|
I was going to post this in the critique thread but decided maybe it would be best to start a seperate thread in case others wanted to post similiar reflections or to discuss other people's observations. This started out as a thank you to Neil for his feedback then snowballed into a self-reflection. I'd be curious to see what other "lessons" some of the participants learned from their experience in designing, submitting, and recieiving feedback for the open call.
Penumbral Ligatures
Kind of an ominous sounding name. Some big words in there. Not sure it was the most thought-provoking, intriguing name that would resonate with everyone. But it wasn't run-of-the-mill either.
Crowface wrote:
Aura strong illusion; CL 13th
Slot —; Price 98,000 gp; Weight 3 lbs.
Aura and CL seem about right for project image and shadow conjuration. Slot and weight make sense for an iron crossbar, I suppose. Price feels a little low for the uber-range abilities and surrogate spellcasting this enables.
Crowface wrote:
Description
This hand-held apparatus is a cold iron crossbar ringed by a circle of carved ivory. From one side extend five ghostly cords that hang taut before fading into nothingness. As a standard action, the wielder can make a ranged touch attack against a single humanoid target within 100 feet. On a successful attack, the target gains the entangled condition as shadowy ligatures lash out and coil themselves around the creature’s neck, wrists, and ankles. The wielder can then force the target to act as his spell-casting surrogate.
That's a very powerful effect. It pretty much lets a wizard or sorcerer (or any spellcaster really) stand back and 100 feet in a position of relative safety and let someone else take the brunt of every bit of front line fighting, while hurling spells through them. It's pretty much stacking a high-level caster on top of a front-line fighter's body.
Crowface wrote:
Entangled creatures cannot move more than 100 feet from the wielder; removing or severing all five ligatures ends this restriction and the entangled condition. An entangled creature may burst or escape from a single ligature by making a DC 20 Strength or Escape Artist check. Any amount of slashing damage severs a ligature; each ligature is AC 20. The ligatures are made of shadow-stuff and if severed simply reform when the apparatus is used again to ensnare. The wielder can release an ensnared creature as a standard action.
So, a single ranged touch attack establishes five separate entangle-imposing conditions on someone? Very powerful. Too powerful, considering that the entangling ligatures keep letting you channel automatic touch attack spells straight into someone.
Crowface wrote:
The ligatures can ensnare a willing target. All the conditions above apply fully however, and opponents may attempt to target and sever the ligatures normally.
If the wielder chooses, any spell he casts with a range of touch or greater can be channeled through the ligatures. Melee touch spells cast in this manner always target the “surrogate” and do not require an attack roll. Spells of greater range (including ranged touch attacks) originate from the surrogate as if he were the caster, affecting targets normally. A maximum of 20 total spell levels may be channeled each day.
And then we go into the uber-range sock-puppet proxy spellcaster ability, which fires the power level of this item up even that much more. Granted, the 20 total spell levels per day is a restriction...of sorts. But it refreshes every day. So, you could make it though several encounters before that restriction would ever truly mean anything.
Crowface wrote:
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, project image, shadow conjuration; Cost 49,000 gp
You chose the right spells for the construction requirements, except, I might have suggested black tentacles be in there, too. Still, it's underpriced. It's game-breaking. And it's over-the-top.
Summary:
Ominous name (neither good, nor bad)
Interesting idea (an entangling, spell-channeling rod could be interesting)
Mechanically broken (just way too open to abuse for both abilities)
Good flavor/writing
Excellent presentation (near-perfect execution of the template)
Wanted to post some reflections on the process here. I want to be clear that I agree with Neil 100%. This is not a rebuttal or an argument... I hate it when people try to explain or defend their designs too much because to me if an item is Superstar then it doesn;t need explanation or clarification. My item is definitely not Superstar and I see that. What I want to do is share the faulty assumptions I made during the design process, so that I (and maybe anyone else who reads this) can learn from the mistakes. Also, I'd like to really just say I didn't *intend* to create a munchkiny, game-breaking item. Honest. :)
I think the first poor assumption I made was underestimating the entangle effect. It was intended to be more of a nuisance that harrassed the target while it took a round or two to free itself. I think I got tunnel vision and assumed this item (because of its caster level and pricing) would mostly see high level play, and made another bad assumption that most targets would have iterative attacks or allies that could free them in a short time frame. I went with the 5 seperate entangles because I wanted it to take time for a creature with 3+ attacks to break loose from. I didn't go for a typical arrangment of AC and hit points to break out of the entangle because I was trying to avoid a sitaution where a giant or some other size Large or bigger creature could just shrug their way out of it on Strength bonus alone before a caster could even channel a spell through it. I failed to think out what would happen to a tough critter with only one attack such as a T-Rex might have to suffer through... let alone what would happen to some poor chump under the effect of a slow spell. Yikes. Open to abuse indeed.
Lesson Learned: Just because your item "slots" into a certain level of play, don't make assumptions about the conditions under which it will be used or the creatures it will be used against. If I had simply stopped to think out what it might do to someone less powerful than anticipated, I should have easily made that next jump to the potential abuses ahead.
Second, I think I made a big mistake in comparing the item too closely to project image which is the spell that more or less inspirted it. Project image is a seventh level spell that basically creates a hologram that lets you blast people with spells. I actually thought since this item's effect was tied to a physical target rather than a hologram that it was more limited than the spell. But as Neil pointed out that is just stacking a spell caster on top of a front line fighter... again, I think part of that horrible decision stemmed from underestimating the difficulty in severing the connection/ending the entangle. I figured "Sure, the party wizard can hook up to the barbarian and then send him into room raging and shooting scorching rays out of his eyes. But then the baddies will slice through those 'any amount of slashing damage' ligatures and that's that. Didn't think what happens if there is a single bad guy with only one or two attacks and he has to spend 4 or 5 rounds just trying to pull the plug on Exploding Barbarian. Ugh. Broken.
