Suppose my item began just like this, referencing some existing item and then adding and a good, appropriate power to it, or else changing how it works in some fascinating way.
How would the judges view this? Would it be seen as a clever and reader-respecting way to make full use of available resources; as legitimate but not noteworthy; or just as a creative cop-out for something that can't stand on its own?
I haven't written anything like this (I think it would be unwise of me to ask this if I had), but the idea occured to me. My opinion is that it is easy to read and absorb as a DM, but can turn out to be too much for players, especially if many of their items are this complex.
As a submitter and voter, I'm of two minds on this.
First mind says, "I could have taken an existing item and tweaked it. But that is boring. It's not very Superstar to me."
Second mind says, "If you can take an existing item and make me sit up and say, 'Wow!' then that could be Superstar."
I think I side with the second mind. I'd have no problem with it if you completely blew me away with the execution. So, I wouldn't count this against the item as long as the item in question was perfectly brilliant. Otherwise, I'd avoid.
TM
Seeing as you made the top 32 in 2010, I would say you have already got your answer. You already know what it takes to get into the top 32 so ask yourself is this something I think is better then the item I submitted last year. If your answer is yes then go with it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I imagine that 'except' would have to be pretty awesome. Consider one of Sean's don't 26 deadly DQs is creating a variant of an existing item you are definitely walking on glass.
I read what Sean described there (an item made using an old formula) as being different from, say, a Bag of Devouring (which does something completely new that's related to the old effect). I could totally be wrong, though; that's why I'm asking. :)
Suppose my item began just like this, referencing some existing item and then adding and a good, appropriate power to it, or else changing how it works in some fascinating way.
That's an interesting question. In general, relying on existing spells, skills, and mechanics seems like good practice; so why not existing items? But you're right - describing one object in terms of another does raise an eyebrow. I guess because this instinctively sounds like a varient, a tweak, rather than a new idea.
But the concept feels sound. If anything, I'd try the other way around - describe the item as if it were a standalone, and then say "this origami pocket can hold up to 35lbs. (functioning as a Type III bag of holding, and..." This would place the use of the existing item in the proper context - the new item uses the existing item's mechanics, rather than being a subtype of the existing item. Composition, not inheritance! :D
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I read what Sean described there (an item made using an old formula) as being different from, say, a Bag of Devouring (which does something completely new that's related to the old effect). I could totally be wrong, though; that's why I'm asking. :)
Except the bag of devouring wouldn't start with works like a bag of holding.... :)
Obviously there is a huge "it depends" here. It sure sounds like a variant item though.
Generally I think you run the risk of not having it read completely. That said I think it would be superstar material if it inspired someone to play it (as compared to--wow thanks for fixing that, now I will have every character I build have one! :)
To tweak or to inspire? That is the question.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
But the concept feels sound. If anything, I'd try the other way around - describe the item as if it were a standalone, and then say "this origami pocket can hold up to 35lbs. (functioning as a Type III bag of holding, and..." This would place the use of the existing item in the proper context - the new item uses the existing item's mechanics, rather than being a subtype of the existing item. Composition, not inheritance! :D
I like this approach personally.
describe the item as if it were a standalone, and then say "this origami pocket can hold up to 35lbs. functioning as a Type III bag of holding, and..."
I think he's on the right track here. Also, given this particular example, consider how many other items already do the extra-dimensional space thing, and how those items reference (or don't) their related items in their descriptions.
Were I a judge I would look to see if you were referencing the item to try and piggy-back off its coolness, or if you were mentioning it because it sums up the whole extra-dimensional space thing without using up all your word count.
Handy Haversack
Aura moderate conjuration; CL 9th
Slot —; Price 2,000 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
DESCRIPTION
A backpack of this sort appears to be well made, well used, and quite ordinary. It is constructed of finely tanned leather, and the straps have brass hardware and buckles. It has two side pouches, each of which appears large enough to hold about a quart of material. and can actually hold material of as much as 2 cubic feet in volume or 20 pounds in weight. The large central portion of the pack can contain up to 8 cubic feet or 80 pounds of material. Even when so filled, the backpack always weighs only 5 pounds.While such storage is useful enough, the pack has an even greater power. When the wearer reaches into it for a specific item, that item is always on top. Thus, no digging around and fumbling is ever necessary to find what a haversack contains. Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a move action, but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that retrieving a stored item usually does.
CONSTRUCTION
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, secret chest; Cost 1,000 gp
You mean like this?
You guys are right; using the exact words in the thread title would be a very lackluster presentation. I wish I'd taken a closer look at other items (like, you know, they're always telling us to) before asking. I'm still curious as to how this would be viewed, though; after all, what makes a good core rules item isn't always "superstar". And yea, whether you build on/contribute to the old item (verses "piggypacking" on it) would indeed make a big difference, I think.
Again, I don't plan on going with an item anything like this, but I still enjoy and appreciate all the feedback. Game design is fun!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
You guys are right; using the exact words in the thread title would be a very lackluster presentation. I wish I'd taken a closer look at other items (like, you know, they're always telling us to) before asking. I'm still curious as to how this would be viewed, though; after all, what makes a good core rules item isn't always "superstar". And yea, whether you build on/contribute to the old item (verses "piggypacking" on it) would indeed make a big difference, I think.
Again, I don't plan on going with an item anything like this, but I still enjoy and appreciate all the feedback. Game design is fun!
I just think it runs the risk of being a variant of an existing item. I know Sean called out figurines of wondrous power and ioun stones in his thread about items that are a variant of an existing item.
But then, last year I skated a bit close to that line with my item. If you read through the discussions about that item, you can see how close it was to violating the auto-reject advice.
Sean:
Keep!
Clark:
Neil:
I see you've done something a bit more unusual with this version of such an item, though. By having it exist in "liquid form" as a black, inky fluid in a vial before it's poured out and commanded to form the opaque crystalline version of the vessel, that's kind of a nice touch. Makes it far more portable.
Eric Bailey:
However, this year may be more stringent than last year. And there are a few new judges.
I think Clark nailed it:
If you seem to be copying, then your item is lame. But if you are riffing and your riffing is inspired by the original source, its cool.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't think it's any more or less stringent, except in a few cases (copyright violation, PG-13, terrible editing) there are always going to be exceptions to Sean's instant DQ list. Hydro, I don't think there is an easy answer other than saying something like that is an uphill battle.
