False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh


Round 4: Design a Golarion location

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Lief Clennon wrote:

No, this isn't WotC's Green Starmetal. Clearly, there is no legal violation afoot. However, there's a reasonable chance that it's a direct allusion inserted for the benefit of those who might want to easily port the prestige class forward. It's subtle, it's legal, but it's exactly what Tom Qadim said: an amber flag. Watch out; if he stepped this far, might he push the boundary? Time to conspicuously quirk an eyebrow, that's all I'm saying.

Wow, this star metal and green star thing is no where close to infringment and then you imply just because of some far fetched connection that he may overstep himself in the future...Leif, I think it's you who is the one pushing the boundary. Give Matt the benefit of the doubt and a little respect for goodness sake.

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

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

LOCATION

The stuff about the mad mage is interesting but it's a little jarring for me because I don't know who you're talking about--it presumes I've read lead-up material to this encounter, which doesn't exist because it's not part of the contest. It's really a weird artifact of the contest--should you write as if this were part of an actual adventure, or should you write knowing that the readers are only getting to see this snippet? I'm not dinging you for this, I'm just pointing out my reaction to it.

This is a dangerous tack to take in the contest - I know because I did it the way you did, Matt, writing as if this were encounter area 16 on page 22 of the adventure, with the implicit assumption that background details would already be known (but also referring to them in text to create a background for the encounter without having to write up a separate background section).

That choice almost bit me in the backside and it might for you as well, but who knows. Voters have seen a lot more of this contest by now than they had that first year, so they may be less perplexed by an in medias res encounter than they were two years ago.

Overall, I love the encounter. You have a good balance between background (although for Golarion-ness, yours is VERY light - pretty much just "hi, it's in Osirion" and that's it) and the meat of the encounter.

You also pulled off the feat of scripting an encounter without scripting PC actions during the encounter, which is where the bridge ambush encounter fell down. You have a time sequence of events that is very cool - a fight DURING a meteor shower. How cool is that? Yes, there are missing details, as Sean has pointed out, but they don't feel very big. They feel like things that even an unprepared DM could wing and run with. I like the skill checks during the encounter to figure out how to interact with the various things going on.

The map I like, though more information about the wall surrounding the area would be important. The scale issue also is big - 5' vs 10' squares is a big difference and one that, if missed, is going to cause some problems.

Gilded cobras - I assume they are variant iron cobras, but you really need to include that in the encounter. That's a big miss.

Overall, though, you have a dynamic encounter with enough backstory to give it some interest (and an implied larger backstory that the PCs already know about off-screen from the description of THIS encounter) and enough time dedicated to an interesting location and monsters that work WITH the environment. They aren't just IN it; they and the environment actually intersect in how they engage the PCs. That sets your entry apart from the others I've read so far.

Definitely getting a vote here.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
tejón wrote:

Okay... I have to call something out here.

Matthew McGee wrote:
The tomb's seal is made from a strange metal that is not of terrestrial origin.
and repeatedly wrote:
green star

The Green Star Adept (Complete Arcane, p.41) was a favorite PrC for a couple of local players, to the point where they'd frequently ask if I could introduce green starmetal just so they could take it; so for me, this clicked immediately. As far as I'm aware, this is original WotC property. Now, you danced around it rather carefully; but the fact that you felt inclined to dance at all seems like a major concern from a publisher's perspective.

I'm working on scored reviews for everyone; this is irrelevant to my scoring method, but felt important enough to comment on separately.

The reason for this is simple: cliche. In sf/fantasy writing, when you want a material to have unusual properties, you almost always make it come from space, whether its adamantite, adamantium, unobtainium, uru, kryptonite, green starmetal, or even Giant Space Hamster Pellets.

Star Voter Season 6

Eric Tillemans wrote:
Lief Clennon wrote:

No, this isn't WotC's Green Starmetal. Clearly, there is no legal violation afoot. However, there's a reasonable chance that it's a direct allusion inserted for the benefit of those who might want to easily port the prestige class forward. It's subtle, it's legal, but it's exactly what Tom Qadim said: an amber flag. Watch out; if he stepped this far, might he push the boundary? Time to conspicuously quirk an eyebrow, that's all I'm saying.