Lesson Learned: Sometimes you can be adding an element that you think is a limiter or a twist on an existing game mechanic and it backfires. Just because it works as a spell doesn't it will be balanced as an item. Those are different types of resources and care must be taken in translating from one "medium" to another.
Also, project image might be a little more overpowered or open to abuse than some of the other spells in the Core Rulebook. Maybe.
Anyway, my point of all that rambling was that I set out to create a cool item that had value mostly as a harrassing/suprise tactic against an enemy ("Bob the Fighter is entangled! Holy Crap, why is there a burning hands spell coming out of him?!? Why, Bob, why?") or as a utility item to aid your allies (a cleric channleing cure spells or buffs through it to the party front liner). Instead it got out of control and was game breaking. But I'm learning so it's not a waste.
Sorry for going on so long, really just talking out loud and processing the feedback. And additonal comments or feedback (from the judges or ANYONE else) would be appreciated. Thanks!
1) Most of the entries make the some of the same mistakes that I do: problems describing the item in a clear interesting way, problems with game mechanics, problems with the pricing, problems with understanding the full ramifications of the item, ... etc
I've learned from this that those of us who didn't make it really aren't that far off from being competitive for the top 32.
2) It's better to have an item with a cool effect rather than a less cool item that is better written and works better mechanically with the rules.
3) Don't make the item too complex to explain in just 300 words.
4) It's very difficult to present a tight item (one that has a good physical description, clearly explains its mechanics, and gives enough imformation for the various scenarios that will come up with its use).
5) No matter how much I love my item I need to look at it objectively and do some hard thought analysis.
6) It's easy to have what you think is a great idea, but it's difficult to actually flesh it out.
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
I learned that design choices I made in regards to mechanics that I thought were innovative, unique, new, and fresh, were viewed as odd or unorthodox, and thus the item was dinged because of them.
The damage as CMB bonus and if you missed on the spell ray/movement combo, you used splash rules to determine where you ended up (because if you miss you don’t go where you wanted to go right?).
But I think those two items wouldn’t have mattered at all, if I hadn’t made one fatal error, and that was italicizing my items description in a stand-alone sentence.
The damage as CMB bonus..
I was mainly concerned about this because it could be used as a precedent for other effects that use damage as CMB, and I do not want to go there, because damage scales up a lot faster than CMD does. And because you could really cheese out the damage for a spell, and the fighter (or monk) trying to do that maneuver the old fashioned way would look really lame by comparison. Or have the fighter (or monk) want to know how they can use their damage instead of their CMD. Frex, I wouldn't want to see someone do 100 points of damage with a spell and easily push around the tarrasque (CMD 66).
"This opens a door that leads to something I'm not sure about" is always a good reason to be cautious in design. Especially if it's a magic item opening that door, and double especially if it's from a secondary or tertiary aspect of that magic item instead of its primary function.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
I think that's what's so valuable about the feedback. We don't always think through a lot of the things that the pros need to think through.
I know for my item I tried something that I thought was a little innovative to shut down a certain type of ability. It could be that's exactly what killed my item because it's just a bad idea, or there could have been other aspects that I didn't think about, like corner cases, or another item or spell that does the same thing.
These threads are great because we get to look behind the curtain and see the thinking that leads to the rejects.
I'll be curious to see what really sunk my ship this time around. I have a couple ideas after the fact, but I'm really interested in hearing any feedback.
I havent learned a thing yet, my item hasnt been reviewed yet....lol
Like many I submitted an item to the Paizo Superstar 2011 contest and didn't get to where I wanted to be -- namely the top 32. In the interest of learning more of where I went wrong I posted my item in the thread "Judges, Please Critique My Item" to find out what the judges thought of it. The response was less than I had hoped for:
* So...it's a robe masquerading as a ring of spell storing?
At first I was a bit dismayed -- one comment? A comment that didn't even seem to realize this item was much different than the ring of spell storing? I was just about to get upset when I realized that this single comment -- this one line told me everything I did wrong on my item. Even though I felt the line was wrong on why I didn't make the superstar list (though I do not dispute the end result) it did give me all the information I needed to fill in the blanks myself.
Looking back on my item with the single line I got back from the judges I realized the following errors: I didn't include any descriptive text, I didn't have a snappy name, and I didn't elaborate enough on the item itself mechanically.
The item in question:
Paper Robes
Aura Moderate Transmutation; CL 7th
Slot Body; Price 12,500 gp; Weight 3 lbs.
Description
Paper robes hold up to five spell levels of spells as if they were a scroll. The wearer may cast these spells from the robes as if he were a spell caster of the correct level and class with a casting ability score needed for the spell (this removes that spell from the robes as if it had been burned off). If the wear is actually a spell caster he may prepare the spells on the robes as if they were on his spell list even if they normally are not. The robes do have a drawback, if the wearer takes fire damage while wearing paper robes he must make a reflex save (DC 15) or one spell burns off of the robes. A new spell may be scribed on the robes 24 hours after the last spell was burned off.
Construction Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Imbue With Spell Ability Cost 6,250 gp
I don't like descriptive text on magical items. The judges say they don't either in most cases, however a quick look at the top 32 makes a lie of that statement. Every item in the top 32 includes an actual description of the item. It is generally a sentence or two at most but this does more than simply tell you what to look at for the item, it excites the senses. While the name paper robes gives me a specific mental image (one I thought was quite neat) I failed to share this image with the judges. This wasn't cut due to word count -- it was a combination of ego (I thought it was quickly seen mentally) and forgetfulness: I forgot the judges have hundreds of entries to fry their imagination before they get to my entry. They aren't going to try and see the item for themselves at that point -- I have to make them see it.
