Including background story with wonderous item


RPG Superstar™ 2010 General Discussion

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Is it inappropriate to include some background in the description of the item, like who was involved in the creation, why it was created, etc. This can add a lot of flavor, especially if it is a unique item with a unique history.

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

Nick Triplett wrote:
Is it inappropriate to include some background in the description of the item, like who was involved in the creation, why it was created, etc. This can add a lot of flavor, especially if it is a unique item with a unique history.

Neil summed it up pretty well here.

Long story short, put that fluff in when you're satisfied with the item's mechanics. Also if it's a 'unique' item it borders on the 'is it really a wondrous item' bit. for example, Necromancer Games own Tome of Artifacts has some fairly minor items, it's their unique nature and history that raises them to artifacts.

Not to discourage a backstory. I mean, something like "The garot garter has long been in favor of priestess of Calistra." is a throw away line that gives flavour.

This

Spoiler:
The underpants of anti-wedgie were first created before the fall of Azlant, by Alton Greensleves, A humble mage, he crafted these pants while ruefully lamenting his days as a student at the great Azlant academy. Having suffered one too many wedgies and swirlies at the hands of bullies and braggarts, this item was his defense and retribution.
is long winded gives too much information that's not relavent to the item, and eats up over a sixth of your word count.

(It's also bad prose most likely, but I admit I need an editor.)

Edit: No worries, my <redacted> isn't a garter or a set of stiff underwear.


Thank you for the tip. How many entry are you allowed I haven read the Offical rules yet. I only had time to read the FAQ.


You'd better read them. Its easy to miss something simple and get an auto-reject. Read Neil's advice too, really great stuff in there.

..and you only get one submission..btw

Good Luck!

-Dubs

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 aka Hydro

Mine isn't unique at all, but I still have a few lines of cultural context saying who uses them and why.

It really depends on your item- some thing are evocative in a way that needs no introduction. Others are much better with a fluff topping, I think (this includes a few of the Top 32 from previous years).

Dark Archive

Hydro wrote:

Mine isn't unique at all, but I still have a few lines of cultural context saying who uses them and why.

It really depends on your item- some thing are evocative in a way that needs no introduction. Others are much better with a fluff topping, I think (this includes a few of the Top 32 from previous years).

As a side note, I noticed in reviewing a lot of the previous years winners that "extra" lines of fluff seem to make Clark a little cranky.

Liberty's Edge

a little cranky? Surely you jest...I thought he was going to reach through his monitor and pull peoples hearts right out of their chests.


Matthew Morris wrote:


This
** spoiler omitted ** is long winded gives too much information that's not relavent to the item, and eats up over a sixth of your word count.

(It's also bad prose most likely, but I admit I need an editor.)

I happen to be a part time editor. Hm.

some light editing:
Alton Greensleeves, a humble mage, crafted the underpants of anti-wedgie before the fall of Azlant. He was a student at the great Academy of Azlant. While ruefully lamenting one too many wedgies and swirlies at the hands of bullies and boggarts, this inspired item became his defense and retribution.

Nope. Still not necessary to include backstory. Kinda gets in the way of the Kewl Factor.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 aka Hydro

He didn't seem to mind the fluff in The Master's Perfect Golden Bell. Indeed, he commended that one for its 'mojo'.

I think this is because that was a different kind of backstory- it doesn't try too hard to turn the item into a narrative (which it can't and shouldn't be in this context), it merely garnishes it. It leaves you with the image of a demon horde advancing on a stepped temple, where a kung-fu master with three feet of wispy beard responds by punching a huge bell. And that's something which adds to the core concept of the item, I think, rather than diluting it.

YMMV, of course, and (more importantly in this case) IANCP.

Dark Archive

Hydro wrote:

He didn't seem to mind the fluff in The Master's Perfect Golden Bell. Indeed, he commended that one for its 'mojo'.

I think this is because that was a different kind of backstory- it doesn't try too hard to turn the item into a narrative (which it can't and shouldn't be in this context), it merely garnishes it. It leaves you with the image of a demon horde advancing on a stepped temple, where a kung-fu master with three feet of wispy beard responds by punching a huge bell. And that's something which adds to the core concept of the item, I think, rather than diluting it.

YMMV, of course, and (more importantly in this case) IANCP.

It would be interesting to have him weigh in on why he didn't mind the backstory on that item. Maybe he liked the rest of the item enough to forget the backstory :)


That backstory is fairly minimal, and it's in italics below the item description. You get the wonder first, then the little extra.