Wow, this star metal and green star thing is no where close to infringment and then you imply just because of some far fetched connection that he may overstep himself in the future...Leif, I think it's you who is the one pushing the boundary. Give Matt the benefit of the doubt and a little respect for goodness sake.

I have to agree with this - as your (Lief's) implication already appears to have explicitly cost this entry a vote, it seems like a low blow. You turned the implication of a suggestion of an impropriety into a vote-costing reality.

You displayed a lot of class when you were caught overstepping the bounds. I think if anyone is pushing the boundaries of fair play (in any sense), it's you here, not Mr. McGee.

edit: I was referring to Chris Mortika's thread in the other post - so I may have overstated this now that I've reread his comment. He didn't not vote for this entry for Lief's reason, he removed it from consideration altogether.... (I just wanted to clarify in case what I was referring to above was not entirely accurate)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 , Star Voter Season 7

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
For tactical maps like this one, we usually use 5 foot squares because that's what a GM will use for a battle map scale; using 10 foot squares runs the risk of the GM drawing everything at the wrong size. I bring this up specifically because I assumed the scale was 5 feet, and the 100 ft. radius blast of the big meteor made me wonder, "well, isn't that pretty much this entire encounter area?," which would be true if the map's scale was 5 feet per square; then I checked the scale and found it was 10 feet. People expect 5-foot squares on tactical maps (rather than 10-foot squares), just as they expect country map scale to be in miles rather than leagues.

The scale is 10' per square on the isometric view. The top-down view is labeled as 5' per square in the bottom left corner of the map. (I assume the isometric view is just meant to show the relative size of objects.)

So, yes, the 100' is pretty much everything except 10-20 feet next to the southern wall.


After reflecting a good deal more on this entry, I have concluded that like Sean and gbonehead I am really not seeing much location here.
The entry says 'False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh'.
What I actually seem to be seeing in this entry is 'encounter with falling meteorites in the forecourt of the False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh.'
Knowledge checks which tell the players and their characters just how mysterious and unknown something is are interesting, but when those are practically the only information supplied to a GM about the location, then that becomes problematic.
I think you needed to at least extend the map into the pyramid like structure, or provide separate coverage of that area, to demonstrate that this entry was about more than just an encounter in the false tomb's forecourt.
I feel that you have the kernal of an idea for a strong and exciting encounter here and that, whatever they are, gilded cobras seem just the sort of thing which should belong in Osirion, but between my earlier concerns regarding railroading and what I feel to be the non-presence of the billed location (the 'False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh') I will not be voting for this.
Best of luck for the future, if you do not make Round 5.

Having just googled 'Green Star Metal' I feel fairly confident that Hasbro would have their hands very full if they decided to go after everyone else using those words, and that's presupposing that HP Lovecraft or his associates didn't get a claim in on green star metal before D&D was a twinkle in Gary Gygax's eye. I'm fairly sure that various weird metals and/or rocks from the stars popped up on at least a semi-regular basis in Lovecraft.

Star Voter Season 6

Seabyrn wrote:


I have to agree with this - as your (Lief's) implication already appears to have explicitly cost this entry a vote, it seems like a low blow. You turned the implication of a suggestion of an impropriety into a vote-costing reality.

You displayed a lot of class when you were caught overstepping the bounds. I think if anyone is pushing the boundaries of fair play (in any sense), it's you here, not Mr. McGee.

The point of these threads is for the contestants to get the experience of a thorough vetting, not just from the judges but also from consumers. Contestants don't get that incredibly valuable experience if the voters have to self-censor. Lief's a voter now and raising an issue--whether it be the appropriateness of green star metal or of this round's two rape narratives--is what we're supposed to be doing.

Shadow Lodge

Lief Clennon wrote:

Everyone is doing more dancing, and ignoring the part about having to dance at all. It's not about technicalities, it's about ballparks. I learned a little about this stuff last round, and yes, I might be overly paranoid as a result. ;)

No, this isn't WotC's Green Starmetal. Clearly, there is no legal violation afoot. However, there's a reasonable chance that it's a direct allusion inserted for the benefit of those who might want to easily port the prestige class forward. It's subtle, it's legal, but it's exactly what Tom Qadim said: an amber flag. Watch out; if he stepped this far, might he push the boundary? Time to conspicuously quirk an eyebrow, that's all I'm saying.

