This is a thread for us everyday folks to post advice and things we might have seen/learned from competitions past. Didn't see another post yet that was similar so I thought I would start one.
Before starting this please note, Sean K Reynolds has posted an amazing list of the auto-reject topics that the judges watch for and I would HIGHLY recommend reading those before anything else as they are invaluable and time saving. But as the judges have to spend a large amount of time you know, judging, it might not afford them the time to troll the boards and comment on general topics or trends that others of us might find who have the time to browse around. Or just things you think might help your fellow future designers.
So my 2 cents to start:
After requesting feedback on my item last year I noticed the following both in my own critique and some others as well. The gist of which is: Be careful with taking a good, solid idea and trying to add "just a little bit more" and really hurting the core of what you already had. This is obviously a vague and arbitrary line but let me elaborate.
I started with a fairly simple concept of having an item that let you heal by focusing your body's energies on healing while asleep. There was another neat little mechanical ability that further added to the flavor and it was pretty solid. The judges seemed to like where I was going with this and based on the feedback thread I saw, my item was held for further review before finally being passed on, which leads me to...
During the design I decided that I had to go and add a third section to my item where the user could fight in essence a "dream demon" to gain further abilities that weren't, in retrospect, worth the mechanical headaches of dealing with an ad hoc combat. This section was apparently one of the biggest factors that tanked the item for me in the end, which I totally understand. The judges thought it made it needlessly complicated and ruined the otherwise straight forward nature of my item. My wife said much the same thing when I showed it to her before submission but I told her at the time, I felt the item as is didn't really have enough pizzazz so let me come up with something "super cool" to make it pop. Turns out, I should have just left well enough alone and who knows, maybe I would have made it.
As I said, mine was not the only item I saw this type of critique on so maybe this will help someone in this iteration of the contest. Obviously it can all boil down to a matter of opinion but it was a mistake that I have since learned from and maybe others can too.
Anyone else have thoughts or things they've noticed? And of course if any judges want to chime in then by all means as best to get it from the source. :-)
Be careful with taking a good, solid idea and trying to add "just a little bit more" and really hurting the core of what you already had. This is obviously a vague and arbitrary line but let me elaborate.
I can think of at least one item Neil and I have reviewed and rejected this year that had this problem. The author had a neat idea, it just got out of control. It had some other problems, too. But had he stripped it down to its core and focused more on that, it might have been a keep item.
But you are right. Its a tough line to find. You don't want it underdone, but you dont want it overdone either.
In the immortal words of Goldilocks, this porridge is just right.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
I can think of at least one item Neil and I have reviewed and rejected this year that had this problem. The author had a neat idea, it just got out of control. It had some other problems, too. But had he stripped it down to its core and focused more on that, it might have been a keep item.
OH NOES! I hope it wasn't mine! Off to worry and chew my nails to nubbs...
I mentioned this in another thread somewhere around here but I'll briefly repeat it. Instead of wasting words trying to stuff more mechanics into your item to try and make it shine, use those words to show us what your item does and how it does it. Using my item, Cocoon Cloak, from last year as an example, mechanically it was a pretty simple item. I could have even written out it's mechanics in one sentence, "This cloak grants the wearer enlarge person, darkvision and fly." Swiss army knife and a bunch of spells in can. But I wove it around a theme of turning into a buglike person and describe how it did it, eyes turning buglike to grant you darkvision, gossamer wings allowing you to fly. Simple enough item mechanically but the imaginary coupled with the theme created the flavor that pushed it into the top 32. So basically, don't waste all your word count trying to give me more mechanics when you can use those words to show me how cool it looks when your using it.
Be careful with taking a good, solid idea and trying to add "just a little bit more" and really hurting the core of what you already had. This is obviously a vague and arbitrary line but let me elaborate.I can think of at least one item Neil and I have reviewed and rejected this year that had this problem. The author had a neat idea, it just got out of control. It had some other problems, too. But had he stripped it down to its core and focused more on that, it might have been a keep item.
But you are right. Its a tough line to find. You don't want it underdone, but you dont want it overdone either.
In the immortal words of Goldilocks, this porridge is just right.
*bites nails some more and waits for January*
None of us will have any fingers left by the time this is done...
None of us will have any fingers left by the time this is done...
lol
welcome to RPG Superstar :)
One snippet of advice I can offer is to not rely solely on the word counter of your particular word processor. Don't make a 300 word submission without checking and double checking the word count in the submission preview tool which might handle punctuation differently. Its best to leave a little bit of breathing room for yourself at least.
The judges have made it clear in the past that there is zero tolerance for not following the word count limits.
