Reflexions of a (un)popular Superstar contestant


RPG Superstar™ 2009 General Discussion

1 to 50 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16 aka jmberaldo

Since learning that I got to Round 3, I have been thinking a lot about RPG Superstar and my work. I know I learned a lot out of this opportunity. After all, I write fiction for a living (In fact I’m proud to say I am the only person in Brazil who actually supports his family exclusively by writing science fiction), but in a totally different media and form. So, having the opportunity of a break through in RPG book publishing was more than special. It was the chance of a lifetime.

Some of you may have read what I said in another threat about how excited I was about all of this and how it was sort of a life changing experience, including in my household. So I’ll forfeit talking anymore about it and get to the point.

This thread is about how RPG Superstar works. I saw two things during my participation in this competition that made me (both as a contestant and as a professional) realize who wrong contestant selection goes. And, no, I’m not saying I should have gone into Round 4. Quite the opposite. I probably shouldn’t event be on Round 3.

Allow me to explain my point.

I don’t believe anyone in here knows it or saw any of it, but the simple fact that I was Top 32 made me a small celebrity in Brazil. News was going out on the major RPG websites where as well as in many blogs and mailing lists. After all, a Brazilian dude has got into the Top 32 in a huge international rpg contest! It may sound a bit foolish, but it’s a lot for a proud people who are always trying to show its worth to the world.

Now, I don’t know how much it also counted, but I was already a little know in Brazil. I have written RPG and creativity articles and essays for various websites, RPG and educational ones, and I’m responsible for game content on the largest computer game project in the country. In fact, I’ve been on TV a few times in the last few months thanks to that. Add to that that my recent novel was published by Devir, the largest RPG company in Latin countries AND the company with the rights to publish D&D, Storytelling and GURPS in said countries.

Now, if you were a Brazilian and learned that that dude I described over there was Top 32 of a contest and my vote could count to get him to Top 16 (and further) and let people know there was a Brazilian up there, wouldn’t you vote for that guy?

After I got in Round 2, much to my surprise, I learned from a lot of people that they were voting for me. I got emails and messages on Orkut of people I never heard of or who I haven’t seen in years wishing me good luck and saying they voted for me. Some in fact said they spread the world around to friends and family. I can only guess it repeated itself for Round 3.

Conspiracy Theory moment: A few minutes after I learned I got to Top 16 and noticed the noted that there was a tie, and so 17 contestants were chosen, it got me thinking. What are the odds of a tie in such a large contest? As soon as I learned of so many people voting for me just because I was Brazilian and/or because they knew me, I thought: could it be that in fact I got too many votes and Paizo didn’t find it fair that I got in just because of popularity while another contestant whose villain was better suited didn’t? Then they made up this ‘tie’ thing so that all 16 worthy contestants got in? That said, could it have happened again on Round 3 to 4 and they decided (wisely) not to allow it to repeat itself and simply cut me out even if I had enough votes?

What I say is that I know fully well both my villain submissions were lacking. My second one specially, since I failed on the stats and neither was my rule (or rules?) Superstar material.

Which takes me to the second part of this message.

I have read all of the villains for Round 2. While, as I said, I know my submission was lacking, I know that it was far from the bottom of Round 2. What I know for sure is that there was a presentation issue. I’m used to longer space to develop and present a character. Obviously there is the need for me to learn and improve if I want to get that chance to be part of a Paizo RPG book (and I definitely want to). But, still, I felt angry when I read most of the comments.

Once again, allow me to explain before going further. People are often led by what professionals say. In fact, people are psychologically led to agree with someone recognized as a knowledgeable person in a given subject. Especially if anything they say is recorded and open for anyone to see.

So, if a judge says something, that has a LOT of weight on decision-making. Which makes me wonder if it is correct to let voters vote based on judge comment or if judge comments should come only after the voting has ended. In a lesser extent, even people with ‘contributor’ on their tag name had a lot of weight to their comment. I saw, for example, that Josh Frost posted in a couple of entries. Don’t get me wrong; I LOVED the opportunity to get feed back from professionals. I know of people who were submitting adventures to the PFS open calls just because Josh gave feedback on the first ones. But some feedback simply serves to guide the majority of the voters.

Now on why I was angry. When the time came to see what the judges said about my Round 2 submission, I was extremely pissed of at Clark’s comment. In fact, exclusively at his comment. While I did not agree with everything everyone said, what caught my attention was that a judge said he wouldn’t comment on my submission because it lacked much of what was asked.