The name issue is one many people have already seen in their own items. Coming up with an evocative, yet concise name is difficult, going with the physical description of what the item looked like as the name was poor planning -- it doesn't spark the imagination, it doesn't tell you what the robes will do (though it might hint) and it certainly didn't give a good visual reference of what I was trying to get across. A better name in hindsight would have been "Nethys' Origami Robes" -- Origami gives an exotic flare, denotes paper -- but not just any paper -- exciting paper that has been crafted carefully and with purpose. Using Nethys name would have tied it a being all about magic and Robes further denotes who would probably want it... without spelling anything out. It would have intrigued the judges more (possibly) and have given reason to read the item instead of skimming it.
My third flaw was the method I presented what the item does. To be honest I had forgotten about the ring of spell storing. In fact the ability to cast the spells from the robes wasn't even supposed to be the major power of the robes! Instead the primary use was for spell casters to have a spell or two off their list available to use. In my haste to get the mechanics right I put them in the wrong order. This was a major blunder, as it presented the most boring and common part of the item first. After reading that part who could blame the judges for going "ring of spell storing with a different name/slot"? A better presentation would have put the spell preparing qualities of the robes first and the last ditch ability to cast scrolls off of the robes themselves last, and closer to the drawback of the item where it needed to be. Having the scroll using ability closer to the drawback would have avoided a need to reread to see the reference to the abilities (which suggests the robes are more about spell storing than spell reference).
The one sentence the judges gave me didn't give me much to go on in and of itself. However by comparing what they did say to what I already had I was able to see where the real flaws were (presentation and organization). The item might not have made it even with these changes -- however it probably would have received a bit more attention than they got. As Megamind tells Tighten when he asks what the difference between a villain and a supervillain, "Presentation!"
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
The damage as CMB bonus..I was mainly concerned about this because it could be used as a precedent for other effects that use damage as CMB, and I do not want to go there, because damage scales up a lot faster than CMD does. And because you could really cheese out the damage for a spell, and the fighter (or monk) trying to do that maneuver the old fashioned way would look really lame by comparison. Or have the fighter (or monk) want to know how they can use their damage instead of their CMD. Frex, I wouldn't want to see someone do 100 points of damage with a spell and easily push around the tarrasque (CMD 66).
"This opens a door that leads to something I'm not sure about" is always a good reason to be cautious in design. Especially if it's a magic item opening that door, and double especially if it's from a secondary or tertiary aspect of that magic item instead of its primary function.
Hey thanks for popping and and responding Sean! It is very nice to get your thoughts on why you didn't like this idea. I kinda new going in that it was a gamble, and apparently this time, my gamble didn't pay off. But I really appreciate you telling me why.
As for the Searing Light part of the magic item... I'm assuming you can't cheese it out with meta magic feats and such, because it is an effect of the item?
Therefore the maximum it could do is 40 damage, but on average you'd get 22.5 damage on the item. So that would be a CMB between 5 and 40 plus 1d20.
I had originally designed it so that you wouldn't have any adverse effects if you failed the trip attempt, no matter how badly.
I suppose it would have been better just to say, "you can do a trip attack with a +20 to your CMB" and would have had about the same net effect.
|
Though they haven't got to my item yet, I've learned quite a lot just reading the other items and their reviews. I haven't always agreed with the judges, but that isn't a comment on which of us is right so much as it is a sign I perhaps need to re-assess my own perspective.
And reading the top 32 has also helped a great deal. And given me 32 new items to consider for my home games... ;)
Went back after reading the feedback I got, thank you very much by the way Sean, and looked at several of my drafts for my item. What I found amazed me.
I found that I over thought the item. My idea was solid, and a lot of the questions brought up in my review were actually present in my original idea but were removed or changed for some reason in the final presentation.
Every item in the top 32 includes an actual description of the item.
So does every* item in the Core Rulebook. What they don't have is backstory. That's the killer.
A general description is not just OK, it's expected. You can go over-the-top with this as well and that's a pitfall to be avoided.
* OK, I'm not going to look at every single item. Let's say damned near all of them and leave it at that.
So does every* item in the Core Rulebook. What they don't have is backstory. That's the killer.* OK, I'm not going to look at every single item. Let's say damned near all of them and leave it at that.
Except they don't -- wands don't, cloaks don't, boots don't, rings don't, armor doesn't, weapons don't, books don't, bags of holding don't, etc. Very few items in the core have any description at all. A few of the helms do, (helm of brilliance for example but this is mostly mechanical crunch too) but for the most part it's "This amulet does x" or "These leather boots do y" -- you get a single word at most in general. Even the crystal balls are "with this crystal ball..."
Descriptive text is notable absent from most magical items. For good reason -- if everyone knew all cloaks of resistance were "Red velvet with white fur trim and a golden clasp" we would know the item by description and could say "This guy isn't wearing a red velvet white fur trimmed cloak so he doesn't have a cloak of resistance."
Honestly the description is a gimmick line -- it gets the judges to stop and read giving them time to actually engage their brain. It serves no other purpose.
I don't know. Take a look at mine. My biggest zing seems to be the description even though most of it actually pertains to how the item functions.
By the way I wanted to mention that while the d20pfsrd is a great resource be sure to double check it's information with the books. I was just looking through some of the archtypes and noticed that they like to capitalize class names whereas this is not normally done in the books.
As for the Searing Light part of the magic item... I'm assuming you can't cheese it out with meta magic feats and such, because it is an effect of the item?