Scarab Sages Marathon Voter Season 7

I take as my guide the entries in the rulebooks. Fluff is minimal or nonexistent. The goal is to craft a wondrous item, not show what a good storyteller you are. Furthermore, the best items are those, IMO, where the backstory is unimportant and they can be used in any setting or game world.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

It was easier to ignore that backstory as it came at the end in italics and wasn't woven into the descriptive text of the item itself. I didn't like it, but it wasnt the same problem. I dont have to rewrite the item. I just can delete that italics part.


As a GM, I ignore item's backstory because it has no bearing for what I am going to use it for :). My "opinion" is that if the item is useful and the description of what the item looks like and what it does is clear, you don't need backstory to make it good, your already using it for your needs. Backstory=fluff, fluff = campaign setting, and not in an items and equipment guide.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

Of course, if its a wondrous item it shouldn't have back story at all. So we shouldn't have to worry about ignoring the back story of a wondrous item since NO PUBLISHED WONDROUS ITEM has a back story. Which, of course, should lead any intelligent person hoping to be an RPG Superstar to conclude that their wondrous item submission should NOT include back story. Its not an artifact. It is not a unique item. No one cares about how "Dethlok the Deadly, famed alf-drow wizard/assassin, first made gloves of deathly darkness to slay his enemies" or whatever. No published wondrous item has that. Yours better not.


varianor wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:


This
** spoiler omitted ** is long winded gives too much information that's not relavent to the item, and eats up over a sixth of your word count.

(It's also bad prose most likely, but I admit I need an editor.)

I happen to be a part time editor. Hm.

** spoiler omitted **

Nope. Still not necessary to include backstory. Kinda gets in the way of the Kewl Factor.

Let me help you with modifier/participle problems:

While ruefully lamenting one too many wedgies and swirlies at the hands of bullies and boggarts, this inspired item became his defense and retribution.

As written, this means that the item was lamenting the wedgies and swirlies. You might rewrite to be sure subjects are clear:

While he was ruefully lamenting...this inspired item became....

Dark Archive

Clark Peterson wrote:
Of course, if its a wondrous item it shouldn't have back story at all. So we shouldn't have to worry about ignoring the back story of a wondrous item since NO PUBLISHED WONDROUS ITEM has a back story. Which, of course, should lead any intelligent person hoping to be an RPG Superstar to conclude that their wondrous item submission should NOT include back story. Its not an artifact. It is not a unique item. No one cares about how "Dethlok the Deadly, famed alf-drow wizard/assassin, first made gloves of deathly darkness to slay his enemies" or whatever. No published wondrous item has that. Yours better not.

Ouch... That sounds kind of scary!

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

Only scary if you included back story. Which you shouldn't have. Now, Sean appears to be more forgiving of this than me. And I will admit that, despite hating back story, I have kept items that have had it. Reluctantly.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

If I were a judge this year, which I'm not (I believe the 2009 Supers will be guest judges for round 1), if you are creating a Golarion-flavored item, I'd say it's okay to put in a sentence about a nation, culture, or religion commonly associated with an item (like the Triptych of Desna or whatever it was last year).

Anything more than that, though, and you're treading on very thin ice.

Dark Archive

Clark Peterson wrote:
Only scary if you included back story. Which you shouldn't have. Now, Sean appears to be more forgiving of this than me. And I will admit that, despite hating back story, I have kept items that have had it. Reluctantly.

There may have been 4 or 5 words that could be construed as backstory... Oh, well. I'll just have to wait and see.

Contributor

Clark Peterson wrote:
Only scary if you included back story. Which you shouldn't have. Now, Sean appears to be more forgiving of this than me. And I will admit that, despite hating back story, I have kept items that have had it. Reluctantly.

"And Clark's heart grew THREE sizes that day!"

;)

The Exchange

Draeke Raefel wrote:


There may have been 4 or 5 words that could be construed as backstory... Oh, well. I'll just have to wait and see.

Don't worry - you are not alone. I also think that a few flavoursome words can explain an item better than twice the dry technical words...

... and no fist has burst from my monitor to wrench my still-beating heart from my chest, so...

... and it can also show that you can do fluff as well as crunch.

:)

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 8 aka Anry

Glad I stayed away from the backstory then.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 aka Hydro

Clark Peterson wrote:
So we shouldn't have to worry about ignoring the back story of a wondrous item since NO PUBLISHED WONDROUS ITEM has a back story.

With all due respect, my rpg collection is pretty meager and it still disagrees with you. I know off the top of my head that Ghostwalk did this a lot, with specific weapons having been forged by specific faiths for various purposes. Similarly, I don't know if you would count it as "backstory", but the best line in that book might be the one in the entry for "bloodcandies" describing how necromancers mix them in with real candies and give them to children.

You can say that they weren't good, but you can't say that they weren't published.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

I don't mean third party publishers. Myself included. I mean official sources. Are you referring to something by either Wizards or Paizo (for Pathfinder)?

