Cultist of Nyarlthotep who has been tasked with ensuring that number of investigators who where recently admitted to the hospital suffer and become indoctrinated, ensuring that the never again interfere with the workings of the Cult.
Once again though, this works great in a home campaign. In a published adventure, this compels many GMs to arbitrarily place the PCs in a hospital and to strip them of their health and abilities. While that's fine for a one-shot, I can honestly say that my PCs would not be thrilled if that happened to their characters in an ongoing campaign, and I doubt that I'm the only one who would see it this way.
I cannot agree, I don't think any of the good concepts can't be used, they just have difficulties. Often their hooks let them down. However, in at...
Again, I never claimed that they couldn't be used. GMs can do wonderful things if they put their minds to it. The problem is that a lot of the entries required that the GMs spend a great deal of time and effort adding to what is provided by a published resource. As such, I think it's only fair that these entries lose out to the ones that are "good to go" straight from the page.
It never says that we should be judging the Villain on if it makes a good Vallain for convential linier plot paizo product. We are judging a good villain, that is all. Just because this villain works better for a different style of play to the core paizo product line, doesn't mean the writer should be cast aside, they might well have breadth to their talent and they might well be able to produce a more conventional story to a high standard as well. As much as anything at this stage, we should be looking at is this idea inspired, original and cool. I haven't yet seen one of the peices that doesn't have problems, and i would rather have something flawed, but inspired than something less flawed but dull.
Part of this is a fair point. You are welcome to cast your vote in any way you want, based on any criteria that you choose. That said, I disagree that we're looking for a "good villain." I would say that we are looking for a "good villain for use with the Pathfinder Beta and/or 3.5 roleplaying game." As I've indicated in previous posts, I don't believe that the two things are the same.
I definitely agree that many of the authors may have hidden depths that would lead them to write a phenomenal adventure. Unfortunately, I can only vote based on what they give me to read, and the task was to design a villain for a role-playing game. There's no question that every entry is going to have some sort of flaw, but I think it's possible to write an inspired and original concept that still works as a role-playing game villain. I'm pretty sure I voted for some.
CR
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think where many, if not most of the contributers tripped up was a misunderstanding of the kind of villain the judges were looking for. For most of us, when we hear the words "villain" and "Roleplaying Game," we think: "the BBEG at the bottom of the dungeon." This is a fairly central concept in D&D. The contest rules even state: Design a villain for a fantasy campaign world, as might appear in a published adventure or campaign sourcebook...(emphasis mine) Thus, I think a lot of people went into this with the idea that they were creating a short-term, BBEG style villain.
However, it's obvious from the judges comments, that this isn't what they are looking for. They're looking for long-term antagonists with plots and plans, the defeat of whom is the culmination of an entire campaign. This kind of misunderstanding is not entirely unexpected. Most of us are not career writers or game designers, so it's not unusual to thing that professionals in those fields would have a more refined definiation of villain than we would. One of the goals of this contest is to find people who have that kind of insight. Another is to give everyone involved, the voters and the contestants, a peek into the world of game writing, which they can then take away and use in future writing. I know I'm taking the judges comments to heart and I'll be thinking about them when I write my next piece, whether for potential publication or for my home game.
I'd have to disagree with the line I put in bold above. I think it is unexpected that this would be a stumbling block for villains this year.
I've only read about a half-dozen of the villains so far, but I'm a little surprised to hear that this was perhaps a common point of confusion for the competitors this time around.
If there is one thing the judges hammered home in the comments on last year's entries in the villain around, it was the nature of a villain:
1. Not be one-dimensional
2. Not be a one-shot antagonist
3. Be proactive - the villain is DOING something, and ideally something of consequence
4. Have plans and goals, and methods for achieving them.
Lots of people, myself included, got hammered for having villains that were too small in scale, too limited in scope, too reactive, depending on the PCs to come and find them. Or they were tied to a single location and didn't really get out much - how evil can they be if they're always off in their evil lair being evil, and not affecting anyone who didn't come near? Or they were just "evil to be evil MUAHAHAAAA" or crazy cuz they're crazy. We had lots of interesting origin stories, but an origin for why you're evil isn't the same as a REASON that you're evil.