My point is, if this effect appears in a magic item, some player is going to want it in a spell (whether as a specific variant, or a metamagic feat, or whatever). And as soon as it's in a spell, the PCs can use it whenever they want. And then it's a problem.
So that would be a CMB between 5 and 40 plus 1d20.
By comparison, a CR 23 solar has a CMB of +32. Your item can out-CMB a solar... at least, some of the time. That's pretty buff.
I don't know. Take a look at mine. My biggest zing seems to be the description even though most of it actually pertains to how the item functions.
I would at least partially argue that your description helped you make it though.
Consider -- I got a one line response -- just about as good as an Auto-reject... several others did too: However every item that made it in had a good amount of description, and most of the ones that are getting the "We almost grabbed this" also had such descriptions.
In the judge's comments description is a criteria for passing -- Neil specifically uses it. Heck the eyeball item is specifically a SIAC (done to effect type, save throw, and area affected) -- it is literally a fear spell item, how did it get pass that? Description and presentation. By itself if it said "Once per day this eyeball can be used as a standard action to cast fear (DC 16) in either a 30-foot cone or a 30-foot emanation from the user" it would have been sacked immediately.
It wasn't solely based on the description. If your flask had said "This flask can hold up to five potions at once. The user may decide to drink two potions from this flask at the same time but doing so renders him sickened for a minute afterwards." You would be dead in the water (also very close to a first edition item called the flask of infinite potions) -- but you didn't do that (which would be what we would have seen in the Core or APG) -- you included descriptive text (in my opinion good descriptive text for the most part) and presented your item very well -- and you are rightfully (in my opinion) superstar because of it.
*******
So what I have taken away is: The auto-rejection advice is at least partly a trap -- especially auto-rejection advice #3.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
It wasn't solely based on the description. If your flask had said "This flask can hold up to five potions at once. The user may decide to drink two potions from this flask at the same time but doing so renders him sickened for a minute afterwards." You would be dead in the water (also very close to a first edition item called the flask of infinite potions) -- but you didn't do that (which would be what we would have seen in the Core or APG) -- you included descriptive text (in my opinion good descriptive text for the most part) and presented your item very well -- and you are rightfully (in my opinion) superstar because of it.*******
So what I have taken away is: The auto-rejection advice is at least partly a trap -- especially auto-rejection advice #3.
But see Rule #27. It specifically takes Neil's last leaves and strips them down to their basic description, and shows how the writing helps the item.
Yes, mechanics are important, innovation is important, coolness is important. But so too is good writing. Your job is to help the reader visualize your item. You can try to do that solely with mechanics, but it will be difficult. You'll probably also need some "fluff" text as well.
Rule #3 is talking about over-doing it. You don't need to write 2-3 lines. Sometimes a couple carefully placed words work. I'd point to my item this year, but it fell short as well, and I'm curious to know the exact errors in it as well. But don't think that you can just ignore Rule 3 and glom on backstory and long description.
Balance is important.
Very good points Seth, and I won't dispute it at all -- balance is key. However the question was what did I learn?
I learned that the auto-reject advice does exactly what it is suggested for -- to help avoid "obvious" (to an insider) errors. However I have found in many ways that attempting to avoid all of it is near to impossible and won't get you there anyways.
So break the "rules" of the auto-reject advice some: we have several items that did just that (or are completely in disregard to it) and still got through.
Many items have been rejected for too much backstory (indeed backstory is one thing I would still avoid completely) or description, but I would argue too much can in some ways be better than none --I would argue that part of what helped Cody's item was the fact that it kept bringing the judges back, even if it was to linger over the description.
The more you are in their thoughts the better your chance is (probably).
Except they don't -- wands don't, cloaks don't, boots don't, rings don't, armor doesn't, weapons don't, books don't, bags of holding don't, etc.
Sticking with wondrous items here, since that's what the contest is focused on:
Amulet of Natural Armor- This Amulet, usually crafted from bone or beast scalesAmulet of the Planes- This device usually appears to be a black circular amulet, although any character looking closely at it sees a dark, moving swirl of color.
Amulet of Proof against Detection and Location- This silver amulet
Apparatus of the Crab- At first glance, an inactive apparatus of the crab Appears to be a large, sealed iron barrel big enough to hold two Medium creatures.
Bag of Holding- This appears to be a common cloth sack about 2 feet by 4 feet in size.
Belt of Giant Strength- This belt is a thick leather affair, often decorated with huge metal buckles.
Belt of Incredible Dexterity- This belt has a large silver buckle, usually depicting the image of a tiger.
Belt of Mighty Constitution- This belt's golden buckle depicts a bear.
Belt of Physical Might- This belt has a large steel buckle, usually depicting the image of a giant.
Blessed Book- This well-made tome is always of small size, typically no more than 12 inches tall, 8 inches wide, and 1 inch thick. All such books are durable, waterproof, bound with iron overlaid with silver, and locked.
Cloak of Arachnida- This black garment, embroidered with a web-like pattern in silk,
Cloak of the Bat- Fashioned of dark brown or black cloth,
and on, and on, and on. I'll retract my statement that damned near all of them have description and replace it with a whole damned bunch do.
I have learned that, though I might have had a seed of a good idea, I need to work on how I implement that idea. The judges brought up some very insightful points on my item, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. I'm actually sort of glad I didn't make the cut; I'm obviously not ready!
I plan on working on my design issues, so that I have a better chance next year! :)
and on, and on, and on. I'll retract my statement that damned near all of them have description and replace it with a whole damned bunch do.
Well that's not quite what I meant with the description but I'll redact my statement too and say instead, "Most items in core do not have near the same level of description that the superstar items do."
