RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
I was impressed by the overall quality of the archetypes presented. I think the Ivory Guardian concept, but needs a bit more polishing. For nostalgia, I really liked the hedge wizard, but the was a weakened too much. I had 3 that really stood out for me (in order):
1) Champion of Philosophy
2) Hound Master
3) Evangalist
I had a hard time selecting my 8. The first 6 were very easy for me. I selected number 7 and 8 based on their round 1 submissions because I really didn't think the rest screamed "PICK ME, PICK ME!!!"
I would like to congratulate most of the contestants for their entries. But some were just unoriginal and others had too much munchkin appeal.
I still want to see some of the backup ideas for the top 32!
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I actually think maybe archetypes are less understood than villains were. I am still a little stunned. THus far it looks to me like archetypes are great when you see it in your head, and suck when you start to replace features and put them on paper.
I admit I expected more. The majority of archetypes seemed below par. A few do stand out, though (my top picks were saboteur and still-water meditant), and I too considered the first round submission when picking the last two.
In my opinion archetypes are a great litmus test for the contestants. The lack of prior examples to review toughens things considerably. I'll admit to attempting an archetype or two myself before the 32 were announced. It's damn hard to make one that works, nevermind being Superstar. I have a great respect for the efforts of these folks. Congratulations to them all.
That said, a few really stood out to me. Three because they took their spin on the base class in a really cool direction without losing the base class (Hound Master, Saboteur and Goldfever Alchemist) and one (Impaler) for such a cool concept with a ton of sheer fun factor. I then picked two on the strength of the writing alone and the last two were based off the previous round.
If my assumption of what the next round will bring is correct, I cannot wait to see those submissions.
We knew this round would be hard; we knew that rebalancing was going to be excruciating, and that we were deep in uncharted territory.
I haven't gone through even half yet, but I want to say this: I have not yet read a single entry that didn't have at least one awesome, brilliant idea, and/or some exceptional handling of mechanics.
A magic item is one thing. It's laser-focused (and often, if it isn't, it doesn't get in :-P ). Archetypes are several degrees of complexity above that; that means we'll be seeing far fewer "100% awesome archetypes" than "100% awesome wondrous items," or even 70%. But that also means that some parts of an entry can be superb, even if the whole is not.
So, I've got a lot of great reading to do :D
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
I really wish the Top 32 had made bolder design choices. To me, most of the entries seem waaaaay too "safe" to be Superstar. "Safe" archetypes are fine if you're writing for a catalog of archetypes. In my opinion, a Superstar archetype is something that makes people say "Wow, that's a crazy idea but it works!"
Like a few others posting above, I found the offerings of archetypes rather disappointing. After reading each of the 32 thoroughly, I had to settle on only four that seemed passable and knowing full well that I'd never choose any of those four even to build a PC or NPC in my own campaigns, but might allow them if a player absolutely had to play one.
I too was kinda disappointed, In my eyes only 3 or 4 of them came with full Superstar potential, and even of those some where either mechanically interesting and sound but thematically bland, or Thematically interesting and had mechanical and balance problems.
At least this has reassured confidence in my own design, since I really struggled to come up with interesting archetype ideas, and I will stat up some more that i deemed too boring :)
That said I can really understand that archetype design is still unwieldy to many and that like with class design the lines between Interesting powers and being overpowered, as well as intriguing ideas and being too niche is very thin.
Archetypes by definition have to be pretty generic, even if a bit more niche than base classes.
Especially balance is important for archetypes, since an archetype is much more defining for a character powers than say a magical item and there is no easily adjusted balancing factor such as price to take care of a small slip.
So I congratulate you all, you have been walking some very thin lines with this task. Some of you might have slipped, but given the thinness of the line I certainly won't hold a bland or unbalanced archetype against Contestants future submissions ( at least if they aren't overly so).
I can't see wanting to play hardly any of these archetypes, which is the whole point of one of them, make you want to play a class in one particular way, right? It really, really looks like most people looked at the past villian creation rounds, anticipated the twist would be 'base your villian on a winning archetype' and built an archetype based on a villian they wanted to make.
Overall, a few keepers, but a lot poorer of a showing than I was expecting.
Consider a few important things:
This contest isn't really about making archetypes, it's about choosing who you want to see a module written by. So of what's the top 32 have put out there, which of those archetypes makes you say "I want to see a module written by them!"
Also, I think this round should be hard. Making an archetype is not an easy thing to do, and that's okay - this is a contest for something a lot harder. So not only do I like this round, as I think it really separates the wheat from the chaff, but I hope they keep it around for next year.
Finally, the exact mechanics don't matter as much as the overall picture does. Sure, the mechanics can't be completely broken, but even if they are, is it something easily fixed or is it a fundamental problem with the idea? There's one or two in there that I'd label as broken, but a fascinating but slightly broken archetype is way better than a solid but stultifyingly dull one.
|
I think a lot of what we're seeing is a result of how the first round was judged. I'm not pointing fingers, here, or saying I could have done any better, so please don't anyone get upset. Here's my theory:
I think "big concept" was rewarded during round one. More than a few of the entries had technical issues (grammar, formatting, game balance), but were cool ideas that impressed themselves upon the judges by force of creativity and advanced on same, in most cases rightfully so. Now, we're seeing a round in which "big picture" is really sort of out of bounds. The framework for the class (whatever class) is already out there, and you have to sort of stay within that framework to sucessfully complete the task in front of you.
