With respect to Wondrous Items, to what degree is it important for an item to be functional/desirable vs. cool/interesting? Obviously, tops at both is ideal, but isn't always possible.
Let me illustrate with an example: last year's Seven Thousand Blossoms
I love this item. With my DM hat on, it's exactly the kind of thing I think is super cool and get excited about giving out. I'm sure I'll work it into one of the next campaigns I run.
But, on the flipside, with my Player hat on, if the DM of my game says: "Make a level 4 character with 6000 gp worth of items" (or whatever) I would never buy the Seven Thousand Blossoms. Even at its low, low price of just over 4 cp per blossom I'd always pick something else -- even in the realm of consumable items I'm more likely to buy any number of boring but more universally applicable potions, scrolls, or wands.
So I'm wondering what kind of balance between the somewhat orthogonal priorities of "stuff that is balanced for its price, yet, that players would pick" vs. "stuff that's just really cool" should be struck.
I wouldn't write off an item just because a build-your-character-at-level-X-with-Y-gold character would never buy it. There are many items in the game you'd never buy, but would keep if the GM gave them to you.
My two cents: That sounds like a quibble over the pricing (e.g. you'd probably buy it for 3 gp, if not 300 gp), and I suspect that pricing accuracy is generally lower on the list of factors to consider.
I doubt a mediocre item, perfectly priced will beat a perfect item, poorly priced.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
I agree with Sean (eek, that never happens).
Think of something more mundane, the bastard sword. The greatsword is a better martial weapon, the longsword is 'better' in that you're trading a feat for +1 damage on average. So why do people use the bastard sword? Because it's cool to have a honking big sword in one hand!
Same thing goes for items. What makes the blossoms work (IMNSHO) is the image. Would it have been superstar if it had been a puddle of tar, or a plank that extends? It is an example of an image vs a practicality.
Economic aside, a merchant is able to get rare items faster than his compeditors and is getting rich. Party is hired to investigate. Turns out he blows 300 GP for the round trip across a canyon everyone else has to go around. The profits more than make up for it. :-)
So yeah, it's a delicate balancing act. I think that's what makes it 'Superstar'.
I wouldn't write off an item just because a build-your-character-at-level-X-with-Y-gold character would never buy it. There are many items in the game you'd never buy, but would keep if the GM them to you.
Oh, absolutely.
But do you see what I mean? There's a continuum of "Items I'd really want as a player" vs. "Items I'd want to give out as a DM."
Imagine that strand of player beads didn't already exist -- there you have an item that's not simply a spell in a can and doesn't run afoul of any of your auto-reject categories as far as I can see. It's an item that occupies a somewhat unique mechanical niche and is very desired by characters of the appropriate class. Yet, in terms of pure style it's clearly inferior to most of the previous year top 32 items that I've read.
To what degree is substance important and to what degree is style important?
...Imagine that strand of player beads didn't already exist...
Now there's an interesting item. I'm not sure I've ever seen a strand of player beads before. Sounds like something a killer GM would come up with! ;-)
To what degree is substance important and to what degree is style important?
They're both important. It's not an either/or...your item needs to be mechanically-sound and purposeful within the game...and stylistically-interesting with a sound presentation.
We're basically asking you to create a wondrous magic item for RPG Superstar. So, make sure it's innovative and interesting.
Now there's an interesting item. I'm not sure I've ever seen a strand of player beads before. Sounds like something a killer GM would come up with! ;-)
Ok, so the proofreading auto-reject category, then. :)
They're both important. It's not an either/or...your item needs to be mechanically-sound and purposeful within the game...and stylistically-interesting with a sound presentation.
Do you think one is typically more important than another? Say, 70% style 30% substance?
I'm kind of thinking style is somewhat more important having read previous year judging comments along the lines of "Neat item, would put it in a book, not Superstar material" but I'm trying to make sure I've got an accurate read on that.
I'm kind of thinking style is somewhat more important having read previous year judging comments along the lines of "Neat item, would put it in a book, not Superstar material" but I'm trying to make sure I've got an accurate read on that.
I suspected that might be the crux of your concern. And that's what I mean by being "innovative" and "interesting." You don't just want to create a "pedestrian," run-of-the-mill, "could be found in any magic item book" kind of item. You want to create something that knocks everyone's socks off. But that's not simply reflected in what you're describing as "style." To me, "style" means flavor...as in, being evocative with your text and the core of your item's idea and the abilities and theme it presents. Yes, that's very important. And, to me, "substance" means crunch...as in tight mechanics, maybe something innovative that we haven't seen done before...something that fills a certain niche in the game that we never realized existed. Basically, you need to be "innovative" and "interesting" with both your flavor (style) and your crunch (substance). There's no 70/30 split on which is more important. Crank up the awesome on both fronts.
|
I'm kind of thinking style is somewhat more important having read previous year judging comments along the lines of "Neat item, would put it in a book, not Superstar material" but I'm trying to make sure I've got an accurate read on that.
as a voter - I like style over substance in the first round, substance over style the second, and 50-50 the others. But I DM rather rules light in non-PFS games... but it needs to pass the superstar judges first before we get to vote on it
Chief Technical Officer
|
Generally, it has to be interesting, and you have to do it right.
If it's really REALLY interesting, and it's ever-so-slightly not quite right, you *might* slide by.
If it's not interesting, but it's mechanically perfect, you probably won't get through.
So in that sense, maybe style is *slightly* more important than substance... but if you're planning to rely on your awesome style covering up your mistakes, you're probably in for a disappointment.
Plan for it to be really really interesting and done exactly right.
But, on the flipside, with my Player hat on, if the DM of my game says: "Make a level 4 character with 6000 gp worth of items" (or whatever) I would never buy the Seven Thousand Blossoms. Even at its low, low price of just over 4 cp per blossom I'd always pick something else -- even in the realm of consumable items I'm more likely to buy any number of boring but more universally applicable potions, scrolls, or wands.
This, to me, means absolutely nothing other than that the item is probably overpriced. Many other items render it obsolete, but said items are also fairly expensive, and if the Blossoms were cheap enough many of my characters would carry them as an alternative.
However, the razor's edge of balance is very hard to hit, and an underpriced item is more offensive to most readers than an overpriced one.