If it was right, I would agree. But, as some voters mentioned on the same thread, it was all there. My submission was a villain with intention and plots. While I agree that I hid much of his present in his past (and here is where I mention my inability to present the character in few words), I fail to see him as less of a villain that some of the others who didn’t get pass Round 2. Obviously I was not the only one.

But what I saw on my Round 2 thread was lots of people who simply copy/pasted the comment that it was a lacking submission. That it was not a villain. Was it? Well, one person pointed out exactly the plots and plans developed for the villain.

So, my question is, how many people decided their votes and comments because one judge simple refused to comment and said that submission lacked plans and schemes? How many more followed suit or maybe didn’t even read the submission because they saw many say the same?

I’m sorry to have to say it, but I felt Clark’s comment unprofessional of someone on his position. Yes, I know saying this could mean ending my chances of that chance in international RPG publishing, but I feel it has to be said. Look at Ed Greenwood’s comments. He analyzed every submission. Look at Jason Bulmahn’s.

Clark always analyzes submissions bit by bit. And then, he simply forfeits to do it with a few, saying they shouldn’t even be accepted. How much weight do you think that has on voting?

Let it be clear that this is not personal against Clark. In fact, Clark was the main defender of my Heart of Oblivion. So, if it wasn't for him I'd probably not get past Round 1.

Also, I loved the contest elements in itself. I was in fact excited while I read Round 4's rules and wondering how I would deal with it. The same goes to the previous rounds.

Well, that’s a lot of text already. I believe I managed to present my perspective this time (seems like I need some 1.500 words to do it effectively ;)).

And so I hope you (Paizo and community) see this as it is: a different perspective of things, and an insight into how the contest works and where it seems to fail.

Thank you for your time.
- João Marcelo Beraldo
Who treasures his Top 16 tag

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

You raise alot of interesting points.

I'm not so sure how much impact a judge's comment has. Heck, look at last year's blink dog nation country submission. I BLASTED it, and it made the cut. In fact, it sort of became a cult favorite. I'll go back and look at my round 2 comments. I'm not above taking a look at things to see if I can improve.

As for getting votes from Brazillians, I think that is great. We call that the "Yao Ming" effect--the center for the Houston Rockets from China who gets tons of votes from China for the NBA All Star game when it is a total joke that he is even getting considered but he gets the votes because the people from his home country flood the ballot box. In my view, that's ok. That's a part of an international competition. I say good work if you motivated your countrymen to vote for you.

I'm always open to considering how to improve the contest from a judging standpoint. As for the contest itself, that is up to Paizo, not me.

Best of luck and glad you enjoyed your run!

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

jmberaldo wrote:
Conspiracy Theory moment: A few minutes after I learned I got to Top 16 and noticed the noted that there was a tie, and so 17 contestants were chosen, it got me thinking. What are the odds of a tie in such a large contest? As soon as I learned of so many people voting for me just because I was Brazilian and/or because they knew me, I thought: could it be that in fact I got too many votes and Paizo didn’t find it fair that I got in just because of popularity while another contestant whose villain was better suited didn’t? Then they made up this ‘tie’ thing so that all 16 worthy contestants got in? That said, could it have happened again on Round 3 to 4 and they decided (wisely) not to allow it to repeat itself and simply cut me out even if I had enough votes?

Let me say this unequivocally--what you suggest here absolutely did not happen.

The tie was the tie. The votes were the votes. We didnt look behind them or tinker with anything. To my knowledge we have no idea where votes come from.

This type of comment casts aspersions on the fairness of this contest and I wont allow that to stand.

When I said above that you raise some interesting points, I was NOT referring to this part.

Clark

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

OK so I went back and read my round 2 comments. This is what I put:

Clark Peterson wrote:

This is an insufficient submission in my view. Its a big backstory but then a failure to include the other mandatory and necessary information.

I DO NOT recommend this villain for advancement.

Not sure how that got you so pissed. My review is short, yes, but I said basically exactly what Sean and Wolf said--all backsory, no beef.

I should also point out that was hardly my harshest round 2 review. Here is what I posted for the pacifist-poet. Now this is harsh:

Clark Peterson wrote:

I'm not going to pull any punches.

This villain should not advance. This is poorly designed. And I am surprised. But it is just flat bad. An annoying pacifist poet? 'Nuff said. Oh and I had such high hopes for this author.

Obviously, I DO NOT recommend this villain advance.

And this was from the guy who did the maw, an item I liked so much I put it in the top 32 TWO years in a row. Wow. I'm stunned.