In the end I believe that I partly sabotaged myself by paying too much attention to the auto-reject advice instead of worrying more about presenting my item as best as I could.
"Most items in core do not have near the same level of description that the superstar items do."
I think that's fair. At the same time, I think it's OK for entrants to use a little bling to catch the judges' eyes. You can go too far with that, though.
Edit: While I'm thinking about it- In some cases, extra description is given because entrants are playing with an item type that isn't generally seen in the game. I submitted an aspergillum. While most will understand what that is, not everyone will. So I added enough description to get the point across.
Today I have learned that items for the competitions (ones that made it and ones that did not) have a big impact on the game if they are accepted into it fold. RAW and RAI are always going to be a huge thing in this game because everyone thinks and interprets differently. After reading every page of the JUDGES PLEASE CRITIQUE MY ITEM thread, I have looked over my item and noticed some things right off the bat, and plan on editing my item before its reviewed to see if I have picked up the flaws.
Well, just from the peers review my item thread, I learned I edited out info I should have left in that helped clarify a few things.
Chief Technical Officer
|
So what I have taken away is: The auto-rejection advice is at least partly a trap -- especially auto-rejection advice #3.
Honestly? I think you misunderstand Autorejection Advice #3. Look at the part Sean bolded in that post:
3. Your item is mostly backstory or history (either of the item or its creator) or a physical description of the item.
He then elaborated:
If the description ... of your item is longer than the description of its game mechanics, you're trying to make your item cool with its description or history, rather than the coolness of the item itself.
Sean is saying *explicitly* that items that are mostly description are bad. That's very different from saying "any description is bad."
A sentence of description is often helpful—and in some cases, it's downright necessary. If your item is physically unusual, maybe you can get away with two sentences. Three or more sentences would be hard to justify—especially in RPG Superstar, where you only have 500 words to work with for the whole item.
in RPG Superstar, where you only have 500 words to work with for the whole item.
Oops, 300 words. Got you covered ;)
|
|
I learned a hell of a lot today, actually.
Neil was kind enough to give me an in-depth review of my item, and it was extremely helpful. Apparently, I almost made it, which is both agonzing and quite reassuring all at once.
I learned that I need to design the best item possible, and not worry so much about the space I'm designing in (I had decided that I wanted to design a low-end Minor item, and it really limited what I ended up turning in). I learned that I have the writing skills and attention to detail to be successful. I learned from reading the top 32 that (no offense, folks, some of the items are great) nobody submitted anything that would have been beyond the ability of my imagination to concieve, if only I had let it get buck-nasty. In short, I learned that if I'm going home next year, it's because I went too big, not because I was too safe - because that's what I did this year.
Lesson learned.
Honestly? I think you misunderstand Autorejection Advice #3. Look at the part Sean bolded in that post:
This is quite possible -- as I said this is what I learned though from reviewing the advice given and the items that went superstar:
1. Description is good.
2. Item still has to be good too.
3. What is suggested as "auto-reject" material really isn't.
As such I'm (again) not saying the advice is "invalid" or "not useful" but to not rely on it too much -- the judges don't so we as contestants shouldn't either.
After all as Sean himself pointed out, it is just advice and he's not going to be ruled by it alone. Simply breaking a point or two in the "auto-reject" doesn't actually make the item "auto-reject".
That is what I learned this time through.
"Auto-reject" was an unfortunate description. This was pointed out at the time and is why Sean changed the name of the last one to something else. There are only a few true auto-rejects (word count, IP violation, not a wondrous item, etc.).
As a design competition, the Rule of Cool is going to trump almost everything else.
This is quite possible -- as I said this is what I learned though from reviewing the advice given and the items that went superstar:
1. Description is good.
2. Item still has to be good too.
3. What is suggested as "auto-reject" material really isn't.As such I'm (again) not saying the advice is "invalid" or "not useful" but to not rely on it too much -- the judges don't so we as contestants shouldn't either.
After all as Sean himself pointed out, it is just advice and he's not going to be ruled by it alone. Simply breaking a point or two in the "auto-reject" doesn't actually make the item "auto-reject".
That is what I learned this time through.
Abraham, I think you've drawn many false conclusions and I would advise you to study your lessons again. Some of what you're asserting here also smacks of "sour grapes" (and I've seen others intimate similar things in some of the Superstar threads) by pointing out how much the judges overlooked various "violations" of the auto-reject "rules."
First and foremost, they aren't rules. It was given as auto-reject advice...meaning, your item could get auto-rejected for doing various things. That said, auto-reject advice #27 very clearly indicated that many times the Top 32 items still get through with some of these elements included in them. You can see that going back every year of the competition. So, no one should be surprised to see that again this year.
Secondly, I want to be very clear that if the flaws in the Top 32 items would have been enough to get them passed over if a similar item had arrived which didn't go against the auto-reject category. So, it's not like any of those flaws helped them get through. And that means, there's no value in "ignoring" the auto-reject advice because it somehow isn't really an issue. It is. And it will continue to be.
And, lastly, you've really misunderstood the auto-reject advice about too much backstory/history/description. Citing items from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook that don't provide much description doesn't mean a Superstar submission shouldn't. It just means those items were good enough to make a book of magic items. And we've been very clear for awhile now that plenty of items are good enough to do that, but it doesn't make the Superstar.
What does make an item Superstar?
In order of preference (in my opinion):
A solid, interesting, innovative core idea.
Well-written flavor text (which should include some evocative description and a thought-provoking name)
Solid, balanced, innovative mechanics.
Attention to detail on presentation.
