Last year, the adventures submitted did not force the Superstars to use their villain as a basis for their proposed adventure. Heck, Christine didn't even use the encounter she did for the fifth round in her sixth round adventure path. (And that encounter was AWESOME.)
So, if you're voting for a person because you want an adventure with that villain... well, you may not get that even if they win. So do you really want to make that a primary voting criteria?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Last year, the adventures submitted did not force the Superstars to use their villain as a basis for their proposed adventure. Heck, Christine didn't even use the encounter she did for the fifth round in her sixth round adventure path. (And that encounter was AWESOME.)
So, if you're voting for a person because you want an adventure with that villain... well, you may not get that even if they win. So do you really want to make that a primary voting criteria?
I would agree that voting for a particular person because you think they can, will, or must use a villain they've used before (whether the one they created or the one they made a lair for) is probably not a great reason. People saying they want "a Gulga Cench" adventure, f'rex, may not get that regardless of their voting choices.
On the other hand, if you are impressed with the quality of an author's submissions, that is absolutely a valid criterion. If you think a contestant's past work shows them to be the kind of game writer and creator that you think would make a rockin' adventure, then by all means push them hard to the bitter or joyful end!
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
|
I'm actually hoping that the final round will require that the adventure submissions can't use any of the submitted villains. Peronsally, I'm a bit burned out on them at this point. I much preferred last year's structure where each round was pretty much self contained. Yes, the contestants could use stuff from previous rounds, but it wasn't the norm. There may have been a villain that used one of the magic items, etc., but each round we wound up getting a whole batch of original content.
As an avid observer of the entries in this contest, I must say I'm noticing an interesting trend this round. Quite a few of the people voting have admitted to voting for a designer whose work they liked in previous rounds, but whose lair they were unimpressed by, or at least stated they like other lairs better. At a certain point, this causes the round to cease being about which of the Round 4 submissions were most worthy of advancement and more about a popularity contest or a desire to see a specific adventure proposal. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that the playing field has narrowed and the number of votes are more limited, I'm not entirely sure. Nor am I sure that is really keeping with the idea of having rounds at all, as it certainly does a disservice to those contestants who did superior work this round. Anyway, food for thought.
That is an interesting observation. In my comments on the lairs I also presumed that the voters may do what it appears they are doing--taking the whole body of work into account. That's the great part of a public contest where the public votes. The community gets what it selected. For whatever reason.
I decided that it was only fair to make my recommendations for this round only based on the lair, not on the body of work. But I did mention body of work. I'm not telling how I voted :) But I also discussed body of work in my comments.
Its harder at this later stage because we have almost come to know some of the contestants more personally it seems. I know their names better. I connect with them. I feel good when they do well or bad when they dont do as well as I hoped. We're all human. So it is probably easier in later rounds, rather than early ones, to look beyond this round's submission. I'm not saying that is right or wrong. I'm just discussing the phenomenon you pointed out.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
As an avid observer of the entries in this contest, I must say I'm noticing an interesting trend this round. Quite a few of the people voting have admitted to voting for a designer whose work they liked in previous rounds, but whose lair they were unimpressed by, or at least stated they like other lairs better. At a certain point, this causes the round to cease being about which of the Round 4 submissions were most worthy of advancement and more about a popularity contest or a desire to see a specific adventure proposal. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that the playing field has narrowed and the number of votes are more limited, I'm not entirely sure. Nor am I sure that is really keeping with the idea of having rounds at all, as it certainly does a disservice to those contestants who did superior work this round. Anyway, food for thought.
The contest, this year and last, has always been about "whose work do you like the best." Some people judge that one round at a time, essentially 'wiping the slate clean' each round. Some people judge that on "everything you've done so far." For them, each round is a new challenge and a new task to see if a person can keep up the level of work they've done before, raise it, or fall short.
If in a voter's mind, Contestant A did better than Contestant B in rounds 1, 2, and 3, but not as well in round 4, which should count the most? It's B if you only care about this round, and presumably it would be A if you are grading on total body of work. Also, all rounds don't necessarily count equally - if one particular entry struck you as being so completely off-the-wall great from ANY round, then everything else could go out the window.
For me, Kevin Carter wasn't a contestant I rated very highly in the first few rounds. I thought the spider hook was neat but not outstanding, I thought Malgana was lousy in round 2 and much improved but still not at the top of my list in round 3. This round, though, he hit a home run with 26 Paper Street. So much so, that I gave him one of two votes.
