No. ALL items submitted are property of Paizo.
Are contestants free to do whatever they wish with items which were rejected? I suspect we will be seeing quite a lot of that phrase 'good enough for an item book but NOT for Superstar' or variations thereof in the next few days.
So may I submit a rejected item to an item book (or other publication) should such an opportunity arise, or do I have to file off the serial numbers and rename it a 'helm-spear of troll-laughing' first?
Yep all intellectual property once you hit submit is now property of Paizo.
I mean Paizo has already rejected the item, they've decided it's not good enough for their publication
No. The judges have said multiple times in the "rejects" threads things like "This item would make it into a magic item book, but it isn't one of the top 32 from this year".
Marathon Voter Season 7
|
The rules of the contests are quite forthright in saying the items belong to Paizo once submitted. They are not OGC unless Paizo agrees to make them so but once submitted only Paizo can agree to do that.
Writing them is probably good advice but there is another piece of advice I would offer to those in this thread. Whatever they do or do not agree to; whatever it is you are aksing of them: don't do it publically like this. Its probably going to be considered bad form and make your request less likely to be recieved sympathetically.
Creative Director
|
For a lot of reasons, ranging from legal to logistics to simple questions of resource management, the rules are what they are for a reason. Contests are complicated things, with lots of legal issues and stuff that I don't fully understand the implications or interactions of. And furthermore, I'm not really interested in setting a precedent that every single item has a "second chance at glory" by micromanaging the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of entries, making individual decisions on them on a case by case basis, and generally expending energy going backwards rather than forwards to the logical culmination of the contest.
The only way we're able to really efficiently pull off something like RPG Superstar, in other words, is because we stick to the rules. Bending them and building in variants and tweaks could bring the whole thing crumbling down on our heads. Or maybe not. But I don't want to try.
The only way we're able to really efficiently pull off something like RPG Superstar, in other words, is because we stick to the rules. Bending them and building in variants and tweaks could bring the whole thing crumbling down on our heads. Or maybe not. But I don't want to try.
In the event that it was decided that an RPG Superstar entry (top 32 or not) was at least decent enough to get into a magic items book with just a bit of tweaking, we'd at least get a 6-point mention in the "Paizo would like to thank:" section, right? Heck, I'd be happy with 5.9 point font. :)
|
Creative Director
|
The only way we're able to really efficiently pull off something like RPG Superstar, in other words, is because we stick to the rules. Bending them and building in variants and tweaks could bring the whole thing crumbling down on our heads. Or maybe not. But I don't want to try.In the event that it was decided that an RPG Superstar entry (top 32 or not) was at least decent enough to get into a magic items book with just a bit of tweaking, we'd at least get a 6-point mention in the "Paizo would like to thank:" section, right? Heck, I'd be happy with 5.9 point font. :)
I suspect so. I also suspect we'd pay the person for their work.
But if, 3 years from now, someone else invents an item that's similar and no one here remembers that it's similar to one of the hundreds and hundreds of items that didn't make it into to the top 32, we wouldn't. In that case, where it's an honest mistake and/or parallel design (which happens ALL the time), we're covered legally. We're also technically covered legally if we just want to steal someone's idea and print it without mentioning the original author. That's not something we'd do, but that's not because of legality; it's because the people who work at Paizo aren't jerks. But even people who aren't jerks have to have rules.
I suspect that when they say "this item would make it into a magic book, but . . ." that's just their way of easing the sting of rejection.
Really? I've always taken them at their word on that one. There's a big difference between an item that's conceptually and technically sound but not quite Superstar, and an item that is none of the above. Superstar is about finding new headline talent, but there's a lot of skill and knowledge required to be employable in the field even with lesser billing.
If you are told your work is good enough to see print, don't take it as a backhanded compliment. It really does mean something.
Which is all well and good if they're actively looking through these items for material to publish, but I suspect that when they say "this item would make it into a magic book, but . . ." that's just their way of easing the sting of rejection.
Please don't put words in the judges' mouths. Remember that the initial reviews (pre-Top 32) are just among the judges. We don't pull punches there. Some submissions are garbage, and we say so--to each other. Some are good enough to be in an item collection, but not Superstar, and we say so--to each other. We don't have time to sugar-coat what we say, not when nobody's going to see it (Clark and I have chosen to repost feedback if asked, but we have no way of knowing beforehand who's going to request it).