I dunno. I'm not a judge, but this was a drum that Wolf, Clark, and Erik (and, following their lead, the whole Paizo community) beat long and loud last year. I would hope that in this round (and for those who move on the following rounds) this year's crop of contestants could learn from the harsh, bitter experience of last year's competition.
If you haven't done it already, go back to last year's threads for the current round and the round coming up, and see the mistakes that were made. Do your best to avoid them!!!! :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Again, I never claimed that they couldn't be used. GMs can do wonderful things if they put their minds to it. The problem is that a lot of the entries required that the GMs spend a great deal of time and effort adding to what is provided by a published resource. As such, I think it's only fair that these entries lose out to the ones that are "good to go" straight from the page.
Nicely summed up.
All of the entries have had some good points, but the best total packages, including especially the "ready to use right out of the box, not needing the DM to fill in a lot of gaps or invent ways to use it" grade, are the ones that should rise to the top.
|
Marathon Voter Season 7
|
I too was surprised by how few I liked. In fact, I am dissapointed in that from this point on, the contest, IMO is basically down to about six or seven entrants. Stating up a bad villain is not going to do a lot to make him a good villain and there were just so few good villains this year.
In truth, I think a lot of the participants perhaps tried too hard to be unique and just ended up falling flat.
QUOTE="Corrosive Rabbit"]
The thing is, we're talking about a published work (which is the pot of gold at the end of the RPG SS rainbow). In a published work, it's not enough to say that "subtle use of suggestion" will get the PCs to the villain. What kind of subtle suggestion? How do you craft a subtle suggestion that works for all groups that might try to play this published adventure? What do you do if the group says, "Screw this" and heads off in another direction? One of the key problems with some of the villain entries is that they don't make any allowance for this.
I didn't go onto it in depth because frankly in this context I didn't think it was needed. But since you ask; lets see what wikipedia has to say on Kurtz:
"With the help of his superior technology, Kurtz has turned himself into a Charismatic Demigod of all the tribes surrounding his station, and gathered vast quantities of ivory in this way. As a result, his name is known throughout the region.It is a basically accurate discription. The important element here is that Kurtz activities have a regional effect. That means that you can use ecological collapse, rumour, tribal war, disease, bounties, tales of treasure, personal appeals, chained events that lead them closer. There is enough stuff that i could probly write three adventures caused by Kurtz before even introducing him to a campaign proper.
Once again though, this works great in a home campaign. In a published adventure, this compels many GMs to arbitrarily place the PCs in a hospital and to strip them of their health and abilities. While that's fine for a one-shot, I can honestly say that my PCs would not be thrilled if that happened to their characters in an ongoing campaign, and I doubt that I'm the only one who would see it this way.
I am going to take a stab at this, but you have not played much Call of Cthulhu have you. :D
Loosing you health, both physical and mental is pretty much par for the course in Call of Cthulhu games and there are bound to come occasions when at least one investigator is hospitalized in an asylum. If all else fails only one of the PCs plays his normal characters and the others play other patients in the asylum.It should be pointed out that Call of Cthulhu 5th edition actually describes a stay at an asylum as part of an 'in game' example during which one of the characters learns his first spell.
Again, I never claimed that they couldn't be used. GMs can do wonderful things if they put their minds to it. The problem is that a lot of the entries required that the GMs spend a great deal of time and effort adding to what is provided by a published resource. As such, I think it's only fair that these entries lose out to the ones that are "good to go" straight from the page.
