...by confessing that I didn't read the stat blocks. Frankly, the alternative was not to vote at all, but if I'm in the market for the published book that eventually comes out of this (and I am - I bought the one that resulted from last year's contest), I figure I have as much right to vote as anyone else.
Of course, I could have just lied, and pretended that I'd judged the round on the basis of what I was "supposed" to like, and not on the basis of what I really did like (i.e. the villain concepts). The angry response came even quicker than I'd figured (just 20 minutes), but I can't say it wasn't one I didn't anticipate. So, take it as you will - and I guess the Paizo judges can even strike my votes, if they really want to, since I was open about what they were.
Next round, of course, will be a different matter. I won't pay any attention to any stat blocks in the lair (assuming there are any), but I can, and will, vote on the concept and any stat-free description. So, those of you who I voted for this round - don't think you'll get a free pass in the next!
Although, I am curious... am I the only one here who wouldn't know a decent Pathfinder stat block from a poor one, or are there others with various degrees of unfamiliarity with the system? If so, did you abstain, or use some other criterion to judge the round?
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
To me, the accuracy of the stat blocks are important. Nothing gets under my skin more - especially while I am trying to get discovered and resubmitting and all - than paying for a product with poor mechanical representation. Not every stat block I put together is perfect, either. It's a complicated game and some things might slip through in any publication. But I have run RPGA events where we were told to just play the game as written because there were so many errors that it wouldn't be fair for different GMs to have different levels of correction to their adventures.
So, to me, the stat blocks are important. But I would say there are many things to look forward to in this round, and if the mechanics aren't your thing, then there's plenty of other stuff to look into. Growth, like Clark said. Throwing something different in the encounter design. Understanding the Pathfinder system. Thoase are also things I am looking at, and plenty to base a vote on.
am I the only one here who wouldn't know a decent Pathfinder stat block from a poor one, or are there others with various degrees of unfamiliarity with the system?
I think I demonstrated that you are not the only one. :)
|
To me, the accuracy of the stat blocks are important.
To me as well. It takes me long enough to prep material into DMGenie software, and I hate it when something doesn't match up correctly, and I have to spend a half hour trying to figure out whether it's an error in the stat block, the software, or in my own understanding of the encounter/rules.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
Your vote is your vote. You vote for whomever you like for whatever reason you like. Anybody that doesn't like it, in the immortal words of Bender, can kiss your shiny metal ass.
...are you suggesting that Jorrik is...is a robot?!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
The last round was on villain concept. The purpose of the second villain round, to me at least, is to see if the designer can make the character concept translate into mechanics. In the actual play of the game, if you have a great character backstory, but no mechanics to represent that, your players are never going to know.
|
|
While this round is mainly a mechanics round, expecting 100% of the voters to read every stat block in depth (all 30+ thousand words of them) is totally unrealistic. That said, completely ignoring them is bad, too. At the very least, you should double-check the math for important things like hit points and saves. The math is already provided for you, so it should be simple, and in several cases it's actually incorrect (15d12+18 cannot under any math system add up to 212, for example). That gives you at least a little idea of how dedicated the designers were to their concepts.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Your vote is your vote. You vote for whomever you like for whatever reason you like. Anybody that doesn't like it, in the immortal words of Bender, can kiss your shiny metal ass....are you suggesting that Jorrik is...is a robot?!
Perhaps he just has Buns of Steel, or cast the iron body spell...
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
No worries. As a voter, you don't need to know your INT from your WIS—that's why we have the judges. Their reviews will tell you who's a stat block genius and who's clueless. But only you can tell us how important that is to you.
Personally, I think the most important question to ask yourself for any contestant in any round is this: Would you want to buy a module written by this person?
I think there is a difference between:
1) knowing whether the stat blocks are right for the purpose of this contest, and
2) knowing whether the stat blocks are right in a published adventure so you can use them in your game.
For (1), yeah, whether or not the stat blocks are right doesn't really matter. It's "just" a contest.
For (2), if the stat blocks are wrong, they could really screw up an encounter, kill off your PCs, and ruin an otherwise good campaign.
It's when the results of (1) turn into (2) that you should really be concerned.
Not bothering to check the math on the stat blocks before you vote, that's fine. That's why we have Jason and I here--to look for problems that you might not see.
