| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, on the other hand, would like to get into the Top 32 just to be able to submit an archetype (ok, not just because of that, but anyway). It inspires me more than wondrous items or even monsters. Despite there being many archetypes already, there is still a lot of ground to cover and lots of unexplored creative spaces.
I agree with Pedro Coelho. There's a lot of interesting ground still to be covered, and it really showcases the designer's ability to work within restrictions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, remember that the objective of the contest is not to design new content for Pathfinder, but rather to discover and test potential freelancers. Paizo probably feels that the task of designing a new archetype is better suited to fit that task.
The archetype round would actually be the one I was most confident about. I'm pretty good at those, and based on how Paizo keeps printing them, people seem to like them. I think variations on existing classes are a neat design space.
I gotta agree with the collective here ... (although I too would just like to get into the Top 32 for the chance of submitting my archetype) and that's the "rub" in this contest ... getting into the 32. ;)
No matter what though, I look forward to the contest this year.
Good luck everyone.
Dean
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
Wow, normally the "Round X looks a little disappointing" thread is AFTER the round 2 submissions are revealed, about the lack of quality of some of the entries. :)
Personally, I really liked the archetype round last time around. I think it's actually harder now though, since lots more have been published. 2 years ago, there were only the APG archetypes, and lots more open canvas to work with. I think we'll see more "off the beaten path" archetypes this time around.
I, on the other hand, agree with Coridan. I would have been much more interested in Create an Organization or even Create a Nation. The contest this year seems very crunch-heavy, though maybe that's the point.
|
|
Look at what the upcoming books are, and what the most recent ones are.
Also look at the "thing" most required in the last couple years?
Its been the Archetype. Every book has at least a few it seems.
While a nation or organization seem exciting, frankly from a viewers perspective, those have been the most disappointing rounds.
I don't know why, but it may have something to do with those being purely creative, vs. creatively crunchy.
'Create an Archetype' certainly has plenty of room for creativity. I always thought a Monk variant that took their vows to extremes would be interesting. Think a horribly dessicated Monk that looks like a cancer patient and destroys money on sight.
Anyhow, I'm looking forward to it personally.
On archetypes versus prestige classes...
Why are you so disappointed? Archetypes did for first level characters what PRCs did for mid to high level characters before, just in a different way. There are litereally hundreds of 3.5e PRCs, many of which exist to allow you blend two existing base classes.
With Archetypes, now you already get that, but it's more balanced for anyone, instead of just munchkins. You remove the capacity to take one level of Fortune's Friend, and three levels of Weapon Master and two levels of... You get the idea.
I mean, there still are a lot of potential spaces for prestige classes that are a lot more specialized, or add totally different abilities than normal classes (death attack, spell blending, etc), but if I had my say of it, I would have a constant supply of pizz - Stay on topic, self! - If I had my way of it, there would have been archetypes instead of PRCs in the first pass of the core book.
But maybe it's just me. I really see archetypes as a way of designing an entirely new class, but with most of the heavy lifting already done for you. Like a PRC from level 1.
|
The other really nice thing about archetypes is that sometimes you can take multiple archetypes at once (depending on what they remove from the original class).
Indeed! It might be interesting to build an archetype that purposefully swaps different class abilities than are generally used. For example, most of the Rogue archetypes trade Trapfinding for some other ability. If you make one that leaves Trapfinding intact, then there's a greater chance that someone will use it.
I don't know why, but it may have something to do with those being purely creative, vs. creatively crunchy.
Yeah, it seems strange to me that they don't have any rounds focused on writing more fluff, like the villains, organizations, nations, etc. It would suck for them to get somebody in the final four, who is guaranteed a contract to write an adventure, only to find out he/she can only write "crunch," but can't write characters worth anything.
Well, perhaps round 2 will be a lot more 'fluffy' than it appears. Design an archetype and a character of that archetype and an orginization, etc. We won't know until it arises.
Archetypes are about fluffing the crunch anyway, IMO.
Their adjustment of general classes (crunch) with new thematic abilites (Fluffy crunch), but it all depends on how you RP it.
Archetypes are about fluffing the crunch anyway, IMO.
Their adjustment of general classes (crunch) with new thematic abilites (Fluffy crunch), but it all depends on how you RP it.