Pre-written adventures ALWAY require work from a GM. In theory, every one of these Villains have been created in a matter of days, with no feedback at all from an editor and no development period in someone else's hands. Yes the goblin head is flawed, but is shows a great deal more inspiration, originality and ambition than many of the more polished items. Those issues could be worked out of this item with but a few pointers, but all the pointers in the world, are not going to make a technically perfect but boring to the core NPC come alive
Part of this is a fair point. You are welcome to cast your vote in any way you want, based on any criteria that you choose. That said, I disagree that we're looking for a "good villain." I would say that we are looking for a "good villain for use with the Pathfinder Beta and/or 3.5 roleplaying game." As I've indicated in previous posts, I don't believe that the two things are the same.
I definitely agree that many of the authors may have hidden depths that would lead them to write a phenomenal adventure. Unfortunately, I can only vote based on what they give me to read, and the task was to design a villain for a role-playing game. There's no question that every entry is going to have some sort of flaw, but I think it's possible to write an inspired and original concept that still works as a role-playing game villain. I'm pretty sure I voted for some.
I am voting on what they have given us to read just as much, but I will vote for something that need work, but has a great core, before something that is shiny but hollow.
My take on it:
A lot of the items that the judges selected this year were done so with caveats. A major theme this time around was "your idea is good, but you need work on your writing skills."
Then the second round is all about writing skills.
And the contestants have three days to submit.
So we get a lot of rushed, poorly written villains.
Sean K. Reynolds was absolutely right. Everybody who entered RPG Superstar this year should have been thinking about their villains for a while before the results were out (I know I was). Everybody in the Top 32 should already be thinking about their stat-blocks, even if they don't think they're going to advance. I suspect the very small amount of time given to contestants this year is supposed to be another hurdle to overcome--and if you do, it proves you can work under deadline pressure, which is a must in the writing business.
The thing is, we're talking about a published work (which is the pot of gold at the end of the RPG SS rainbow). In a published work, it's not enough to say that "subtle use of suggestion" will get the PCs to the villain. What kind of subtle suggestion? How do you craft a subtle suggestion that works for all groups that might try to play this published adventure? What do you do if the group says, "Screw this" and heads off in another direction? One of the key problems with some of the villain entries is that they don't make any allowance for this.
I didn't go onto it in depth because frankly in this context I didn't think it was needed. But since you ask; lets see what wikipedia has to say on Kurtz:
"With the help of his superior technology, Kurtz has turned himself into a Charismatic Demigod of all the tribes surrounding his station, and gathered vast quantities of ivory in this way. As a result, his name is known throughout the region.It is a basically accurate discription. The important element here is that Kurtz activities have a regional effect. That means that you can use ecological collapse, rumour, tribal war, disease, bounties, tales of treasure, personal appeals, chained events that lead them closer. There is enough stuff that i could probly write three adventures caused by Kurtz before even introducing him to a campaign proper.
But you're expanding way further than the actual character went and far beyond what happened in the actual work of literature. I already said that these could easily be the inspiration for good villains, but as written, Kurtz doesn't work as a villain for me.
I am going to take a stab at this, but you have not played much Call of Cthulhu have you. :D
Loosing you health, both physical and mental is pretty much par for the course in Call of Cthulhu games and there are bound to come occasions when at least one investigator is hospitalized in an asylum. If all else fails only one of the PCs plays his normal characters and the others play other patients in the asylum.
It should be pointed out that Call of Cthulhu 5th edition actually describes a stay at an asylum as part of an 'in game' example during which one of the characters learns his first spell.
Actually, I've played a ton of Call of Cthulhu. I misspoke when I used the term RPG villain in earlier posts, and probably should have clarified it as D&D villain. I think that's a fair clarification to make since we're talking about a D&D based contest. Wile E. Coyote makes a great villain in TOON, but as written, he's not much use as a D&D villain. I'll grant that Nurse Ratched makes a decent CoC villain, but not a D&D villain.
Pre-written adventures ALWAY require work from a GM. In theory, every one of these Villains have been created in a matter of days, with no feedback at all from an editor and no development period in someone else's hands. Yes the goblin head is flawed, but is shows a great deal more inspiration, originality and ambition than many of the more polished items. Those issues could be worked out of this item with but a few pointers, but all the pointers in the world, are not going to make a technically perfect but boring to the core NPC come alive
Again, I think you're speaking in absolutes, while I'm speaking in degrees. I've already granted that all pre-written stuff requires minor modifications. That said, if the time it takes to make the modifications is equivalent to the time it takes me to write my own stuff, what have I gained (in terms of time) from buying the published work?