Basically, my view on it is this: Imagnination is largely a right-brain function, and math/logic are left-brain functions. The judges really rewarded right-brain thinking in round 1, and round 2 is more of a left-brain task. Be creative, but don't break the game. There's a lot of analysis and pure thinking (left-brain) that goes into that, as I'm sure the judges can attest to. So, my opinion here is that archetypes as a task is rather ill-suited to the strengths of the remaining designers.
tl;dr I agree that there's a bit of a dropoff in quality in this round, but I don't blame the designers for it.
There were four entries that I knew would get my vote, 2 possible, and the rest were grasping for straws. For me the archetype had to be something I would use or make me think the person could create something I could use if given another chance.
PS:By me I mean anyone in my group since we don't pick characters the same way.
I still might go back and put in votes for those last 2.
tl;dr I agree that there's a bit of a dropoff in quality in this round, but I don't blame the designers for it.
I wouldn't have put that quite the way you did, but I basically agree with what you're saying -- the skill set / instincts / etc. to create the kind of wondrous item that will pass round 1 and the skill set to create a genuinely good archetype don't have a lot of overlap and in some ways are antithetical. Archetypes have some creative elements but are much more relentlessly crunchy, whereas every year's wondrous items (possibly excepting the first year) have really skewed much more fluffy.
To use SKR's terminology, I think you'd tend to get better archetypes out of the kind of person who would write a magic item you'd put in a book of magic items but not Superstar.
There's a lot to like scattered among the 32 archetypes, but (for me) there are only a couple that I unreservedly like in whole cloth, rather than like some specific piece or aspect of while trying to overlook other pieces. Conversely, I can pick a dozen wondrous items from this year that I like without really trying.
|
|
I don't think that the difficulty of designing an archetype when it is such a new feature in the game can be overlooked when judging overall quality. From that stand-point I thought the over-all quality was good. I was truly impressed by some, amused by others, and yes there were some that failed to elicit even a "meh". But I think that made this a really good challenge for the second round, and I look forward to the work the top eight produce in the next round.
THus far it looks to me like archetypes are great when you see it in your head, and suck when you start to replace features and put them on paper.
I think there's really some truth to this, too. There are a lot of little details to get right, most of which are not yet well-understood -- and I think they'll be difficult to get right even once they are.
For example: I threw together a very rough draft of a rogue archetype a few weeks ago, mostly to get a feel for how the word count would play out for an idea that felt like it was on the more complicated side of archetypes. I ended up with a slower sneak attack progression to try to balance out some of the abilities I was adding. So far so good, but now my archetype has "dead" levels (that is, levels in which it only gets HP/skills/saves/base attack and no abilities), something that the design of the classes in Pathfinder tries very hard to avoid. That's an issue that isn't extremely obvious (and might even be missed by voters) but that I'd find very frustrating/disappointing in a published archetype. I could fix that by adding more minor abilities on the appropriate levels, but now that's pushing word count, etc.
|
To use SKR's terminology, I think you'd tend to get better archetypes out of the kind of person who would write a magic item you'd put in a book of magic items but not Superstar.
I think I can hear Neil now: "A Superstar designer should be able to do both."
Not disagreeing with the point about different types of design skills, just saying they will be looking for people who can handle both tasks reasonably well.
I think I can hear Neil now: "A Superstar designer should be able to do both."
Absolutely.
Let me clarify:
RPG Superstar isn't about finding the best rules lawyer. And it's not about finding the most creative person in the world. It's about finding the most creative designer who can apply the rules in the best possible way to create something Superstar-caliber.
I get the sense that a lot of people often take umbrage with those who make it into the Top 32 despite a handful of mechanical flaws that they themselves avoided. And yet, the Top 32's "spark" is what vaulted them over everyone else. Then, those same contestants get into the later rounds and maybe don't have quite the mechanical "chops" or rules-fu as some of those on the outside looking in...
And you know what? Tough.
That's right. Tough.
The initial "gateway" into RPG Superstar is about finding those who are capable of generating really awesome ideas...who can express them really well and capture the imagination of those who examine their designs...and then, demonstrate they have enough of a mechanical understanding of the game that they deserve a shot at going through the rest of the competition and growing from that experience into a more refined designer.
As some have pointed out in the past, you can always be taught the rules and mechanics of the game. And, in fact, it's an ongoing process for all designers (freelance or otherwise) to keep on learning the rules and mechanics of the game...all so they can design new ones. What you can't teach is creativity...spark...mojo...the ability to conjure really great, inspiring ideas. You also can't easily teach someone to write well. That's a hard-won skill that takes a lot of time to hone. Designers can no doubt learn a few additional writing tricks and advice during their career, but you can't be a complete novice in this category and expect to make the Top 32. The same goes for the mechanical side of things, too. We don't expect Top 32 contestants in RPG Superstar to have all their mechanics down, but we also don't expect them to have no understanding of the rules or how to present game terminology at all.