Joshua Blazej I loved in round 1, thought was right up near the top in rounds 2 and 3, but did one of the weakest entries this round, and that ended up costing him a vote from me.
Neil Spicer had head-of-the-class great entries in rounds 1 and 2 and a good but not great round 3. This round, I liked his entry a lot, but I liked one of the Hec entries just as well if not a little better, but Neil's overall body of work from before was better enough to tip me his way.
I just say all of this to illustrate that there are lots of reasons to vote for whomever, and nowhere in this contest is it suggested or mandated that we base our evaluation of contestants solely on a round-to-round basis, although that is absolutely a valid way to approach it.
At the end of the day, the contest is about writing an adventure, so your final vote should be for the PERSON you think has created the most interesting adventure proposal and who has, based on their body of work, the most evident potential to take that adventure idea and make it into an awesome adventure that you wanna buy and play.
Food for thought indeed.
|
Contributor
,
Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
That is an interesting observation. In my comments on the lairs I also presumed that the voters may do what it appears they are doing--taking the whole body of work into account. That's the great part of a public contest where the public votes. The community gets what it selected. For whatever reason.
I decided that it was only fair to make my recommendations for this round only based on the lair, not on the body of work. But I did mention body of work. I'm not telling how I voted :) But I also discussed body of work in my comments.
Its harder at this later stage because we have almost come to know some of the contestants more personally it seems. I know their names better. I connect with them. I feel good when they do well or bad when they dont do as well as I hoped. We're all human. So it is probably easier in later rounds, rather than early ones, to look beyond this round's submission. I'm not saying that is right or wrong. I'm just discussing the phenomenon you pointed out.
You're not telling here, maybe, but I thought it was pretty clear from your comments where your votes went. :-)
I can appreciate that there are several perspective on this as an issue. That's why in many respects it is an interesting trend. I agree with Clark that individuals generate a level of personal investment in a person and that person's work over time. It's hard not to vote for your favorite from a previous round in the same way it is hard not to cheer for a favorite sporting team, win or lose.
While I certainly agree with Jason that the quality of adventure proposal should be an overarching concern, part of the reason I think it may be a disservice to some of the contestants is that I'm coming at this issues from how someone would be eliminated in a sporting event contest. For instance, take tennis, just because Player A were to defeat Player B in Round 1, who is arguably better than Player C, doesn't mean if Player A loses to Player C in Round 2, Player A should still advance to round 3 despite being beaten.
Either way, it's not sort of thing that can't be taken out of a subjective contest with voting, as there is no way to verify an individuals reasons for voting from round to round. So even if the rules were to require someone to look at the contestants solely based on their submission for that round, there is no way enforce that mechanism. Clearly personal biases and favoritism will play a role in the ultimate result.
I just feel for any contestant who loses a round to another contestant whose submission that round was admittedly weaker. I'm not suggesting that the rules should be changed or that the contest is somehow less fair, as there is really nothing that can be done to prevent that particular scenario.
I felt compelled to vote for what I considered was the head-and-shoulders best entry from this round.
But my second vote was influenced by other factors as well, not just the quality of this rounds' submission.
Not saying who got my votes (though one should be pretty easy to figure out).
|
|
Either way, it's not sort of thing that can't be taken out of a subjective contest with voting, as there is no way to verify an individuals reasons for voting from round to round. So even if the rules were to require someone to look at the contestants solely based on their submission for that round, there is no way enforce that mechanism. Clearly personal biases and favoritism will play a role in the ultimate result.
Actually, it's quite easy to remove it as a factor in the contest: don't put people's names with their entries and don't link the entries together. Simple. Whether that's a good idea or not I'm not prepared to say, but it's extremely easy to solve the "popularity contest" "problem".
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Either way, it's not sort of thing that can't be taken out of a subjective contest with voting, as there is no way to verify an individuals reasons for voting from round to round. So even if the rules were to require someone to look at the contestants solely based on their submission for that round, there is no way enforce that mechanism. Clearly personal biases and favoritism will play a role in the ultimate result.Actually, it's quite easy to remove it as a factor in the contest: don't put people's names with their entries and don't link the entries together. Simple. Whether that's a good idea or not I'm not prepared to say, but it's extremely easy to solve the "popularity contest" "problem".
It's interesting because this same issue was brought up last year, and people suggested the same thing then - why not just make it a blind submission contest?