Clark

PS: Hopefully we wont have a repeat of last year's blink dog fiasco where my strong criticism strangely led to people rallying behind a poor submission, but you never know. I may have just done you a huge favor by bashing this submission so strongly. We'll see...

Disclaimer: please remember I am critiquing this villain as an entry, not the author as a person. I am as surprised as you that this submission is as bad as it is.

Edit: reading Wolf's review, I am more apt to believe that this was a huge miss on a swing for the fences. Its the only thing that makes sense to me.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

jmberaldo wrote:
I’m sorry to have to say it, but I felt Clark’s comment unprofessional of someone on his position.

Wow. This is a bombshell of a thread to get involved with right before Round Four voting, but I'm compelled to say something...

Clark hasn't always had completely glowing things to say about my entries during the competition. But he's by far one of the most professional, supportive individuals in this entire contest since its very inception, going all the way to last year. The guy goes out of his way to give feedback, encouragement, and honest assessments.

We all take a hit to the ego when someone pans something we've worked hard on. But, in my opinion, that's part of the business. You have to show the ability to:

1) accept someone else's critique,
2) open yourself to the idea of applying it, and...
3) use it to improve.

As Monte Cook stated in his recent post after participating as the guest judge for Round Four. It's his hope that he encourages, rather than discourages. But, unfortunately, the judges are really powerless to affect how we receive their feedback. It's up to us to draw encouragement or discouragement from it.

Can judges influence the voting with their commentary? Sure. Positively and negatively. But that's okay. They're the industry veterans. If anyone's going to be able to influence the vote, they should be the ones with that power.

And lastly, inasmuch as the RPG Superstar competition is meant to duplicate American Idol (or Pop Idol, or whatever they call it in other countries), the judges get to comment on every performance from round-to-round during those singing competitions. Some of them really, really give negative feedback. They probably even sway some of the voting with their comments. That's okay.

Just my two-cents,
--Neil

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 aka Gamer Girrl

Joao, while I have enjoyed your writing style and all, I feel you are pretty off base in your comments here.

Clark's comments on your round 2 submission were mild compared to some others. Not one of the judges recommended that you advance, but you got the chance because of the votes, and that's commendable. Many saw things in your submission ... but many did not, as a review of the comments makes clear.

To suggest that Paizo would "skew" the results of the contest because someone got a supposedly too large amount of votes is rather insulting. I trust Paizo's integrity a lot more than that.

And yes, the judges do affect the votes, but a lot of people made it rather clear that they do not agree with the judges, or that they formed their own opinions before reading anyone else's commentary. I know that I did. If someone choses to use a judge's comment as their reason for voting against, it may be because they felt the could not say it better, not that they were turning their brain off in favor of the judge's opinions.

While I realize this is something you wish to analyze, and I can understand that, I hope that it will not cast a pall over the accomplishments of the folks that did advance and what they are doing now.

Yes, this is all my own opinion.

Contributor

Clark Peterson wrote:
Let me say this unequivocally--what you suggest here absolutely did not happen.

I'll back up what Clark said: the results you see are the results from the voting. We had two people tied for 16th place, and in the spirit of RPG Superstar we decided to advance them both. We didn't adjust anything up or down, and didn't pull any strings to keep certain people in or out of ANY round of this competition, or to compensate for or against anyone who ranked higher or lower.

The Exchange

Personally I think this is sour grapes.

You should have emailed Paizo internally if you wanted to improve the contest.

Or you could have waited until the Superstar was chosen. Doing what you did when you did just makes it seem to me that you cannot take criticism well.

Picking on Clark and trying to say that the contest may be a fraud (without proof) is laughable, I'm afraid.

I could go on but....you should learn to take criticism better.

Good Luck Top 8 and Judges

Scarab Sages

French Wolf wrote:

Personally I think this is sour grapes.

You should have emailed Paizo internally if you wanted to improve the contest.

+1. You complain about unprofessional judges, Joao, but the very fact that you handled your concerns in this manner and publicly called out a judge is entirely unprofessional.

Your entries, frankly, did not meet several of the requirements of the contest. The round 3 entry, especially - he just plain was not a villain. You didn't lose because the judges were unprofessional, you lost because your entries were not Superstar quality. End of story.


jmberaldo wrote:
Some interesting points

Joao, first of all congratulations you have shown that you have a lot of talent to make it as far as you have. You have been judged by your peers, writers, editors, and most importantly RPG fans and they like your submissions.

I take issue with your comments about Clarke's professionalism - He may not wrap his comments in cotton wool, but he is honest in his appraisal. His aim is to help you to write the kind of material that would be accepted by an RPG company.