So, don't act like the folks who came in were valued only for their "fluff" writing ability. They weren't. We assessed rules mechanics, too. And we're assessing those much more heavily here in Round Two. It's part of the game. It's part of the growth process they're all going through. And it's most definitely a winnowing down process. But it's also an educational process. Ask anyone who's gone through the competition before. Or even those who've followed along from year to year. You learn things in the doing of them. You learn things from the feedback the judges give you after each assignment. And you even learn things from what the voting public points out about your design decisions or flaws. All of that serves as a crucible that hardens you into a better game designer...a designer worthy of an opportunity to write an adventure module or a PFS scenario as guided by your developer. And, even that experience will be a continuing education on game design. It doesn't stop. It never does. And you shouldn't expect it to as you go through each round of RPG Superstar and each assignment you receive as a freelance designer.
This round was especially tough. In prior years, contestants got to ease into the rules-testing parts of the competition. The former Round Two assignments have included "design a nation" and "design a villain's descriptive text" and so on. This time, it's "design a new archetype complete with exchangable class abilities"...and that's a big step. Think of it as this year's Round Two twist. RPG Superstar is evolving. The bar's been raised. Are contestants ready to meet it? We're all finding out as we move forward, round by round. I, for one, take confidence that they'll rise to the occasion. You're shaped by your experiences in life. And this contest is no different. They'll all come out stronger for it on the other side. And, those who distinguish themselves here, in this round, deserve some high praise.
Remember, I said earlier there were a lot more submissions this year. The quality has gone up. People are learning how to design better wondrous items. Now, they're learning how to design better archetypes. And all of you are learning right alongside them.
But that's just my two cents,
--Neil
I get the sense that a lot of people often take umbrage with those who make it into the Top 32 despite a handful of mechanical flaws that they themselves avoided. And yet, the Top 32's "spark" is what vaulted them over everyone else. Then, those same contestants get into the later rounds and maybe don't have quite the mechanical "chops" or rules-fu as some of those on the outside looking in...
I'm not reading that, so much. It's more that the archetype round really seems to need different skills from round 1 and -- I think this is key -- from rounds 3+. Moreso than I, at least, anticipated, even though I think everyone gets that archetypes are new and hard.
There's never been an archetype round before and it's natural that the people who can post without disqualifying themselves are going to want to muse about it. In some ways it's the closest RPGSS equivalent of the country music week on American Idol that makes most of the frontrunning contestants look bad and some of the previously struggling contestants look really good -- and that's worth talking about, too.
It's interesting to me that I like a lot of the wondrous items, and that I like some of the archetypes, and that (for me) the intersection between the two in contestants is almost the null set.
It's natural to me that some people want to talk about any or all of this stuff and I think it unnecessarily assumes the worst of people to immediately read some kind of passive-aggressive sour grapes thing into that.
It's natural to me that some people want to talk about any or all of this stuff and I think it unnecessarily assumes the worst of people to immediately read some kind of passive-aggressive sour grapes thing into that.
Have you done your homework and read through prior years of the competition? Because there are plenty of times when folks who submitted for RPG Superstar and didn't make it, then hang around to critique the judges and their choices of certain wondrous item submissions over their own...or those they perceive to have had stronger mechanics...etc.
I get what you're saying. And there's a seed of truth to your perspective. At the same, I stand by my statement. I'm certain there are people who feel exactly that way. They're the ones that value mechanics and an understanding of the rules more than the other aspects of what a Superstar designer needs.
Hence, going back to the post to which I responded, what's really being assessed here is which designer brings the most in all of these skillsets. It's not an either/or. It's not a mechanics vs. creativity/writing ability. You need both. The latter is less teachable and it serves as the defining characteristic to get you in. How well you improve the former is what sustains and grows you over the course of the competition.
Neil is right (as usual), but you need to step back a little and think about the 'left-brain' style a little more to see where he is coming from. I get where DM is coming from though.
Sure, creativity and that 'wow' factor are the main key things for round 1, but you still need to adhere to rules and balance, and there are a tonne of auto-rejects and subjective rejects, as we have seen, that are removed because they fail mechnically or are too over-powered. The Top 32 aren't picked just because they have the strongest imaginative input to them (and some are like marmite I guess, you either get grabbed by it and totally love the concept or you just don't get why everyone seems to think its so great) but also because they are solid and work with all the rules with the smallest of tweaks needed.
Come to this round, and again its a rules-fu and adaption exercise with imaginative thinking behind it. I'll admit I was a little dissapointed that there seemed to be a little bit too much 'playing safe' on show, but stepping back and viewing it subjectively, as much as the Top 32 have to make us go 'wow, awesome!' they also have to be much more clinical to succeed.
In essence, the skill set needed to achieve is the same, its just the approach and thinking that needs to be a little different. Rather than come up with something from scratch, this time you take a broad idea (the base class) and focus in on an aspect of it. You could also argue that is much the same for Round 1, taking a concept or spell and making something cool and specific out of it.