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 8 aka Anry

That was Wizards on the Ghostwalk, a semi-horror setting and rule set.

Sczarni

Anry wrote:
That was Wizards on the Ghostwalk, a semi-horror setting and rule set.

Here it is.. and written by Sean no less... maybe now we know why Sean is more forgiving than Clark on this subject..

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 8 aka Anry

I had a copy of the book. It was good. I actually tried to get a copy of that signed and watermarqued copy too but it ran out of stock before I could get my order in. *sighs*

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

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Clark Peterson wrote:
Only scary if you included back story. Which you shouldn't have. Now, Sean appears to be more forgiving of this than me. And I will admit that, despite hating back story, I have kept items that have had it. Reluctantly.

"And Clark's heart grew THREE sizes that day!"

;)

LOL!

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 aka Demiurge 1138

Sigh. That's what I get for succumbing to temptation and including one line about flavor. If there's a ton of backstoried entries this year that made it, then backstories are this year's Spell In A Can.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Sigh. That's what I get for succumbing to temptation and including one line about flavor. If there's a ton of backstoried entries this year that made it, then backstories are this year's Spell In A Can.

Stand fast, one line of flavor shouldn't kill you, if it's good flavor. Clark doesn't like it, true, but read your entry again and ask yourself if its background or just descriptive text.

It is wise not to get your hopes up too high, but don't count yourself out until the Judges do. Allow yourself the opportunity to be pleasantly surprised.

It takes a little hope and faith, as well as talent, to make it to the first round.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Clark Peterson wrote:
Only scary if you included back story. Which you shouldn't have. Now, Sean appears to be more forgiving of this than me. And I will admit that, despite hating back story, I have kept items that have had it. Reluctantly.

"And Clark's heart grew THREE sizes that day!"

;)

Heh, someone needs to make the grinch's sled!!! How many bags of holding does he have?

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Sigh. That's what I get for succumbing to temptation and including one line about flavor. If there's a ton of backstoried entries this year that made it, then backstories are this year's Spell In A Can.

Believe me, we're still getting PLENTY of spells in a can this year.


Isn't every wondrous item a Spell in a Can to some extent? ;)

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

varianor wrote:
Isn't every wondrous item a Spell in a Can to some extent? ;)

I think it depends. If your item's a can, you're halfway there! ;-)

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

Vic Wertz wrote:
Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Sigh. That's what I get for succumbing to temptation and including one line about flavor. If there's a ton of backstoried entries this year that made it, then backstories are this year's Spell In A Can.
Believe me, we're still getting PLENTY of spells in a can this year.

Hey, my wondrous item was essentially a spell in a can, and it worked out okay. A spell in a can is not an automatic kiss of death; it just puts you in a place where it has to be a GOOD spell in a can. All other things being equal, you might lose out in comparison to a similarly good item that wasn't a SIAC, so it may not be the best strategic choice, but a risky strategy can still work if you can pull it off.


I suppose my item could be classified as such (SIAC), but it's designed to work as a boon for the whole party, as opposed to only the user. It's simple (and I had second thoughts after I submitted it), but I didn't want to create something too complicated to where the rules would break down.


NSpicer wrote:
varianor wrote:
Isn't every wondrous item a Spell in a Can to some extent? ;)
I think it depends. If your item's a can, you're halfway there! ;-)

Honestly, if you look how wondrous magic items are made...from spells, they either mimic, imitate or do some function close to some type a spell. Even your enhancement stuff, even though you don't need a spell to create a +1 weapon, there is a few spells that can give the bonuses of a +1 weapon, magic fang to name one. So if your being "very" literal to everything people say on the boards, yes every wondrous magic item is a spell in a can, it was made by a spell, mimicks some function of a spell or is that a spell useable so often.

So what is a spell in a can..literally it's every wondrous item. What do the judges and other people mean when they refer to spell in a can?

Ring of invisibility
Boots of teleportation
Amulet of Death Ward

All these items are plain wondrous items that all they do is cast the spell that is in their name. Are they superstar material like items that are being presented here? Not really, all everyone is saying is to: Create an item that sparks with imagination, one that hasn't been done before, one that just doesn't cast a spell but is unique.

In closing, don't take everything to literal, and there is always an exception to any rule. Take the advice of the judges, the other contestants, and the past winners, but don't hang on every thread they say like it is the law, there is always exceptions and the trully wondrous items probably break a few rules.

/rant off

I apologize for the poor grammar, I typed this up right before I left for work :)


Thanks Dredan, that's stopped my obsessive worrying over whether my item is a SIAC by definition. :)


Perhaps we need a new spell just for this! I give you...