But to just ignore the stat block portion of the contest entirely (and the judges' reviews of the stat blocks) and vote based on the villain concept, you're doing yourself a disservice, and a disservice to everyone who (1) worked really hard to get their stat blocks right, and (2) anyone who buys a product written by the winner.
Because if somebody has Description: 10/10 and Stat Blocks: 1/10, and you vote them through to Round 4 based on their Description and ignore their pathetic stat block, and they win this contest, that person is going to write an adventure for Paizo. As a developer, I guarantee that if someone turns over a manuscript with 1/10 stat blocks, I'm going to have to work hard to bring those stat blocks up to par, which means I'm spending less time developing the rest of the adventure. Which means the adventure isn't going to be as good as if the stat blocks were 8/10, or even 5/10. Which means your vote now helps determine whether or not you get a good adventure later.
It's your vote, you can use it how you like. But ignoring the premise of this round of voting is like voting for a politician because you think she's pretty, ignoring that she has no experience and her views are opposed to your own.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
It's your vote, you can use it how you like. But ignoring the premise of this round of voting is like voting for a politician because you think she's pretty, ignoring that she has no experience and her views are opposed to your own.
Sean, who could you possibly be referring to there? :)
what I really did like (i.e. the villain concepts).
I agree actually, the stat-blocks are fairly dry and sort of a joke. I suppose this is an issue with the 3.x ruleset, I really see no need for 500+ word stat-blocks for 3.x when a 1 liners from old D&D is just about as good. So *shrug* my votes go to the flavor rather than the hideous amalgams of multiple classes on templated monsters - its all rather silly.
I don't care about the legalistic integrity of the stat blocks - but I read them to say "is this foe buff enough for the level". Like Gulga is pretty weak and Vashkar is pretty uber-buff for their respective CRs.
All I have to say about this:
Anyone who entered this contest and expected to get as far as this 'stat block' round should be reading the entries of the patricipants who actually made it.
100% comprehension is not required, spending 2 hours on each stat block crunching numbers is not required, but not reading the stat blocks at all to me is just odd.
To those who didn't enter and vote....to each their own. If you submitted an entry in previous rounds and are casting a vote for round three though, I believe you have to give the same courtesy you would have been expecting had you reached this round - to give some brief attention to the stat block so that the numbers at least make some connection for you back to the villain concept.
For me a stat block better not balance completely out. A villain is a villain because they do not follow the rules, both in theory or on the written page. A good villain should make the players say "Hey, they can't do that!". A good stat block should reflect the concept of said villain while having enough grey area for the GM to play around and make some tweaks. So while I am not looking for the stat block to equate out perfectly, I will ckeck if I can see the villain in the numbers enough that I can see where I would make my own tweaks.
God, I have no time to read the entries much less the comments.
Not voting this round.
I was surprised after reviewing my votes how each round how differing my votes go. In round 2, none of my votes went to people I had made my top 5 of wonderous items.
And in Round 3 voting, only 1 of my choices from round 2, got my vote this round. Though one of my top 5 MI creators did get my vote for Round 3.
Guys, vote how you want. There are lots of ways to evaluate a stat block even if you arent adding skill points and determining whether it should have been done as base creature first with a template on the top for the new creature or as the new creature with the stuff from the base creature on top. That's what the real pros are for. But just cause you cant do that doesnt mean you cant evaluate stat blocks.
Look for:
1. organization. Is the stuff were it should be? Did they use a layout or put certain info in one place when it should be in another?
2. playability. is their anything about their stat block that impedes your use of the monster?
3. glaring errors. are there things that are missing that are pretty easy to spot.
4. formatting problems. did they do spell names wrong, etc?
5. tactics and strategy. did this section give you the hints to run the villain effectively in the battles where they will actually be the foe?
6. equipment. does the villain have the stuff you think he or she should have?
7. theme. does the design and construction and feat and spell selection match the theme and concept of the villain?
And then you can definately evaluate the new rules bit. How did that grab you?
So just because you cant figure the skill points or hit points on a triple templated half-lycanthrope-drow-lich-werebear-celestial with character levels in 4 classes doesnt mean you cant make a meaningful critique of the stat blocks and the rules bits in this round.