Sure, we can vote on what we like, but I know one of the things I've been looking at closely when choosing my vote (still undecided on a couple) has been the judges recommendations. This isn't to slavishly follow their thinking, per se, but I certainly use them as tie-breakers between the ones I think are close to each other.
|
Marathon Voter Season 6
|
Hello Everyone and congratulations to the top 32 for submitting.
I agree with the general vibe that the Archetype assignment was difficult and that the competitors had to pull out all the stops to combine creative spark with confident rules fu. Was this round too challenging? Does it now give a good foundation to gauge the growth of competitors throughout the competition? Did the competitors play it safe or did they struggle to channel their round one inspiration and spark into the harder format?
How then does one vote as I'm not too sure that the best entries have necessarily come from the best entrants? I've ordered the 32 Archetypes in order but I think I'll have to read through them again and think about revising this before submitting my votes.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I don't often disagree with Neil, and I am not sure I fully disagree now. But, to use your own words against you (:b), we are frequently told - in the FAQ, in judges' posts, from the example of Superstar winners before, that a true Superstar can do it all. So I think what some see as sour grapes is really the result of high expectations.
I'm not denying it's tough to sometimes watch a round of Superstar you feel you'd have done well in and wonder why folks don't get the most basic idea of what a villain is, or whatever. I am sure there are some people who are great at maps who don't get to design locations and just onder how a "Superstar" doesn't understand maps. I don't have that - I suck with maps and jealously narrow my eyes at pretty much ALL other mapmakers.
But I think it gets accepted that out of hundreds of entries, the advancing 32 must be darn near perfect. I think most of us accept the criticism of our items, so I hope no one is thinking "my item was great..and dude's item sucked". And I think most people see the creative spark in items that have mojo but aren't executed so well or aren't that well-written. Hopefully, if there's tough criticism of round two entries, it's just because of the entries and not related to round one at all. I note that Sean posted an initial thread warning the round two contenders about the quality of the archetypes and the likely feedback, and he voted for the top 32, so it's certainly possible for folks to keep them separate.
And I can't address you in this thread, Neil, without re-iterating that your nifty cloud of leaves might be the most ingenious and complete wondrous item I've seen in Superstar, so your opinion if what is SS and how to get there means quite a bit, as far as I'm concerned.
symbol of persuasion!
I'm actually quite disappointed in most of the archetypes submitted by the top 32 and I'm surprised by some of the comments from the judges. I don't want to ruffle too many feathers, so I'll keep my negative comments left at that. Suffice to say, I expected a bit more from both.
It seems to me that this year's competitors have had a bit too much practice writing wondrous items. Might I suggest kicking the competition off with something else next year?
I can't help but agree with disordah.
I can't help but think there are a tight group of relevant competitors that didn't see the light of day because they produced sound, technically apt, mundane items that have yet been explored over the seemingly arbitrary augury of potential innovation.
I know it’s tempting to search for that spark; but, I think that will present itself after you have found a group of competitors with the knowledge and skills to properly display that innovation when it arrives.
I think next year might be better served if there was a theme involved, if archetypes were first round, or even if the inclusion of team entries were considered. We need something that more clearly displays the use of language, structure of thought, and use of creativity.
I think wondrous item creation is just a bit too blind of a yardstick to get the kind of quality we are all striving for.
I figured a third of the 32 would choose cleric or wizard, because it has not been done yet. I also figured half of the others would go with APG classes, because it had not been done yet. Knowing that 2/3rd would be doing those classes, I figured a few would choose fighter, barbarian or rogue just to stand out from the crowd. (With the great number of abilities these have a lot of flexibility for swapping out (making it the easiest imho :)
I am kind of surprised how many opted for a 'safe' class. This is not to say contestants did not take risks, nor is it a critique against any particular entry. Just hoped for a little more zing.
Fortunately there is not any one archetype I would prevent my players from choosing, so I guess they fit the bill :).
For me watching this last round has been a bit of a shock. Not on the designer's part as much on as on the judge's part.
There were several places where they seemed to stuck their feet in their mouths by dinging designs for following the rules or precedents already set in the APG or the base classes themselves. Many times I saw a comment like "why did you give this fighter archetype untyped bonuses to hit and damage" and thought, "What the heck? That's exactly what the fighter receives in weapon training!" Another example would be when a judge docked a druid archetype for limiting the nature's bond and delaying wild shape -- I just wanted to ask if he had seen the APG and what they did with druids there.
Now I really have tried not to make such statements until this point, largely because these are industry insiders -- they should know this stuff better than I do. I keep going back and looking again hoping to see something that makes the comments I read make more sense to me.
I also feel that this round was much more rushed than what it should have been. Archetypes are completely new -- we have exactly one source to base designs off of. I personally have thrown up some archetypes here (and elsewhere) because I enjoy doing so. However even as the first round was coming to a close and the second was coming I can't say I was really ready to post up an archetype yet if I had made it in.
While this is for a job three days to find out you are in and then post up something completely new to the system is a bit much. Every other round to date has been simple adventure design or item design, honestly simple stuff when you get right down to it -- fluff it out, put in the right combination of area and people and you are just about done.
