Okay, the press release for the contest says that in round 3 the stat blocks can include new rules made up by the Superstar. Yet, a number of threads have been marked by people, which includes me, invoking existing rules sets to critique a villain.
The following threads have had people talk about this issue: Bracht, Malgana, Sartell, Derinogen, Gale, Ssyth'ek, and Montellan. There may be others as well.
So, I guess my question is: are you marking down for villains that take advantage of heretofore unknown rules that enable the villain to do stuff they shouldn't be able to do or to be more effective than you think they would be under SRD and Pathfinder RPG existing rule sets?
Is implied good or bad rules-fu a votable concern at this point for you?
I almost started this thread yesterday but got distracted.
In another thread Set said:
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.
and my reply was going to be (but I decided I'd start a thread about it)
It's strange that you bring that up Set because that was exactly my plan if I made it it to the second round, but I was worried. To me saying you can't create a monster with a power that's not already defined goes against the spirit of the game (which is based on imagination and fun). But since this is a D&D design contest I was worried that I might get dinged for giving my villain a power I made up that had nothing to do with their level, class or race. I didn't really want to ask about it because I was worried it would give other people the idea to do the same. Really though think about monsters. They have special abilities that can just be randomly chosen with no reason other than, "this is what they do." So maybe my hot chick druid is only 99% human and that other 1% gives her the power to...
Okay, the press release for the contest says that in round 3 the stat blocks can include new rules made up by the Superstar. Yet, a number of threads have been marked by people, which includes me, invoking existing rules sets to critique a villain.
The following threads have had people talk about this issue: Bracht, Malgana, Sartell, Derinogen, Gale, Ssyth'ek, and Montellan. There may be others as well.
So, I guess my question is: are you marking down for villains that take advantage of heretofore unknown rules that enable the villain to do stuff they shouldn't be able to do or to be more effective than you think they would be under SRD and Pathfinder RPG existing rule sets?
Is implied good or bad rules-fu a votable concern at this point for you?
I've been trying to judge the entries on concept alone, and acting on the assumption that the author will be able to back up their concept with mechanics in the next round. That said, where the concept of the "new rules" doesn't work for me, I've been critiquing that.
To me, the creation of new mechanics for a villain is a double-edged sword. If the author does it well, and the new rules are conceptually cool, they're going to get bonus points. If they try, but end up creating broken rules, or fail entirely to deliver on the offer of new mechanics, it's probably going to be enough to sink them.
CR
I don't care at all about strict adherence to the rules of existing game mechanics.
As long as the villain can do cool stuff, and it's clearly explained how they do it, that's good enough for me.
So far in Pathfinder some of the coolest stuff has been new stuff that didn't previously exist in the rules. Stuff like haunts, the chase scene rules from Edge of Anarchy, the games of Knivesies, Sredna, and Blood Pig are all terrific new additions to the game.
I don't think designers need to adhere to existing rules too closely.Stifles creativity and all that.
New grist for the mill:
"Q12: Can I create new abilities, feats, spells, powers, items, or rules for my villain?
No. This stage of the contest is about story, not about mechanics. Resist the urge."
I think what they meant is don't develop the detailed mechanics (like prereqs, casting time etc...) in round 2, not that you couldn't mention the powers given by these feats, spells, items etc...
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
Okay, the press release for the contest says that in round 3 the stat blocks can include new rules made up by the Superstar. Yet, a number of threads have been marked by people, which includes me, invoking existing rules sets to critique a villain.
The following threads have had people talk about this issue: Bracht, Malgana, Sartell, Derinogen, Gale, Ssyth'ek, and Montellan. There may be others as well.
So, I guess my question is: are you marking down for villains that take advantage of heretofore unknown rules that enable the villain to do stuff they shouldn't be able to do or to be more effective than you think they would be under SRD and Pathfinder RPG existing rule sets?
Is implied good or bad rules-fu a votable concern at this point for you?
I'm happy for a villain to use a major ability that I don't see immediately within the rules as written. My votes reflect that. Too many of the entries used abilities or implied power levels that were
1) thoroughly inappropriate for their stated class and level. If those are new rules, I don't want to see those rules in the game; or2) enacted by someone else. That's not a villain. That's a dupe or sidekick.
New grist for the mill:
"Q12: Can I create new abilities, feats, spells, powers, items, or rules for my villain?
No. This stage of the contest is about story, not about mechanics. Resist the urge."
I am assuming that you saw this in my reply to your post on the Bracht Darkhouse thread.
I'm concerned that some of the authors took this, as I did, to mean that "you had better stick to our system, or else." It seemed pretty clear to me (until I read Wolfgang's post) that new abilities were not allowed. Question: "Can I create new abilites..." Answer: "No."
Maybe my skull is as thick as a dwarf's, because now I am confused, when before I thought I was crystal clear on the rules.
Wolfgang, when you said "That's exactly right. Statting out powers, feats, etc was not the goal of Round 2.", that seems to imply that CREATING new powers is OK, as long as you don't STAT them. But the FAQ specifically says you can't CREATE new powers. Is that what you are implying? Can you CREATE new powers?
It seems like an unfair disadvantage to those authors that stuck to the format. Yes, I loved the description of Bracht Darkhouse. But perhaps he was so cool because Trevor created a new power (or spell). Then again, perhaps he didn't create something new. There could be some legal way to give Bracht those powers that I don't know about. We can't know that until round 3 because stat blocks were not allowed in round 2, and he is restricted from commenting. And so the mystery remains. Is it legal?
I could use some precise guidance on the rules before I submit my votes. I would hate to vote for a "lesser" submission because I mistakenly thought someone violated the rules. I would hate even more to reward an unfair advantage because of a rule violation.
