I am not a judge in RPG Superstar and for the sake of these boards, I am just a casual observer. That said:
The advice I give my submitters for the Pathfinder Society Open Call is the following: I can teach you the rules of the game--I can't teach you to write.
So, yes, sometimes mechanically poor items that are just freakin' cool ideas are going to get by. As a developer, I'd much rather receive a really well-written, interesting adventure with mechanical flaws than receive one that's flawless mechanically but as interesting as watching mold grow.
That said (again), for the sake of RPG Superstar, I think everyone should strive to be both unique and interesting as well as mechanically sound. The folks who manage to do both every single time (I think I might know 5 of them) get the lion's share of the freelance work.
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I don't think you're going to get any more direct input from the Powers That Be than you already have, but I'll offer some humble feedback if you like.
I think the idea, as you describe it, should be replaced with a more action oriented item. I see that you are just giving an example of how a wondrous item might find its way into a game (the party needing it for an adventure), but in my opinion that doesn't wow anyone. As a guy who LOVES to run three-year campaigns, and LOVES to play epic-bad-mofo characters, I read every part of every supplement I can get my hands on. I even read Medicare supplements, but I have to.
But when I go looking for magic items, I am not moved by plot devices or by items I can give my villains. My villains are built like PCs, anyway. But my eyes only water when I think of my most beloved characters, and how they could break a game open with THIS.
And by break, I just mean what it would look like with a character built around it and integrating it. I don't mean a belt-of-strength-of-the-arch-magi. Though now I want one.
Anyhoo...be sure also to examine Clark's prior threads for how to not get your item canned and a wish for malaria placed on your person. Included in that would be tongues in a can, just as an example.
Think of it like the auditions for American Idol. I don't care if you sing Mary Had A Little Lamb with 100% perfection. You're gonna get beat by Bohemian Rhapsody sung at 90% perfection. It's not just that BR is "cooler," its that its harder and shows greater range and chops and skill. ...
Wow speaking of Gonzo:. :)
... it is hard to explain my meaning without revealing anything about the idea I have in mind, but here goes:
lets say there is an item that is very useful when ...
I can hardly speak for what wins and doesn't but if your magic item fills this narrow of a niche, I would try something else.
...Included in that would be tongues in a can, just as an example.
Wait a minute...tongues in a can?! What a great, gonzo wondrous item idea! I assume by placing one in your mouth it lets you speak a different language for each tongue? ;-D
The judges have already started discussing the items we've received so far, and I don't think it's fair for me to offer more advice now than I already have (as people who've already submitted their item can't benefit from that advice), so at this point I'm going to direct you to Neil's first post in this thread, which has excellent advice, was posted before this year's R1 began, and was therefore available to everyone interested in participating.
I will say that there are some VERY clear flags and pitfalls mentioned in Neil's post, we've rejected at least one entry based on criteria Neil mentioned, and I don't doubt that people will continue to submit items that we'll end up rejecting for very similar reasons. When last year's winner writes 2000 words of advice about how to improve your chances of winning, you should listen to him.
...When last year's winner writes 2000 words of advice about how to improve your chances of winning, you should listen to him.
My apologies for going over word count...again. ;-)
For once, I actually wasn't complaining about an overly-long word count. ;)
The judges have already started discussing the items we've received so far, and I don't think it's fair for me to offer more advice now than I already have (as people who've already submitted their item can't benefit from that advice), so at this point I'm going to direct you to Neil's first post in this thread, which has excellent advice, was posted before this year's R1 began, and was therefore available to everyone interested in participating.
I will say that there are some VERY clear flags and pitfalls mentioned in Neil's post, we've rejected at least one entry based on criteria Neil mentioned, and I don't doubt that people will continue to submit items that we'll end up rejecting for very similar reasons. When last year's winner writes 2000 words of advice about how to improve your chances of winning, you should listen to him.
Good point, Sean. At this point, we are just saying stuff we've said many times before. People either have already heard it or haven't been listening.
|
Well, I know I tend to be overly critical of my own work, so sitting on something tends to be detrimental in that sometimes I scrap an awesome idea because I end up thinking the worst of it. Even now I'm incredibly nervous about my entry, but in the end all one can do is try their best and send it in. I look forward to finding out who made it next month, and definitely best of luck to those that do!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
... I've said it before: spark and mojo matter to me. Why? Because ultimately, so long as competent design chops are presented, its the people with the spark and mojo that go far in the competition.Which is where I say: "Exactly: What the judges are most interested in in Round 1 is IS YOUR ITEM COOL?!?!? Even Clark has come out and said it."