Earlier in the judges' forums I actually suggested that maybe we should do a panel discussion on crafting a well-designed wondrous item at PaizoCon. And some of this back-and-forth discussion makes me think that might be worthwhile.
Earlier in the judges' forums I actually suggested that maybe we should do a panel discussion on crafting a well-designed wondrous item at PaizoCon. And some of this back-and-forth discussion makes me think that might be worthwhile.
I would so attend such a discussion.
I know I already said thank you but I thought it only relavent that I say this again. I have been spending most of my time reading the "Judges critique my item" thread and talk about a wealth of information.
I mean really, with both Sean and Mark posting information from the judges on each item that has requested feedback, to Clark and Neil posting their own personal take on items, I am amazed that I have been able to keep up. Add to that the individual feedback some individuals like Nicholas and a few others have given, you have enough feedback that one should be more then capable of improving next year.
You need to lowercase your spellnames. A lot of people made this mistake and I just don't understand it. This type of misstep has been called out multiple times in previous years of the competition. And, even if folks were new to the contest and didn't go back to review that kind of feedback, a simple cursory examination of an item from the Pathfinder Core Rulebook should be enough to demonstrate how the spell requirements should be formatted. I hate to harp on you specifically for this, Noteleks. But it was a common enough error that I'd really like to see people eliminate it in the future.
Earlier in the advice threads, I remember mentioning that I planned on holding people to a higher standard on this type of thing. This many years into the competition, we really shouldn't be seeing items that aren't formatted properly. That should be a no-brainer by now. And, next year, any item that gets those elements right should have an immediate advantage over a similar item that doesn't.
Neil, please harp away, I really want to improve my writing so I want this honest feedback, I can take it. I know the above is only a portion of what you had to say but I agree with you 100%, we should be held to a higher standard we as contestants have had more feedback to learn from over the last few years.
So I personally want to thank, Sean, Mark, Clark, and the others who have been giving feedback. Above and beyond that I personally want to extend my hand in thanks to you Neil, for not only encouraging us hopefuls but also for taking time out, along with the others giving feedback, for helping us all.
I know for one I do appreciate all the had work that has gone into this contest in years past and present to make it as successful as it has been. It is because people like you Neil, as well as Sean, who I greatly admire, Mark, who never gets the credit he deserves, as well as all the others from Vic down to the forum members who participate. Thank you all.
Earlier in the judges' forums I actually suggested that maybe we should do a panel discussion on crafting a well-designed wondrous item at PaizoCon. And some of this back-and-forth discussion makes me think that might be worthwhile.
I do appreciate what you are saying Neil (and the fact that you are even taking the time out to say it in the first place -- the same goes to Vic, Sean and everyone else in the field professionally (or as winners past and present)) and I do intend to look back on this again. After all first scan and thoughts are not always correct.
I also do not mean to imply that any of the 32 do not belong there -- I will readily admit I can see how my item didn't stack up to them, and where they were successful. I also don't mean to imply the advice is useless -- as I said above it is advice and in many places can really help keep anyone (myself included) from making mistakes that are costly and avoidable.
I do feel however that in my personal case I worried too much over the advice, and tried too hard to steer clear of advice number three in particular.
I would like to say that a panel would be absolutely awesome to see -- I just wish I could make it that far out to attend.
Perhaps after all this contest is over a some forum space could be given to advice from the professional designers here on people's projects and such.
I know we have the homebrew section (which I am grateful to see even if I don't seem to use it much) but often times I wish we could get more feed back in such a place from the people doing this as a living.
Of course I also realize that such advice wouldn't be constant or "on demand" considering the fact that the designers have to do their job first and foremost -- but it would be neat to see some more traffic in that area.
I do appreciate what you are saying Neil (and the fact that you are even taking the time out to say it in the first place -- the same goes to Vic, Sean and everyone else in the field professionally (or as winners past and present)) and I do intend to look back on this again. After all first scan and thoughts are not always correct.
I also do not mean to imply that any of the 32 do not belong there -- I will readily admit I can see how my item didn't stack up to them, and where they were successful. I also don't mean to imply the advice is useless -- as I said above it is advice and in many places can really help keep anyone (myself included) from making mistakes that are costly and avoidable.
No worries, Abraham. I suspected you'd understand where my statements are coming from...and I'm glad you've clarified yours.
I do feel however that in my personal case I worried too much over the advice, and tried too hard to steer clear of advice number three in particular.
Only you can really assess that. My primary worry was that others might see your personal "lesson" here and start making assumptions that they should just ignore the auto-reject advice, because it's somehow ignored by the judges when selecting the Top 32. It isn't. And, perfectionist that I am, it grates on me to see some of the flaws in the items that made the Top 32. But no one comes into this contest fully-formed as an RPG Superstar. That doesn't mean we can't establish a high standard. I just want this advice and feedback to help raise people up to meet that bar.
I would like to say that a panel would be absolutely awesome to see -- I just wish I could make it that far out to attend.
My suggestion also included the hope that Paizo or one of the attendees like Zuxius or zylphryx could video the panel for posting. And maybe it could serve as additional reference material and advice for next year's competition.
Thank you Neil, you are a kind-hearted gentleman and a scholar.
I learned that I definately need more polish as well as a better and more creative item for next year.
The main critique thread didn't seem like the place to get clarification, but perhaps here is.
Neil, you commented that my presentation got jumbled up, something about missing carriage returns and not previewing first. Of course, you don't know me, and there must be people out there who actually do submit without previewing for you to suggest such a thing, so I take no offense, but I am curious what it looked like on your end, as it looked fine in my preview window. Are you perhaps referring to not putting spaces between paragraphs? I did have a lot of short paragraphs near the end, so that might make things look cluttered.