Also, I think you're still arguing the "technically perfect but boring" angle as a strawman. I haven't said anything about mechanics, as they weren't a part of this round. I have said, and still maintain that it is possible to create an excellent concept that works smoothly as a D&D villain. Since I believe there are several examples within the villain submissions, I have to place the "good concept, not really that useful as a D&D villain" entries on a lower tier.
I am voting on what they have given us to read just as much, but I will vote for something that need work, but has a great core, before something that is shiny but hollow.
Again, I think that this is a bit of a strawman. I don't think I've ever said that I would be supporting entries that had dull concepts but were easy to use. My preference is to vote for something that has a great concept and is useable in a game than something that lacks one or the other. Fortunately, there were entries that allowed me to do so.
Regardless, I think we've moved far enough away from the original intention of the thread that I'm going to ease off and let some other people get their thoughts in without sorting through my ramblings. *grin*
CR
|
|
Something I thought a few times was, 'This is an adversary, not a *villain.*'
But really, the only insta-reject for me was when a villain had some undefined 'fluff' superpower that doesn't exist in the game rules. The contest was to create a D&D villain, not a villain who can't be created with the D&D rules. That's a personal bugaboo, when some big bad evil guy is not threatening because he's amazingly cool or sinister or well-designed, he's only threatening because the I'm playing D&D and the DM is playing some other game entirely that has never left the confines of his own skull.
Gimme a D&D villain, using D&D rules. Save the homebrew stuff for characters that aren't specifically being entered into a contest to see how well you can work within the D&D framework.
I read through all the entries last night, and I gave myself until today to post anything about them. First of all, I didn't advance in round 1, so every one of the Superstar 2009 are up on me on that (and hopefully I'm not too biased by my failure).
But while a lot of the wondrous items were interesting, evocative, or just plain stuff that I wouldn't have ever come up on my own, the vast majority of the Round 2 villains quickly made me disappointed, then angry.
I hope I don't come off as too much of a egotistical jerk, but I feel that I had a concept for a villain that was better than most of the entries. And the reason this was all the more galling is (as others have said in this thread already), a lot of common errors were made that were pointed out in last year's entries.
And formatting? Sure, this is just posting on a messageboard, but there's a format you can use, BBCode tags, to bold, italize, and so on, that makes your entry read better. Heck, even some spaces between paragraphs in some cases. I started glazing over from a few entries just due to poor layout (and a judge last year gave kudos to a contestant for using color in his entry - it might not have helped him advance, but every little bit helps). I mean heck, if I could have bribed the right Paizo employee to start playing each judge's favorite song in the background and hand them a lollipop when they started reading my entry, I would have.
Anyway, I hope to post to everyone's entries if I have the time with some comments, and I salute them for advancing so far already AND with a faster turn-around time than last year. Plus some people dipped last year, and were told so, and came roaring back in the next round to show it was either a fluke or they recovered from it and learned.
So please, read last year's entries. Read all of this year's entries. Read all the comments, think about everything you can throw at us.
I don't want things lobbed at the wall to see what will stick, I want things that will either smash through the wall or pick up the wall and hit someone with it.
Again, I'm sorry if this is coming off bitter or insulting in the brave ego-risk that publicly showing any personal creation is (the one review of my failed item I got from Charles wound me up a bit, though very instructive and interesting), I just hope you all show me I don't know what I'm talking about.
... This kind of misunderstanding is not entirely unexpected. ...
I'd have to disagree with the line I put in bold above. I think it is unexpected that this would be a stumbling block for villains this year.
...
If there is one thing the judges hammered home in the comments on last year's entries in the villain around, it was the nature of a villain:
Agreed. If you did not read last year's entries you would be at a disadvantage for this year contest. Likewise reading some of the Pathfinders, Gamemasteries, Kobold Quarterlies etc, should have shown what type of villains get published.
