On an unrelated note, do we have to submit our magic items via the Paizo website, or can we send in a physical representation. For example, if our magic item is, say, a magic toy pony (hypothetically), could we mail you a toy pony with the stats written on it? It's hard to convey the impact of the lavender scented mane of a toy pony via text.
Vic? I think you may be right. It is a pony.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I've said too much already - my item may or may not be a toy pony.
On an unrelated note, do we have to submit our magic items via the Paizo website, or can we send in a physical representation. For example, if our magic item is, say, a magic toy pony (hypothetically), could we mail you a toy pony with the stats written on it? It's hard to convey the impact of the lavender scented mane of a toy pony via text.
Not that the item is a pony.
If you have an actual magical toy pony, please send it, as I'm sure Lisa will find a way to monetize it. Otherwise, not so much.
Marathon Voter Season 6
|
Of all the auto-reject advice threads, I think this one could be the ripest for leaning on or perhaps bending. While the vast majority of "toy" items might be pedestrian at best, it wouldn't surprise me to see a really amazing entry crack this rule. However, the emphasis is on the singular; I cannot see two people making top 32 with a wondrous toy.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
...However, the emphasis is on the singular; I cannot see two people making top 32 with a wondrous toy.
Herremann the Wise is wise indeed. And herein, he's learned the lesson this "auto-reject" advice attempts to impart.
You shouldn't read that as "Your X happens to be a Y, too bad." You should read it as "Xs that are Ys tend not to be as good as Xs that are not Ys. If your X is a Y, you should be doubly sure that it is a cool X."
But, but... I failed Algebra 2!! Too... Many... Variables, My BRAAAAAIN! *clutches head and runs screaming into the distance*
...For anyone who has sufficiently done their homework...by following along with prior years of the competition, reviewing all the advice threads (not just these "auto-reject" threads, but all of them from years 1 thru 3), and applying their own self-education on the rules of the game and what items have it before, it actually should become far more intuitively obvious as to what makes a Superstar item stand out and what sends a less-than Superstar item to the "reject" bin.
...
Is it sad that I feel cheated because I did my homework and now the teacher is giving a cheat sheet to the rest of the class?
Nah, the way I see it is if everyone gets an A we all get a new set of monkey-bars to play on :)
EDIT: hmmm... should that have been 'a new set of magical ponies to play on'?
*Tears up his "Weebles of Fiery Doom" submission*
Baba Yaga thinks that's a good idea, because that sounds too close to her product identity with the "creepy china dolls of frozen doom" she has guarding Irrisen.
*Tears up his "Weebles of Fiery Doom" submission*
It's probably for the best. It would be hard to get the pricing on the ability to wobble but not fall down correct.
*Tears up his "Weebles of Fiery Doom" submission*It's probably for the best. It would be hard to get the pricing on the ability to wobble but not fall down correct.
They'd probably get auto-rejected anyways, for making Balance checks and the grease spell irrelevant.
Is it a pony? It's a pony, isn't it? I think it's a pony.
Nope, but it's not a jackal, either.
Child-toy items are dumb items. It's not heroic for a mighty warrior or thief to be playing with a jack-in-the-box. It's laughable for a powerful villain or dragon to be using a Raggedy Anne doll to intimidate or harm PCs.
Perhaps they're too specific in flavor to be attractive as a general magic item one might drop into a generic high fantasy dungeon (thus, perhaps not entirely appropriate for a contest that attempts to field universal home runs), but well placed in an adventure I don't see children's toy magic items as being definitively dumb. It depends on their relevance in the story, which can convey terrifying mood or create epic consequences. So long as it makes thematic sense for the NPC using it, it's the PCs' choice if they want to pick up and use the Monsoon Pinwheel after they win it in battle.
I submit into evidence the one ring to rule them all... which as it turns out is actually a secret agent decoder ring from the bottom of a box of Smeagol Jacks. Limited edition prize. Go figure.
