So..... as I was looking through the Wondrous Items in the Core book, it seemed that every one I was looking at started with "This (insert item with description)..." and then basically went into mechanics. Is there no room for any fluff text or single sentence back story, or am I thinking too hard here?
The key, is not giving "too much" fluff.
If it is a single line giving some description, then that should be ok, as long as it isn't extraneous or redundant.
If the fluff text is unnecessary and you are reaching close to 300 words, then I'd consider eliminating it.
No, I'm at 247, just my first time submitting, and I am a little bit of a perfectionist at times XD It's really just the one sentence in this case that I am thinking about.
So..... as I was looking through the Wondrous Items in the Core book, it seemed that every one I was looking at started with "This (insert item with description)..." and then basically went into mechanics. Is there no room for any fluff text or single sentence back story, or am I thinking too hard here?
If you think your fluff text is completely full of awesomesauce, I'd keep it. If it's backstory, I'd keep it as brief as possible.
Mucho importante: If your backstory mentions Golarion at all, make sure your text is consistent with the Pathfinder campaign setting's published canon. If your item mentions mind flayers, yuan-ti, Grazzt, or Lolth you might want to do a litle finger-dance with your Back Space key.
|
No, I'm at 247, just my first time submitting, and I am a little bit of a perfectionist at times XD It's really just the one sentence in this case that I am thinking about.The key, is not giving "too much" fluff.
If it is a single line giving some description, then that should be ok, as long as it isn't extraneous or redundant.
If the fluff text is unnecessary and you are reaching close to 300 words, then I'd consider eliminating it.
Be careful on what you say about your submission. It's supposed to be anonymous. One of the dis-qualifiers is posting anywhere (here or outside the boards) information that can give away what your submission is.
|
|
So..... as I was looking through the Wondrous Items in the Core book, it seemed that every one I was looking at started with "This (insert item with description)..." and then basically went into mechanics. Is there no room for any fluff text or single sentence back story, or am I thinking too hard here?If you think your fluff text is completely full of awesomesauce, I'd keep it. If it's backstory, I'd keep it as brief as possible.
Mucho importante: If your backstory mentions Golarion at all, make sure your text is consistent with the Pathfinder campaign setting's published canon. If your item mentions mind flayers, yuan-ti, Grazzt, or Lolth you might want to do a litle finger-dance with your Back Space key.
That's why, unless you are a master of the Pathfinder cannon, it's better just to make the fluff generic.
Be careful on what you say about your submission. It's supposed to be anonymous. One of the dis-qualifiers is posting anywhere (here or outside the boards) information that can give away what your submission is.No, I'm at 247, just my first time submitting, and I am a little bit of a perfectionist at times XD It's really just the one sentence in this case that I am thinking about.The key, is not giving "too much" fluff.
If it is a single line giving some description, then that should be ok, as long as it isn't extraneous or redundant.
If the fluff text is unnecessary and you are reaching close to 300 words, then I'd consider eliminating it.
ah, yeah, I thought that was anonymous enough, and it is still being changed, so yeah..... everything you have read, is only about the draft.... NOT FINAL :) does that make it anonymous enough? or should I delete posts here?
|
|
ah, yeah, I thought that was anonymous enough, and it is still being changed, so yeah..... everything you have read, is only about the draft.... NOT FINAL :) does that make it anonymous enough? or should I delete posts here?
I think it's fine (just make sure your submission is not 247 words lol). I was just warning you before you went any further. Would hate to see someone disqualified.
I think it's fine (just make sure your submission is not 247 words lol). I was just warning you before you went any further. Would hate to see someone disqualified.
ah, yeah, I thought that was anonymous enough, and it is still being changed, so yeah..... everything you have read, is only about the draft.... NOT FINAL :) does that make it anonymous enough? or should I delete posts here?
Or I could say it's not 247 anymore, and then still make it 247, and then they wouldn't know it is mine... Oh boy reverse psychology, lol. Anywho, yeah, thanks for the info, and it has already changed several times since my previous postings, so I am sure there isn't anything really identifying in here. I'd hate to get DQ'd for generic statements about fluff and word counts.
If you are asking about fluff, then either you haven't done your homework about this competition or you have not been here for any of the discussion of the issue in any of the prior years of the competition.
If ever this is clear guidance on all issues for a contest, it is this one.
Asking questions is fine, but when you ask a question like this you are saying you haven't done even a minimum amount of research.
Discussion about the uselessness of fluff text has been a part of each year's critique and comment.
But even if you looked no further than THE VERY FIRST THREAD ON THIS FORUM you would find:
Word to the wise :) And good luck.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I suggest you read the previous years entries, when I hear the term flavor text I think about many of the things which set the winning items apart from the crowd.
Is very nearly airwalk in a can... I don't think it would have made it into the top 32 if it hadn't been such an elegantly worded item that sparked the imagination. IMO, it floated in on flowery flavor text. (FWIW I loved the item)
Some of it is perspective, is Lief's prose 'fluff'? Any descriptive text needs to be simple and directly reflect some properties of the item. Lief doesn't include any item history or talk about how it's crafted by carving the underbellies from 1000 virgin nymphs, but he does paint a very vivid picture of the effect which IMO wins the day for his item.
An item that incites an evocative mental image is good. Extraneous information about the item is bad... It's a matter of taste and a careful balance.
If you are asking about fluff, then either you haven't done your homework about this competition or you have not been here for any of the discussion of the issue in any of the prior years of the competition.
If ever this is clear guidance on all issues for a contest, it is this one.
Asking questions is fine, but when you ask a question like this you are saying you haven't done even a minimum amount of research.
Discussion about the uselessness of fluff text has been a part of each year's critique and comment.
But even if you looked no further than THE VERY FIRST THREAD ON THIS FORUM you would find:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/rpgsuperstar/general/w ondrousItemAutoRejectAdvice3BackstoryHistoryDescriptionItem
Word to the wise :) And good luck.
Actually, I posted this after having looked back at all the previous years' top 32, and reading a fair number of the core wondrous items. The core had less fluff overall, but some of the top 32 from previous years did have a minor amount of what seemed to be fluff to me. Perhaps I am just reading "fluff" differently, as I was thinking of anything that was not directly mechanically related to it's game function as fluff. My question was based on my research, not because I didn't do any, but I appreciate the advice anyways :)
I suggest you read the previous years entries, when I hear the term flavor text I think about many of the things which set the winning items apart from the crowd.
Is very nearly airwalk in a can... I don't think it would have made it into the top 32 if it hadn't been such an elegantly worded item that sparked the imagination. IMO, it floated in on flowery flavor text. (FWIW I loved the item)
Some of it is perspective, is Lief's prose 'fluff'? Any descriptive text needs to be simple and directly reflect some properties of the item. Lief doesn't include any item history or talk about how it's crafted by carving the underbellies from 1000 virgin nymphs, but he does paint a very vivid picture of the effect which IMO wins the day for his item.
An item that incites an evocative mental image is good. Extraneous information about the item is bad... It's a matter of taste and a careful balance.
Very Insightful, thanks :)
An item that incites an evocative mental image is good. Extraneous information about the item is bad... It's a matter of taste and a careful balance.
Yes. This. This is excellent advice.
The "taste and careful balance" part is quite tricky, but you know it when you see it. A Superstar's work takes on a vivid life of it's own. The text flows, the item's description paints a memorable picture, and the rules "crunch" ties everything together into a nice neat package.
Actually, I posted this after having looked back at all the previous years' top 32, and reading a fair number of the core wondrous items. The core had less fluff overall, but some of the top 32 from previous years did have a minor amount of what seemed to be fluff to me. Perhaps I am just reading "fluff" differently, as I was thinking of anything that was not directly mechanically related to it's game function as fluff.
Oh yea, that's totally a fair question. And if you're curious there's still a lot more discussion of this question in the link Clark posted (if you remove the space so that the link works, I mean =p). The advice here is very good too, I think, even though I'm sure some of it has been said before.
The bottom line is that you're right, many of the top 32 ARE more flamboyant than the core 3e authors were. But it's still very easy to go wrong with fluff and a lot of items get rejected as a result.
Best of luck and welcome aboard!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Seven Thousand Blossoms... floated in on flowery flavor text.Pun intended?
Purely accidental I'm certain ;)
Hmm, any suggested word count for the description of the item?
I've noticed an introductory, one-sentence trend, but the length seems to vary greatly...
Two short sentences or one long sentence does seem to be the norm from the previous years top 32.
If I was going to guess on a maximum word count for descriptive text, I'd say about 50 words is a good measure. Any more than that and a third of your submission is fluff and not rules. Many of the top 32 entries from previous years have a descriptive section with a word count of 20 words or less, so there is nothing wrong with brevity.
Some items, like the Seven Thousand Blossoms, also manage to sneak some extra descriptive text into the 'crunch'.
Though the petals seem suspended by a gentle breeze and are too sparse to provide cover or concealment, they act as a firm and stable surface for creatures and attended objects.
See, fluff, suspended in crunch so you don't even notice it! But I think thats the trick with trying to cram in extra description. If people DO notice you trying to sneak in more fluff than substance, its a point against you.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
I'd disagree with the 'master of Golarion Lore' A rank or two should do fine, if used correctly. The Goblin Skull bomb relies on Golarion goblins w/o needing extensive knowlege of them. My tankard just mentions Cayden, and it 'locks' the image in. A little can go a long way.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'd disagree with the 'master of Golarion Lore' A rank or two should do fine, if used correctly. The Goblin Skull bomb relies on Golarion goblins w/o needing extensive knowlege of them. My tankard just mentions Cayden, and it 'locks' the image in. A little can go a long way.
I agree. No deep expertise is needed, just make sure any bits you might use don't contradict or make any assumptions about canon.
You can get more than enough fluff by spending ~10-20 minutes on the The Pathfinder Wiki. For what it's worth, a highly recommended place to find nearly any tidbit about Golarion. Its good enough some of the paid freelancers use the Pathfinder Wiki as a primary reference.
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
I'd disagree with the 'master of Golarion Lore' A rank or two should do fine, if used correctly. The Goblin Skull bomb relies on Golarion goblins w/o needing extensive knowlege of them. My tankard just mentions Cayden, and it 'locks' the image in. A little can go a long way.
I agree that you don't need to be an expert all things Golarian to include some Golarian flavor.
Just research the Golarian things you want to include. Using Matthew's tankard as an example, he used a Golarian God in his fluff. To know what the God stands for, you probably only need to read his portfolio from the Core rulebook. But you could even go as far as to read His entry in the Pathfinder Chronicles: Gods and Magic.
And a little bit goes a LONG way. Just mentioning a couple key words that seem to be associated with the particular fluff you are looking for should be enough to evoke the reference.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
See, fluff, suspended in crunch so you don't even notice it!
This is a great line! And this is what makes evocative prose that brings the item to life. It has flavor and mechanics without getting bogged down so much in either that the item is meaningless.
Anything that makes you go, "Oooh, that's neato keen" but isn't pure fluff prose, is really a good idea.
But anything that makes you go, "that's cool, but how does it work," or "wow, this item does something kinda neat, but its so bland," is not the way to go.
[...] Golarian [...] Golarian [...] Golarian [...] Golarian
[...]
And a little bit goes a LONG way. Just mentioning a couple key words that seem to be associated with the particular fluff you are looking for should be enough to evoke the reference.
One thing you definitely should get right though is the name of their campaign world. ;)
But now I'll have to go, do the prepwork for my next Planescope session. ;)
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
[...] Golarian [...] Golarian [...] Golarian [...] Golarian
[...]
And a little bit goes a LONG way. Just mentioning a couple key words that seem to be associated with the particular fluff you are looking for should be enough to evoke the reference.One thing you definitely should get right though is the name of their campaign world. ;)
But now I'll have to go, do the prepwork for my next Planescope session. ;)
[looks about anxiously] did I get it wrong?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
[looks about anxiously] did I get it wrong?[...] Golarian [...] Golarian [...] Golarian [...] Golarian
[...]
And a little bit goes a LONG way. Just mentioning a couple key words that seem to be associated with the particular fluff you are looking for should be enough to evoke the reference.One thing you definitely should get right though is the name of their campaign world. ;)
But now I'll have to go, do the prepwork for my next Planescope session. ;)
Golarion two 'o's one 'a'
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Golarion two 'o's one 'a'[looks about anxiously] did I get it wrong?[...] Golarian [...] Golarian [...] Golarian [...] Golarian
[...]
And a little bit goes a LONG way. Just mentioning a couple key words that seem to be associated with the particular fluff you are looking for should be enough to evoke the reference.One thing you definitely should get right though is the name of their campaign world. ;)
But now I'll have to go, do the prepwork for my next Planescope session. ;)
Ack! Chuckle... yup... there's me not paying attention again.
This is a great example of not paying attention to detail, and should this mistake have gotten into a submission, it would have been a justifiable rejection.
In my round 2 entry I misspelled Absalom (probably did it again just now. ;) While Clark and Ed liked the submission, all the Paizo folks got really (& rightfully :) upset.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'd disagree with the 'master of Golarion Lore' A rank or two should do fine, if used correctly. The Goblin Skull bomb relies on Golarion goblins w/o needing extensive knowlege of them. My tankard just mentions Cayden, and it 'locks' the image in. A little can go a long way.I agree that you don't need to be an expert all things Golarian to include some Golarian flavor.
Just research the Golarian things you want to include. Using Matthew's tankard as an example, he used a Golarian God in his fluff. To know what the God stands for, you probably only need to read his portfolio from the Core rulebook. But you could even go as far as to read His entry in the Pathfinder Chronicles: Gods and Magic.
And a little bit goes a LONG way. Just mentioning a couple key words that seem to be associated with the particular fluff you are looking for should be enough to evoke the reference.
If you don't have confidence in your knowledge, I'd advise you not to make an attempt on that in your submission. (That's not to say Andrew isn't providing good advice—he is, in that doing the things he suggests will help you gain confidence in your knowledge.)
Items are regularly tossed out because somebody namedrops a Golarion god/region/event when they clearly don't have a real understanding of it. (So if you're going to mention Desna, for example, make sure that you know more about Desna than just the list of her domains. You should know her background and what she stands for.)