And maybe it's entirely a coincidence. Kryptonite is a green star metal, too. I'm certainly not clamoring for disqualification; hell, I'm voting for him. Speaking of which...

The way I see it, you are the only one doing any dancing. You are doing Matthew an EXTREME disservice by even mentioning this, there is no ballpark, not even a country sized container. This is one person making a very loose association and calling it a subtle intent, then you go on to imply that a loose association that YOU made would mean he would be a loose cannon in what boundaries he would push is irresponsible at best, malicious sabotage at worst. Adding that it maybe a coincidence doesn't clear you from making the accusation in the first place, either. I really think you need to step back on this. Vic has thrown in his sentiment that he isn't worried about this in the slightest. Please don't waste the good faith you gathered with your classy acceptance of being DQed.

One other quick point to think about, to me this seems like a situation of idea vs trademark name. WOTC may have trademarked the name starmetal, but they sure as hell didn't trademark the concept of celestial metals. If the star was blue, you would have never made the connection.

Star Voter Season 6

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

I feel that you have the kernal of an idea for a strong and exciting encounter here and that, whatever they are, gilded cobras seem just the sort of thing which should belong in Osirion, but between my earlier concerns regarding railroading and what I feel to be the non-presence of the billed location (the 'False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh') I will not be voting for this.

Best of luck for the future, if you do not make Round 5.

Charles, I think you're over-reacting and I'd like you to take a second look at this submission later on. I respect your opinion on these things and so I'm rather surprised that you found four submissions better than this one. For me, this is the only encounter that works right out of the box as exciting and fulfilling. The rest of the encounters are door guards. This was the only submission that I really felt enthusiastic voting for.

I feel like that your reaction is because you actually want more because of how interesting this submission is. But his primary job is to give us an encounter in a location, not to give us an entire dungeon too. It's great that some of the contestants indicated the rest of the module to us, but that's a bonus. As far as the title, that's the pulp tradition.

Anyway, that's my case. I hope you'll reconsider.

Star Voter Season 6

seabyrn wrote:
You displayed a lot of class when you were caught overstepping the bounds. I think if anyone is pushing the boundaries of fair play (in any sense), it's you here, not Mr. McGee.
Kabump wrote:
Please don't waste the good faith you gathered with your classy acceptance of being DQed.

Would you two please stop using ad hominem attacks? Debate the merits of his argument all you want, but please drop the personal drama.

Kabump wrote:
Vic has thrown in his sentiment that he isn't worried about this in the slightest.

And now, because a voter brought it up, we know for sure.

Star Voter Season 6

roguerouge wrote:


The point of these threads is for the contestants to get the experience of a thorough vetting, not just from the judges but also from consumers. Contestants don't get that incredibly valuable experience if the voters have to self-censor. Lief's a voter now and raising an issue--whether it be the appropriateness of green star metal or of this round's two rape narratives--is what we're supposed to be doing.

Self-censorship is necessary in a public forum - certain language, comments, etc. are off limits. I don't think that extending that to avoid specious concerns (particularly those with serious implications) detracts from the value of the experience - everyone who posts should consider the impact of what they write before they post it.

roguerouge wrote:


Would you two please stop using ad hominem attacks? Debate the merits of his argument all you want, but please drop the personal drama.

I don't think that what either I or Kabump wrote rises to the level of an ad hominem attack - and one post from each of us hardly merits your appeal for both of us to stop. For myself, yes, what I wrote was intended as a reminder that I didn't expect this from him (not as an attack, but as a comment).


roguerouge wrote:
...stuff..
seabyrn wrote:
...stuff...
kabump wrote:
...stuff...

Ladies! Ladies! You're all pretty...

Shadow Lodge

roguerouge wrote:


Would you two please stop using ad hominem attacks? Debate the merits of his argument all you want, but please drop the personal drama.