There are many, many pieces of great advice sprinkled through the archives of the last 5 years of RPG-Superstar, coming from judges, winners, Top XX contestants, or just regular paizofolk alike.
So theres a lot to learn when reading through the archives, but who's got the time to read through the nearly 50,000 posts?
Luckily I made a consolidated list of advice
I don't claim that its even nearly complete, but it should give you some pointers on where to look and at least a few pieces of real insight.
If you've found something that you think should be on the list, simply call out to me :)
Now I hope nobody has to miss out on some of the more valueable lessons in item design that have been discussed, simply because they are here for the first time around.
But wiht all the advice of the world theres one thing you need to to for yourself:
Get some practice!
There've bben wuite a few practice/perr-review threads around here and I'm sure there are more to come this year.
Only practice allows you to take that adive to heart and hone your skills.
Wirte down many if not all of your item ideas, even if you know they aren't superstar. The one idea that will become your submission is just around the corner, and you'll better be ready for it.
Star Voter Season 6
|
Does the "great name" advice for an item conflict with the advice of presenting something that "looks like it is ready for inclusion in the Core rule book"? I say that because the names in PF Core book are utilitarian in nature. What is more important, a name which immediately conveys the important qualities of the item or a name which sparks the judge's imagination? Which is better “Widget of Fireballs” or “Mal’s Widget of Destruction”?
Well, widget of destruction is better than widget of fireballs. And both are better than Mal's widget of anything. As Ryan once said, unless your character played in the original campaign with Gary Gygax, your character's name doesn't get to go in the name of a magic item. Hope that helps :)
Does the "great name" advice for an item conflict with the advice of presenting something that "looks like it is ready for inclusion in the Core rule book"? I say that because the names in PF Core book are utilitarian in nature. What is more important, a name which immediately conveys the important qualities of the item or a name which sparks the judge's imagination? Which is better “Widget of Fireballs” or “Mal’s Widget of Destruction”?
I think the correct answer would be that a top 32 item should have both a great name that inspires people to how they could use it and at the same time keep it relatively clear what it does. for those two names you suggest i would pick the first, but that's because of the "Mal's" part of the second name. I believe i was Sean who pointed out in his advice thread that an item shouldn't include too much back story as a wondrous item is different from an artifact in that there are several of them in the world. thus a back story becomes largely irrelevant. in some of the items i've come up with i've noted very shortly how the first of the item's kind came to be, but if i where you i'd keep it very brief. Write about what your item does, not who did it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does the "great name" advice for an item conflict with the advice of presenting something that "looks like it is ready for inclusion in the Core rule book"? I say that because the names in PF Core book are utilitarian in nature. What is more important, a name which immediately conveys the important qualities of the item or a name which sparks the judge's imagination?
Your item name should try and do both. At the RPG Superstar panel at PaizoCon in June (which was recorded, so you can go give it a listen if you like--which I'd also recommend), we talked extensively about the importance of a good name that fits what your item is about.
Additionally, I'd recommended it's often a good idea to include at least one word in the item's name which tells us what it physically is. Clark used the example of a death ward. What is that exactly? Is it a stone of death ward or an amulet of death warding? It's often a good idea to give us a concrete object in a name, because it immediately gets the mind imagining what your item looks like. Then, the death ward part can also help us imagine what a stone or amulet with that kind of wondrous power might do, etc. That's what you want to shoot for...
Also, one other point about presenting something so it "looks like it's ready for inclusion in the Core Rule Book"...when we say that, we're not talking about the name. Instead, we're talking about following the format and template and style of wondrous items as presented in the Core Rule Book.
For instance, all those boldface headers...lowercase, italicized, and alphabetized spell names...capitalized feat and skill names...etc., are important. That's how you properly present game terminology and the information for a wondrous item in the game of Pathfinder. An RPG Superstar contestant should recognize and emulate that.
Additionally, there's no italicized, lead-off descriptive text as the first sentence of an item's description. Not in Pathfinder's Core Rule Book, at least. A lot of people don't realize that. Instead, they look at something like the Magic Item Compendium (which was written for D&D 3.5 and not the Pathfinder RPG) and see that it has an italicized, lead-off sentence describing what an item looks like (kind of like the read-aloud descriptive text for monsters in the Bestiary), but that's not how you should present an item for RPG Superstar. And that's because it's not how you present items in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rule Book.