I think we may be at a slight variance here on the precise definition/usage of the word 'cool'. :)
Actually... what the judges are most interested in is, IS YOUR DESIGNER COOL? The item is just the first piece of evidence they have to work with in making that evaluation, but being experienced hands in the biz they can tell a lot about what a person does and how they do it in terms of design even from just that. True, they'll know a lot more after a few rounds of the contest, but you don't get a few rounds to sell yourself. You gotta get grab their attention during the screening process if you wanna get called back for an interview.
Hey, it's like in the oft-used American Idol comparison, when Randy, Simon, and Paula (Kara now) roll into a city, they are NOT listening to all 17,000 people who show up at the auditorium. Do the math - they're only in the city for two days! You darn well better do something to impress the production assistants (with either your singing ability or your completely looniness) if you want to get your shot in front of the Big Three, and you darn well better do something to impress THEM if you want to have a shot at getting into the public vote part of the competition.
Well said Clark, Shawn, et al,...
(And Neil, it's ALWAYS a pleasure to read your writing! ALL of it,... ) ;P
Thank you all for the advice, and good luck to everyone who enters this year! And, if I may offer one, small, humble (yeah, right!) suggestion to follow the golden words of wisdom above,...
HAVE FUN!!! :)
(Because, really, if writing/designing isn't your idea of fun, then WHY are you trying to win a contest where the grand prize is WORK?!?) ;P
But mostly, because if YOU had fun writing/creating it, then I'll most likely have fun reading/using it! (See? It's a win-win for everyone!) ;)
Good luck guys and gals!
:D
~Rags
Actually... what the judges are most interested in is, IS YOUR DESIGNER COOL? Right now they have teams of thousands of PI's going contestants' garbage, and hundreds of computer hackers going through your online data, whether it's on your computer or someone else's. Heck over there in the UK, they have even tapped into the CCTV network and watch you everywhere that you go in public, and everything that you do... Spy satellites should be the least of your worries...
Actually... what the judges are most interested in is, IS YOUR DESIGNER COOL? The item is just the first piece of evidence they have to work with in making that evaluation...
I'd like to reiterate the point Jason has made. The judges aren't just evaluating your item. They're evaluating you...much like the voting public will be doing, too. Your work products from round-to-round certainly help them in that regard. But the bottom line is that they're looking for the next RPG Superstar, not the best 32 magic items for a new sourcebook. So, keep that in mind as you work on your submissions (in every round), and in how you present yourself on the boards via your interaction with everyone and the kinds of questions or comments you make.
Actually... what the judges are most interested in is, IS YOUR DESIGNER COOL? The item is just the first piece of evidence they have to work with in making that evaluation...I'd like to reiterate the point Jason has made. The judges aren't just evaluating your item. They're evaluating you...much like the voting public will be doing, too. Your work products from round-to-round certainly help them in that regard. But the bottom line is that they're looking for the next RPG Superstar, not the best 32 magic items for a new sourcebook. So, keep that in mind as you work on your submissions (in every round), and in how you present yourself on the boards via your interaction with everyone and the kinds of questions or comments you make.
Neil, that is true OVER TIME as the competition goes on. But its not true in the first round for the wondrous item. I can't make any judgment about the person who submitted the item in the first round. All I see is the item, I dont even know who submitted it. I don't know if they are a lifelong gamer or a 15 year old. And I presume nothing. I also make no judgment about the person based on the item. If its questionable, that just means the person swung and missed. There's no shame in that. Heck, every great designer has done that many times. A great item doesnt tell me the person who made it is great, nor does one that I think (subjectively) isn't great means that the person who submitted it is somehow bad. I just can't make that inference. About the only thing I can say about a person from reviewing their item is whether or not they can follow instructions :) If I get four sentences of background story text or an artifact or a potion, I pretty much know that person had trouble following instructions. But that's about. I still can't say anything about them as a person.
Now, once you make the cut, you and your creations in subsequent rounds do come to be judged. But that's more by the voting public than by the judges and that is an element of any public competition that is subject to voting.
