I am in a conundrum of which item should I submit. Of course I am not going to give any details since I would get DQ’d for that but I think many of us may be under the same situation. It goes as follows.
I have 3 item ideas.
First item is what I am calling my safe item. It does not break any of the auto-reject rules. Text would only be about 200 words. Does not bend or break any game rules. Though may not be ‘sexy’. If this item existed any of a certain type of characters I played would almost always want this item.
Second item breaks the SAK rule. Though all the different things it does are all tied together under one theme. The theme is ‘sexy’, it gives both in game number crunchy benefits with role playing benefits/consequences. Bends some rules and could open some rules questions that may not be able to be covered in 300 words.
Third item does not break any auto-reject rules. Would need to use all 300 words to plug as many possible loopholes as possible. The item is ‘sexy’ in that it is a great ‘rainy day’ item. Any character can use this item and is beneficial to all. Items effects can bend and almost break game rules. One weird consequence that could occur cause rules questions when used in ways other than the original intent. I had come up with this item last year that was for a specific task. As I have been thinking of it over the past year I realized I could use it in many other ways and the weirdness that could ensue. Though they are ‘sexy’ rules questions.
So what do you guys think is it better to go with the safe item, the items that breaks SAK but is ‘sexy’ with solid rules but some weirdness, or go with one that does not break is ‘sexy’ but could be a what-if nightmare?
Seeing as how you've made the Top 32 before, I'm certain you have your own answer somewhere inside you. Now you just have to discern what that is... ;-)
--Neil
Good point Neil.
If I look at the submission I have put in that did not make it and the one that did make it maybe I could see a pattern. The one that made it was the the item that fits more into category 2. The Dread Trinket was SAKish but was thematic at the same time.
The item I have been thinking of listed as item 2 is a new thing that just popped in my head. The other two I rejected using last year because I thought I had a better idea(which did not make it).
I was posting this for both my benefit and others. Should you go with the safe item that is solid but not all that sexy, or step out on the limb and risk it all by either breaking a cardnal auto-reject rule and hope you do it in a way that is ok, or go with a crazy item that can bring up some WTF moments.
The more I think about it the more I recall judges saying something like "While item X is good it is not Superstar."
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Good point Neil.
If I look at the submission I have put in that did not make it and the one that did make it maybe I could see a pattern. The one that made it was the the item that fits more into category 2. The Dread Trinket was SAKish but was thematic at the same time.
The item I have been thinking of listed as item 2 is a new thing that just popped in my head. The other two I rejected using last year because I thought I had a better idea(which did not make it).
I was posting this for both my benefit and others. Should you go with the safe item that is solid but not all that sexy, or step out on the limb and risk it all by either breaking a cardnal auto-reject rule and hope you do it in a way that is ok, or go with a crazy item that can bring up some WTF moments.
The more I think about it the more I recall judges saying something like "While item X is good it is not Superstar."
I recently read through all the past 96 items. I noticed that in any given year, there were several items (maybe as many as 12, but probably more like 7+/-) that broke various auto-reject advice rules. But the ones that did break the rules were usually tight, concise, well-written, and "sexy" as you say.
Of all 96 items that I've seen, not a one would I call "safe".
So no matter what you choose, I would choose not to use the "safe" item.
Of all 96 items that I've seen, not a one would I call "safe".
I would call this RPG Superstar's equivalent of Rule Zero. If it's "safe," it's not creative. The rules, in my (not-yet-Superstar!) opinion, exist to be stretched to just short of their breaking point.
I recently read through all the past 96 items. I noticed that in any given year, there were several items (maybe as many as 12, but probably more like 7+/-) that broke various auto-reject advice rules. But the ones that did break the rules were usually tight, concise, well-written, and "sexy" as you say.
Of all 96 items that I've seen, not a one would I call "safe".
So no matter what you choose, I would choose not to use the "safe" item.
Thanks on two parts, one thanks for doing the analysis of the previous entries and nothing that about 20% break the auto-reject rules. Though those that made it were really good. I wonder if it should be known as "High chance of reject" instead of auto-reject.
Yeah, safe is not superstar huh? Shelving the safe one again.
If I do not get in this year, maybe I'll use the safe one next year in desperation. hahaha
Oh, and I wouldn't consider the Dread Trinket an SAK at all. I'd say the closest rule it comes to breaking is the "not-an-item", but it doesn't really do that either.
Many thanks!
I went a reread the "not-an-item" thread and my number 2 item could be skirting that rule just like the Dread Trinket did. Ouch and I really liked that one. I am going to have to sit down and see if it fits more as a spell, class feature, etc. then it does a magic item.
Again, many thanks!
Seeing as how you've made the Top 32 before, I'm certain you have your own answer somewhere inside you. Now you just have to discern what that is... ;-)
--Neil
One of the RDs I worked with had a really good way of discerning this. Rochambeau. You can be item 1 and a friend is item 2. If after playing you are not satisfied with the winner go with the other one regardless of anything else, because your heart was not satisfied with what it picked :)
It does help tell you what you really want to hear. :)
Another point to consider: can your safe item be worked into an archetype? can your number 3 (which might be too complicated for 300 words) be a location? As they are probably both good ideas, see which can be used in another format. :)
Chief Technical Officer
|
1. If your item is boring, I wouldn't count on it advancing. (You didn't use that word, but... would you?)
2. If your item breaks one of Sean's rules and bends some others, I would not count on it advancing. You might be able to bend one a bit, but your item would have to be pretty awesome to do much more than that and still get by.
3. If your item bends and almost breaks *game* rules, I would not count on it advancing. I'd count on the judges saying "Abusable. Broken. Rejected."