I do agree on that it was a bit sad to see so many falling for the same mistakes last year's villain round suffered...
Zombieneighbours, in the discussion about Malgana you compared her to One Ring: even if the head was thrown in the well someone might sooner or later pick it up and Malgana's story would continue...the problem with this scenario is that PCs will not be there to see this story development.
If Frodo had dumped One Ring to the sea, it is true that the story of the ring does not end there. Which is all fine and proper if your character is One Ring. If it is Frodo, it will not affect you anymore (except for maybe occasional pangs of guilt that you have just postponed the problem and not dealt with it). That is, unless you pull some kind of lame storytelling trick where the next day Frodo and Gandalf go to a fish restaurant and the fish Frodo starts to eat Has Swallowed The Ring...
I consider myself to be quite story-oriented player and DM, but one thing I have (almost) learned is that if the PCs don't see the story, it is wasted. And several villain entries did have this problem.
Now, if Malgana had been done as, for example, head which controls a number of minions who actively pursue to put her back together...and maybe as an adventure hook get PCs to find the hand, which has some nifty magic powers but makes the PCs target of Malgana's attention...that would be a villain. There is some nifty Rod-of-Seven-Parts quality with creepy details in Malgana entry, which does make it interesting, and even if Kevin Carter would drop from the contest, I hope he keeps on writing stuff, but to get my vote he should have presented those ideas better to get my vote. Talent but not yet superstar, IMO. (and Kevin, remember that you are not allowed to comment this yet :) )
I liked some of the overall ideas but the implementation looked a bit rushed. A lot of them simply said 'rewrite me' as I read them. Probably a result of giving them 3 days in the middle of work week (which is pure silliness).
Making the following round based off of this round compounds the problem. We are essentially voting on the same round twice, since the initial ideas will sell votes, not a dry stat-block. I can write down the names of four of the entries now and practically guarantee they will be in round 4 because of that. Also if they are forced to use the same villain in round 5, it would give them a huge advantage there as well.
I liked some of the overall ideas but the implementation looked a bit rushed. A lot of them simply said 'rewrite me' as I read them. Probably a result of giving them 3 days in the middle of work week (which is pure silliness).
Making the following round based off of this round compounds the problem. We are essentially voting on the same round twice, since the initial ideas will sell votes, not a dry stat-block. I can write down the names of four of the entries now and practically guarantee they will be in round 4 because of that. Also if they are forced to use the same villain in round 5, it would give them a huge advantage there as well.
Well, I have to agree here, I feel like it was badly timed. In later rounds maybe, where you know the field is only being halved, you go ahead and work on the next assignment ahead of time. But if you know the cut is "zillions" to the top 32, you don't - I certainly didn't.
|
I feel the same way. I initially read them all without reading anyone else's commentary and was disappointed throughout. I was more than a little surprised to see that I wasn't the only one who felt this way.
As the cornerstone of the rest of the competition, round two is really the most important round IMO. Round one is a basic creativity and mechanics test (which, I unfortunately failed :( ). Round two is where the competition really begins. If you don't have a good foundation at this level of development it's going to be hard to make up for it later.
I hope the things get better as ideas get more developed, but for now I'm less than optimistic.
Edit: I think what really bothers me is that the entries seem to fit into one (or more) of the following three categories:
1) A "new" take on an old cliche.
2) An enemy, perhaps, but not a villain.
3) Won't survive contact with players.
|
|
I thought I was going to have to use my impression of round 1 submissions to help choose only 4 of the awesome, amazing villains to vote for in round 2. Oh, the optimism.
Two were easy shoe-ins for my votes, and then I found four more that were close enough to "complete and interesting" for me to consider. So I guess I did use my tie-breaker for the 4th vote slot. But most of the submissions made the editor in me twist in agony. So I guess that's kind of villainous. Just not the kind I was hoping for.
|
|
I do agree on that it was a bit sad to see so many falling for the same mistakes last year's villain round suffered...