Clark,
I think it's that fine line between how you always say, "I'm critiquing the item and not you as a person..." when giving feedback.
...which is, of course, true. (And I'm not asserting anything different.)
And, also the part where you look past just the item to take into account the execution and creativity of how the item was designed and, as a result, the potential of the designer. I very much believe both those things get taken into account, whether consciously or subconsciously.
But I'm also not a judge. So I'm really speaking out of turn here. Mostly, I just agree with Jason's assertion that a judge evaluates more than just the COOL factor of a wondrous item submission, and also looks at the potential COOL factor of the design (both creativity and mechanics) that went into it, as it relates to the designer, in order to select them for Top 32.
Clearly, I used the term "you" rather than "designer"...as in, the designer behind an item's design, as subjectively discerned by the judges when examining a wondrous item submission.
But that's just my two-cents (rightly or wrongly),
--Neil
This is great advice, Neil. Thank you for posting it.
I still need to do some more research, but I'm really eager to post an entry.
Clark,
I think it's that fine line between how you always say, "I'm critiquing the item and not you as a person..." when giving feedback.
...which is, of course, true. (And I'm not asserting anything different.)
And, also the part where you look past just the item to take into account the execution and creativity of how the item was designed and, as a result, the potential of the designer. I very much believe both those things get taken into account, whether consciously or subconsciously.
But I'm also not a judge. So I'm really speaking out of turn here. Mostly, I just agree with Jason's assertion that a judge evaluates more than just the COOL factor of a wondrous item submission, and also looks at the potential COOL factor of the design (both creativity and mechanics) that went into it, as it relates to the designer, in order to select them for Top 32.
Clearly, I used the term "you" rather than "designer"...as in, the designer behind an item's design, as subjectively discerned by the judges when examining a wondrous item submission.
But that's just my two-cents (rightly or wrongly),
--Neil
I guess that is true to an extent. You certainly hope to see in an item some potential in the author. Particularly me, since I look for some mojo and spark in the item. That gets me excited to see what the person might do in the next round. To the extent that is more than just the item, that is correct. But even that isn't remotely close to being able to judge the person or their personality or who they are. I said that stuff for two reasons: (1) to rebut Charles and his fear that somehow we "didnt like his personality" and that might be holding him back, which is just impossible, and (2) to make sure people know any criticism or feedback they get from us is about their item, not them.
I said that stuff for two reasons: (1) to rebut Charles and his fear that somehow we "didnt like his personality" and that might be holding him back, which is just impossible, and (2) to make sure people know any criticism or feedback they get from us is about their item, not them.
Absolutely agree. And I completely understand wanting to set those two points straight. My apologies for confusing things with a poorly worded statement.
Neil, I just hope everyone listens to you ;)
Neil, I just hope everyone listens to you ;)
LOL! Yeah...can you tell my wife and children that? ;-)
Thanks for all the advice Neil (and Clark, in your item-critique threads).
Anyone care to venture an opinion on when a wondrous item has become an artifact?
I mean, obviously the flavour distinction is that one can be created while the other can't, but in power terms it's a little vague.
My rule-of-thumb is that if it's significantly more expensive than anything on the list, absolutely has to be a unique item, or is significantly more powerful than the top rank of items, it's probably better as an artifact.
Anyone have a different opinion?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
I already said this in another thread, but my advice is not to try to enter something that wins, but to enter something that "feels" like you. Everyone has a style and a tone to their writing, so be sure to show that through your entries. Remember that this contest is done through public voting, and everyone plays Role Playing Games differently. Not everyone is going to like your entries, sometimes not even all the judges, so just make sure that you like it and you would want it in your game.
-M.W. Stinson
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8
|
I already said this in another thread, but my advice is not to try to enter something that wins, but to enter something that "feels" like you. Everyone has a style and a tone to their writing, so be sure to show that through your entries. Remember that this contest is done through public voting, and everyone plays Role Playing Games differently. Not everyone is going to like your entries, sometimes not even all the judges, so just make sure that you like it and you would want it in your game.
-M.W. Stinson
I tried to enter something that felt me up, but the judges just took out a restraining order. Perhaps this is sign that next year I need to enter my magic item Orders of Restraint?
