They don't need to say 'current'. It's implied. The Setting Search was a once-only deal.
They don't need to say 'current'. It's implied. The Setting Search was a once-only deal.
I am not sure how you get 'current' as implied when the last two words of the quote are in history.
|
Larger than the Fantasy Setting Search?
-edit- This is a later link that says they had "nearly 11,000 entries".
That contest probably had more participants.
However, that contest was just for a SETTING, world building if you will.
There were no game mechanics/rules involved as far as I remember it was all fluff, so it was not a RPG Design contest. RPG Design involves the game itself, not the location/universe where is takes place.
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
|
Ergo, RPG Superstar is infinitely larger than the Fantasy Setting Search."Four amateur game designers have advanced to the final round of Paizo Publishing’s RPG Superstar 2010, the largest open-call tabletop roleplaying design contest in history."
No mention of voting there. I'm only suggesting that they stop saying that it's the largest etc. in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Actually, the difference is in the details. As has been previously stated, the RPG Superstar contest is a game design contest. It centers around the mechanics of the game itself as much as the fluff required for something more than . The WotC contest was, at its essence, more of a creative writing contest; with no game mechanics involved it really would not, IMHO, qualify as a roleplaying design contest.
Additionally, one could view the statement of "largest open-call tabletop roleplaying design contest in history" in the light of the duration of the contest. It is in the third year and I thoroughly expect it to continue for years to come.
Or perhaps it refers to the number of various elements entrants and the various winners must design.
Or perhaps largest in the sense of the number of individuals it has brought into the realm of freelance game design.
Or perhaps in the sense of the amount of anticipation it elicits from those who enter each year as the next year's events come along.
Or ... you get the idea. Largest does not have to refer to the number of entries received, it can be interpreted in many ways.
|
Why?
The word Largest can be designated to any parameter they wish. It doesn't have to be your limited scope of number of entries.
Even history can be defined however they want for the terms of their competition or statement. It happens all the time.
World Wrestling Federation, world titles, world wars - none of these actually involved the entire world, at least in some variable of participants.
Miss Universe is another example.
All of these are terms or titles that have a common use word defined however the designers of said names want them. And it's all perfectly legal.
Cheers
Raises an eyebrow at the implication that Paizo staffers are dishonest...
Who said anything about legality? It's just a matter of honesty.
I've kept rather mute during this whole examination. But, no more!
Jared...seriously. What are you trying to accomplish by obsessing over this issue? You want to call out Paizo for false advertising? You want to split hairs with the rest of the Paizo community over their subjective interpretation of the same phrasology? And that's going to endear you to the contest organizers how exactly?
Even if you're right, I don't foresee anything good coming of this discussion. My advice? Drop it and let it go.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
"Four amateur game designers have advanced to the final round of Paizo Publishing’s RPG Superstar 2010, the largest open-call tabletop roleplaying design contest in history."
VS
"Four amateur game designers have advanced to the final round of Paizo Publishing’s RPG Superstar 2010, the largest open-call tabletop roleplaying game design contest in history."
The second statement is more specific and is a 'honest' statement. In my opinion the game part is implied in the first statement.
So, all done and let's move on.
Dear posters-in-a-state-in-the-states,
There are three important things to keep in mind here:
Yours (in)sincerely,
Ask a Succubus.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, Folks. This is a very strange thread to read.
Advertising copy has never been much for weasel-words. People like to call their product "The Best" rather than "One of the best". Jared has pointed out that the advertising copy "The Biggest..." isn't actually correct.
He's right.
Some people have accused him of "hairsplitting". Or that "biggest" can't mean merely large number of entries (although that's certainly the plain intent of the advertising copy) but greatest number of design elements, or greatest enthusiasm. (I think WotC's open call had some enthusiasm, though.) Or that it must mean the greatest number of voters. Or that a "roleplaying design" contest has to be about mechanics, not just setting design.
Now who's hairsplitting?
The rest of the thread has been people trying to cast him in the worst possible light. He says that it's not a legal issue, just a question of honesty, and people fire back "You're accusing Paizo of being dishonest?!" Neil accuses him of having an agenda. He says he doesn't have one. Aubrey reinterprets this to mean he "wants to be proven right... in public."
Well, we're on a public messageboard system. I suppose he could have sent a private message to Vic or something, but there are a lot of people who post on these boards with far greater issues and vehemence.
It's been my impression that Jared sometimes holds to a point after its been proven untenable. Maybe that makes it easier for people to assume that's what happening here. Maybe people are jumping on him out of loyalty for the company we love to support. I don't believe he warrants that kind of push-back here.
Mr. T pity da foo' who 'cuses Paizo of puffery!
Wow...don't you people have some gaming to do?
He's right.
I never implied he wasn't. I just questioned why it matters.
Neil accuses him of having an agenda. He says he doesn't have one. Aubrey reinterprets this to mean he "wants to be proven right... in public."