And not every heroic character is a warrior in field plate or a cleric of Seriouso. Those character would look a bit silly shouting out "Die scum" while brandishing a Teddy Bear of Irresistable Snuggles, but I could see all sorts of high level character types holding up a dollie of woeful power without losing their cool reputations. Witches, any number of magic users or rogues.
I'm saying this of course because I recently wrote just such an item into an about-to-be-published Pathfinder compatible adventure. ;) Ahem.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So children's toys are Ok for multiple monsters but not so much for magic items? You fight evil animated doll construct and a child ghost creature which takes the form of animated toys and playthings but making an item based on a toy is verboten?
Also.... one of last years winners fell pretty squarely into this category:
Cacophonous Monkey
Right? I'm thinkin if I'm a rich merchant, I'm definately paying some wily wizard to craft my daughter a little dollie that turns into some kinda butt-stompin golem when she feels threatened. Course, this could lead to problems with playground bullying and such... problems for the other parents kids, that is (and the school building and the town, but whatever).
Right? I'm thinkin if I'm a rich merchant, I'm definately paying some wily wizard to craft my daughter a little dollie that turns into some kinda b%~~-stompin golem when she feels threatened. Course, this could lead to problems with playground bullying and such... problems for the other parents kids, that is (and the school building and the town, but whatever).
A rich person wanting to protect their daughter. I went right to that same place.
But at that point you are talking about a construct and not a wondrous item . . . ;)
But at that point you are talking about a construct and not a wondrous item . . . ;)
The thing I recently wrote up was actually a wondrous item, but I like the idea of a Star Wars action figure collection that Puppetmasters intruders.
::Looking down on a puddle of guts::
"The force was not with that one."
So children's toys are Ok for multiple monsters but not so much for magic items? You fight evil animated doll construct and a child ghost creature which takes the form of animated toys and playthings but making an item based on a toy is verboten?
Also.... one of last years winners fell pretty squarely into this category:
Cacophonous Monkey
I'm like the Candyman; mention the monkey three times in a thread and I will rise.
I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on item design; I lucked out last year and might not ever get the chance again. But I feel special affinity for this particular bit of Sean's advice, so, as Neil would say, this is just my two cents.
So here's the thing: I didn't have the benefit of Sean's list last year when I submitted my monkey, but even if I had, with no disrespect intended, I'd probably still have submitted it. Not out of arrogance (I hope) or thinking I knew better, but because I was just so psyched by my entry that I felt really, really confident. But, the thing is... even without Sean's list, I knew it was a big risk. I knew it stood a really big chance of being looked at in an unflattering light and getting blasted to clockwork toy heaven by three incensed judges. I sweated a lot during the month between submitting it and the 32 entries being revealed. I was absolutely convinced I'd sunk my chances by submitting a risky entry and I was hoping to not get TOO much harsh feedback when I would inevitably post it on the rejected item thread. And I wound up being pleasantly surprised (oh, that is so much understatement) by it being selected; but it could easily have gone the other way. And I was prepared for that.
Which is basically what's been said many times over the course of this advice; ignore these suggestions at your peril, but feel free to gamble your chances at the contest if you really stand behind your idea. Not just for this 'rule' but for them all. (As #27 points out succinctly.) But the important thing is- know you're taking a risk. Own that risk. People seem to get incensed because they're being given a list of judge turn-offs, and I think that's the wrong way to look at this. Don't get upset because a judge's idea of what is or isn't superstar isn't exactly in line with yours; just take the advice and keep working. If your item violates one of Sean's suggestions and you're not 100% invested in it- start over. You've got plenty of suggestions what to do to not get off on the wrong foot. But if you are 100% behind it... then kick that door down with your +5 flaming boots of doorbusting, baby. Because the fun part of taking a risk is that when it pays off if feels AWESOME.
Oh, and I think part of the reason that toy items offend and toy-oriented monsters don't is due mainly to the creepy factor: fighting Chucky is nightmare fuel; winding Chucky up and having him helping you out in combat is less so. I mean, obviously I have slightly different feelings on the topic, but I get the sentiment.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
aka Benchak the Nightstalker
|
And not every heroic character is a warrior in field plate or a cleric of Seriouso. Those character would look a bit silly shouting out "Die scum" while brandishing a Teddy Bear of Irresistable Snuggles, but I could see all sorts of high level character types holding up a dollie of woeful power without losing their cool reputations. Witches, any number of magic users or rogues.