Anyone care to venture an opinion on when a wondrous item has become an artifact?
I mean, obviously the flavour distinction is that one can be created while the other can't, but in power terms it's a little vague.
My rule-of-thumb is that if it's significantly more expensive than anything on the list, absolutely has to be a unique item, or is significantly more powerful than the top rank of items, it's probably better as an artifact.
I think you've got most of it nailed right there. You might also consider whether or not you can imagine (or could cope with) your entire party having one of the item in question.
I think you've got most of it nailed right there. You might also consider whether or not you can imagine (or could cope with) your entire party having one of the item in question.
Ngggggh! Wow, that *is* useful to think of. I ... think I could handle it, but that's a really useful perspective to check from. Thanks!
...
Anyone care to venture an opinion on when a wondrous item has become an artifact?
...Anyone have a different opinion?
Not a different opinion, but a different test. An artifact can change the world. A wondrous item can change the character, (or encounter or an adventure). When an artifact is used, everyone will know it soon.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Not a different opinion, but a different test. An artifact can change the world. A wondrous item can change the character, (or encounter or an adventure). When an artifact is used, everyone will know it soon....
Anyone care to venture an opinion on when a wondrous item has become an artifact?
...Anyone have a different opinion?
I don't know if I'd necessary buy that reasoning, if only because of the existence of minor artifacts like the hammer of thunderbolts or staff of the magi - sure, they're powerful items, maybe even gamebreaking for an adventuring party, but it'd be a stretch to call them world-altering in the way that the Machine of Lum the Mad would be.
Greetings,
I had posted this question in the "Welcome to RPG Superstar 2010" that Neil started, but this thread seems to get some official nods as well, and my question definitely needs an official answer.
In working on my item, I have hit a sort of writer's block. I am sure I can get through it, but I have a question...
Would referencing or mentioning a Paizo/Pathfinder product be grounds for getting DQ'd? I'll explain by way of an example.
"For additional information on X please see Y."
I might have worded it a little differently in the "Welcome" thread.
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Regards,
Dean; the Minstrel Wyrm
EDIT: Looking at the FAQ I think I have my answer, but I'd still like a little clarification. (Mostly for that 'sample' sentence. Would that be allowed?)
Thanks again.
The FAQ and the R1 rules answer your question.
I don't know if I'd necessary buy that reasoning, if only because of the existence of minor artifacts like the hammer of thunderbolts or staff of the magi - sure, they're powerful items, maybe even gamebreaking for an adventuring party, but it'd be a stretch to call them world-altering in the way that the Machine of Lum the Mad would be.Not a different opinion, but a different test. An artifact can change the world. A wondrous item can change the character, (or encounter or an adventure). When an artifact is used, everyone will know it soon....
Anyone care to venture an opinion on when a wondrous item has become an artifact?
...Anyone have a different opinion?
I can see that (concede that?). PF RPG says entire campaigns can be made from an artifact (finding, protecting, defeating, destroying). So even a Hammer of Thunderbolt's discovery by a despotic warlord could lead to world turmoil spanning several different adventures. I do not think a +3 warhammer would do the same (though the warlord as a villain could. :) That is a later round.
...maybe :).
The FAQ and the R1 rules answer your question.
Thanks Sean, I kinda thought I'd be okay, I just wanted to be sure.
A grateful Minstrel Wyrm. :)
|
Thanks for all the advice Neil (and Clark, in your item-critique threads).
Anyone care to venture an opinion on when a wondrous item has become an artifact?
I mean, obviously the flavour distinction is that one can be created while the other can't, but in power terms it's a little vague.
My rule-of-thumb is that if it's significantly more expensive than anything on the list, absolutely has to be a unique item, or is significantly more powerful than the top rank of items, it's probably better as an artifact.
Anyone have a different opinion?
Yes - I do. I agree with what you write - but this would only cover the majority of artefacts. Some could be quite different.
For me an artifact could be relative weak or/and even pretty useless for any adventurer. I generated one recently - a kobold specific unique artefact - granted to a baby kobold sorcerer whom Lamasthu regards to have great potential. As such it has to be an artefact as it's supposed to be unique and it's granted from a god.
If you want to know - actually it's a teddy bear. The idea was spawned by a miniature I have for a very young kobold with the item in one of his hands.