Archetypes aren't like villains, items or dungeons though -- this is system design, an equivalent would be to ask a computer programmer to turn around and design a motherboard. It isn't an easy stretch.
I do congratulate all those in the 32 this year -- they have the dubious honor of being lab rats for a still poorly understood mechanic on top of the stress that is already inherent in the superstar contest.
They actually posted the rules for Round 2 ahead of time. I think it was like a week or so? I don't quite remember.
|
As tough as this round was, I am sure that we will see the best rise to the top. Those front runners have combined some good ideas with some solid mechanics to show us their quality.
The standards are so high nowadays, this test does separate out the 32 and give voters another meaningful insight into how hard this design work really is.
But for me I wonder whether someone who writes adventures well would be equally good at creating such things as an archetype. The two don't necessarily go together in my book.
Cheers
I can't help but agree with disordah.
I know it’s tempting to search for that spark; but, I think that will present itself after you have found a group of competitors with the knowledge and skills to properly display that innovation when it arrives.
I think next year might be better served if there was a theme involved, if archetypes were first round, or even if the inclusion of team entries were considered. We need something that more clearly displays the use of language, structure of thought, and use of creativity.
I think wondrous item creation is just a bit too blind of a yardstick to get the kind of quality we are all striving for.
I heartily disagree. As has been stated many times by various judges and insiders, and I tend to agree, creative spark is hard to develop, technical ability often less so.
Wondrous items are reasonably hard to be creative with due to the sheer amount of them already out there, but the possibilities are in effect endless. Also, like spells perhaps, most gamers understand what wondrous items are and have tried their hand at making them. They can also be done with relatively few words, and judged by fairly well-established criteria. I shudder with pity at the amount of words judges would have to read if archetypes were round 1 next year.
Teamwork competitions would open up a potentially huge legal can of worms for Paizo, and carry a substantial risk of losing winners to team-breakup, having to deal with the issues of many people in the creative process of developing the adventure, etc.
The current system works, and have worked for years. I see no reason to change it.
But for me I wonder whether someone who writes adventures well would be equally good at creating such things as an archetype. The two don't necessarily go together in my book.
This is basically what I'm afraid of.
I like archetypes, and round 2 is the most appealing to me personally, and I'm glad they decided to give an archetype round a try this year, but... I'm also afraid that some of the best adventure writers, people who would otherwise make the top 4 or 8, could get wiped out this round. I think the wondrous items round is a relatively good predictor for adventure writing, and it worries me a bit that most of the best archetypes in my opinion came from people who didn't make the best wondrous items and vice versa.
On the other hand, maybe it still does work as a round 2 because I've seen a lot of people posting something to the effect of, "I only think 3 of these archetypes are good, so I'm voting for my favorite 5 wondrous items too."
But for me I wonder whether someone who writes adventures well would be equally good at creating such things as an archetype. The two don't necessarily go together in my book.
I don't think it's that big of an issue.
Paizo isn't simply looking for an adventure writer. They're looking to identify a freelance game designer...someone who's capable of all these things. In addition, just because someone can dream up and write out a 300-word wondrous item doesn't mean they're going to make for a great adventure writer either. In fact, a wondrous item is equal parts fluff and crunch. That's why it makes such a good litmus test for initial entry into the Top 32. From there on, however, competitors get tested on all the other aspects of freelance game design, not just their ability to write a compelling adventure.
Now, obviously, the prize of RPG Superstar is to write an adventure module (as well as 3 PFS scenarios for the runner-ups this year), but that's not where it ends. Paizo will want to tap these Superstar designers for other projects, some of which might be contributing to a book like Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic, which will include crunchy stuff like new archetypes. Or, for a new Bestiary sourcebook, which will require a good grasp of math and stat-blocking. Paizo gets to assess these writers on what their strengths are...and they'll use them accordingly.
Look at it this way. This contest is about testing all of a freelance designer's skills...which are actually quite varied. There's elements of world building, new rule mechanics, storytelling, stat-block crunching, mapmaking, and on and on. The various rounds of RPG Superstar are meant to provide challenges that test each competitor's skills in these areas. Round One is (and always has been) wondrous item design, because it carries a bit of everything in a nice, neat, self-contained package. There's a "stat-block" of sorts that tests the ability to use a template correctly. There's math and number-crunching involved for adequate pricing. There's flavor and evocative language needed for testing one's writing skills. And there's mechanical considerations for establishing and communicating what an item does and how it does it. The judges generally look for people that demonstrate some reasonable competence (and potential) in all those areas...and then select from among them for those with the most spark and creativity. That's who gets pulled up into the Top 32.
From there, Round Two presents a different, more robust challenge around one of the other areas of game design. In the first year, it was a world-building challenge with "design a nation." In year two, it was a storytelling, NPC-creating challenge with "design a villain concept." In year three, it was a storytelling, monster-creating challenge with "design a monster concept." And, this round it was both a storytelling and mechanical crunch challenge with "design a new archetype."