I prefer his style, I do not agree with some of his criticisms but they do help me see how a successful games developer approaches a submission.

Joao I don't know if it is a cultural difference, but to me you are coming across as a touch high maintenance (not the kind of impression I would like to give a prospective employer).

I understand your excitement but your worries appear to be the only thing that is holding you back. I am wondering if you are preparing yourself (by focusing on things that you perceive that are negative)in the event that you may not make the next cut.

All I can say is look at the positives take strength from them. Re-read the criticism from the judges an take it as the advice it is.


+2 ... There's an old saying: 'If you can't stand the heat, get out the kitchen.' As a published writer you should be used to criticism. I think the judges have been brutal, but honest. If you had an issue, this ISN'T the place to air conspiracy theories and sour grapes.

Definitely NOT Superstar quality showing there ...

Shadow Lodge

OK, so he could have done this a different way, But i don't think jumping on his case over this is called for either. He stated how he felt, and went to great pains to point out that he does not blame anyone, and that he knows he had a weak submission. He was stating that he felt Clark did not give him a fair shake by not doing a full review, and to an extend i agree. All contestants should be treated the same. If your critique blasts them into the dirt, well at least it was a full listing. As for the 'Conspiracy theory' i would feel bad if a deserving person got knocked out simply because i was popular (not much of that happening :P ) and if i had doubts i would want to have that laid to rest, especially with something as spectacular as a tie for 16Th place, what are the odds? So i feel you guys should not be so harsh on him.

And next time, just email piazo, the masses tend to misconstrue things

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16 aka jmberaldo

Dear God. It seems like its happening again...

First, to clear things up, there is a reason why I quoted that as conspiracy theory. Because thats all it is. As most of these, its laughable. Id have to feel very special to think Paizo would go into such a ploy just because of me

What Im impressed is with the number of people replying as if I was complaining of not going further into the contest and simply ignoring what I actually said. As Daniel Simonson mentioned, the whole point of the message was saying that I didnt think I deserved get to Round 3 and I'm doing a professional analysis of what I believe may not work well in the contest (meaning the 'popular voting' and the weight of judges comments before voting begins). Obviously most of you (and Im not including the judges, mind you) seem to ignore that part and go to one specific line on a 3 pages post.

Anyway, Clark, on the subject of what I said of your comment. I'm not saying your comment to my Round 2 submission was the most agressive. In fact, if I did it would be a complain or 'sour grape' as french wolf here says. What I said (and lets see the context of the sentence) is that this sort of reply greatly affects how voters see the submission, as it comes from a professional who always comments extensively on submissions. If they suddenly see something that not only is short but that says "a failure to include the other mandatory and necessary information.", then thats definitly going to count for something.

When I say it was unprofessional I mean that he (or any judge in fact) should realize the weight of their words in just a competition. And also remember what it is: a competition. Its how Josh always say about the difference between RPG Superstar and PFS Open calls. One is a competition, the other is a work proposal.

And I said this now EXACTLY because the competition is still going. Because, again, this is not personal. Its a matter of perspective and a humble advise. Just as I take advises seriously, I hope those who matter do the same. It seems to me from his answer that Clark does. Good!

Now, for those of you who replied without reading, I am a professional person. If I didnt take criticism well, I wouldn't be where I am today. Neither would I say what I said in this post or rewrite my submission for Round 3 and then again after I learned I did make it into the next round (you may notice it in the Boemundo thread).

But ok. Living and learning. Maybe next time someone posts a serious reflexion in here people will actually read it and not say the opposite of what is written

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

Daniel Simonson wrote:
He was stating that he felt Clark did not give him a fair shake by not doing a full review, and to an extend i agree. All contestants should be treated the same. If your critique blasts them into the dirt, well at least it was a full listing.

I did do a full review. Or, I should say, I did as full a review as the submission warranted. I hope no one is suggesting that I have to do a 500 word review on each submission so everyone feels they were treated equally. The contestants were treated the same. They were all reviewed. But since each submission was not the same, they got different reviews. And that is true at every level. Heck, in round 1, some didnt even get a single work of review other than two "reject"s. Some got 15+ posts. I thought his villain for round 2 was so insuffient that it should practically be DQ'd for failure to even be a sufficient submission. Not really sure what more to say than that. But apparently this review was so upsetting that it pissed the guy off. OK. Whatever. It doesnt take a "full listing" to say it is an inadequate submission. It just takes the statement that its an inadequate submission.