It does grant it's owner a few minor benefits - but most powers actually only kick in if you take it away (not recommended) or worse - try to destroy it (really not recommended).
Could you generate a wondrous item with similar powers. Sure - it's parts (minor) spells in a can, part wondrous item, parts cursed (for people not supposed to own it).
The main reason why this is an artefact for me are the following:
It's a flavour/background based item
The cost to benefit ratio is just ridiculous
It's an item for an adventure hook
This item would be ripped apart by the judges (rightly so) if I would submit it here. Well - for this I have a different idea. Still have to hit the submit button - but it should be in the final stages (version 8 I think).
I hope this helps for an alternative view. Not everything is 'power' and 'usefullness'. Gods don't care as much as mortals about cost or benefit - they sometimes just like to play.
Thod
Not everything is 'power' and 'usefullness'. Gods don't care as much as mortals about cost or benefit - they sometimes just like to play.
That makes sense, but sometimes artifacts are created by mortals or other creatures, and sometimes gods bestow non-artifact items onto mortals.
The defining distinction seems to be how easy the item is to tamper with or destroy. Artifacts, by default, are indestructible by normal means, and there are a lot of spells and effects which specifically don't work on artifacts.
Uhhh, I think it's safe to assume that that's not a teddy bear if it comes from Lamashtu; it's a miniaturised Shemhazian demon. (See Pathfinder #5.)
;)
And people panned my Toy Golem idea from RPG Superstar 2007. Eesh. ;)
...Included in that would be tongues in a can, just as an example.Wait a minute...tongues in a can?! What a great, gonzo wondrous item idea! I assume by placing one in your mouth it lets you speak a different language for each tongue? ;-D
No, no, you open the can and giant tongues shoot out and grapple people. It's favored by clerics of Calistria, for some reason...
|
|
Not everything is 'power' and 'usefullness'. Gods don't care as much as mortals about cost or benefit - they sometimes just like to play.That makes sense, but sometimes artifacts are created by mortals or other creatures, and sometimes gods bestow non-artifact items onto mortals.
The defining distinction seems to be how easy the item is to tamper with or destroy. Artifacts, by default, are indestructible by normal means, and there are a lot of spells and effects which specifically don't work on artifacts.
I agree - destroying an artifact can be a huge issue. And indeed this is a main reason that makes the item different from a knock-off done by a sorcerer or wizard.
Not sure you could easily mimic the self-repair / searching out the truthful owner with a wondrous item.
But my main point was - an artefact doesn't have to grant huge powers. Most of them do - but it isn't a pre-requisit for an artefact in my view.
Thod
No, no, you open the can and giant tongues shoot out and grapple people. It's favored by clerics of Calistria, for some reason...
That...just might work. Hmmm...
::scribbles down some notes::
|
|
And for those americans unable to attend our UK event because of financial hardship or lack of inclination to travel overseas, I believe Paizo has a small gathering planned in Seattle for a month or so earlier...
Watch the forums and check the blogs for announcements from Paizo regarding the Seattle event.
Okay, that's something to think about whilst you fret waiting to discover if your item made it in or not... :D
Okay - this means I need to start planning what to do with the kids. One day/night I can organize a sleepover - a full weekend ...
Maybe the grandparents are willing to come over from Germany to look after them.
I really want to come to the CON this time - and would love to bring my wife with me.
Thod
I would do exactly that.
Or even base it of more than one spell, whose combined effects somewhat synergize to get what i want.
If Neil and the judges and other wise folk are still following this thread, I'd appreciate your opinions on a challenge I'm facing with my wondrous item design.
My difficulty is that no spell in the Pathfinder RPG duplicates, or even approximates, the function that I want my item to provide. There are a couple of psionic powers that are close, but psionics aren't part of Pathfinder yet, and I prefer an arcane flavor for the item anyway. There is one spell in WotC's Spell Compendium that is fairly close to what the item does, but as a non-Pathfinder book, that source is off-limits for purposes of the competition.
Since there's such a gap in the spell list available to work with, I'm tempted to just go with /wish/ or /limited wish/ as the basis for the item. But I really don't like that option; it's too bland. The other option is to base the item on the spell that is nearest to the item's function, even though it would be somewhat of a stretch.