Maybe "fluff" isn't quite the word I should have used. There's a big difference between writing game mechanics, even with lots of flavor to it, and writing a compelling story with real characters dealing with their own ambitions, dreams, fears, and disappointments.
I'd also prefer something more "fluff" than "crunch," but that's just my personal tastes.
That said, I've come up with what I think is an awesome idea for an archetype (pending the twist, of course), and I'd really like the chance to try it in the contest.
|
|
I'd also prefer something more "fluff" than "crunch," but that's just my personal tastes.
That said, I've come up with what I think is an awesome idea for an archetype (pending the twist, of course), and I'd really like the chance to try it in the contest.
But that’s what I tried to say above.
This (RPGSS) being a job interview; it stands to reason that Paizo would tailor their rounds to items they’d be looking for freelancers to work on.
I was hoping for the Organization again, as I thought there was a lot more room for inovation there, and less worry about mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it seems strange to me that they don't have any rounds focused on writing more fluff, like the villains, organizations, nations, etc.
Because it's a lot easier to train someone to write flavor than it is to teach someone to master the game rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it seems strange to me that they don't have any rounds focused on writing more fluff, like the villains, organizations, nations, etc.Because it's a lot easier to train someone to write flavor than it is to teach someone to master the game rules.
I would have guessed it was the opposite. To me, it would seem harder to teach someone to write good prose, than to work with the game mechanics. In my case, it took me almost three years of seriously working at writing fiction before I got even the most insignificant of publications, while learning the mechanics of Pathfinder came much quicker. Then again, I have a very analytically-inclined mind (I work with EPA test methods in my day job), so that might have something to do with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I, on the other hand, agree with Coridan. I would have been much more interested in Create an Organization or even Create a Nation. The contest this year seems very crunch-heavy, though maybe that's the point.
It's not one or the other. Excellent writers impart great flavor into the rules mechanics, and use their mechanics to reinforce the themes of the flavor text.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
Oh, I'm glad it's archetypes. I'm really happy about how my Fleshbinder archetype turned out in 2011, especially that I got more judges' recommendations than most finalists. Neil didn't like it so much, though, he thought I went too far. But looking at the official synthesist they published shortly after, I think I did a good job with the rather small word limit.
So yeah I'm really looking forward to it, and I hope it'll be a good round this time! :)
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Yeah, it seems strange to me that they don't have any rounds focused on writing more fluff, like the villains, organizations, nations, etc.Because it's a lot easier to train someone to write flavor than it is to teach someone to master the game rules.
Take it from me, the ability to create immensely disliked flavour/fluff is the easy part.
Most people grow up hearing, reading, watching, and experiencing good stories and bad stories. They have a lot of life experience (first- and second-hand) to compare and contrast to when creating their own flavor.
Few people spend anywhere near that much time thinking about good game mechanics, bad game mechanics, and how game mechanics fit together to provide a fun and understandable experience. They may have been frustrated by playing a game, but not thought that it was the game rules that were the problem rather than the other people playing or the luck of the dice.
For example, this game. It's fun, but it's frustrating because the odds are strongly stacked against you. AND the rules are poorly written and aren't explained well. You really need the publisher's FAQ as a supplement to figure out what's supposed to happen in the game. If you don't think much about game mechanics and how they're written, you may just think "the game is hard" or "I'm not smart enough for this game" or "I suck at this game" and not realize that the mechanics and rules are a significant part of the problem.
I can always train someone to write better. I can't always train someone to understand why Skill Focus (Appraise) is almost always a bad feat for an adventuring rogue or a BBEG rogue NPC.
Honestly, I find Round 2 the most intimidating. I just finished writing an archetype as a Wayfinder submission and that took me quite a while to do. Doing it again under a time crunch and having it be something that gets voted to the next round is a bit daunting. Which is why I'm already working on it. Several "its," actually.
Honestly, I find Round 2 the most intimidating. I just finished writing an archetype as a Wayfinder submission and that took me quite a while to do. Doing it again under a time crunch and having it be something that gets voted to the next round is a bit daunting. Which is why I'm already working on it. Several "its," actually.
I sympathize entirely.
If I make Top 32, I think round 2 is probably the one that scares me the most - it's the round whereby I currently have just two ideas in draft form so far and I'm still waiting for that superstar flash of inspiration to really hit.