As for "not jumping on the guy," well two things: 1. I didnt. I took some of his comments to heart and reviewed what I wrote. 2. If you dont want to get blasted, dont post a thread like this.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

jmberaldo wrote:

Dear God. It seems like its happening again...

First, to clear things up, there is a reason why I quoted that as conspiracy theory. Because thats all it is. As most of these, its laughable. Id have to feel very special to think Paizo would go into such a ploy just because of me

Then why even post it?

Just a friendly suggestion. Back away from the computer. Give this a rest. Let it fade. I dont think you are helping yourself here.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

jmberaldo wrote:

What I said (and lets see the context of the sentence) is that this sort of reply greatly affects how voters see the submission, as it comes from a professional who always comments extensively on submissions. If they suddenly see something that not only is short but that says "a failure to include the other mandatory and necessary information.", then thats definitly going to count for something.

When I say it was unprofessional I mean that he (or any judge in fact) should realize the weight of their words in just a competition.

Of course people will be influenced to some degree by what I say. That's the point, isnt it?

How is that unprofessional?

Look, your villain wasn't a sufficient submission in my view. I happen to still think I am 100% correct on that. Maybe you dont like me saying that. OK. Fine.

But believe me when I tell you that gamers are generally free thinkers. They make up their own minds. They may take what I say into account. But that is about it. And I read all the other posts. There are no posts that just cut and paste what I say. Many reflect the same criticism that Wolfgang and I and Sean all had about your submission. But I dont read that forum and come to the conclusion that people just mindlessly adopted what I said and didnt judge for themselves. I think you taking that position is a huge slap in the face to the people here in this community. You are basically calling them mindless drones. That is not my experience with this community at all. This is probably the most supportive, free-thinking, mature community for comments and feedback I have ever seen. To suggest the people here just blindly follow my comments is not only insulting to them it just isnt supported by the evidence. Read the threads.


I have only one thing to say, Joao.

If you ever want to become a RPG Superstar you need to learn a very important skill:

Sucking it up.

Making complaints in public is NOT the expected behavior of an industry professional. Regardless of circumstances.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Anyone else have the urge to start copying and pasting Clark's posts into their own posts?

Spoiler:

Well, I would find it funny...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Clark Peterson wrote:
jmberaldo wrote:

Dear God. It seems like its happening again...

First, to clear things up, there is a reason why I quoted that as conspiracy theory. Because thats all it is. As most of these, its laughable. Id have to feel very special to think Paizo would go into such a ploy just because of me

Then why even post it?

Just a friendly suggestion. Back away from the computer. Give this a rest. Let it fade. I dont think you are helping yourself here.

The old rule of interwebs says: "In case of doubt, turn off the computer, go to sleep, wake up in the morning and check if you want to write the same thing again." It usually works :)

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

jmberaldo wrote:
Now, for those of you who replied without reading, I am a professional person.

See, this is what I am talking about. You dont have any right to suggest that just because someone doesnt like what you are doing or is critical of you that they "replied without reading." That's insulting. How do you know they didnt read what you wrote?

Let's direct our energies away from this train wreck and over to the people who actually advanced to the next round. Those posts are about to be made available--complete, of course, with Judges' comments which not every contestant will like but which will most likely be received with a bit more grace than was done here.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 aka Darkjoy

jmberaldo wrote:
Said some things

Some small but useful advice from me: I think you mean well with your post but what is obviously hurting you now is a cultural gap. What you are trying to communicate is not the same as what is understood.

Earlier advice that was given is valid; take a breath, read your words again, think of the worst possible way it could be received and try your best to remedy that.

Paizo Employee Director of Brand Strategy

Clark Peterson wrote:
Let's direct our energies away from this train wreck and over to the people who actually advanced to the next round.

This.

Sorry you didn't advance, Jmberaldo, but that's part of the contest. Let sleeping dogs lie and let those who are still vying for the prize get the attention they deserve.

Liberty's Edge Contributor , Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9

Sebastian wrote:

Anyone else have the urge to start copying and pasting Clark's posts into their own posts?

** spoiler omitted **

Clark Peterson wrote:


"I just dont want fights like this. I dont like the ally-enemy swap. That is just un-fun. I'm sorry. Reject."

The others were equally unimpressed. In fact, this one was noted as one of the worst of the contest.

Um...waaaah?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

jmberaldo wrote:
...I'm doing a professional analysis of what I believe may not work well in the contest (meaning the 'popular voting' and the weight of judges comments before voting begins)...

You may see it as a problem, but I see these things as the heart of the contest—two of the very best aspects of the entire program.