And this is a personal attack how? I'm asking this person to consider what they are saying, and to step back and think about it. Because in my opinion, and the key point is here that this is MY opinion, is it seems a bit like an unfair criticism on the entry. I am in no way saying that Lief is a terrible person for stating this, only that his argument MIGHT make it appear that he has malicious intent when doing so, and could be seen as making a value judgement on Matthew. It is the accusation he is implying (as my understanding of his posts), not the person himself. There is a difference.


roguerouge wrote:

Charles, I think you're over-reacting and I'd like you to take a second look at this submission later on. I respect your opinion on these things and so I'm rather surprised that you found four submissions better than this one. For me, this is the only encounter that works right out of the box as exciting and fulfilling. The rest of the encounters are door guards. This was the only submission that I really felt enthusiastic voting for.

I feel like that your reaction is because you actually want more because of how interesting this submission is. But his primary job is to give us an encounter in a location, not to give us an entire dungeon too. It's great that some of the contestants indicated the rest of the module to us, but that's a bonus. As far as the title, that's the pulp tradition.

Anyway, that's my case. I hope you'll reconsider.

Assuming that the location is ‘The False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh’ all I have been told about the location is:

  • From the map/view segment of the entry, part of it looks like a pyramid.
  • It has an unbreakable front door which even a falling obelisk doesn’t dent, but which a magical green star opens. This front door is made of unworldly metal.
  • The front door has a cryptic inscription on it which may just be there to scare off tomb-robbers.
  • The obelisks immediately in front of the location have been defaced. Somehow, despite the fact that these obelisks have been defaced, it is possible to deduce from the blank space at the top of each that ‘common Osirian inscriptions honoring the sun and stars’ were never carved into those obelisks in the first place.
    (long-winded explanation with regard to this latter point):
    Spoiler:
    (This latter seems to me to be like saying because metaphorical Joe Smith normally writes full page letters and signs his name at the bottom that if Joe writes an only half page letter and someone else scribbles it out, that that proves Joe did not sign his name at the bottom of what he did write in that half page. The blank space at the bottom of the letter (or at the top of the obelisk) only suggests that a regular habit of completely filling the available writing surface has not been adhered to, and says nothing about the content (or lack thereof) of what has been obliterated.)

    Basically the only information I feel is presented about this location is ‘what you can see from outside’. Compare this to other locations this round, whose entries explain that they are:

  • An underground cloister excavated into the mound of an ancient hill fort occupied by fey.
  • A chasm where an old bridge was demolished and replaced with a double-drawbridge mechanism by a puzzle-loving Thassilon obsessed wizard.
  • The ruins of a half-finished winery positioned above the place where a goddess exacted vengeance on a priestess whose faith wavered.
  • A highly detailed (even if confusingly so in some places) observatory in Absalom fitted out by a harrow-obsessed sage.
  • An arboretum/zoological gardens filled with exotic plants and creatures overseen by a genie.
  • A fully mapped subterranean lair, whose very chambers are actually a series of living plants, inhabited by a coven of hags and their servants/allies/slaves.
  • A virtually completely mapped ziggurat with external views and elevations, which phases in and out of existence in the desolate wastelands on the border between Nex and Geb.

    With regard to my vote allocation for this round I’m looking for contestants who despite the pressures brought something close to a good all-round game this round. This entry seems to me to really go for the encounter side of Round 4 at the cost of neglecting location. :(

    As an update on the canon front, in the print version of the 3.5 Campaign Setting the language and adjective most commonly used is 'Osiriani', not 'Osirian', though it is possible this may have been superceded.


  • Charles Evans 25 wrote:
    Assuming that the location is ‘The False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh’ ...

    Well, a subtle thing - I think the location isn't really the False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh, it's "the outside of the FTotCP". The outside of this is way more involved and interesting than the entire inside of the winery or entire chasm, IMO. Rather than go "horizontal" and have more and more kinda-not-that-interesting rooms like the other ziggurat, he put the value into the sequence of events happening in this one location. Different, but not wrong.

    I haven't seen the inside of the False Tomb, but just from the two entries, as a PC I would be way more impressed with the False Tomb than the Lost Ziggurat.

    Specifically the rules for this round say:

    "This location may be as large as a forest or undiscovered island, or as small as an old fort or section of a dungeon."

    "You may divide this word count as you see fit between describing the Location and the Encounter"

    So he went the small section of a dungeon route, with most words in the encounter. Frankly, kudos on doing something interesting within the rules rather than just cranking out another location with 2 monsters that seems like every other location I've seen 100 times before.