James or Erik or one of the Paizo types said something to the effect of: We want people to be interested in these contestants and their work. We feel like it will help build up a following for that person and help people be interested in buying their adventure or reading things they've written down the line, the same way they might buy something from an established author they like. Even though it might be fairer in a way to not attach names, it doesn't really meet the goal of the contest to build up a new RPG Superstar.
They encouraged all of us to become active on the boards, post a lot, get involved, be visible. And, of course, be awesome and design excellent stuff.
Essentially, it was about creating a new "brand" in the person of the new RPG Superstar (and, as it turned out, perhaps the other finalists as well, as we've all gotten to do various Paizo projects since then).
Now whether that's a good goal for the contest, to create a new game design "personality" - well, I dunno. I know I have particular authors that I really like, like say Carl Sargent or Bruce Cordell or Wolfgang Baur, to name a couple of my all-time faves, and if I happened to be browsing a website or an FLGS and saw their name I might go "Oooh, lemme have a look at THAT" on the basis of their name alone.
I suppose Paizo is looking to do something similar; they are creating a new brand, RPG Superstar, and using it to promote items. Look at the promos for Christine's winning adventure, or for the adventures Rob and I are writing for the Legacy of Fire AP (he did #24, I did #22). We've all done bits and pieces of other books, like the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and an upcoming Classic Monsters Revisited (I got to do shambling mounds!), and bestiary pieces or sections of other books - I did the crunchy half of the Osirion Companion. Boomer's "Third Riddle" PFS. There may be more I can't think of. On the promo pages for those books, you'll usually see a blurb about how the RPG Superstar people are involved.
Anyway, enough rambling. The point was Paizo has come out and said one of its goals in doing this contest is to rev up fan interest and to promote not just new products but new people. Whether any of us who have been in the contest get enough of a rep to quit our day jobs and do gaming full-time (not bloody likely), the contest is about people and product both. It's a weird synthesis, but just as American Idol is not just about singing but about producing a total personal package that is marketable, the same is true here.
I know, personally, that first I look at each round on it's own merits.
In round two, I found it very easy to pick my votes.
In round three, I was able to narrow it to five, and agonized over which one did not get my vote. It finally came down to looking at the judges comments, specifically Jason Buhlman's comments, as well as my prior takes on their earlier works to cast that final vote.
This round was pure agony. After a first read through, I was down to 5, with one a clear vote getter. After a second read, I was down to -- 5, with one a clear vote getter ::whimper:: I check the judges again, look at prior work, reread, and finally go with my gut on which one tickled me just that infintisimal bit more ... and I still want to get the other gents in!
So, while the body of a contestant's work will influence when I must break a tie, it does not influence my first choices, and I see a lot of folks making comments that lean toward that type of voting.
Just my opinion :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
This round was pure agony. After a first read through, I was down to 5, with one a clear vote getter. After a second read, I was down to -- 5, with one a clear vote getter ::whimper:: I check the judges again, look at prior work, reread, and finally go with my gut on which one tickled me just that infintisimal bit more ... and I still want to get the other gents in!
It pains me to hear comments like this! Honoured judges, how can you sit idly by while the voters are in agony! In order to make their choices easier, I hereby call for an immediate intra-round Villain Bake-Off and Fashion Show!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
I hereby call for an immediate intra-round Villain Bake-Off and Fashion Show!"Me support Villain Bake-Off. Always wanted to know what Gulga taste like."
I didn't mean ... *sputter* ... I meant ... We're not baking the villains!
Oh, well, forget it. If that's what the voters want ... First, we're going to need some really big ovens....
It pains me to hear comments like this! Honoured judges, how can you sit idly by while the voters are in agony! In order to make their choices easier, I hereby call for an immediate intra-round Villain Bake-Off and Fashion Show!
"Hmmmm...I know I can make a pretty mean mud-pie. Well...mostly mud, of course."
"But in terms of fashion, ummm...how can I say this...well, I've never found anything that doesn't make me look fat."
I'll vote for the person that describes a good way to bake Kardam. For the bake-off vote, that is.
"Oh, that's easy. First, we call down a meteor from the sky. And then, as long as Kardam's at ground-zero, I can assure you he'll turn out quite toasty!"
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
,
Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
I'll vote for the person that describes a good way to bake Kardam. For the bake-off vote, that is."Oh, that's easy. First, we call down a meteor from the sky. And then, as long as Kardam's at ground-zero, I can assure you he'll turn out quite toasty!"
One vote for Gulga Cench!