This all makes it sound like my item has some kind of super-funky effect that doesn't fit well within the D&D rules. But I think it's actually a pretty obvious thing for the game to include. And as I mentioned, there is one good spell that would be a solid base for the item's magic. It's just in an off-limits source.
I'd be glad to hear people's thoughts on this problem. I think that unless I'm persuaded otherwise, I'll go for option 2 and base the item on a spell that best fits the flavor and power level of the item, even if the spell's effect isn't a close fit.
I'd of course NOT reference any psionic material. I don't want to sound condescending, but you want to not to do that just because 'you prefer the arcane flavor', but because it would be a rule violation that would get you disqualified. Again, not being snarky, just double-checking you understand that your item has to be based upon the core rules and nothing else. Psionics would be outside of that.
This is a tough one. I think you're going to have to comb through the spell lists very carefully and look for the closest matches you can. Strictly speaking, the base spells do not have to be a perfect correlation to the item..
(..and doing so often leads to 'Spell-in-a-can' items...)
...but I think the Judges have to be able to look at what spells you've chosen and be able to seem something of your internal logic. Again, not a perfect correlation, but something that at least suggests that there is a thought process in place and not spells chosen at random.
I wish you good luck! Original and creative ideas are well received if you can pull it off!
Or even base it of more than one spell, whose combined effects somewhat synergize to get what i want.
Agreed,
Also skim through the Magic item compendium and look what they do with items that have effects that don't resemble Spells directly.
1 example:
bonus on Saves against negative Energy ( inflict) and death effects?
death ward !
(Crystal of Lifekeeping, fist i found)
Ok. that was pretty close to the spell in question, lets take another example.
Torc of Heroic Sacrifice
[non OGl] somethink about taking someone else's damage ..
Spell: Greater Heroism.
I think shield other would have been more appropiate, but as aou see sometimes you can simply take a spell that is only thematically appropiate.
Thanks Azmahel. I'm taking your advice and going with a pair of spells that, in combination, kinda sorta might do what I want the item to do. I like that option much better than the cop-out of using /wish/. Also, I don't think this item should require a 9th level spell to create.
Thanks for providing a sanity check, guys. :-)
The non-compliant spell might help you with the pricing. I would check the math using it and the combo spells. If nothing else than to give you a different perspective that you can compare to existing items. That IMHO is part of the magic.
Thanks for all the advice Neil (and Clark, in your item-critique threads).
Anyone care to venture an opinion on when a wondrous item has become an artifact?
I mean, obviously the flavour distinction is that one can be created while the other can't, but in power terms it's a little vague.
My rule-of-thumb is that if it's significantly more expensive than anything on the list, absolutely has to be a unique item, or is significantly more powerful than the top rank of items, it's probably better as an artifact.
Anyone have a different opinion?
In another thread in this forum, it was simply stated by Clark, which is a good quote for your question here.
Granted, many wondrous items are pretty close to spells in a can, but those items come from the very early inception of the game or are fantasy staples that simply must exist in a game world. So not every wondrous item is the best example of what a superstar wondrous item delivers. As we have said, simply making a wondrous item that would make the cut for the open call for a book of wondrous items isn't enough. We are looking for superstar here. You guys know that.
Plus, a wondrous item is a great place to break the rules in a limited way (though not alter core class features, as that is usually artifact territory).
Finally, a few magic items are of such rarity and power that they are considered to belong to a category of their own—
artifacts. Artifacts are classified in turn as minor (extremely rare but not one-of-a-kind items) or major (each one unique and incredibly potent).Didn't know the rulebook could talk did ya =)
Another thing, just because it is extremely expensive doesn't mean it is an artifact. It could be just epic, but I am not going to touch that subject with a 10' pole! You could have a spell-in-can go way over 200k gp. It still isn't an artifact, it is that the effect is stupidly expensive if you make it continuous.
If Neil and the judges and other wise folk are still following this thread, I'd appreciate your opinions on a challenge I'm facing with my wondrous item design.
At this point in the game, David, it's important to apply your own Superstar-caliber talent and navigate those waters as best you can. Really, we've already shared about all the advice we can for Round One. And, there's plenty of others offering their opinions...many of which I agree with...but again, find your own way now. An RPG Superstar will need to display that kind of capability to win over the judges and voters anyway. So, might as well start now.
And best of luck,
--Neil