    (edited)
    The sequence of events is situation, not location. It seems to me that any graveyard with vandalised markers suddenly looks a lot more interesting a place to be (or perhaps a place to not be) if an astrumal and meteorites start crashing into it demolishing monuments.

    Further edit:
    As I said, the encounter is interesting, but stripped of that I have concerns that this entry doesn't show much by way of a location.

    Liberty's Edge 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

    Wow, this is the 6th entry I've read, and the first to blow me away and really hit one out of the park! Put me down for appreciating that this encounter is in the middle of an adventure - it gives hints of what happened before (a quest to stop the mad mage from opening the tomb) and what's going to happen next (dealing with whatever is released from the tomb, and most likely exploring the tomb to find answers about how to beat it.) Sure you don't give details about the tomb itself, but you don't have to - your location was pretty much what was on the map, not what was on the next map.

    I think you made the right choice by using most of your word count for the encounter as well. The encounter is where you really can show if you can write a good game module (which is really the whole point of the contest). The unique fight during a meteor shower with events happening throughout that affect the encounter, both as changing the terrain and providing essentially traps that appear during the fight, and also happen to release new monsters into the battle is just great. This is an encounter I want to run, and it teases that you'd provide many such great encounters in an adventure. I also like that you gave a variety of skills that will be helpful, beyond the standard arcrobatics and climb checks, as well as the skill based information on the location. I've always liked when a product did the work of providing what skill checks give PCs information, but not that they often essentially duplicate the text block to do so, so using the skill checks as a way to also present this info to the GM is good in my book.

    A few minor area that you could have done better on are the actual pacing of the encounter and the gilded cobras. I like that there are events happening, and what cool events they are, but round 6? I think the astrumal is dead long before then, and the timeline should have been compressed. Move every event up 2 rounds, except for the round 10 green star breaking open the door to really increase the pace and have the PCs have to deal with more and more, instead of lining the monsters up one at a time potentially. In addition, you really needed to tell what the gilded cobras were better, and earlier in the entry. By the end you can figure out they're variant iron cobras, but you should have indicated that earlier and more explcitly. They are cool though.

    I should also mention that your map is very well done - I didn't have any issues with it and it did a good job of clearly showing what's where and what changes over the meteor shower, so good job yet again.

    In summary, this is what I was hoping all of the entries this round would have done - and made it a challenge for us voters to decide just which were the coolest out of a group of cool entries! Definite vote from me!


    Oh hell yes! Epic stuff, Mr. McGee. This entry has a few minor mistakes that are completely overwhelmed by its concentrated awesomeness.

    This encounter has an incredibly tantalizing pulp feel to it, with a little eldritch horror mixed in to great effect. The implied adventure that this encounter is a part of has clearly been going on for some time before this encounter and will obviously continue after.

    Although there is a bit of railroadiness in the read aloud text with the PCs being just barely too late no matter how they got to the scene, I find I don't care because of how awesome this encounter is. Meteors fall, strike obelisks, the meteorite opens to reveal an astrumal, the obelisks fall, breaking open ancient tombs, the astrumal and the ancient tomb guardians attack, the green star falls and breaks the seal, something big and horrible awakens. This is the stuff that truly memorable gaming sessions are made of.

    I love that you list the needed skill check DCs and what information the PCs can get if they succeed. This kind of thing is hard for me to adjudicate on my own while trying to maintain pacing and tension.

    As Sean Reynolds mentioned, the vectors of the falling meteors are confusing. Is the astrumal's meteor the one that causes the big obelisk to fall? Did other meteors knock the hole in the courtyard wall and destroy the southeastern tomb?

    You did skimp slightly on detailing the location, but the amazing encounter and excellent use of the astrumal more than make up for that.

    Easily the best submission of the round IMO.

    Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

    Kabump wrote:
    The way I see it, you are the only one doing any dancing. You are doing Matthew an EXTREME disservice by even mentioning this, there is no ballpark, not even a country sized container.

    I agree, this one isnt even close. Its not an "amber flag" at all. And this does a disservice to Matthew's entry. If you want to discuss it, start a separate thread. But the official ruling is that this is a total absolute non-issue and its continued discussion here is a distraction from the entry and frankly isnt fair to the contestant. This is a great contest guys, lets keep it about the entries.