Good post, Clark. :)
By the way, Sean, I happen to agree with your post that if they dont vote or just vote on mojo and not stat block then they are going to get what they get in the end and the voters need to think of that.
That said, I still think they can contribute to the discussion and vote without possessing the technical skill to crack those beastly stat blocks. As I told you and Wolf and Jason, I let you guys do that heavy lifting. Yes, I dug into the stat blocks more than I mention in my list above, but there is no reason people should feel like they cant evaluate and participate.
Heck, you all buy modules and adventures. Those adventures have stat blocks. Surely you have gut reactions and evaluations of those villains from published adventures. Pretend these submissions are from an adventure. If you saw this villain and his or her stat block in an adventure, how would YOU evaluate it?
You're definitely not the only one. I glossed over the stat blocks (and that's giving myself some credit). For me, I took virtually all my info about the stat blocks from what the judges said. If all were unanimous in their sorrow over a crappy stat block, that definitely swayed my opinion, and vice versa.
I did somewhat similarly, counting on the judges to check things like AC and HP calculations and if they had issues about something, that was worth a look.
I was looking at some areas though, like the way it was presented (how easy it would be to read the stat block), tactics section, something about special powers...
And of course the new rules, whether I liked them or not.
So while my mechanics awareness is limited I paid a bit of attention to those, and cool concepts were still necessary and preferred over concepts which did not really work for me even if the mechanics were executed flawlessly.
Personally, I think the most important question to ask yourself for any contestant in any round is this: Would you want to buy a module written by this person?
It may not have been clear that I absolutely agree with this point, but I do. Which, in fact, is why I voted at all rather than abstaining. And whether I want to buy a module is based entirely on concept, not on the stat blocks. Of course, I understand that most other people will have different priorities, and I'm cool with that.
you're doing... a disservice to everyone who (1) worked really hard to get their stat blocks right, and (2) anyone who buys a product written by the winner.
OK, that's a fair point. I did say I figured it would make me unpopular, and I did consider the idea of just not mentioning it. But, you know, everyone's going to have different tastes, so whatever I vote for (and for whatever reason I cast that vote), somebody's going to dislike the outcome. It's also unlikely that the eventual winner is going to write something that nobody likes but me, unless the number of voters is a lot less than I think it is.
But, yeah, to the contestants, who I'm sure all worked really hard on the stat blocks: sorry if you feel offended. (I did, of course, read through the changes to the character concept you all did, and the "new rules" entry bit - in fact, I change my expected vote as a result).
To those who didn't enter and vote....to each their own.
In case it's relevant: I'm not eligible to enter. Not that I could have anyway, given that writing stat blocks was obviously going to be required :)
Clark's post is undoubtedly a good one, and great advice for those who find stat blocks difficult and/or tedious, rather than having no clue about them. But I will comment on one point:
Heck, you all buy modules and adventures. Those adventures have stat blocks. Surely you have gut reactions and evaluations of those villains from published adventures. Pretend these submissions are from an adventure. If you saw this villain and his or her stat block in an adventure, how would YOU evaluate it?
Without reading the stat block. Seriously. I never use stats as printed anyway, so they're never an issue. And, yes, I know that puts me in a minority here, but there it is.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
The last round was on villain concept. The purpose of the second villain round, to me at least, is to see if the designer can make the character concept translate into mechanics.
As we were allowed to revise our character concepts, this round seems to be the 'character concept + stat block + new rules' round. Otherwise, what was the point of allowing contestants to revise their concepts?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
,
Star Voter Season 6
aka raidou
|
The last round was on villain concept. The purpose of the second villain round, to me at least, is to see if the designer can make the character concept translate into mechanics.As we were allowed to revise our character concepts, this round seems to be 'character concept + stat block + new rules' round. Otherwise, what was the point of allowing contestants to revise their concepts?
I agree 100%. This round was the "triple threat" round. Solid concept, execution, and rules design. were all needed.
-eric
As we were allowed to revise our character concepts, this round seems to be the 'character concept + stat block + new rules' round. Otherwise, what was the point of allowing contestants to revise their concepts?
Because otherwise contestants with an unpopular villain concept who managed to squeak into the Top 16 would be at a huge disadvantage to those who had a popular villain concept.