So when I, Clark, or Wes say "this isn't quite good enough for RPG Superstar, but it would have been a fine submission to a collection of wondrous items," please accept that we are being honest with each other.
That doesn't mean I want to sift through hundreds of rejected items to save those with potential just in case I need an item to fill in some blank space in an existing book. I'm perfectly capable of writing a SIAC item for that purpose, and doing so faster than it would for me to search through the Rejected pile, develop it, and note the author's name in the credits.
{I didn't think that I had Mr Reynolds but sorry if I offended.}
I wasn't offended, just clarifying. :)
{But this is my point. Just because it's good enough to see print doesn't mean that it ever will. Items that don't make the top 32 are probably DoA no matter how thin that "not quite good enough" qualifier is.}
True. But there's nothing stopping an author from taking what they submitted, changing a few things around until it's "new," and publishing it somewhere else. As James said, the "all RPG Superstar submissions belong to Paizo" rule is to protect Paizo from potential lawsuits, not be jerks to authors. We're happy with our close relationship with the fan community, and suing a fan author over the meticulous bracer of cure light wounds 3x/day (which looks a lot like the meticulous bracer of aid 3x/day, by the same author) doesn't benefit anyone.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Which is all well and good if they're actively looking through these items for material to publish, but I suspect that when they say "this item would make it into a magic book, but . . ." that's just their way of easing the sting of rejection.Please don't put words in the judges' mouths. Remember that the initial reviews (pre-Top 32) are just among the judges. We don't pull punches there. Some submissions are garbage, and we say so--to each other. Some are good enough to be in an item collection, but not Superstar, and we say so--to each other. We don't have time to sugar-coat what we say, not when nobody's going to see it (Clark and I have chosen to repost feedback if asked, but we have no way of knowing beforehand who's going to request it).
So when I, Clark, or Wes say "this isn't quite good enough for RPG Superstar, but it would have been a fine submission to a collection of wondrous items," please accept that we are being honest with each other.
That doesn't mean I want to sift through hundreds of rejected items to save those with potential just in case I need an item to fill in some blank space in an existing book. I'm perfectly capable of writing a SIAC item for that purpose, and doing so faster than it would for me to search through the Rejected pile, develop it, and note the author's name in the credits.
To underline what Sean's saying, there are a *pile* of Wondrous Items in the Core Rulebook that would not get the author into the top 32 of RPG Superstar. Plenty of useful items are tremendously unexciting from a design point of view. But they don't *need* to be exciting—they need to make the game work. With Superstar, mechanical soundness isn't enough—a creative spark is required.
...if, 3 years from now, someone else invents an item that's similar and no one here remembers that it's similar to one of the hundreds and hundreds of items that didn't make it into to the top 32, we wouldn't. In that case, where it's an honest mistake and/or parallel design (which happens ALL the time), we're covered legally. We're also technically covered legally if we just want to steal someone's idea and print it without mentioning the original author. That's not something we'd do, but that's not because of legality; it's because the people who work at Paizo aren't jerks. But even people who aren't jerks have to have rules.
The honesty is well appreciated.
I think it's been mentioned, as well, but many would love to see an "Almost Superstar" item compilation. The pure logistics in rooting out each name of the potentially hundreds of entrants would be a daunting and costly task.
To underline what Sean's saying, there are a *pile* of Wondrous Items in the Core Rulebook that would not get the author into the top 32 of RPG Superstar. Plenty of useful items are tremendously unexciting from a design point of view. But they don't *need* to be exciting—they need to make the game work. With Superstar, mechanical soundness isn't enough—a creative spark is required.
I definitely see the Wondrous Items round with a meta-game all it's own. You aren't submitting a Wondrous Item for the sole purpose of showing Paizo how well you can make Wondrous Items(or monsters, or lairs). You are showing how creative you can be, how well you can work on a deadline, how well you write, edit, and fit big ideas into limited spaces(or little ideas into big spaces). They want to see how well your ideas will sell, thus the voting rounds.
I definitely see the Wondrous Items round with a meta-game all it's own. You aren't submitting a Wondrous Item for the sole purpose of showing Paizo how well you can make Wondrous Items(or monsters, or lairs). You are showing how creative you can be, how well you can work on a deadline, how well you write, edit, and fit big ideas into limited spaces(or little ideas into big spaces). They want to see how well your ideas will sell, thus the voting rounds.
::gasp::