    Liberty's Edge

    Mr.McGee -- False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh

    Each mark will be multiplied by itself:
    1 = 1x1 = 1 pt
    2 = 2x2 = 4 pts
    3 = 3x3 = 9 pts
    4 = 4x4 = 16 pts
    5 = 5x5 = 25 pts
    6 = 6x6 = 36 pts
    7 = 7x7 = 49 pts
    8 = 8x8 = 64 pts
    9 = 9x9 = 81 pts
    10 = 10x10 = 100 pts

    and then I add them all up...
    and then I give your ranking!

    Name (100pts)
    Catchy, attractive, etc.
    False-Tomb-of-the-Crawling-Pharaoh. Luv' it.

    Writing (81pts)
    Well written in general, interesting, etc.
    The writing was a wee bit choppy, but... it's definently Superstar material. Excellent.

    Map (100pts)
    Useful, read-able, clear, etc.
    That's a map. Superb to the MAX!

    Creature (81pts)
    Surprising, well-used, etc.
    Nice and sweet.

    General (81pts)
    Anything I didn't mention above
    Mr.McGee, I believe that you've got one of the best items out there. I loved your golem, I love this entry. You got me excited from the first word.

    SCORE:443
    RANK:1st (Ahead of everybody else!)

    And hats off to Mr.Clennon for his sportsmanship.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32 aka Hydro

    Vic Wertz wrote:
    Matthew McGee wrote:
    Do not draw areas R1 and R2; they will come into play shortly.
    Do not assume that players are using mats and minis!

    Hey Vic, if you're still around, can you elaborate on what the alternative to that assumption is?

    How do you suppose DMs would handle this sort of encounter (one where the exact square you're standing in really counts) without a mat and minis, and how would you as a designer present this encounter to be as helpful as possible to them?

    I know not everyone draws a map, but the system certainly assumes that spacing matters and I'm not sure what would be the best way for a writer to go about this.

    RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 aka Standback

    Matthew, I think you're the clear front-runner on this round :) Way to go.

    I'm not much on system nitpicks or battle tactics, but even to me its obvious you've done a lot of great stuff here. I'm very fond of the dynamic battleground, and I think of all the entries you were best able to focus the encounter around the essence of the monster you chose.

    Breaking the battle into rounds, as others have commented, is a bit clunky; there were probably better ways to handle this. On the other hand, you certainly got across your information clearly. I think a tad more time, and an editor's comments, would polish this to perfection.

    Lots of luck next round - looking forward to reading your work!


    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
    Nicolas Quimby wrote:
    Vic Wertz wrote:
    Matthew McGee wrote:
    Do not draw areas R1 and R2; they will come into play shortly.
    Do not assume that players are using mats and minis!

    Hey Vic, if you're still around, can you elaborate on what the alternative to that assumption is?

    How do you suppose DMs would handle this sort of encounter (one where the exact square you're standing in really counts) without a mat and minis, and how would you as a designer present this encounter to be as helpful as possible to them?

    I know not everyone draws a map, but the system certainly assumes that spacing matters and I'm not sure what would be the best way for a writer to go about this.

    I'm not Vic; but my group didn't use to use maps and minis, and what would normally happen in a situation like this was that the DM would pick some arbitrary number threshold and then roll dice to see who might be in an affected area: "Okay... you and you, roll a Reflex save." Not the most elegant solution and one that tended to lead to a lot of arguments ("Why would my character be standing next to him?"), but that's the way we did it for AoE spells and breath weapons and such.

    Owner - House of Books and Games LLC , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7

    Matthew McGee wrote:
    Do not draw areas R1 and R2; they will come into play shortly.
    Vic Wertz wrote:
    Do not assume that players are using mats and minis!
    Nicolas Quimby wrote:
    Hey Vic, if you're still around, can you elaborate on what the alternative to that assumption is?

    "On round 2, obelisk 1 will fall to the northeast, creating a pile of rubble roughly 20 ft. wide and 70 ft. long."

    If it needs to be somewhere specific, it could call it out: "the pile of rubble will reach the northeastern small obelisk and crush half of it."

    Granted, it's a bit more wordy, but overall I thought the encounter-to-backstory ratio needed tweaking anyways.