Heh, the Witch I'm playing in Kingmaker totally picked up ranks in Craft: Dollmaking at first level. :D
and once again I look at the advice on how to design an item for superstar and realise that I can't think of one single thing that wouldn't fall foul of at least one of the do-nots.
Clearly I am not Superstar material so why even bother trying..all part of a worrying trend towards the elitism that Pathfinder is being accused of already.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
and once again I look at the advice on how to design an item for superstar and realise that I can't think of one single thing that wouldn't fall foul of at least one of the do-nots.
Clearly I am not Superstar material so why even bother trying..all part of a worrying trend towards the elitism that Pathfinder is being accused of already.
Really? Most don't seem that hard to avoid. This one in particular. Which ones are you having the most trouble with?
I'm thinking mostly off #1,#6 and #21..with so many items, spells and feats not to mention classes available from over 30 years of this game in all it's iterations it's almost impossible to be original IMHO.
And #'s 6 & 9 together mean you have to be aware of every single copyrighted wonderous item in any media. Imagine coming up with some thing that really rocks only to be told it is similar to an item in 'Spellwarriors of Gurglethrax" a copyrighted PDF distributed to half a dozen people in Outer Mongolia..yes I am aware thats an extreme case but those are the ones that always sneak up and bite you in the ass
I'm thinking mostly off #1,#6 and #21..with so many items, spells and feats not to mention classes available from over 30 years of this game in all it's iterations it's almost impossible to be original IMHO.
And #'s 6 & 9 together mean you have to be aware of every single copyrighted wonderous item in any media. Imagine coming up with some thing that really rocks only to be told it is similar to an item in 'Spellwarriors of Gurglethrax" a copyrighted PDF distributed to half a dozen people in Outer Mongolia..yes I am aware thats an extreme case but those are the ones that always sneak up and bite you in the ass
These rules are not so much about not borrowing from something that has been done before or expanding on it, as on simply duplicating a feat, spell or Class ability.
Almost every wondrous item has a spell in its requirements, which means that it at least shares some aspects with the spell in question. But that doesn't make them all spells in a can.What makes an item a spell/feat/classability in a can is a lack of creativity and innovativeness.
Take for example my Swarmseed arrow While i don#t know if this item is superstar material, most people won't accuse it of being a Spell in a can. But if you take a hard look at it you see that its just a finger of death with an extra dose of Vomit swarm. [/self plug] ;)
The importaint thing in Rpg Superstar is to do something new and cool. Wheter its completely new or something new with an established mechanic, spell or concept doesn't matter.
|
and once again I look at the advice on how to design an item for superstar and realise that I can't think of one single thing that wouldn't fall foul of at least one of the do-nots.
Clearly I am not Superstar material so why even bother trying..all part of a worrying trend towards the elitism that Pathfinder is being accused of already.
I don't know how trying to find someone capable of professional level design from the ranks of the fans constitutes "elitism". It actually seems pretty egalitarian to me. After all, the prize is writing (and getting paid for) a published professional gaming product. Which, presumably, Paizo would like to sell for money.
People aren't going to buy something if it isn't much better than what they could do thmeselves. And past winners (and even just people who made a good showing) have writing credits all over Paizo products.
This thing is pretty unheard of, and has allowed some fans a chance to crack the ranks of the pros in ways not seen since Dungeon started. Without this contest, the bar for entry into the industry would be that much higher, and finding talent that much more of a chore.
Oh all the best to those who can manage it..I guess there is a small element of jealousy involved. I know my limitations and I haven't the time to devote to the competition.