Is it possible that a contest can inspire a block of voters to take him further than he probably deserves? Yes, it absolutely is. However, assuming we get the same number of voters each round, the fact that the contestant pool is diminished by half each round means that the strength of your voting block is decreased by half each round. That is, it takes about twice as many votes to make it through each subsequent round, so unless you're able to double your voting block each round, eventually, you'll fall below the threshold needed to advance. (I've termed this the Sanjaya effect.)

As for the judges, keep in mind that this is a professional contest—the goal, after all, is to find people who can produce publishable material. Since most of the voters are not professionals, they may not know where the problems are in a villain concept or a stat block, or how uniquely creative a particular contestant may be. So, just as much as they're informing contestants about where you do well and where you can improve, they're also informing and educating the audience. I think they've done a pretty fantastic job of that—regular and guest judges alike.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Clark Peterson wrote:
Let me say this unequivocally--what you suggest here absolutely did not happen.
I'll back up what Clark said: the results you see are the results from the voting. We had two people tied for 16th place, and in the spirit of RPG Superstar we decided to advance them both. We didn't adjust anything up or down, and didn't pull any strings to keep certain people in or out of ANY round of this competition, or to compensate for or against anyone who ranked higher or lower.

A look at the exit poll threads will bear that out. You alone are determining who's advancing.


Mommy!

Liberty's Edge

Hi Mr Beraldo. I’ve enjoyed your contribution to the competition and to discussions on this site in the past. I hope you continue to do so.

But planting a suggestion that the competition may be based on something other than votes, and suggesting that a judge (who, as far as I am aware is doing this without pay in his free time) is acting unprofessionally is pretty uncool.

As others have suggested, probably would have been better to send a private email to Paizo if you had concerns, or at the least post this after the contest was over.

Now … back to the contest!

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8 aka Tarren Dei

Hey JM,

I've found the hardest part of this contest was getting some negative feedback and not responding for a few days. I was surprised at how hard it was to value the criticism I've been given without getting defensive. That is part of this contest and it's probably the part I've found hardest.

I'm sure you'll regret this post tomorrow so, in advance, I understand. Although it is no doubt part of what the job entails, it isn't easy. Props to all those contestants who have handled it better than I have.

Take care,
Trevor

Sovereign Court

To be honest, I have found the whole public commenting thing unpleasant; I appreciate that it's part and parcel of how the thing works, but I don't think that it's turned out very nicely. I wasn't around for last year's Superstar, which was apparently a pleasant affair.

I think that I also understand what Joao is saying and the point he's trying to make; whether or not people agree with him, it doesn't seem like 'sour grapes' to me and I am bemused that it has been interpreted that way by anyone. He has concerns about the voting, both in terms of votestacking by feelings of personal connection and also through the weight of celebrity judges. In particular, he thinks that Clark's review was ill-judged, not because it was negative but because it was dismissive. I personally don't have an opinion either way, but there doesn't look to be anything duplicitous about the complaint.

What I do have an opinion on is that I don't think that the format -- celebrity judges making recommendations after a brief review, followed by general posters giving their opinions -- has left a very pleasant taste in the mouth. That's just my opinion, though, and I suspect it's not widely shared.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 aka Lord Fyre

(I am shocked that this thread hasn't been locked yet.)

You are implying that some of the people who advanced to the top "17" did not do so on the Merits of their submission. Do you realize how insulting this is to those of use in the top 32 who didn't advance?

Fortunately, I have no doubt what so ever that Paizo has acted in a completely fair and above-board manner.

B.T.W., when you talk about the "weight" of Mr. Peterson's opinion, did you read how many of the top 16 were promoted by the Fan-Base over his "Do Not Advance?" (Hecataeus, Lord Jeroim Borloz, Malgana, etc)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32 aka Lord Fyre

Dead Horse wrote:
Mommy!

For some reason, when I see this poster, I find myself compelled to keep beating him.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Looking back at last year's RPGSuperstar "losers" and how many of those guys have gone on to write articles (or PFS scenarios, etc.), "losing" isn't really losing after all. A number of those guys have gotten to write professionally for Paizo. Posting publicly that you were treated unfairly and baselessly hinting that the contest was rigged is probably going to hurt any chance you had of getting to write for Paizo (I'm no expert and I certainly don't speak for Paizo).

In other words, you may have just screwed yourself out of writing for Paizo (not mentioned Necromancer Games) in the future.

Sometimes, when you think you're being treated unfairly, you fight for yourself; other times, you suck it up and drive on. I'm thinking this is a "suck it up" scenario.

Better luck next time though.