I have a killer core idea for the Monster round - feedback included some from kind, volunteering and much appreciated forum members and a smattering of past Top 32's who used a rare feedback word, it goes: "Awesome" (yeah, I too wondered if the Miz was in disguise and yanking my chain), so I don't feel under any pressure at all now >.<
I have some interesting ideas for the encounter round - I have also started looking at the available flip mats as well on the store, just in case of course.
The only other round I would struggle with is the full blown adventure proposal - I have some plots in my subconscious, but am keeping them there for a round or 2 to let them ferment and be cogitated upon some more.
Just worked out why Round 2 scares me.
Just in case it's of benefit to others, it goes like this...
Look at my entry idea...
Ask oneself this - "Is this BIG and Superstar enough to be an exciting and vibrant Archetype, or, is it just a badly disguised profession?"
That's my fear in a nutshell.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka Jiggy
|
Because it's a lot easier to train someone to write flavor than it is to teach someone to master the game rules.I would have guessed it was the opposite.
Clearly, you don't spend much time on the Rules Questions forum.
No NPC round? No organization round?
Just archetypes and monsters separating the Top 32 from the Top 8?
I read that and said, "This year, I must find a way to design the best wondrous item in the history of the game, because Rounds 2 and 3 are the ones I want. Archetypes and monsters? Bring it on."
(I've even learned my lesson about what happens when I work extraneous, Golarion-breaking backstories into my content, so I won't be shooting myself in the foot with that silliness if I get to compete this year.)
Now, back to perfecting my (hopefully) Top 32 wondrous item...
Amen to that - Eric, if it were in my power, I'd give you a Golden ticket straight to the monster round, just to see what you come up with. Your monster thread is a marvel, and I was sad you didn't make it past round 2 last year.
So...bring on that item!
Now, back to perfecting my (hopefully) Top 32 wondrous item...So...bring on that item!
Indeed!
Bring them all on!
HUNGRY!
Just worked out why Round 2 scares me.
Just in case it's of benefit to others, it goes like this...
Look at my entry idea...
Ask oneself this - "Is this BIG and Superstar enough to be an exciting and vibrant Archetype, or, is it just a badly disguised profession?"
My apprehension the early rounds (the first two, this year) would be very similar, because my starting point is "find a hole and fill it"; there's currently no way (or perhaps no easy way) to do "x" or be "y", so create something to fill that need.
Many good ideas seem obvious in retrospect, but may instill a reaction of "Huh. Neat." rather than "OMG WFT BBQ this is the greatest idea ever!"
As an end user of character options of any type, I'm looking for solid non-redundant utility, not "gonzo/awesome" -- and that seems likely work against me in a Superstar competition.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
aka primemover003
|
Yeah, it seems strange to me that they don't have any rounds focused on writing more fluff, like the villains, organizations, nations, etc.Because it's a lot easier to train someone to write flavor than it is to teach someone to master the game rules.
I guess with each successive year the focus seems to change a bit. I seem to remember my NPC getting panned for his lackluster flavor text (or maybe it was just my over the top tone) than his mechanics. I mean he did get chosen by three of the next rounds contestants! Poor Hoarfrost.
--Vrock and Awe
If anything, I'm nervous my item will get me to round 2, because it just might not be flashy enough. If I can get to round 2, I'm confident I can make the top 4. Thing is my item is subtly cool, if everyone skims it I'm screwed, if people think about it I have a chance.
Public votes are way scarier than 5 years of readable judging as we have absolutely no basis on what the general community that takes the time to vote is going to go for. I truly wonder if the torch of solidity, snapleaf, sage tea, or that gut stone would have made it in an open field, and these are some of my favorite items. I generally trust the judgement of the GMs portion of the vote but worry that the beer and pretzel player market doesn't appreciate subtlety. I sincerely hope the community proves me wrong and votes in some items that are more substance then flash.
I have a killer archetype and I've been designing homebrew monsters and encounters for years. There's a hell of allot less (albeit more talented) competition in the latter rounds. Indeed I'm terrified of round 1 but seriously think of myself as a contender in any other round. Time will tell, even if I don't make it I will cheer on those who do and provide feedback.
No matter what happens I applaud Piazo for stepping out of the mold and providing a truly unique way to develop new talent. Fresh blood and fresh ideas make better products and I look forward purchasing innovative products form Piazo for years to come (though no offense to the developers, but I am rooting against the Mythic rules being successful.)