Plus this year it's dragging Neil away from our PbP's..grrr
Heh, the Witch I'm playing in Kingmaker totally picked up ranks in Craft: Dollmaking at first level. :D
And not every heroic character is a warrior in field plate or a cleric of Seriouso. Those character would look a bit silly shouting out "Die scum" while brandishing a Teddy Bear of Irresistable Snuggles, but I could see all sorts of high level character types holding up a dollie of woeful power without losing their cool reputations. Witches, any number of magic users or rogues.
Thought ought to get pretty cool pretty quick. :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm thinking mostly off #1,#6 and #21..with so many items, spells and feats not to mention classes available from over 30 years of this game in all it's iterations it's almost impossible to be original IMHO.
And #'s 6 & 9 together mean you have to be aware of every single copyrighted wonderous item in any media. Imagine coming up with some thing that really rocks only to be told it is similar to an item in 'Spellwarriors of Gurglethrax" a copyrighted PDF distributed to half a dozen people in Outer Mongolia..yes I am aware thats an extreme case but those are the ones that always sneak up and bite you in the ass
The idea behind those guidelines is that you should consciously avoid duplicating or expanding on existing things, not that you should have an encyclopedic knowledge of the game. I missed out on 2nd edition, 3.0 and most of 3.5. Jim Groves (Top 8 last year) was similarly 'deprived' and neither of us did any particular research.
If you approach this and say to yourself "My item is like item/ feat/ classability XXXX" but better then you are probably approaching it wrong. The idea behind all those ideas is simple, you should consciously avoid duplicating or expanding any items you know. That's it.
Pull your head outside the game mechanics as much as possible. Put it into your favorite fantasy world and think about what sort of crazy thing would be fun to see there. Then once you do that try and wrap some game mechanics around it.
I'll ditto the advice Dennis just gave. Don't get intimidated by the "auto-reject" advice threads. And don't allow worrying over the possibility of duplicating something from prior publications to hold you back. This is a great opportunity. Along with a few others who have gone through this process, I feel I can credibly assert that. So, seriously, buck up and submit. Once the door of opportunity closes, you'll be kicking yourself the whole rest of the year if you don't. Besides, even if you don't make it, you're still doing your part to make the competition a success for Paizo. And the hobby, overall...
So, seriously, buck up and submit. Once the door of opportunity closes, you'll be kicking yourself the whole rest of the year if you don't.
Yep.
Wait. Someone's already made a door of opportunity? *reconsiders wondrous item idea* :P
Made it? I already used it, man! ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
If you have an actual magical toy pony, please send it, as I'm sure Lisa will find a way to monetize it. Otherwise, not so much.I've said too much already - my item may or may not be a toy pony.
On an unrelated note, do we have to submit our magic items via the Paizo website, or can we send in a physical representation. For example, if our magic item is, say, a magic toy pony (hypothetically), could we mail you a toy pony with the stats written on it? It's hard to convey the impact of the lavender scented mane of a toy pony via text.
Not that the item is a pony.
It's not a toy pony. It's an actual magic pony.
@Sebastian: postage on ponies is expensive. Just send the head.
And #'s 6 & 9 together mean you have to be aware of every single copyrighted wonderous item in any media. Imagine coming up with some thing that really rocks only to be told it is similar to an item in 'Spellwarriors of Gurglethrax" a copyrighted PDF distributed to half a dozen people in Outer Mongolia..yes I am aware thats an extreme case but those are the ones that always sneak up and bite you in the ass
Others have addressed this, but I figured I'd share my take on it.
I don't see this as being a worrisome item. I see it as more of a "if you've seen it in another source, don't enter it in the contest" kind of thing.
I don't think anyone expects that the entrant is versed in every aspect of fantasy and RPGs, but it seems that a "superstar" will have a competent knowledge of the genre, and create accordingly.
Sure, some people will undoubtedly enter an item that they weren't aware of existed already - just like some entrants will have ideas incredibly similar to others.
Everything has been done before, and the "superstar" is expected to do it better.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
Nothing is new under the sun, including the sun.
There's a difference between submitting the Ecology of the Centaur as your own work, and parallelling another's.
As I mentioned here Marc's Vanguard and my arcane legionary/damascarran look a lot alike, superficially. (again, I'm going off the review, not the PDF, haven't had the spare change to buy it. (yet!))