New grist for the mill:
"Q12: Can I create new abilities, feats, spells, powers, items, or rules for my villain?
No. This stage of the contest is about story, not about mechanics. Resist the urge."
I am assuming that you saw this in my reply to your post on the Bracht Darkhouse thread.
I'm concerned that some of the authors took this, as I did, to mean that "you had better stick to our system, or else." It seemed pretty clear to me (until I read Wolfgang's post) that new abilities were not allowed. Question: "Can I create new abilites..." Answer: "No."
Maybe my skull is as thick as a dwarf's, because now I am confused, when before I thought I was crystal clear on the rules.
Wolfgang, when you said "That's exactly right. Statting out powers, feats, etc was not the goal of Round 2.", that seems to imply that CREATING new powers is OK, as long as you don't STAT them. But the FAQ specifically says you can't CREATE new powers. Is that what you are implying? Can you CREATE new powers?
It seems like an unfair disadvantage to those authors that stuck to the format. Yes, I loved the description of Bracht Darkhouse. But perhaps he was so cool because Trevor created a new power (or spell). Then again, perhaps he didn't create something new. There could be some legal way to give Bracht those powers that I don't know about. We can't know that until round 3 because stat blocks were not allowed in round 2, and he is restricted from commenting. And so the mystery remains. Is it legal?
I could use some precise guidance on the rules before I submit my votes. I would hate to vote for a "lesser" submission because I mistakenly thought someone violated the rules. I would hate even more to reward an unfair advantage because of a rule violation.
I would interpret that as meaning that you can't include any mechanical information in your concept, which would include referencing new abilities, feats, spells, powers, items, or rules as such. That said, I think you're allowed to describe the new stuff you have in mind insomuch as it lends itself to your villain concept.
For example, you couldn't say "Blazzer The Awesome has the Evil Eye ability, and the Wonky Eye feat." But you can say, "Blazzer the Awesome is known as a practicioner of the Way of the Wonky Eye. Those who fall under its baleful gaze are stricken with a rare form of kobold pox ..." and still be within the rules.
I believe the rule above is not meant to forbid author created content, but is rather to keep the mechanical aspects of such content separate from the conceptual aspects, which is what this round is about.
CR
I have to admit that I read that particular entry exactly the same way as Jason Rice did - "you must conform to what is currently possible to do within the given rule sources". It was definitely not clearly worded if the intent was to just keep people from putting mechanics in their flavor entries.
So, we'd like the writers at Paizo to be less pithy and witty next year in favor of blunt directness. Irony?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
I could use some precise guidance on the rules before I submit my votes. I would hate to vote for a "lesser" submission because I mistakenly thought someone violated the rules. I would hate even more to reward an unfair advantage because of a rule violation.
I believe I've read the rules (and the press release) carefully and understood it correctly. I don't think doing that gives me an unfair advantage. ;-) I look forward to your vote.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I could use some precise guidance on the rules before I submit my votes. I would hate to vote for a "lesser" submission because I mistakenly thought someone violated the rules. I would hate even more to reward an unfair advantage because of a rule violation.
No worries—it's not your job to decide if the contestants violated the rules. That's one of the judges' tasks. They determined that no contestant violated the rules to the point where disqualification was appropriate, so you may vote for your favorites with a clear conscience.
No worries—it's not your job to decide if the contestants violated the rules. That's one of the judges' tasks.
Thanks for the clarification, and I hope the "It's not your job" part was not a hint of annoyance. I was trying to do the right thing, which is why I asked the question before voting. I did not take part in Superstar last year, as a contestant or a voter, and when I came upon that FAQ question, it caused several people, including myself, some confusion. I appreciate your time in answering the question, and can vote with a clearer conscience.
Trevor, Don't worry. As I said before in your thread, your submission's got more mojo than a bag full of Austin Powers. I've narrowed the entries down to 8, but you are currently in my top 4. I would be suprised if you didn't advance, and I still cant wait to see your rules-fu.
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I can't imagine not letting contestants work out a litle bit of fun new mechanical stuff for their villain, and cometimes that's going to bleed over into prose to give it flavor. As long as the prose for the villain concept round doesn't say "makes use of new feats that compliment his graceful fighting style", I think it's ok to represent abilities that might tease us for the next round.
But it has do be done with some class and clarity, too. To say one villain grafts still-living body parts onto his subjects to enhance their abilities - we get what that means and it doesn't violate the rules. To classify your villain as a 'spirit' with no class levels would be confusing, and not highlights any aspects of the villain in particular.
I myself was going to invent or allude to a Desert domain for divine spells, or the ability to speak the language of evil.
Back off. Dibs. : }
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Thanks for the clarification, and I hope the "It's not your job" part was not a hint of annoyance.
No worries—it's not your job to decide if the contestants violated the rules. That's one of the judges' tasks.
Nope. I was having trouble finding a way to word that that didn't potentially sound snarky, and I ultimately gave up trying. Sorry!
Nope. I was having trouble finding a way to word that that didn't potentially sound snarky, and I ultimately gave up trying. Sorry!Thanks for the clarification, and I hope the "It's not your job" part was not a hint of annoyance.
No worries—it's not your job to decide if the contestants violated the rules. That's one of the judges' tasks.
Don't be sorry: my career often involves managing young men who are sometimes prone to breaking rules, so I can tell you with confidence that when you have to enforce the rules, there is simply no way not to sound snarky. At first I always felt a little bad and tried to minimize it, but eventually I realized that they respect you more if you don't bother trying to be excessively nice about it: they know that they were wrong to break the rules and that you were right to call them on it. It may not make you popular, but going in the opposite direction will leave you unpopular and disrespected. In this case, we were wrong, and it's our fault for putting you in the position where you needed to say something snarky.