You should also avoid glomming on a bunch of backstory. "This item first came into existence because the God of Fire brought forth a fallen meteor and bestowed it upon his high priest, Tharl Hebbinsham. Before the rock could cool, his mortal servant molded and shaped the stone into an ankh of everlasting life. The original anhk has been copied hundreds of times since by magic item crafters who chase after fallen sky metal all across Golarion..." Blah, blah, blah. We don't want a story woven throughout your wondrous item submission. We don't take that kind of writing as a sign of your creativity. Instead, we take that as a sign that you can't present a wondrous item the way it's done in the Core Rule Book. That's because none of the wondrous items in the Core Rule Book has that kind of stuff. So, in terms of presentation and making sure your item is "publication-ready," yours shouldn't either. There are other ways we'll assess your entry for creative writing ability (such as flavor text, the item's name, and an evocative description of its mechanical effects, etc.). You'll also have ample opportunity in later rounds of the competition to show off your creative writing ability and storytelling. You don't need to cram that into your 300-word item submission.
So, that's what we basically mean when we say follow the presentation of wondrous items in the Core Rule Book. But that's an entirely different bit of guidance from "make an awesome name that fits your item."
Hope that helps clarify,
--Neil
P.S. My apologies for commenting in the non-judge observers thread. :-)
Also, one other point about presenting something so it "looks like it's ready for inclusion in the Core Rule Book"...when we say that, we're not talking about the name. Instead, we're talking about following the format and template and style of wondrous items as presented in the Core Rule Book.
There's one catch with the core rulebook style, and I wonder would you count people off for this:
The official format for a minimum caster level in the item creation requirements seems to be: "creator must be caster level xth"
Is it kosher to just write "caster level xth"? It's absolutely clear and takes half as much space.
Also, one other point about presenting something so it "looks like it's ready for inclusion in the Core Rule Book"...when we say that, we're not talking about the name. Instead, we're talking about following the format and template and style of wondrous items as presented in the Core Rule Book.There's one catch with the core rulebook style, and I wonder would you count people off for this:
The official format for a minimum caster level in the item creation requirements seems to be: "creator must be caster level xth"
Is it kosher to just write "caster level xth"? It's absolutely clear and takes half as much space.
My (non-judge and thus unofficial) take on that is that no, it wouldn't be kosher. You probably wouldn't get massively dinged for it, but you should really avoid using unofficial shorthand. Yes, it saves you words, but as you point out, it's not how it's done in an official product. 'Creator must be level x' is just as official as 'Creator must be a monk' or 'Creator must be a dwarf', if those were creation requirements. And just like you couldn't abbreviate those to 'monk' or 'dwarf' in that line, you shouldn't abbreviate a level requirement either. Bear in mind, some of the entries from this year are going to make it into an official product. That should be your guideline here; not 'is this a minor enough infraction to slip past the judges', but 'is this a good enough entry that if it were to be selected for Ultimate Equipment it would require minimum to no editing'.
There's one catch with the core rulebook style, and I wonder would you count people off for this:
The official format for a minimum caster level in the item creation requirements seems to be: "creator must be caster level xth"
Is it kosher to just write "caster level xth"? It's absolutely clear and takes half as much space.
I'm not sure I understand your question. The official format for indicating a minimum caster level is in the second line of the template and it's depicted as "CL Xth" right after an item's Aura. It doesn't appear in the construction requirements, except when you need to indicate it varies, because there's multiple variations of an item (e.g., an amulet of mighty fists or an amulet of natural armor which can be +1 to +5 and has a correspondingly higher CL as a result). But you can also indicate in the CL line similar to the way a bag of tricks.
I'm not sure I understand your question. The official format for indicating a minimum caster level is in the second line of the template and it's depicted as "CL Xth" right after an item's Aura. It doesn't appear in the construction requirements, except when you need to indicate it varies, because there's multiple variations of an item (e.g., an amulet of mighty fists or an amulet of natural armor which can be +1 to +5 and has a correspondingly higher CL as a result). But you can also indicate in the CL line similar to the way a bag of tricks.There's one catch with the core rulebook style, and I wonder would you count people off for this:
The official format for a minimum caster level in the item creation requirements seems to be: "creator must be caster level xth"
Is it kosher to just write "caster level xth"? It's absolutely clear and takes half as much space.
I believe (and framed my previous response in the assumption of) that he's talking about how some items have a line in requirements indicating a minimum level for creation. The phylactery of positive channeling having 'creator must be a 10th-level cleric' as a requirement, for instance.
We don't take that kind of writing as a sign of your creativity. Instead, we take that as a sign that you can't present a wondrous item the way it's done in the Core Rule Book.