Both of them also have a lot in common with the psychic warrior and the arcane duelist from the APG. There's only so much flexibility in a 'average BAB, full caster, 6th level spells' type. Did I look at the Vanguard before I revised my damascarran? No. Did Marc look at my damascarran before he wrote the vanguard? Again no (unless he's psychic). But they are similar w/o being the same.
When it comes to 'superstar' items, we're talking about items that by their nature, are going to have unique traits, talents and item creation notes. It's doubtful that your 'lucky cup' is going to read exactly the same as my tankard, so the odds of exactly copying a unique item are pretty slim.
|
None of that changes the fundamental fact that it's not the wisest course to deliberately go against the grain and, say, design an item that is a child's toy that makes you vomit all the time but in so doing allows you to follow your trail of vomit back home so that you never get lost.
That sounds BLOODY AWESOME!
If you think that toys cannot make awesome items, I think that just shows personal bias, and yes you are a judge, but you should still have imagination. There are many ways in which they can be cool, innovative, and awesome. Go watch Daywatch, and tell me the final action scene isn't cool because it uses a "children's" toy. Or that the Joker using explosive jack-in-the-boxes or shocking handshakes wasn't cool.
I think it's poor design and poor editing to disregard something because it isn't something you like.Let me me quote Captain Pike from last year's Star Trek movie:
Or perhaps this:
Do you think you can write an awesome toy wondrous item, despite what I've said above?
Then do it.
Prove.
Me.
Wrong.
I want you to prove me wrong.
I want someone to create something that puts a new twist on something old and revitalizes the entire category. Maybe it's basically spell in a can, like Neil's last leaves of the autumn dryad. Maybe it's an item named for a real-world item, like James Martin's runcible spoon. Maybe it's a toy, like Sean McGowan's cacophonous monkey. Or maybe it's an item you have to swallow, and eventually you barf it back up or *ahem* let it pass, like Benjamin Bruck's steadfast gut-stone.
There are rules in this world. Sometimes those rules are there to protect you, like "don't drive over the speed limit." And there are some people who break those rules to win races, or to get to a burning house in time to save lives.
These topics are advice. They're not hard rules for the contest--those are listed elsewhere, and you shouldn't break or even bend those rules. But all of these topics I've been writing, they're just advice. Can you recognize what *advice* that's been given here can be skirted, or ignored entirely?
Sean, not that I'm, in anyway disputing your claim here, but the fact that you issued this challenge immediately made me attempt to drum up a concept that would actually work.
Didn't. Go. Well.
But! What I did find out though, is that the entire "Toy Magic Item" concept only seems works if it is presented in context to something else. Someone mentioned the joker's jack-in-the-box thing and shocking handshake, expressing how great these items were; they were cool because they were a part of the character's concept, and thus wouldn't necessarily work as a standalone item.
That said, I did think of this one thing though.
The Sentinel Doll.
An exquisitely carved wooden doll, that wealthy noblemen and the like, acquire to guard their treasure vaults as they are enchanted with a permanent alarm spell. The clever idea behind this item being a doll would be the fact that it doesn't necessarily reveal its true nature to any potential burglars, plus, it's portable which allows the owner to relocated his wealth any time needed. Of course this could as well be a crown, or necklace thrown into the pile of gold in the vault, but since this was a challenge to create a toy magic item that has a valid function I of course chose to make it a doll. Estimated price; 2000 gp.
I don't consider this a great creation, but I do think it has a valid application while being a doll (toy). But beyond that, I think it would be really hard to create a truly original toy magic item, because, as earlier mentioned; It's been done to death. Not the exact words, but approriate.
Anyway, as I have already had a lot of other stuff on the drawingboard I won't be exploring any toy items in my more serious entry on this webpagem, but I will try to find an interesting concept for a toy magic item which could be perceived as original and useful on its own merit.
And with that, my interest for this debate is over.
Thanks for all the advice Sean, even though I found them at quite an unfortunate time.