Originally, the wisp was a shade-type construction instead of smoke, so I wish I'd stuck with it. If I'd stated that it only worked 10 rounds per day, but they don't have to be consecutive, I could have axed the whole last sentence about the downfalls of using it while sleeping (I fought with that situation because I didn't want people abusing the item during a nighttime ambush while their character was asleep) and used the words to state that the wisp takes half damage and full damage from force and area effect attacks, like I wanted. I was afraid that I wouldn't cover all the possible abuses, so I crammed as much stuff in as I could to cover my item's various backsides, and ended up not having enough words left over to better clarify what one is supposed to do with it. Live and learn for next time (and there definitely will be a next time).
Neil, you commented that my presentation got jumbled up, something about missing carriage returns and not previewing first....I am curious what it looked like on your end, as it looked fine in my preview window. Are you perhaps referring to not putting spaces between paragraphs? I did have a lot of short paragraphs near the end, so that might make things look cluttered.
Yes. Exactly. When you copy and paste out of a word processor into a text editor like the ones here on the messageboards, certain characters in a word processor don't copy over very well as pure text. So, hard returns...like carriage returns to put spacing between paragraphs...don't register. That causes your paragraphs to get jammed together. Indents and tabs are another thing that don't come over very well. The important thing is just to preview first. That'll show you how it looks in the judges' forum. And you can always edit and tweak it, as necessary before finally hitting the submit button.
As a design competition, the Rule of Cool is going to trump almost everything else.
Agreed. Everybody gets interested when they read something that appeals to them. If you can spark someone's interest they will ignore the problems with the item and focus on what they like.
Earlier in the judges' forums I actually suggested that maybe we should do a panel discussion on crafting a well-designed wondrous item at PaizoCon. And some of this back-and-forth discussion makes me think that might be worthwhile.I would so attend such a discussion.
+1.
I planned to host a workshop on it at Paizocon. ...Of course I planned to have some credibility in RPGSS by Paizocon. *grin*I would still attend. :)
|
|
Earlier in the judges' forums I actually suggested that maybe we should do a panel discussion on crafting a well-designed wondrous item at PaizoCon. And some of this back-and-forth discussion makes me think that might be worthwhile.I would so attend such a discussion.
+1; definitely a panel worth attending.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
By comparison, a CR 23 solar has a CMB of +32. Your item can out-CMB a solar... at least, some of the time. That's pretty buff.
It was meant to be buff. Its an item worth 68,000gp and should be buff. Too buff? Possibly. In any case, I really appreciate your feedback, and I will do better next year because of it.
EDIT: And it wouldn't be out of place for a level 15 fighter to have a CMB of 21 or 22 (possibly higher depending on race) without any magic assistance. Throw a +4 STR item, something that adds to CMB, and you could conceivably get the +32 by level 15 or 16.
I'm not necessarily defending my unorthodox mechanics at this point. More just saying that the numbers aren't horribly out of whack with what you could expect a PC to have for 68,000gp.
From the comments on the Top 32 I learned (quoting myself from another thread):
- [S]ubmit my item earlier next year to get the judges while they're fresh; if the idea is good enough they'll keep it until they get to the business end of the whittling-down;
- a truly innovative and interesting idea trumps minor errors in spelling, formatting, following the template and other such items that I was viewing as an autofail if I screwed them up; and
- I need to be more creative in thinking about how my item presents itself, or in other words the package is just as important as the contents.
[An] observation I've made of the judges' comments is a...theme of "this item needs to state what it does upfront".
From the judges' specific feedback on my item, I've learned:
- I had a reasonable idea, I just didn't workshop/playtest it enough to ensure it wasn't over-abusable. This gives me some hope that if I get a decent running start next year my item will be better.
- Get the group munchkin to work out how he could abuse my item, then either stop him from doing it or come up with something different.
From Nicholas Quimby's kind critique, I've learned:
- Re-read every rule that's even tangentially related to my item. The rules themselves may have a way to escape a corner I've painted myself into.
- Less is more; try to be succinct and make every word earn its place in the submission.
From reading the judges' responses to other items on the Please Critique my Item thread, and reading through the items themselves, I've learned:
- Judges like to critique items that are clear and easy to understand. They won't dedicate the time to items that are poorly formatted, full of spelling errors, haven't received even the most brief attention to detail, or are just plain difficult to parse.
- Getting through next year is going to be even harder than this year was.
- I really need to get creative with my ideas. This year I started by thinking about items, and then things I could do with them. For my personal effectiveness, I need to start the other way around. YMMV.
- It appears there is a single best way to present the item that conforms with the template and tells the judges what they need to know without wasting their time. I need to follow that pattern next year.
From the overall experience I've learned:
- Don't overreach with the item (says the guy who submitted bracers that extended a wearer's reach). The best items will be awesome within 300 words and won't need layer upon layer of rules to explain their function or prevent their abuse.
- Start the development process earlier. Forty-eight hours isn't really long enough to come up with something awesome.
I've suited action to words and have three ideas for new items for next year's contest ready to be spec'd. I think now is a great time to begin recording all those ideas--being around so many other creative people all with their own ideas has started fireworks going off in my brain and I'm coming up with ideas much faster and more easily right now than I was for the month leading up to the submission date for the contest.
Good luck to all of us when next year's contest comes around. : )
Neil, you commented that my presentation got jumbled up, something about missing carriage returns and not previewing first....I am curious what it looked like on your end, as it looked fine in my preview window. Are you perhaps referring to not putting spaces between paragraphs? I did have a lot of short paragraphs near the end, so that might make things look cluttered.Yes. Exactly. When you copy and paste out of a word processor into a text editor like the ones here on the messageboards, certain characters in a word processor don't copy over very well as pure text. So, hard returns...like carriage returns to put spacing between paragraphs...don't register. That causes your paragraphs to get jammed together. Indents and tabs are another thing that don't come over very well. The important thing is just to preview first. That'll show you how it looks in the judges' forum. And you can always edit and tweak it, as necessary before finally hitting the submit button.