For Round Three, it often gets more crunchy, usually to stat-block something and really get into the number-crunching and math-heavy portion of game design. We've seen everything from monster stat-blocks to villain stat-blocks for this challenge. Then, in Round Four, it usually gets a little more story-centric and map-intensive with "design an encounter" or "design a location." And, lastly, in Round Five, it's full-on storytelling and plot construction with everyone's adventure proposal. Each of these rounds build upon one another.
I'm laying this out, because I don't want people to assume which skillsets are best-suited for which challenge. Obviously, everyone's going to be stronger in some areas than others...and it's going to show. But creativity and spark is the foundation for all of these things. And, those who might have some mechanical shortfalls in terms of their rules-fu in one round, get to keep on educating themselves as they go through the wringer of each following round. Advance and survive to learn something new. These challenges actually force everyone to go deeper into the rules and their own abilities. In the doing of these challenges, they're learning...such that, by the end of the competition, you have a more polished amateur game designer who's ready to write their first adventure module under the guidance of a Paizo developer. And, if you do a good job with that assignment, Paizo may tap you again for projects that match your perceived skillset.
That's how things worked out for me. I had some spark with my wondrous item, but it wasn't mechanically "there" yet. I showed some decent concepting, storytelling, and character design skills with my villain. And then I went "wall of text" on one of the most complicated stat-blocks attempted. I did that to stretch myself and show that I could do the heavy-lifting on applying the rules and presenting information as professionally as possible in a stat-block. And then, in Round Four, I salvaged a discarded villain in order to show I could still make something workable out of it and push my encounter design skills, show off some map-making skills, and so on. But, for me, that final round was it. You had to bring it all together and show your ability as a storyteller, along with good encounter ideas, character concepts, and so on.
That's what this contest is about...challenging each designer to show what they've got in each of these skillsets and pushing them to improve all of them...before finally giving someone a shot at writing an adventure and getting published. From there, the sky's the limit as long as you keep knocking it out of the park with the creativity and professionalism you both learned and honed over the course of the competition.
But that's just my two cents,
--Neil
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
But for me I wonder whether someone who writes adventures well would be equally good at creating such things as an archetype. The two don't necessarily go together in my book.
This is basically what I'm afraid of.
I like archetypes, and round 2 is the most appealing to me personally, and I'm glad they decided to give an archetype round a try this year, but... I'm also afraid that some of the best adventure writers, people who would otherwise make the top 4 or 8, could get wiped out this round. I think the wondrous items round is a relatively good predictor for adventure writing, and it worries me a bit that most of the best archetypes in my opinion came from people who didn't make the best wondrous items and vice versa.
On the other hand, maybe it still does work as a round 2 because I've seen a lot of people posting something to the effect of, "I only think 3 of these archetypes are good, so I'm voting for my favorite 5 wondrous items too."
I am keeping this in mind. If I see an archetype that I feel is really creative and innovative and the type of thing I'd like to see in an adventure, and the author made a really cool wondrous item, then I'm going to vote for it. Even if it has an ability that's slightly overpowered, and all the judges don't recommend them to advance. Because I DO believe they'll use this round as a lesson to keep things in balance if they get another chance.
On the other hand, if their archetype kind of bores me or seems really safe I'm less likely to give them a shot, even if all the judges love them. I'm just approaching this round differently than some people; I care less about a balance issue or two, and more about what the author is trying to do with their theme. I'm not going to be buying a book of archetypes. I'm going to be buying an adventure module.
EDIT: Reading Neil's comments, I see where he is coming from. And I agree that what he describes is what every contestant should strive for. My perspective is: I'd rather have someone try something really cool and fail, then try something safe and succeed. I have faith in their ability to improve, and to learn from the mechanical missteps they may make along the way. But I'm also approaching this as a potential consumer of a module, not from the perspective of a Paizo team member looking for all-around freelance talent.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
Fortunately there is not any one archetype I would prevent my players from choosing, so I guess they fit the bill :).
Then you don't have meany-headed twink players like some of mine. No one at my table is getting a crack at the first world druid or the knife guy. THose classes make it possible to actually 'win' Pathfinder. : b
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I thought, as it was ongoing, that Neil's strategy for SS was brilliant. Maybe never better than using a villain no one loved to demonstrate he could make a fair concept into a compelling encounter.
And I certianly don't bemoan or request chane from the magic item round. Evaluating the wondrous item is simply easier, and more word count friendly than other design options. Imagine 900 archetype attempts in round one, especially given the rough start that archetype design has seen here. Calls for judging Superstar 2013 would be met with mass suicides among the Paizo staff. 32 neat ideas, some hits and some misses, is one thing. Those 32, at half-again the word count, combined with several hundred mostly misses, and a couple hundred aggravating fails - no one wants that job.
I can't imagine a better first round than wondrous item design. Taking this year's experience into account (and all other year but the first for me), I played it safe with an item players would want, but I didn't, as Neil says, think outside the box. Next year, I hope I don't even qualify for this contest (though everything I'm writing right now is soft cover). But if I do, I am confident if I can get past the first round, I can represent myself well. So I have to risk a little more conceptually with the magic item round and try to learn my lesson about what's considered Superstar. There's no sour grapes, just the grim realization that that one round has ben holding me back. I don't in any way want that to be construed as hope the first round changes, or as malice toward those stellar few that do advance.