Dang! I keep voting for that, uh, guy.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2012
,
Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
I think you have to stick two stoppers in his eyes. Once the molten metal starts flowing inward, he kind of just broils himself.
Technically, I said person, and, technically, Bracht is a person. So, I'm switching my vote to Bracht.
I think you have to stick two stoppers in his eyes. Once the molten metal starts flowing inward, he kind of just broils himself.Technically, I said person, and, technically, Bracht is a person. So, I'm switching my vote to Bracht.
"Oh, come now. He's got a thousand grafts of second-hand body parts on him. Technically, that makes him an entire 'people' not a 'person'..." ;-D
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
"Oh, come now. He's got a thousand grafts of second-hand body parts on him. Technically, that makes him an entire 'people' not a 'person'..." ;-DI think you have to stick two stoppers in his eyes. Once the molten metal starts flowing inward, he kind of just broils himself.Technically, I said person, and, technically, Bracht is a person. So, I'm switching my vote to Bracht.
So he should vote for me twice. (And, by 'me', I mean 'Trevor').
I hereby call for an immediate intra-round Villain Bake-Off and Fashion Show!"Me support Villain Bake-Off. Always wanted to know what Gulga taste like."I didn't mean ... *sputter* ... I meant ... We're not baking the villains!
Oh, well, forget it. If that's what the voters want ... First, we're going to need some really big ovens....
::giggling:: I also immediately thought of various villains on the spit when you suggested the Villain Bake-Off <eg> Though a few would need to go into a stew, since they're mostly just bones left ... and with Gulga, it's defintely going to all be in the spices!
So he should vote for me twice. (And, by 'me', I mean 'Trevor').
"Trevor? Who the heck is Trevor? See? Bracht not only has a physical multiplicity going on, he's also suffering from split personalities. Clearly, not a 'person'...and besides, singling out a vote for someone based on their species is just...well, specist! We otyughs have been getting a bad rap for a long time now just because we're different from everyone who walks on two legs! So I must protest the assignment of a vote based on that criteria. Where's the ACLU when I need them?"
I am guessing that the rules for the last round will be basically "write a module proposal, maximum wordcount X".
Using material from previous rounds is probably allowed but not required. And relying too much to old stuff might not look good...
I doubt that it would be bad. After all, I started this thread because there were so many people saying that they wanted an adventure with villain ______. There's just been two people here who said that they were sick of these villains.
personally I would LOVE to see an adventure featuring Gulga or Bracht or the witchy-lich... but do not expect it from the next round... besides some of them (such as Gulga) I think would make a better villain for a whole Adventure Path, then for a single module.
my votes this round went to the lairs that I liked the best, with ties being broken by the body of work, not because I thought the people I voted for would produce an adventure with a villain I liked.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Actually, it's quite easy to remove it as a factor in the contest: don't put people's names with their entries and don't link the entries together. Simple. Whether that's a good idea or not I'm not prepared to say, but it's extremely easy to solve the "popularity contest" "problem".It's interesting because this same issue was brought up last year, and people suggested the same thing then - why not just make it a blind submission contest?
James or Erik or one of the Paizo types said something to the effect of: We want people to be interested in these contestants and their work. We feel like it will help build up a following for that person and help people be interested in buying their adventure or reading things they've written down the line, the same way they might buy something from an established author they like. Even though it might be fairer in a way to not attach names, it doesn't really meet the goal of the contest to build up a new RPG Superstar.
What he said. Including all the stuff I didn't quote.
It might be difficult to bake Kardam. Or is he self-baking?
I'll vote for the person that describes a good way to bake Kardam. For the bake-off vote, that is.
Just roll him a monster doob' and watch him get baked... :)
Even Hecataeus, Bracht, and Gulga Cench can be overdone.Only if you cook them first. Me would try eating them raw.
Mmm. Just thinking that make me hungry. More reason to have Villain Bake-Off bonus round.
Did someone mention eating?! I love eating! Things.. people.. places... you name it.. I'll eat it!
Last year, the adventures submitted did not force the Superstars to use their villain as a basis for their proposed adventure. Heck, Christine didn't even use the encounter she did for the fifth round in her sixth round adventure path. (And that encounter was AWESOME.)
So, if you're voting for a person because you want an adventure with that villain... well, you may not get that even if they win. So do you really want to make that a primary voting criteria?
Good point.
For my part, I've tried to keep the rounds separate, and have voted differently each round.
*edit*
At least the S M U R F avatar didn't follow me.
*edit #2*
Oops! Thought I was safe with the spaces.