Zombieneighbours, in the discussion about Malgana you compared her to One Ring: even if the head was thrown in the well someone might sooner or later pick it up and Malgana's story would continue...the problem with this scenario is that PCs will not be there to see this story development.
If Frodo had dumped One Ring to the sea, it is true that the story of the ring does not end there. Which is all fine and proper if your character is One Ring. If it is Frodo, it will not affect you anymore (except for maybe occasional pangs of guilt that you have just postponed the problem and not dealt with it). That is, unless you pull some kind of lame storytelling trick where the next day Frodo and Gandalf go to a fish restaurant and the fish Frodo starts to eat Has Swallowed The Ring...
Actually, that's not true at all if you take the reference seriously. The One Ring wasn't what Sauron needed to become powerful enough to take over the world, it was his weakness. He was already powerful enough to take over the world and was in the process of doing so when Frodo threw the Ring into Mount Doom. The reason Sauron wanted the Ring was that, in D&D terms, it was his phylactery. His life force was tied to it, and the destruction of the Ring destroyed him as well. Sure, he'd have been even more powerful with it in his possession, but he didn't need it to win.
In other words, Frodo would have felt the effects of shirking his duty with the Ring. Heck, he felt the effects of it taking as long as he did - the Shire was invaded! If he'd dropped the Ring into a well somewhere, he and all the other hobbits would have been enslaved permanently.
Reading through this year's entry has brought me back to musing about something I've discovered about myself. I'm hesitant to bring it up, because I didn't want to risk sounding a grogniphobe who hates the classics. I'm not and I don't.
But more and more, I'm trying to find something I haven't seen before. Something that makes me go "Wait, the villain's what/who? Doing what?" I admit, gonzo ideas attract me, (at least partly because I favor weird aesthetics,) but partly because, at the very least, it'll be new territory to explore.
Maybe it's a problem with my mindset, but I feel a bit disappointed this year in Superstar, with so many familiar villain types. There are a couple of fresh new ideas that grab me, really grab me, but I could use some tough decisions.
|
|
Reading through this year's entry has brought me back to musing about something I've discovered about myself. I'm hesitant to bring it up, because I didn't want to risk sounding a grogniphobe who hates the classics. I'm not and I don't.
But more and more, I'm trying to find something I haven't seen before. Something that makes me go "Wait, the villain's what/who? Doing what?" I admit, gonzo ideas attract me, (at least partly because I favor weird aesthetics,) but partly because, at the very least, it'll be new territory to explore.
Maybe it's a problem with my mindset, but I feel a bit disappointed this year in Superstar, with so many familiar villain types. There are a couple of fresh new ideas that grab me, really grab me, but I could use some tough decisions.
This is true. Maybe, as a society, we're just running out of good ideas. Honestly, it's not just in this contest... it's movies, books, tv, and even professionally published RPG material. At a certain point, one evil lich or vampire or human druid just starts looking like all of the others. Whatever differences are there just seem insignificant next to all of the similarities.
Heck, as much as I hate the whole pre-teen Twilight garbage and the fact that they are vampires that sparkle in the sunlight, at least that sets them apart. I may hate that they sparkle, but at least I will remember that they sparkle (since it has been painfully seared into my brain). Too few of these entries really seemed worth remembering.
I was happy to see that some people actually did take some risks. Some of them didn't for various reasons (usually for reasons of usability within a campaign), but I'd rather see someone making a flying leap off a cliff than a timid step forward.
Personally, I am going to sleep on it before I cast my vote. I'll see which ones I remember (and like) in the morning.
I will join the rousing chorus of "Meh."
(Do people outside of the Order of the Stick actually say 'meh,' though? And yet- it's such a great interjection...)
These villains all (well, almost all) seemed f-l-a-t. Even the four I voted for I wasn't doing any cartwheels over - not by a long shot.
I doubt I'll ever enter an RPG Superstar because "me + game mechanics = teh epic fail" - but boy, cool villain *concepts*?? I got those coming outta my ears.