Round 2 is what I'm keen for. Archetypes are, I think, the most crunch-orientated elements that we see in the competition; which is unfortunate for me as I think crunching numbers and designing mechanics is a fun thing.
Here's hoping that you'll get to see my <Insert Awesome> ;)
I can always train someone to write better. I can't always train someone to understand why Skill Focus (Appraise) is almost always a bad feat for an adventuring rogue or a BBEG rogue NPC.
I had a sudden impulse, upon reading this, to design a character for whom that feat would be a good selection.
But, even thinking about a rogue BBEG who steals the party's equipment mid-battle, using appriaise to take the most valuable stuff, and I'm already thinking there are better feats to take. Improved Steal, for instance. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Public votes are way scarier than 5 years of readable judging as we have absolutely no basis on what the general community that takes the time to vote is going to go for.
It's about time the competition had a round 1 twist!
|
Marathon Voter Season 6
|
I can always train someone to write better. I can't always train someone to understand why Skill Focus (Appraise) is almost always a bad feat for an adventuring rogue or a BBEG rogue NPC.I had a sudden impulse, upon reading this, to design a character for whom that feat would be a good selection.
But, even thinking about a rogue BBEG who steals the party's equipment mid-battle, using appriaise to take the most valuable stuff, and I'm already thinking there are better feats to take. Improved Steal, for instance. ;)
The trick is to make it a PrC Prereq!
This is my first year submitting, and I'm nervous/excited. But the archetype round has me nervous/nauseous.
I really like my item; I think it has good chances. And I'm giddy about my monster idea. Round 2 is the round that's gonna hurt me the most. As a not-math person, I was really hoping for another organization round 2, or even a PrC round. But alas - whay may come will come.
At this point, I'm trying not to overthink about round 2 until I know for sure whether I made the 32 or not. =)
For my personal game crunch activities, archetypes were the first PF mechanic that I ever tried to play around with, so I'm not worried nor intimidated by Round 2 in any way.
I just never seem to make it past Round 1, so that's where my worry lies. I really focused on minimal word count to get off a still interesting item, so I'm more confidant in this year's entry over past entries, but that doesn't necessarily mean much to the judges. We'll just see if it generates any interest at all.
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
I would really prefer a villain round, because I think the villain plus stat block is the best chance to show off original ideas, craft some prose and get mechanics right. But if there's no villain round, the archetype is a decent alternative.
Part of me wonders if the villain presentations of previous years haven't discouraged Paizo from keeping it as an option. There were a lot of contestants that didn't get good villain-making, I think. Clearly some class villains made the cut each time. but asking for 32 villains and getting 8-9 might have pushed them onto other ideas for round two.
Then again, SUperstar and its different rounds in different years might be exactly what Paizo is looking for every time and a dozen good villains might have exceeded their expectations instead of disappointing them.
Just so, archetype it is, and I like mine pretty well.
@Stephen: I was a little surprised that Round 3 isn't a villain stat block round, (possibly using a Round 2 archetype). But it's all good, monsters are cool too.
I don't know if anyone else has done this...
I went through all the years so far to see if there were any patterns to the rounds and word counts year after year. It helped with the anxiety. :P
Prior to announcement of this year’s rounds, my findings:
Round 1 - Wondrous Item
Round 2 – Design XX
Round 3 - Alternating Monster/Villain w/Stat Block
Round 4 - Encounter w/Map
Round 5 - Adventure Proposal
The only anomaly was in the first year when there were 6 rounds that had two "Design a XX" rounds and a "design w/stat block" round. My personal expectation was a villain for Round 3. This prognostication was incorrect, so take this pattern with however much salt you need. ;)
The average word counts for all competitions since 2009 are within 100 words of the most recent two years of competitions. I couldn’t find the word count limits for anything in 2008...
Round 1 - 300 words (increased from 200 words for the RPGSS 2010 competition)
Round 2 – Average 413. I expect the limit to be 400-450 words
Round 3 – Average 675. I expect the limit to be 600 words because the last two years had that limit.
Round 4 – Average 1550. I expect the limit to be 1500 words based on the last two years.
Round 5 – Average (suggested) ~3000 words. IF the winner will write according to the new, larger format, expect the number to double since the format has doubled.
I could be horribly, terribly, awfully wrong on the word counts like I was about the substance of Round 3. It gives me something to practice with before the winners and next round rules are released, though. Take it for the educated guess it is. ;)