-Skeld


For most of the Round 2 entries, Clark Peterson did maintain what seems to me to be a 'regular' format for his reviews that went something like this:

Clark Peterson wrote:

Initial Impression:

Word Count:

Concept (name, title, is it actually a villain?, overall design choices, playability):
The Good:
The Bad:

Execution (quality of writing, hook, theme, organization, use of proper format, quality of mandatory content-physical description, motivation/goal, scheme/plot, presence of any disqualification criteria):
The Good:
The Bad:

Tilt (did it grab me?, is it unique and cool?, do I like it?, flavor and setting):

Overall:

Recommendation:

As far as I can make out, for both Paradigm Theogard and Boemundo, Clark did deviate from this otherwise regular form of review to give a very much abbrieviated version.

I don't to what extent that mattered, although I do get the impression that it disappointed the OP not to receive a 'full' review in line with Clark's regular Round 2 format.

I hope that this debate is currently the result of miscommunications of meanings, and nothing more serious - and that things can calm down.

Spoiler:
Smurf!


Lord Fyre wrote:
Dead Horse wrote:
Mommy!
For some reason, when I see this poster, I find myself compelled to keep beating him.

Thus betraying your sadism, necrophilia and bestiality to the whole thread.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Part of me thinks that this thread is a giant trainwreck that should have been locked down about thirty seconds before it was started. The other part of me really wants to jump in with my own two cents. Unfortunately, my nature has delivered yet another resounding defeat to my better judgment, and so now all of you are going to be subjected to yet another one of my bloviated opinions:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

As far as I can make out, for both Paradigm Theogard and Boemundo, Clark did deviate from this otherwise regular form of review to give a very much abbrieviated version.

Clark Peterson wrote:
I did do a full review. Or, I should say, I did as full a review as the submission warranted. I hope no one is suggesting that I have to do a 500 word review on each submission so everyone feels they were treated equally. The contestants were treated the same. They were all reviewed. But since each submission was not the same, they got different reviews.

Put these two quotes together, and you get a phenomenon that should be familiar to anyone accustomed to regular feedback and criticism: the most disheartening feedback is not, "I found the following long and painful list of flaws in your work..." it's, "I don't really have any feedback for you." When people give you specific details about what you did wrong, they are basically saying, "However flawed it may be, your work is good enough that I can see a way to fix it." That way may be very long and difficult, but at least you have something. On the other hand, when professional critics or judges decline to give specific feedback, they aren't saying, "There are so many flaws that it would be too much work to name them all," they are saying, "This work is so fundamentally flawed that I see no way to fix it, and marginal improvements are a waste of time because they will only result in a somewhat less terrible product." If you find yourself receiving the latter kind of feedback, don't blame the judge for refusing to untie your granny knot for you; blame yourself for tying a knot that can only be undone with a knife.

Zapp wrote:

I have only one thing to say, Joao.

If you ever want to become a RPG Superstar you need to learn a very important skill:

Sucking it up.

Making complaints in public is NOT the expected behavior of an industry professional. Regardless of circumstances.

Amen. People don't want to hear excuses, no matter how valid they may be--people want to hear how you will change the things that you have control over. It's OK to explain the thought process that led to your errors, because that helps everyone (especially you) learn from your mistakes. It's also OK to politely say something to the effect of, "I understand this particular criticism, but I believe this specific aspect of my work to be more a matter of personal taste than objective quality, and I disagree with your judgment on this point." However, it is never OK to let your hurt feelings shape your response to criticism, and it is always completely unacceptable to use ad hominem attacks against your critics.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

There really is only one way to put an end to this thread. Charles had the right idea.

SMURF!

Come on, join me! It kinda feels good...

Liberty's Edge

Clark Peterson wrote:

There really is only one way to put an end to this thread. Charles had the right idea.

SMURF!

Come on, join me! It kinda feels good...

Or you and Joao can just go get a room instead of posting here... ;)

Really, I don't see any real problems with either of you. Just let this blow over.

Sam


Vic Wertz wrote:
(I've termed this the Sanjaya effect.)

I'd just like to point out how ecstatic I am that I had to look up that reference...

Dark Archive Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4

I'm with Clark on this one ... just saying "SMURF IT!" every once in a while feels good!

Liberty's Edge Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012 , Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9

Check out these wholly original lyrics to the song "Smurf It":

When a problem comes along, you must Smurf it.
Before the cream sets out too long, you must Smurf it.
When something's going wrong, you must Smurf it.