Who can argue with the talent displayed by the Superstar finalists in all four years? Nothing is broken and nothing needs to change.
I'm recapping some of what others have said, but anyhow:
1. The archetype entries were, on the whole, underwhelming (though there were a few real standouts).
2. It it clearly really hard to build an exciting, balanced archetype.
3. A lot of the disappointment in round two is a result of what the judges looked for in round one, and it was actually very predictable. The judges seemed (to my mind) to favor pizazz a bit too much over strong design. Reading a few of the top 32 magic items, my immediate thought was "this is neat, but this kind of thinking is not going to cut it in round two."
4. Some of the judges' comments regarding the archetypes were confusing in light of what already exists in the APG. I was particularly confused by the frequent dinging of entries over swapping out class powers that the archetype wouldn't be inclined to use anyway (like heavy armor training for a knife fighter). The APG archetypes do this constantly, and in fact it might almost be seen as the entire point of an archetype.
All that said, I really do intend this as constructive criticism. This contest is amazing and I really want to thank the judges for giving us their time in this way. I also want to say good job and good luck to all the contestants who have made it this far.
Who can argue with the talent displayed by the Superstar finalists in all four years? Nothing is broken and nothing needs to change.
I basically agree with this, but there's always room for improvement. I actually think the difficulty of making an archetype makes it the perfect test for superstar hopefuls. I'm just wondering if maybe there would have been more solid work this round if the judges looked at round one slightly differently. For example, I read a couple of archetypes on another thread designed by a guy named Mikael. I thought they were simple, compact, great designs for things I really wanted to play (and were better than a lot of the 32). It makes me want to see what magic item he entered that got rejected, because I'm willing to bet it was something elegant and well designed (and probably pretty cool) that just didn't have "flare."
|
3. A lot of the disappointment in round two is a result of what the judges looked for in round one, and it was actually very predictable. The judges seemed (to my mind) to favor pizazz a bit too much over strong design.
I made a rule after the first year to not read the replies, judge or otherwise, until I had made up my own mind.
There were a few times, particularly in that first year, that I felt like a judges enthusiasm for this or that entry ran the risk of swaying my own wishy-washy suggestible self, and I wanted to avoid any possibility of being swept up by their enthusiasm, or, later, when it got on my nerves, knee-jerking against their enthusiasm, before deciding if I was going to give that entrant my vote. Neither option would have felt fair, so I jotted down my impressions in a separate notefile, and only then read the commentary, which did, quite often, point out some objective mechanical stuff that led to my re-evaluating my 'in a vacuum' impression.
That being said, some do prefer pizazz over mechanics, as it's easier for a developer / editing pass to strengthen up the mechanics of a 'cool' entry than it is for the developer to take something soulless and precise and make it 'cool.'
Math or balance issues can be corrected with a little nip and tuck. Boring goes to the bone.
Math or balance issues can be corrected with a little nip and tuck. Boring goes to the bone.
That's very true, but only to a point. When more than "nip and tuck" becomes necessary to fix a math or balance issue, then it's just as much of a problem as boring-ness (as in both are completely unacceptable). I'm not suggesting that the judges should have given preference to strong system over pizazz, just that maybe the two should have been a bit closer together in importance.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
I was surprised by the lack of Golarion specific archetypes. There were a few, but in my mind, if you weren't going to make an archetype from one of the classes that didn't have one in the APG (one of the new 6 base classes from the APG, or one of the core spell casters), then it seemed to me that one of the only avenues left to explore (as Paizo was pretty thorough in the APG) was setting specific archetypes.
I was surprised by the lack of Golarion specific archetypes.
As was I. There are so many interesting organizations in the setting that would be great choices for archetypes, I was sure we'd get a Red Mantis guard, an Andoran freedom fighter, and so on. Interesting how it all turned out.
Before the Inner Sea Primer came out, I was totally set on doing an Aldori Swordlord archetype if I made it that far. Double alas on that.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
I was surprised by the lack of Golarion specific archetypes.As was I. There are so many interesting organizations in the setting that would be great choices for archetypes, I was sure we'd get a Red Mantis guard, an Andoran freedom fighter, and so on. Interesting how it all turned out.
I have a Blackfire Adept (Wizard)and Riftwarden (Ranger) scrawled out somewhere. I have been using them in my campaign for a while. Sweettalker (Bard), Odeber Descendant (Paladin), Scarzni Smuggler (Rogue), and Son of Skinsaw (Cleric) also exist but have limited play. Working on an Imperial Breeder concept, but not sure if I want to rework summoner or druid.
Red Mantis guard???
|
|
I get the sense that a lot of people often take umbrage with those who make it into the Top 32 despite a handful of mechanical flaws that they themselves avoided. And yet, the Top 32's "spark" is what vaulted them over everyone else. Then, those same contestants get into the later rounds and maybe don't have quite the mechanical "chops" or rules-fu as some of those on the outside looking in...
Since I made the point initially, and made it less poignantly and more bluntly (as is my wont) than Dire Mongoose did, I'll also defend myself here.