Hi Neil ... sorry if I shouldn't ask this in this thread or what have you, but about this section of your comments. I understand a bunch of backstory on an item is not welcome, but I remember seeing in another thread (I forget if may have been in comments on previous years' wondrous item entries from judges) that a touch of flavor is fine ... a line like "Originally crafted by the Knights who say Nee, for the sake of their shrubberies.... <then onto mechanical and descriptive text>" *. Also I thought I had seen positive comments when someone might have included a line with Golarion flavor.
So just for clarification ... any reference to Golarion or flavor should be stripped away? Cause that doesn't seem to parse with what I've seen in the past?
* reference used so it has no relation to an entry :)
I believe (and framed my previous response in the assumption of) that he's talking about how some items have a line in requirements indicating a minimum level for creation. The phylactery of positive channeling having 'creator must be a 10th-level cleric' as a requirement, for instance.
The difference in that situation (and why it's called out in the construction requirements) is because it's not just that you need a 10th level caster, but that it has to be a cleric.
So just for clarification...any reference to Golarion or flavor should be stripped away? Cause that doesn't seem to parse with what I've seen in the past?
You don't have to strip away any reference to Golarion or every bit of flavor text. Some of it is fine. If you notice my example above, I carried on for several sentences about it. I named individuals involved in the original creation (not a group name, but an actual named NPC), and so on. There's a difference between giving us a small, soft hint toward who may have played a role in the item's origin vs. giving us the equivalent of an entire backstory as convoluted as what you'd get in an NPC's background (and yes, some people give us exactly that). Basically, a wondrous item is not an excuse to wax poetic about an entire campaign setting, organization, or your favorite character. If you're spending more words on that stuff than the actual item, you're doing it wrong.
Focus on the item. Not all the window dressing. That doesn't mean you can't dress up the item a bit. Just don't go overboard. And by all means, if you reference something in Golarion, get it right. You get it wrong and it's a knock against you. You get it right and maybe it helps your item. That depends on how long you go on and on about it. And how well it fits what you're referencing.
My understanding from the 3e FAQ was that the CL entry in the stat block only gave the CL of the item when found as treasure. It wasn't a requirement for casting, or else you end up with some very unimpressive items requiring a very high CL for no reason. This was the topic of many heated arguments way back then, IIRC.
There are a handful of items that corroborate this, but having just a CL listed in the requirements, but otherwise the only CL requirement is implicit (the level needed for the feats and spells). At least, this is how I've always understood it to work. If it's wrong, I'd love to know.
I could be ignorant of some change that has occurred in Pathfinder.
Very few items actually need a caster level requirement to be spelled out. Mine was one. At any rate, my item was submitted already, so I guess I'll just have to see how much it matters.
You only put CL in the Requirements if it's a special requirement for creating the item, like the cloak of resistance has.
Contributor
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Boxhead
|
"just a little bit more"
So, I think I get to step in right here. I actually might have nailed the "less is more" axiom with the Shadow Falconer's Glove .
I'm not sure if it's actually tthe lowest word count item that made a top 32, but it's close. It's just a ranged disarm item, with a bit of flavor. It's low powered, it's easy, you wonder why it wasn't already in the game (I wonder why it still isn't ;)). Don't go too far- it doesn't help. Also, don't spend too much on flavor- that's just as bad.
Take a swing, but don't be afraid of submitting ~150 words, you just never know...
... you wonder why it wasn't already in the game.
+1 this. For me at least, this is the golden goose: to design an item that everyone reads and then thinks "Why doesn't this already exist?"
If you've found something that you think should be on the list, simply call out to me :)
I'd definitely add these two:
Neil on Advanced Considerations in Item Pricing
Judges' "So You Want To Be A Superstar" Panel
Having already sent in my submission and now having to wait until well into January for specific feedback, I nonetheless find myself actually worrying most about the title of my item as being too... common? I did make sure that no item of that name already existed, and it certainly meets the criteria of describing what it is and what it is for, yet I don't know that it's properly inspiring, and thus truly Superstar.
It's far too late to fix that, so all I can really do is wait and hope, but that's really something I would like some advice on, regardless of whether I make the cut or not, because all the really 'cool' sounding magical items I could think of felt far too gimmicky or similar to existing/previous items, or simply far too niche to place. I guess I'll end up seeing one way or another in a month, but this is the one thing that worries me the most, when I should probably be worrying about some other aspect.
Look through the wondrous items in the Core Rulebook. How many of them have to include examples of their mechanics? Few to none. An RPG Superstar submission isn't the place to start introducing an all new rules subsystem. That said, something simple that doesn't require too much explanation...or, something that draws upon existing game mechanics in a new and interesting way...could be viewed as having Superstar potential.