I seemed to have the same problem. Preview looked just fine, but you said that it looked jumbled up. maybe some of the characters only get eaten when the post is finalized? Anyway, I might as well have missed some odd formatting as I missed the prizing error. Next time I won't submit in the middle of the night ;)
I wanted to comment on Neil's post about what makes an item Superstar.
#1 for me was "is this an item that would see regular use in a large number of games".
Too many of the items I reviewed were either so hyper-specialized that you would need to have exactly the right kind of character to make them worthwhile, OR they were items that you would only use once (or might even never be used "on screen", just in backstory).
The objective of Superstar is not to prove that you're clever. It's to prove that you're commercially clever. You need to think about making something that has equity value to Paizo.
There were way too many items I classified as "plot devices". Items that were designed to advance a storyline, not be a utility item for a character or enhance/make interesting a villain. Wondrous Items aren't supposed to be plot devices. They're supposed to be gear that are used regularly.
#2 for me was "is this item mechanically sound".
By this I mean "in use in the game will this item cause problems to the DM, problems with arguments with players, or result in unintended consequences or emergent behavior unintended by the item's designer". I saw a lot of items that assumed DM fiat would be used to stop abuse. That's bad design.
Another thing I was super picky about was typing bonuses. This is a critical part of any 3.x design. If you don't type (or incorrectly type) the bonuses you allow double (or worse) stacking; creating a "plus" effect when you really need to be providing an "either/or" effect. Choice is one of the hallmarks of 3.x design - you have to make hard choices between X and Y; you're not supposed to get both X & Y.
#3 for me was "is this a "something in a can".
I rejected virtually every "IAC" item I saw, because those items are relatively easy to make and require little design effort (the design of the original underlying game object did all the heavy lifting; you're just adding flavor & packaging).
The one exception I championed was the Eye item, and I loved it because it was a total concept item; the fear effect (to me) wasn't the point - it was just a part of an overall design that was simply awesome. In this unique case, I felt that the use of an "IAC" effect was actually a good idea because it limited the scope of the item without triggering questions about what else some creature from the Dark Between The Stars might be able to do via its eyeball.
My advice to future designers is "don't risk it". For every one Eye that gets a Judge to champion it, there were probably 50 "IAC" items that got swiftly rejected.
#4 Everything else.
Frankly, I don't care much about crafting since I know that most magic items in a campaign come from loot. I don't care much about templates because I know they can be fixed in editing. I don't care much about names because after seeing thousands of items you cease feeling much of anything one way or the other about a name.
I know that the hard part of development is getting a high-grade concept, expressing it mechanically well, and avoiding unintended consequences. I know that if you give me the raw material that passes that bar I can get it into shape for publication relatively easily.
I would always vote for a submission that was superior in development vs. one that was superior in presentation. None of the Top 32 made it in because they had a perfect price & cost, and a perfect use of the template. (And we did have several such submissions). A couple made it in even though they had serious errors with those things.
If you obsess about the presentation, you're likely spending time worrying about the least important part of your submission. Make it AWESOME then make it perfect.
RyanD
Just out of curiosity Ryan, what did you think of my item "Eyes of the Past"?
Im trying to get a complete broad picture of what I need to do for next year and Im gathering and soaking in as much info as I can on all the feedback in both "please review my item" threads from all the other items reviewed so far.
I wanted to comment on Neil's post about what makes an item Superstar.
#1 for me was "is this an item that would see regular use in a large number of games".
Too many of the items I reviewed were either so hyper-specialized that you would need to have exactly the right kind of character to make them worthwhile, OR they were items that you would only use once (or might even never be used "on screen", just in backstory).
The objective of Superstar is not to prove that you're clever. It's to prove that you're commercially clever. You need to think about making something that has equity value to Paizo.
There were way too many items I classified as "plot devices". Items that were designed to advance a storyline, not be a utility item for a character or enhance/make interesting a villain. Wondrous Items aren't supposed to be plot devices. They're supposed to be gear that are used regularly.
I feel like this advice would have helped me most in my choice of submission this year, and will certainly influence what I submit next year.
Thanks
Very excellent advice, thank you, Ryan.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
I took away a couple of lessons, almost in contradiction:
- Use the time wisely. I needed to polish the text more and tighten it up to bring out the main idea. Leaving it for a week or two could have found me more perspective to see the sorts of structural improvements that are almost obvious now.
- Trust my instincts to keep me from embellishing and over-thinking it. Simple (but powerfully focused) items did well this year. Swiss Army Knives and items with just a little more added in the last sentence didn't. Several points the judges picked up were the very things I added last and was least sure of for myself.
Agreed, thanks, Ryan, this is a really useful analysis.
Just out of curiosity Ryan, what did you think of my item "Eyes of the Past"?
I didn't comment on it because it had already been rejected by the time I read it.
The item let's the wearer see the past. That's an auto-reject in my book because:
It adds too much work to the GM. Most of the time this work has no value - thus the worst of all possible worlds except...
It makes adventuring easy. Every once in a while you'll see something that utterly removes the challenge or point of a scenario. That's the absolute worst thing that can happen.
It's obvious. Looking back in time is not an original idea and you can be sure there have been other such submissions and will likely be such submissions in the present contest. The item isn't superstar because at it's core it's not unique, interesting or creative.
There were errors with presentation but that didn't matter in this case.