    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

    Congrats Matthew!

    I thought this map was well designed, and conveyed the sense of situation you developed. I was, however, not impressed with the overall setup - it had a bit too much of the "mid-sequence" quality that made it feel less a location and too much encounter.

    I'll confess that I thought that would be a downfall with the voters. To me, you are the surprise candidate of the bunch, but only by a small measure.

    Good luck with your adventure submission! Be curious to see if it encapsulates the False Tomb.

    The Exchange

    Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber

    Alright Matthew!

    As a local who used to live in Dixon long ago, I find this great to see.

    Star Voter Season 6

    Congratulations! Good luck in the next round.


    Well, you made the top 4, congratulations. :)


    Really nice job, Matt! Very impressed with this scenario and killer map - IMO this is a battle between you and Alex. It's gonna be a great finale.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

    Thanks for the kind words, everyone!

    I'm hard at work on the final challenge at the moment, but when I get a chance to breathe again, I'll talk a little bit more about this round, including alternative ideas I discarded, the "green star" (non)controversy, and why iron cobras rule.

    In between rounds, you may also have fun Googling the phrase (use quotes!) "open are the double doors of the horizon" - look out for a Wikipedia article and a youtube video, in particular. ;)

    Contributor, RPG Superstar 2009, RPG Superstar Judgernaut

    Matthew,

    Best of luck on the upcoming adventure proposal. Keep bringing the awesome and pitch something that truly inspires you as well as the voters. I'm interested in seeing your next idea for a Pathfinder module.

    Good luck,
    --Neil

    P.S. I took you up on your offer...pretty compelling stuff straight from the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom...

    Matthew McGee wrote:
    In between rounds, you may also have fun Googling the phrase (use quotes!) "open are the double doors of the horizon" - look out for a Wikipedia article and a youtube video, in particular. ;)

    Spoiler:

    Open are the double doors of the horizon
    Unlocked are its bolts

    Clouds darken the sky
    The stars rain down
    The constellations stagger
    The bones of the hell hounds tremble
    The porters are silent
    When they see this king
    Dawning as a soul

    Open are the double doors of the horizon
    Unlocked are its bolts

    Men fall
    Their name is not
    Seize thou this king by his arm
    Take this king to the sky
    That he not die on earth
    Among men

    Open are the double doors of the horizon
    Unlocked are its bolts

    He flies who flies
    This king flies away from you
    Ye mortals
    He is not of the earth
    He is of the sky
    He flaps his wings like a zeret bird
    He goes to the sky
    He goes to the sky
    On the wind
    On the wind

    Shadow Lodge

    Matthew McGee wrote:


    In between rounds, you may also have fun Googling the phrase (use quotes!) "open are the double doors of the horizon" - look out for a Wikipedia article and a youtube video, in particular. ;)

    I also looked this up. Wow, frikkin cool. I'm totally using that track for my next boss fight my players have. Tangent to follow in a fancy box.

    Spoiler:
    I have never been a fan of Phillip Glass. When I was in college, I took a few music theory classes as electives and we discussed his works in one of them, and watched some of Einstein on the Beach. It was the most horrid, repetitive garbage I had ever heard. Sorry if you like Phillip Glass, he was just not for me. That being said, What I listened to in the track in particular Matthew pointed out, and other related sections from Akhnaten, really might have me change my mind about Glass. I REALLY enjoyed the piece mentioned, labeled Prelude:Refrain,Verse 1,Verse 2 on the youtube video I watched. And the other pieces from this opera I liked as well. As I said, it has made me reconsider Glass's work. I will be checking this out more to be sure. Thanks for the push :)

    Liberty's Edge

    Neil Spicer wrote:

    Matthew,

    P.S. I took you up on your offer...pretty compelling stuff straight from the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom...

    They don't write spells like that anymore, I tells ya! Nowadays, it's all about gettin' 'er done in six seconds or less. Where's the art in that? This is poetry and magic that's built to stand the test of time.

    51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Archive / Paizo / RPG Superstar™ / Previous Contests / RPG Superstar™ 2010 / Round 4: Design a Golarion location / False Tomb of the Crawling Pharaoh All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in Round 4: Design a Golarion location
    The Green Barrow