Neil, you and Sean and Mark and Ryan gave up a lot of hours to judge all the entries and have a huge amount of dedication to this contest. Your efforts are very much appreciated, and honestly, I only questioned your judgement on two of the 32 items. That's a darn high percentage of your decisions that I completely agreed with, which makes me feel good - because you guys are pros. I don't question that you know what to look for. Like, at all.
I'm merely making an observation. Archetypes and wondrous items require the mind to be forced into entirely different channels. Thus it does not come as a shock to me that the quality of submissions is somewhat disappointing - words I'll attribute to other posts in this thread, not to myself, although they could mine.
In and of myself, I do not matter at this point. I am no longer in the competition. If you're reading "I could have done better" in my comments, I apologize - that was not what was intended within the context of what I said above. I will not deny feeling that I could have produced a better archetype than what I'm seeing, but how else would you have me feel? That's what I'm supposed to think. Otherwise, why am I competing? I like to see other people do well in life, but I don't enter competitions with the goal of losing and then aimlessly praising whoever won. My "critical thinking" button is firmly in the "on" position, and frankly, it's duct-taped there. I don't think it's a bad way to go through life.
Again, I no longer matter. Maybe I could have done better at an archetype and maybe I couldn't have, but I didn't do better at a wondrous item, and that's where my tale ends. My comments above really (honestly!) were intended only to confer my opinion about why the archetypes seem less impressive than people were expecting, and honestly, I still stand by my opinion.
I don't have sour grapes. I certainly didn't mean to offend you or Sean, or Mark or Ryan. If I did, I apologize.
Red Mantis guard???
Sure. There's already a prestige class for Red Mantis assassin (though I'm sure you could make a rogue archetype to cover that in a different way). And you can make a cleric of Achakamumble easily enough. But how do you distinguish the fighter who guards the Red Mantis temples from other fighters? Answer: Red Mantis guard archetype.
I don't have sour grapes. I certainly didn't mean to offend you or Sean, or Mark or Ryan. If I did, I apologize.
I wasn't offended. *shrug*
|
|
Red Mantis guard???Sure. There's already a prestige class for Red Mantis assassin (though I'm sure you could make a rogue archetype to cover that in a different way). And you can make a cleric of Achakamumble easily enough. But how do you distinguish the fighter who guards the Red Mantis temples from other fighters? Answer: Red Mantis guard archetype.
That's a cool notion. A sawtooth blade wielding character who isn't necessarily a killer-for-hire, but escorts clerics, provides support for agents in the field, guards safehouses and trudges along on missions that involving guarding people that the Red Mantis Sect *doesn't* want dead (yet).
Back in the old days of playing in the World of Darkness, I was always way, way more interested in the members of the assassin clan of vampires (Assamites) who didn't actually go out in the field, but hung out in various locations and did the leg work and research, made connections, gathered files on local potential targets, etc. so that when one of the hit-men of the order got 'the call' to bump off someone in their region, they would show up at this persons safe house and be briefed on the target, it's haunts, patterns, holdings, likely allies to watch out for, etc.
In a D&D game, such an archetype would probably start with a Bard, Rogue, Aristocrat or Expert base, and never actually do something so cover-blowing as *kill someone* (making it pretty much an NPC only thing), but I love that kind of spider-in-the-web / contact person notion for an assassin organization, more than the dude who shows up and stabs someone, and then blows out of town, on to their next job.
In a bizarre sort of way, the assassins contact person is building something, even if it's just a web of contacts and a shelf full of files on potential targets (even if said information and contacts will be used to facilitate murders), instead of tearing stuff down and moving on, never really having any lasting connection to anything.
I have a Blackfire Adept (Wizard)and Riftwarden (Ranger) scrawled out somewhere.
Those two, the Blackfire Adept in particular, sound very cool! Maybe you can post them later?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Sure. There's already a prestige class for Red Mantis assassin (though I'm sure you could make a rogue archetype to cover that in a different way). And you can make a cleric of Achakamumble easily enough. But how do you distinguish the fighter who guards the Red Mantis temples from other fighters? Answer: Red Mantis guard archetype.
I have a habit of turning all PrC my players want to play into full fledged classes. I abhor PrC, if I was a ranger, they would be my favored enemy.
I could envision a Red Mantis Guard as dropping his weapon training for some sneak damage, stealth, and perception abilities. Drop the bravery and add some poison use.
Achakamumble, sounds like Sweettalker mumbojumbo to me... {prepares his heretic brand}
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Those two, the Blackfire Adept in particular, sound very cool! Maybe you can post them later?
The Blackfire Adept is a very focused school based on teleportation. No arcane bond and lose feats for abilities for making/using portals. They can exchange spells/day for dark arts (based on outsider abilites).
Riftwarden is ranger that selects a plane (not Golarion) instead of a terrain. They also lose the hunters bond to be able to manipulate portals.
I ran a group for about 6 months that ran characters that belonged to the Riftwardens hunting Blackfire Adepts. I am trying to find the file, which I can't remember the name for. I have 40ish gigs of stuff for 3.5 and 3.P to sort through. No filed or named very well. But they both were pretty polished as I used to make notes after every session.