Spell in a Can
Universal
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1, Alchemist 1, Witch 1
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: touch
Target: one can
Duration: 1 day/level
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No

After casting this spell, you may transfer one of your uncast 1st-level spells into a can or other container as a free action. It loses any flavor (including evocative or descriptive names). You may later open the can and use the spell within as a move action. You may only have one spell in a can at a time.

Coming soon, the 0-level spell Can Label! ;)

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

If all your item does is impart a spell effect, its a spell in a can. Changing the spell or its application is the core of a great wondrous item. We've discussed this before.

For instance, take boots of speed. They don't just give you haste 1/day. That would be "spell in a can." They let your click your heels and use haste up to 10 rounds per day--you can split it up as needed up to 10 rounds per day. That makes the item more interesting and helps it avoid being just a spell in a can. Is that the world's sexiest or most ground-breaking mechanic? No. But that "on-off switch" component is an example of a way that the boots are not just a spell in a can. You can do something with those boots that you cant do with the spell.

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).

We've been over all this before. ;)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka MythrilDragon

varianor wrote:

Perhaps we need a new spell just for this! I give you...

Spell in a Can
Universal
Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 1, Alchemist 1, Witch 1
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: touch
Target: one can
Duration: 1 day/level
Saving Throw: See text
Spell Resistance: No

After casting this spell, you may transfer one of your uncast 1st-level spells into a can or other container as a free action. It loses any flavor (including evocative or descriptive names). You may later open the can and use the spell within as a move action. You may only have one spell in a can at a time.

Coming soon, the 0-level spell Can Label! ;)

Now we just need a +1 Can Opener of Spell Freeing that will allow the user to open can holding such a spell as a free action


Clark Peterson wrote:
We've been over all this before. ;)

Good thing about forums is....I bet we will go over it some more...and more....and more... heh

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 aka tejón

Dredan wrote:
Clark Peterson wrote:
We've been over all this before. ;)
Good thing about forums is....I bet we will go over it some more...and more....and more... heh

Yeah... there's just too much noise for the forum archives to be a good resource for newcomers. So the same questions will continue to be asked.

And even the stuff that everyone should be expected to read is sometimes a little conflicting. For instance, the very first comment made on boundary chalk was that it was technically a spell in a can. Yeah, fat kudos were given for the execution, but the buzzword was there and it stuck in my head as "this was borderline" (oops, pun). Going back and reading the comments again just now, I think I misinterpreted it... but the way the term is flung around definitely gave me some FUD.

On the upside, upon further review (and armed with Clark's latest comments) I'm far less worried that my own submission might be called a spell in a can. Or in fact, that any of my three alternates were. Seriously though, I was worried about all of them. A question that I've been holding back (on the presumption that my own judgement on the matter is part of the superstar criteria) is, "is it a spell in a can if the spell doesn't actually exist?" Like, the item produces a specific effect. That effect could just as well have been produced by a spell, it's just that nobody's made the spell. And we're not designing spells. This was genuinely eating at me!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 aka Hydro

Any item which took a standard (or other) action to activate would, in that case, be a "spell in a can". I don't think that's what they meant, though.

I think that many folks have used "spell in a can" to reference any effect which either closely follows a spell ("5d6 fire damage in a 30-foot radius") or references a spell ("as per the haste spell"), even if they change these effects in interesting ways. Lexicon is a fickle beast.

Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9

Hydro wrote:

Any item which took a standard (or other) action to activate would, in that case, be a "spell in a can". I don't think that's what they meant, though.

I think that many folks have used "spell in a can" to reference any effect which either closely follows a spell ("5d6 fire damage in a 30-foot radius") or references a spell ("as per the haste spell"), even if they change these effects in interesting ways. Lexicon is a fickle beast.

Spell in can implies a lack of originality, which only matters in a writing/design contest (most potions are spell in a can, but are a staple to the genre). Altering a spell significantly can show some inventiveness beyond a fireball tossing fighter.

I do agree that Lexicon is a fickle beast. :)

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

Curaigh wrote:

Spell in can implies a lack of originality, which only matters in a writing/design contest (most potions are spell in a can, but are a staple to the genre). Altering a spell significantly can show some inventiveness beyond a fireball tossing fighter.

I do agree that Lexicon is a fickle beast. :)

Just had an image of a potion of mass cure wounds that you shake up like a soda bottle and pop the top, everyone gets sprayed for 1d8+5 points of carbonated healing.


I don't think "carbonated healing" is a proper rules term ^_^


Carbolic healing then? ;)

1 to 50 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / RPG Superstar™ / Previous Contests / RPG Superstar™ 2010 / General Discussion / Including background story with wonderous item All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.