Liberty's Edge Contributor , Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9

taig wrote:

Check out these wholly original lyrics to the song "Smurf It":

When a problem comes along, you must Smurf it.
Before the cream sets out too long, you must Smurf it.
When something's going wrong, you must Smurf it.

Oooh, a present--I wonder what's in it? I hope it's not one of Jokey Smurf's jokes.


"Just smurf it, smurf it, smurf it, smurf it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right"

Anyway, I am quite sure folks who run the game are pretty much aware that different people might have different amount of "I know this guy" votes, some might urge their grandmothers to create an account on Paizo to vote for them while others might keep tight lip about it...
and as Vic pointed out, that will only get you so far, as will writing great fiction but falling behind on RPG submission design.
This is partly a popularity contest, otherwise it would be just the closed circle of judges selecting.

That said, about Clark's comment...indifferent shrug is indeed among the worst criticisms possible. However, judges' comments are worth checking out but there were good amount of cases where I disagreed with one or more judges, on either direction (and indeed, last year Clark treated the blink dog nation in a similar fashion, just dismissing it as "not a country").

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 aka Gamer Girrl

SMURF!

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32 aka Gamer Girrl

SMURF!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 aka Epic Meepo

If something about the feedback you were getting in Round 3 was bothering you, you should have addressed your concerns to the folks who were running the contest, and you should have done so while Round 3 was still underway. The judges and the Paizo staff are all reasonable, professional, and more than generous with their time. Had you chosen to voice your frustrations in a less disruptive way, I'm sure the judges and Paizo staffers could have done something to address your concerns.

Oh, and lest I forget: smurf.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka Steven T. Helt

jmberaldo wrote:
Now, for those of you who replied without reading, I am a professional person.

A few comments: I read your whole post. I thought it was immature and self-serving. You spent as much time telling us about your celebrity in Brazil as you did complaining about how you were jilted. I couldn't care less.

There's a lot about how you didn't deserve to be in round 3, and banked on your local support. Then there's whining that you didn't make it to round 4. Incongruous, much?

As an aside, I'll say that if a writer makes it to the end of RPG Superstar on the strength of the Yao Ming effect, I'm all for it. If I didn't like the author, I won't buy it. But we are (sometimes) a community of pdf thieves and are not the best demographic for growing a market anywhere. If Pathfinder is to be all it deserves to be (and therefore also the great companies who will publish Pathfinder stuff, like Necromancer and Open Design), the market needs to grow at the local American store level, and also at the international level. If Paizo makes good bank on the entire country of Brazil supporting its one author, then I couldn't be more supportive.

Finally...you're a hypocrite. For you to even suggest that Paizo shuffled votes to get someone in is a clear indication that you didn't read the comments provided by other judges. One judge didn't tank you. Many of us don't read comments before we write our own. No judge recommended you advanced, and I thought you had maybe the weakest entry of the round.Like a great many regulars here, I don't need Clark Peterson to tell me you are weak on mechanics, you 'unvillained' in your rewrite, your prose is not special and you stayed with an awful, awful name.

As for all your "celebrity", one thing I know for sure: you can call your publisher and tell them you lost a customer by the way you handled yourself.

Liberty's Edge

i hate smurfs...

and i decide not to post in this thread and dismiss it :P

to much of a trouble over wrong ideas :P

Steven T. Helt wrote:
As for all your "celebrity", one thing I know for sure: you can call your publisher and tell them you lost a customer by the way you handled yourself.

or a dozen

but that is not the point...i don't understand portuguese :P

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter Season 6

Wow, and I was worried my ranting reply to Father Avon was self serving.

Believe me, between the contest and reading KGtGD #2, it gave me a lot of food for thought.

Plug alert. I did put a blog post up on my facebook page, called 'Why we write' :-)

Self Serving alert. It's a good thing for me that I got shot down. Learned a lot of my weaknesses, and then I fell and wouldn't have been able to finish round 3 anyway, since I spent days in a pain and drug induced haze. Better to not advance because of the better entries than advance and have to drop out.

Though I'd rather have avoided the fall down the stairs (still on a cane here).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 , Star Voter Season 6

Montalve wrote:


Steven T. Helt wrote:
As for all your "celebrity", one thing I know for sure: you can call your publisher and tell them you lost a customer by the way you handled yourself.

or a dozen

but that is not the point...i don't understand portuguese :P

It's all Greek to me.

Spoiler:
I prepared explosive smurfs today

1 to 50 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / RPG Superstar™ / Previous Contests / RPG Superstar™ 2009 / General Discussion / Reflexions of a (un)popular Superstar contestant All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion