Hi folks,
A bit of advice, please, if you can.
Some items in the "Wondrous Items" category have lesser and greater versions within the single item description. Is this acceptable to do when submitting for RPG Superstar? That is, if I have an item that makes sense to have a lesser version and a greater version, would it be acceptable to post both variations in the single item description, or would this count as two items?
For example, let's say the lesser item has one less power than the greater item. Would that be able to be the same item?
ie:
Bag of Tricks
Bag of Holding
Crystal Ball
Strand of Prayer Beads
In my case. The lesser item is more practicle, cost and ability wise but is kind of boring. The greater version has only one extra ability, but this makes it much sexier. Both fit the rules, follow a single theme, and I don't think either would be auto-reject.
What do you think?
Thanks,
Ken
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
If you read back over the comments on the past top 96, you'll find at least a couple where the judges commented on this.
In a way, they said, "why not just include the greater mechanics inside this write-up" or something such.
But I'd suggest going back and looking at the top 32 over the last 3 years and see if you can find your own answer to the question.
In my case. The lesser item is more practicle, cost and ability wise but is kind of boring. The greater version has only one extra ability, but this makes it much sexier. Both fit the rules, follow a single theme, and I don't think either would be auto-reject.
What do you think?
I have only my own anecdotal experience based on my rejected submission a few years ago, when I submitted two related items. I won't be doing it again.
I would probably simply submit the greater version and be done with it.
But doing both wouldn't be forbidden by the rules.
However:
- You have only 300 words total to stat up both of your items.
- An error in one of the items hurts both.
- If the judges think you are trying to sneak 2 different ideas into the contest they might ding you for it
- ...
Has there ever been an item published in a book that is a complete and interesting item on its own, and then a later book expands upon that item with a lesser, greater, or variant version?
(Answer: yes.)
Thank you. My thing was actually just an "upper level" version of the same item. I think I concur Azmahel though. Why chance a possible reject? I'll just submit the greater version.
Thanks!
Ken
Has there ever been an item published in a book that is a complete and interesting item on its own, and then a later book expands upon that item with a lesser, greater, or variant version?
(Answer: yes.)
What do you think?
I think if you are the only one who submits such an item (or even a single item with the words "Greater" or "Lesser" in the title or text) that you've just blown your anonymity and will get rejected for violating a primary contest rule.
Unfortunately, you asked a highly specific question. So it would be trivial to match it to an item submitted that matches it.
Good luck.
Unfortunately, you asked a highly specific question. So it would be trivial to match it to an item submitted that matches it.
Eh, he's fine. If he submits an item without any references to different versions of it and just sticks with the more powerful and cool one they would never know the difference.
Even if there is a stick of total awesomeness (some lesser sticks have been found made by apprentices) it won't blow his cover out of the hundreds of entrants. Looking through the rejected items threads it wasn't an uncommon theme.
What do you think?
I think if you are the only one who submits such an item (or even a single item with the words "Greater" or "Lesser" in the title or text) that you've just blown your anonymity and will get rejected for violating a primary contest rule.
Unfortunately, you asked a highly specific question. So it would be trivial to match it to an item submitted that matches it.
Good luck.
Fair point, though I don't think me asking the question means I could be the only person who possibly submits such an item. Of course, the proof is in the pudding, and I'll only know if that does happen. Then again, I don't know that I'm even going to submit it in that fashion. You make a good point though; which is, don't get too specific on your questions or may identify yourself.
Thanks!
Ken
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If the item isn't good enough to cut it with a single 'version' inserting two isn't going to help you. It is far more likely that in your efforts to add a second version you will make some mistake that makes your item less appealing or outright disqualifies you.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Be careful about putting multiple versions of something in one entry. For my monster entry last year I tried showing a single monster in multiple stages of development. As a result none of the stages quite came together. Making an item that has multiple levels of power is certainly possible, but take care that the core item isn't weakened by the variants.
One approach is to subtly hint that there could be other versions of the item. The Muse of the Solemn Vessel does this by showcasing one in a set of items. Of course, be very careful when taking this approach as there are other pitfalls, such as making it seem like a named artifact, or disappointing the reader who wants to see the whole set.
Personally, the approach I would take is to use the coolest version of the item. You could later talk about how you'd expand upon the item after the judging is done.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
I can see why one might want to include a lesser and greater version of the item.
I almost let myself write up my item with two versions, but after feedback from friends, chose against it.
Part of the reason, is a “cool” item could be expensive, and because of its expense, its usability may come into question. So you show its evolution from a low tier/level item that is inexpensive to the upper tier/level item that is cool as heck.
I’d actually shy away from this, unless you can do so concisely without ruining the flow of your prose. And, I might add, as long as the greater item isn’t just tacking an extra ability onto the lesser item.
Also keep in mind, the Lesser Displacement cloak has blur, and the greater has displacement.
Thanks everybody. That's a lot of great advice from a lot of well-experienced folks.
I've definately shied away from that idea now.
I'll keep my item as a single item and find a way to moderate its powers without sacrificing its appeal.
Thanks!
Ken
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
If you read back over the comments on the past top 96, you'll find at least a couple where the judges commented on this.
In a way, they said, "why not just include the greater mechanics inside this write-up" or something such.
But I'd suggest going back and looking at the top 32 over the last 3 years and see if you can find your own answer to the question.
This is good advice.
Chief Technical Officer
|
One approach is to subtly hint that there could be other versions of the item.
I can't speak for all the judges, but I always see that as "and there's more stuff too, but I'm not clever enough to work out the details!"
How many of the Wondrous Items in the Core Rulebook have teases like that?
Or, it can come across as "I'm not sure which design is best, so I'll try and do a two-fer in the hopes that mentioning them both doubles my chances of making it in."