2 and 3. If the judges identify any significant rules questions opened up by your item—and remember, that's what some of them do for a living—I would not count on it advancing.
Now, the good news here is that you're aware your items have problems, and you still have plenty of time to either fix them or start over.
Something I've been grappling with over the last few days is that some items might be awesome, but aren't suitable for this particular competition because they are too complex to explain in 300 words. If you look at some of the items in the Core Rulebook, they get close to 300 words (e.g. portable hole: 270 words; sovereign glue: 246). Others are more than 300, but they usually fall into the Swiss Army Knife concept (e.g. helm of brilliance: 367) or have multiple versions (e.g. golem manual: 526).
My favourite item for submission so far comes in at around 550 words by the time I've covered all the loopholes--and I know the judges will be looking for loopholes because their comments in past years have regularly been about how it's not clear from the text how an item can be used (or not-used). Sometimes you can use a shortcut by referring to a spell (e.g. "this item renders the user incorporeal as per gaseous form") but an item that repeatedly does that to cut down on word count risks becoming either Spell-in-a-Can, Swiss Army Knife, or just plain difficult to comprehend.
I don't think the judges will be going easy on us because we have an awesome item that we just couldn't clearly and completely express within 300 words--if that's the case, a real Superstar would probably go come up with another item that was just as cool that could be expressed in 300 words.
Although I'm happy to be told I'm wrong in that assumption...
BReaking the 300-word limit is definitely an autofail--it's a limit listed in the rules, and breaking that rule shows you can't follow simple instructions. :p
I don't think the judges will be going easy on us because we have an awesome item that we just couldn't clearly and completely express within 300 words--if that's the case, a real Superstar would probably go come up with another item that was just as cool that could be expressed in 300 words.
Although I'm happy to be told I'm wrong in that assumption...
Bear in mind the 300 word limit was new as of last year; the first two contests the entries had to be 200 words or under. I remember breathing a massive sigh of relief when the rules for last year were announced and I saw we'd have 100 extra words to flesh stuff out with.
...of course, that was almost immediately not enough for me, so, yeah...
BReaking the 300-word limit is definitely an autofail--it's a limit listed in the rules, and breaking that rule shows you can't follow simple instructions. :p
Yeah, absolutely--although I was more talking about the item that has lots of promise and is right on the dot at 300 words, but is still full of empty spaces where rules should be. Some items are too complex to fit into 300 words. My assumption is that a real Superstar would go come up with something else rather than having to rely on the unspoken promise of his/her item because he/she couldn't fit all those promises in 300 words.
300 words for a wondrous item is plenty. There are 96 examples of items that made the Top 32 which met this criteria...over two-thirds of which had to meet the more stringent requirement of just 200 words. So, it's not an insurmountable barrier. If you have an item that just won't fit in 300 words, you're either overthinking or overreaching with it.
Also, as an aside, there's some very strong reasons for going with a 300-word limit...not the least of which is saving the judges' sanity when we have to review hundreds of such items in a very short timespan...which Sean perfectly illustrated in an earlier post. But, aside from that, a sidebar like the ones that appear throughout most Pathfinder products (like adventure modules, companion books, etc.) have a pretty hard limit of...you guessed it!...300 words. And, since many of those sidebars often get used to present a new magic item (wondrous or otherwise), it makes a lot of sense to use that as the word-limit for this particular assignment.
Truth be known, every assignment throughout RPG Superstar is testing small pieces of what it will take to craft an excellent adventure for Paizo. The wondrous item is the smallest, easiest step for entry into the contest. After that, you'll be tested on your ability to craft compelling villains or monsters (or archetypes, this year)...eventually, you'll have to show your rules-fu on something...later you'll be asked to showcase an encounter which also demonstrates your ability to convey a compelling map to help a professional cartographer define it...and lastly, you'll be asked to spin a compelling plot in your adventure pitch for the public to vote upon as the adventure they'd most want Paizo to publish so they can buy it.
In a nutshell, that's the game. Writing to these word limits is something any professional freelancer has got to get comfortable with. Starting with a wondrous item submission is the first, and least, of these hurdles. So make sure you don't stumble over it, or you risk falling out of the competition before it's even fully underway. If you're having trouble conveying your wondrous item design in 300 words, that's probably an indicator you'd have trouble crafting an awesome adventure in just 20,000 words. Just a few extra words there is a big overwrite...and that causes all kinds of headaches for your developer.
So, my advice: Write a 200-word wondrous item instead. Once you write to that target, it'll be okay if you run over a bit with your idea, because you actually have 100 more words to spare.
My two-cents,
--Neil
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
BReaking the 300-word limit is definitely an autofail--it's a limit listed in the rules, and breaking that rule shows you can't follow simple instructions. :pMy wives said the same thing about me :P
What, that you can't follow instructions...
or you talk too much?
Note: I find it interesting that anyone might give someone a word limit when conversing... hehe
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
Piggybacking on Neil's advice...
Looking at my entries none of them were near the word count. My concern if I'd not crashed and burned was actually making the minimum word count in the adventure!
If you have to go over 300 words, it's likely too complex or too prone to game breaking.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Yeah, absolutely--although I was more talking about the item that has lots of promise and is right on the dot at 300 words, but is still full of empty spaces where rules should be. Some items are too complex to fit into 300 words. My assumption is that a real Superstar would go come up with something else rather than having to rely on the unspoken promise of his/her item because he/she couldn't fit all those promises in 300 words.
Your assumption is correct. If your item begs for rules that aren't there, I can pretty much guarantee that the judges will toss it out pronto.