Because otherwise contestants with an unpopular villain concept who managed to squeak into the Top 16 would be at a huge disadvantage to those who had a popular villain concept.
Unfortunately this attempt to "level the playing field" put the front runners from the previous round at a disadvantage. If they don't grow enough in the public's eyes, they lose to someone who screwed up the previous round, but got a second chance to get their entry right.
Take Gulga, Neil didn't change his description much and is getting hammered for it. The problem is that his description was great from the previous round so it didn't NEED to be improved on. Lots of people were clamouring for his stat block, so he'd have disappointed them if he had chosen to do a different villian. I'd love to see Gulga's lair, but not if that means putting Neil at a handicap again.
I guess I'm just thinking that "squeaking" by shouldn't be rewarded.
Rant over. Now off to vote for Gulga and 3 others! :)
I vote for the entries with the most pleasant smell.
Unfortunately this attempt to "level the playing field" put the front runners from the previous round at a disadvantage. If they don't grow enough in the public's eyes, they lose to someone who screwed up the previous round, but got a second chance to get their entry right.
I do not agree.
Someone who goes from 90% awesome to 99% awesome is better than someone who went from 20% awesome to 90% awesome. Of course, the voters may not see it that way....
I guess I'm just thinking that "squeaking" by shouldn't be rewarded.
Well, I confess that my original idea for R3 was "if your R2 villain sucked and you made it to R3, that's your problem." It was others involved in the contest who pointed out the value of growth.
As a developer, if Designer Adama turns over a 90% awesome book, it means I can get right to work on finishing the book.
If Designer Baltar turns over a 20% awesome book, I either have to make up for their slack myself, or bounce it back to them and hope they can get it to 90%, fast. If the former, that's extra work for me. If the latter, that means I'm late.
So who do you think is a better designer, Adama or Baltar? :)
No. Clearly, the correct answer must be Starbuck. That type of designer would give the appearance of being totally out of control and then deliver a turnover that's 99-100% complete on sheer talent alone.
And no...I'm not a Starbuck designer.
Apollo, maybe?
Or perhaps...I'm just a Cylon. ;-)
--Neil
"The role of Neil Spicer in tonight's performance will be played by Dean Stockwell...."
Well that would certainly require a "Quantum Leap" of acting talent... :-)
What? Bad pun? Eh...it's getting late.
--Neil
|
|
am I the only one here who wouldn't know a decent Pathfinder stat block from a poor one, or are there others with various degrees of unfamiliarity with the system?I think I demonstrated that you are not the only one. :)
err... I check a few things around... but mostly listen to what the judge had to say... and check some combinations I dislike.. like 2 spellcasting classes and a plestige ro finish it over a monster and a template... err that hurts even if pretty solid :P
aside of that... I prefered to check the new mechanics section, that is what weighted more with me.
|
|
I was surprised after reviewing my votes how each round how differing my votes go. In round 2, none of my votes went to people I had made my top 5 of wonderous items.
And in Round 3 voting, only 1 of my choices from round 2, got my vote this round. Though one of my top 5 MI creators did get my vote for Round 3.
I know :S
only one of my favortie items got a vote in round 2 and I am thinking on not voting for that one for the 3rd because i saw better revies on the stat blocks... but even more improtant for me... awesome new mechanicas and rules... taht for me... was the deciding factor... if i thought I really want to implement this rule, then it was a "i must vote for this"
... Vashkar is pretty uber-buff for their respective CRs.
That's still being debated on that thread, incidentally. One guy essentially argued quite the opposite: that his offensive issues make him a touch too weak.
I read the description first. I look at tactics, equipment, and spells next. Then the new rule. If something irritates me in one of those three areas, I'll check the math and stat block nits. Then I see if the thread has a debate going on a technical issue. If so, I'll take a look and see if I have something to say about it.
|
I dive straight for the new rule, then go back and read the flavor text to see if it has improved. The stat-block gets a cursory glance, since I'm a horrible tinkerer and tend to re-write every published encounter anyway. It's more the idea that matters to me, which makes me less-than-ideal for this particular round.
OTOH, I'm kinda glad I didn't make it to this round. I made up a chart of all the SRD critters and classes that didn't see a lot of use in adventures as 'big bads,' that I thought would be 'fresh,' and was having a beast of time figuring out how to make a Xill Monk work. :)