Or, it's a sign of a designer who has trouble distilling down their ideas to a single, crisp presentation.
That said, there's no hard and fast rule here. This is one of those examples where if someone really knocks our socks off and nails the presentation on a lesser/greater item combo, maybe there's some synergy in the dual design that does grab a spot in the Top 32. The important thing is be awesome. Period.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
One approach is to subtly hint that there could be other versions of the item.I can't speak for all the judges, but I always see that as "and there's more stuff too, but I'm not clever enough to work out the details!"
How many of the Wondrous Items in the Core Rulebook have teases like that?
In fairness, have seen this in published products a fair number of times.
", though more powerful tankards may exist."
Bear Pelt of the Bonebreaker
"Some champions of Urazra claim to have more powerful cloaks that allow them to take the shape of polar bears or even dire bears."
Not saying it's a good idea, just that people tend to copy the bad habits in the industry as much as the good ;)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
One approach is to subtly hint that there could be other versions of the item.I can't speak for all the judges, but I always see that as "and there's more stuff too, but I'm not clever enough to work out the details!"
How many of the Wondrous Items in the Core Rulebook have teases like that?
In fairness, have seen this in published products a fair number of times.
** spoiler omitted **
Not saying it's a good idea, just that people tend to copy the bad habits in the industry as much as the good ;)
I think in a setting book, it's more reasonable to give the readers concepts they can spin off... but in a Core Rulebook, the goal needs to be more to give you all the rules you need, and not make the reader make them up.
Now, it's a fair point that we're not asking you to write an item for the Core Rulebook, but we have also generally said that, for the most part, you should look to that book for guidance.
Last year's Muse of the Solemn Vessel mentioned that it was one of nine mantles of the muses and that it was the one that presided over vocal music (implying that the others were keyed to other types of Perform). Neil mentioned this as one of his "keeper" points about the itemOne approach is to subtly hint that there could be other versions of the item.I can't speak for all the judges, but I always see that as "and there's more stuff too, but I'm not clever enough to work out the details!"
How many of the Wondrous Items in the Core Rulebook have teases like that?
In fairness, have seen this in published products a fair number of times.
** spoiler omitted **
Not saying it's a good idea, just that people tend to copy the bad habits in the industry as much as the good ;)
Nevertheless, I really like the presentation. You nailed the use of the template. Your item concept is sound. And you've alluded to multiple muses with different themed performance-enhancing abilities as flavor. And lastly, you've delved into using one of the new Pathfinder rules related to bards. That's Superstar mojo and ingenuity at work.
Last year's Muse of the Solemn Vessel mentioned that it was one of nine mantles of the muses and that it was the one that presided over vocal music (implying that the others were keyed to other types of Perform). Neil mentioned this as one of his "keeper" points about the item.
That's a perfect example of where referring to more versions of an item works. Why? A variety of reasons:
1) Andrew kept it simple. "One of nine mantles of the muse, the Muse of the Solemn Vessel’s providence is that of the musical voice." That's all he told us in his description. You never see a single mention about the other versions after that. They're not named, described, or even hinted at beyond that simple fact that eight others exist, each one corresponding to one of the known muses...which most people are usually already familiar with...so his reference didn't really require any further exposition. He told us a tremendous amount just with that small reference.
2) It was thematically appropriate. In classical Greek mythology, there are exactly nine muses, each one corresponding to a different artistic expression. They don't, however, all line up to bard skills. Some go into the art-related Craft skills, etc. But Andrew's focused on the "singing" oriented one. Thus, he kept his design tight.
3) Andrew didn't talk about a greater/lesser version of a single concept. To do that, would probably have required more definition around why one was a magnified version of the other, because just saying there's a greater or lesser version leaves the reader hanging. They'll want more specific definition around them. Otherwise, it's a throwaway reference.
4) Andrew's write-up conjured multiple possibilities, all built around different, but similar themes. Whereas, a greater/lesser version sticks to the same general theme, but just has a slight power-up difference between them. There's a fine distinction there that boosts one while potentially dragging down the other.
Now, none of that precludes anyone from making a greater/lesser version combo that absolutely rocks. The key element is being awesome with your idea, mechanically-sound, with a perfect presentation. That's far more important than having two versions of an item. I guess the fine point I'm trying to make is that a greater/lesser version of your item can be a separator in a good way if you get everything right. Or, it can most definitely drag down your item if it's not done well.
Another two cents,
--Neil
Contributor
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Boxhead
|
When I made my Hourglass of the Insightful Conjurer, I considered making lesser, "average' and greater versions, but elected to make a single item instead, which I proceeded to underprice. I felt like a single item presented the idea better for the purposes of the contest. There is some discussion in that thread about tiered items,but I really believe that a single good item will do better than a set of related items.
When I made my Hourglass of the Insightful Conjurer, I considered making lesser, "average' and greater versions, but elected to make a single item instead, which I proceeded to underprice. I felt like a single item presented the idea better for the purposes of the contest. There is some discussion in that thread about tiered items,but I really believe that a single good item will do better than a set of related items.
In the end, I dropped the whole lesser/greater concept. Simply put, I would have been doing exactly what many have warned against, trying to get two variations of the item in, in hopes that one was either "weak enough" or the other was "cool enough" to make it in.
Of course, now I run the risk that I submitted an item that meets one of those two pitfalls. I love my item, though, and if it doesn't make the top 32 for whatever good reasons, I will still love it.
THAT I think, is just as important for any writer. Don't sacrifice your own creative preferences just for the hopes that "these guys" will publish you. That doesn't mean forgo the rules or not listen to advice, but it means if you are confident that you've got a good idea, don't let advice or rules completely road-block you. After all, they MIGHT say "Awesome!"
My thoughts at least.
Ken