I think it's stretching things a bit to say I accused him having an agenda. But I understand your point. To me, I always go with the assumption that people post such things for a purpose. And, so I would assume Jared wanted to see something done as a result of pointing it out. But, even if he's 100% correct, does it really matter whether Paizo makes such a claim in their advertising text? It just seems like the wrong issue to worry over or rail against, especially when it's bound to elicit such a reactionary response.
Nevertheless, I'm done with the discussion. I can see I'm only trolling it further along by saying anything more.
--Neil
P.S. And Trevor, you were totally supposed to keep that weigh-in thing for Round 3 a secret! ;-)
|
|
Yeah Chris, my appologies also if what I stated came off as overly aggressive. I was merely wondering why it was such a big thing when it happens all the time in marketing.
He's entitled to his opinion. Perhaps voicing it in this particular public forum wasn't the wisest if he wasn't after a modicum of defensive responses. Yet your point is valid. Appologoes if I was too aggressive there MiB.
Cheers
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
|
I'd also like to apologize if what I posted was considered as aggressive or taking a "you're wrong" type attitude. It didn't read that way to me when I wrote it (nor does it now), but with the internet being the bastion of clear communication without possibility of misinterpretation that is (I kid, I kid), anything is possible. I was merely trying to make the point that there could be various interpretations which could be made as to the original statement in question.
Paizo is quite clearly referring to the average size of the contestants. I don't know about you, Neil, but I found stripping down for the Round 3 weigh-in to be quite embarrassing.
HA. Thanks for the laugh!
He's right.
I challenge him to prove it.
WotC's contest was not a game design contest. It was a design contest, but "game" had nothing to do with it except tangentially.
On top of that, all we know about RPG Superstar's size is that it started at ~1000 entries (IIRC) and it's gotten more responses every year. For all we know, it DID get more than 11,000 entries this year.
It's not funny! SRK took photos!!
I think that was just for you. He took quite a shine to your...irides. ;-)
He took quite a shine to your...irides. ;-)
::cringe with screwed up face::
Eeeeeeeeeeeew I'm dying again!
EDIT: Disregard! I tried to post under my 'Bugs Bunny' alias, in reference to the Humphrey Bogart / Hoboken Penguin classic.. but the Superstar boards won't let you post under an alias.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I can understand why Jared would point to the Setting Search as a larger design contest than RPG Superstar. The intent of the statement is to focus on the "game design" aspect of the challenge, and the Setting Search was more of a "setting design" contest.
But that all hinges on the definition of the word "design," which can get pretty loosey goosey (and frankly pretty boring).
I'll see if there's a better way to put it next time we write a news release about the contest.
You know I could make further comments but all in all I think its time for....
oh and...
SMURF!!!!!!!
You know I could make further comments but all in all I think its time for....
** spoiler omitted **
Extended? Might as well go for widened too :)
WotC's contest was not a game design contest. It was a design contest, but "game" had nothing to do with it except tangentially.It was a contest to design content which will chiefly be used for tabletop roleplaying games.
Which is why I said "except tangentially". The contest had nothing to do with game design. It was designing fluff that would eventually end up as part of a game after being re-written by a team of game designers. As a game designer myself, I assure you that there is a very great deal of difference between the skill set of a game designer and that of a writer or scenario designer. WotC's contest was the equivalent of a scenario writer's job. The proof of this is that the contest could have been exactly the same if it had been for designing a new setting for a series of books.
Which is why I said "except tangentially". The contest had nothing to do with game design. It was designing fluff that would eventually end up as part of a game after being re-written by a team of game designers. As a game designer myself, I assure you that there is a very great deal of difference between the skill set of a game designer and that of a writer or scenario designer. WotC's contest was the equivalent of a scenario writer's job. The proof of this is that the contest could have been exactly the same if it had been for designing a new setting for a series of books.WotC's contest was not a game design contest. It was a design contest, but "game" had nothing to do with it except tangentially.It was a contest to design content which will chiefly be used for tabletop roleplaying games.
I appreciate that sometimes the boards do weird things with disappearing/reappearing posts, so I repeat here a post Erik Mona made:
I can understand why Jared would point to the Setting Search as a larger design contest than RPG Superstar. The intent of the statement is to focus on the "game design" aspect of the challenge, and the Setting Search was more of a "setting design" contest.
But that all hinges on the definition of the word "design," which can get pretty loosey goosey (and frankly pretty boring).
I'll see if there's a better way to put it next time we write a news release about the contest.
Erik's said he can see that there's a problem with the way that the statement could be read and that he'll look at/for another way of putting things next time he writes anything like this.
Now can we please all smurf out/relax, whilst we wait for this year's final round entries to be posted? :)
... whilst we wait for this year's final round entries to be posted? :)
+1
I can understand why Jared would point to the Setting Search as a larger design contest than RPG Superstar. The intent of the statement is to focus on the "game design" aspect of the challenge, and the Setting Search was more of a "setting design" contest.
But that all hinges on the definition of the word "design," which can get pretty loosey goosey (and frankly pretty boring).
I'll see if there's a better way to put it next time we write a news release about the contest.
'Nuff said. Excelsior!