Sigh.
Still- you Superstar 32 are in an Olympic-like competition, and just being in it speaks well of you, so...props, y'all.
I am a little blue, though, that - like other posters here have said - Round 3 is merely going to be the Captain "Crunch" version of a bunch of pretty zzz-making Dramatis Personae.
Oh who am I kidding- this contest is still a total blast- and I'm excited to be following it right from the start this year...
Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
A lot of them simply said 'rewrite me' as I read them. Probably a result of giving them 3 days in the middle of work week (which is pure silliness).
I concur. I understand that the ability to work under deadlines is vital to a published writer, but this is supposed to be a fun contest that is interesting for us fans to read and enjoy, and the very short time span really hurt that. I have to assume the 32 all have jobs, school, family, etc. There were several villains I thought would have been a lot more enjoyable to read if the writer had been able to devote another week to them.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 9
|
Reading through this year's entry has brought me back to musing about something I've discovered about myself. I'm hesitant to bring it up, because I didn't want to risk sounding a grogniphobe who hates the classics. I'm not and I don't.
But more and more, I'm trying to find something I haven't seen before. Something that makes me go "Wait, the villain's what/who? Doing what?" I admit, gonzo ideas attract me, (at least partly because I favor weird aesthetics,) but partly because, at the very least, it'll be new territory to explore.
Maybe it's a problem with my mindset, but I feel a bit disappointed this year in Superstar, with so many familiar villain types. There are a couple of fresh new ideas that grab me, really grab me, but I could use some tough decisions.
The thing I noticed from the judge's comments was that, this concept was over used was being said alot. Any of those "bad guys" could have been a good villian, its just that the authors didnt put them in the villian limelight so to speak. Then when two judges were like this is awesome, the other two were like, no it isnt. It seems Clark and Wolf have different ideas about what a villain is based on their comments, but I am not gonna speak for them, its just what I see. A good villian is really up for debate...is the Joker a good villian or a bad guy? How about Fidel Castro? ETC....
Maybe its one thing to design a magic item, which seems to be a great test for mechanics and what-not, but making a villian is on the other side of the spectrum? Maybe the whole contest needs to be geared a different way...
I really liked two of the concepts presented by the authors, but I could see potential in them all at some point, with a few mods here and there.
Good luck to them whatever the case may be, I hope whoever makes the next round can appease more people's views based on the next round's subject...
I'm not saying that the villain entries didn't deserve it, but I was kind of surprised just how many were "not recommended to advance" by the judges.
Less than 30% of the judges' responses (38 out of 128) were favorable, and less than 18% (23 out of 128) were recommended to advance without some kind of "lukewarm," "only just," or "with serious concerns/reservations" comment.
Clark and Sean only recommended 6 entries apiece; Wolfgang and Ed each recommended 13.
Here are some more statistics about the judges' voting:
Unanimous YES: 2 (Gulga Cench and Bracht Darkhouse)
3 Votes YES/1 Vote NO: 6
2 Votes YES/2 Votes NO: 4
1 Vote YES/3 Votes NO: 4
Unanimous NO: 16 (= the ones that shouldn't advance?)
Times one judge disagreed with all three of the other judges:
Clark: 4 (way to be an iconoclast, Clark!)
Wolfgang: 3
Sean: 2
Ed: 1
I'm not even sure why I'm posting this. It's late and I'm tired. :) I'm not trying to point fingers or criticize anyone (even though it may sound like it). I just thought I'd share my findings.
I love the RPG Superstar contest! I think it's awesome the judges put so much time and effort into giving considered, honest, and professional feedback. ~Svev
...
Here are some more statistics about the judges' voting:
...
Oh thanks! I was thinking about doing this and hadn't gotten around to it. I was hoping for obvious reasons that the "All 4 judges do not recommend" was going to be larger than 16. Though, even in spite of that it's going to be really weird since there are only 4-5 really strong favorites so just a few 4th votes will end up determining 2/3rds of the contestants in round three.