My two cents,
--Neil
|
Thanks for the reply!
I am not creating new mechanics. It's much closer, for example, to the description of the Chime of Opening.
Rather than simply stating that the Chime only opens 1 lock per use and ending it there, it also clarifies in the text that a chest with 4 different locks on it would need to have the Chime used 4 seperate times until it could be opened.
My item, for now, includes a small clarfication as to it's use as well. It is not necessary in order to understand how the item works, but I think it helps. I can easily remove that part of the item description if it comes across as amateurish though.
Don't, and I repeat, DON'T forget to include the construction requirements for your item.
Also, use the provided template. It'll help you ensure that you have all of the required info.
In addition: edit, walk away, edit, walk away, edit.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since this just happened to me, I thought I would post it for others.
I apparently just dodged a bullet, as I had my item all ready to go (properly formatted, spells researched, price calculated, etc.)
I was perusing some of the older superstar final 32 item submissions, when I noticed a previous item that was dabbling in the same area my item was supposed to (incorporeal creatures, in this case). Then I noticed a second one. There was a third submission in the critique my item threads that also dealt with incorporeal creatueres and one of the points against it was that the writer had not done their research and seen that this an area already explored by previous contestants.
So, it is back to the drawing board for me. And I urge all prospective item creators to look back over the previous years of the contest at what the actual items were to avoid a lack of originality ding.
Also, look over the Judges Critique My Item threads. I often find the judges comments on the items that did not win to be more informative than the winning entries.
Absolutely! Always look in the PRD, and all the previous superstar competitions. Homework, people, homework
Please be careful asking about stuff from your submission. That could identify your submission and thus violate the anonymous nature of the contest. Please be careful with that.
Don't submit your item early. Wait until a lot of advice has been set loose and apply it to your item.
Just don't wait until the last second to submit!
Don't submit your item early. Wait until a lot of advice has been set loose and apply it to your item.
At this stage it isn't likely that there will be much more advice. Also there's 4+ years of advice already out there to look at. I'd be submitting my item now. You'll have plenty of chance to work under a 72 hour deadline if you make Top 32.
Just don't wait until the last second to submit!
Absolutely. Be able to relax and not have to worry about your internet going down or the site being unavailable.
|
|
... you wonder why it wasn't already in the game.+1 this. For me at least, this is the golden goose: to design an item that everyone reads and then thinks "Why doesn't this already exist?"
This actually has been my bugbear. I tend to think along the lines of 'why the heck *aren't* there any magical holy symbols,' or 'magical wizard's spellbooks,' or 'magical bardic songsheets,' or whatever, and, in my (admittedly limited) experience, that doesn't cut it for Superstar, which isn't about creating a whole new classification of 'sorcerer bloodline talismans' or whatever, so much as a single evocative item.
Just because you've come up with the Great American No-Brainer Utilitarian Item that every person eligible to use it would snatch up in a cold second, doesn't mean that it's as sexy as a silk papoose that has an animated dead monkey ninja in it.
While I'm sure many of us would like to add a seventh 'must-have' item to the 'big six,' and have everyone exclaim 'why didn't we do more magical scabbards before now!,' RPGA Superstar might not be the best venue to unleash that upon the world.
|
|
That said, something simple that doesn't require too much explanation...or, something that draws upon existing game mechanics in a new and interesting way...could be viewed as having Superstar potential.
And there are a *ton* of interesting rules subsystems already in the game, that see little or no use in item or spell design.
The Bestiary is chock full of them, as is the Core Rulebook, as is the Gamemastery Guide, not to mention the various new subsystems introduced with every Adventure Path.
Finding ways to use pre-existing rules mechanics, rather than creating new ways of doing the exact same thing, is part of what I consider to be genius. It ties the game together, and makes it tighter and stronger, IMO, if a spell, environmental hazard and monster all use the same sort of mechanic to do the same thing, rather than have three different sets of situationally different rules for 'catching on fire.'
It also totally saves on wordcount if you can just refer to a pre-existing rule or mechanic!
... you wonder why it wasn't already in the game.+1 this. For me at least, this is the golden goose: to design an item that everyone reads and then thinks "Why doesn't this already exist?"This actually has been my bugbear. I tend to think along the lines of 'why the heck *aren't* there any magical holy symbols,' or 'magical wizard's spellbooks,' or 'magical bardic songsheets,' or whatever, and, in my (admittedly limited) experience, that doesn't cut it for Superstar, which isn't about creating a whole new classification of 'sorcerer bloodline talismans' or whatever, so much as a single evocative item.
Just because you've come up with the Great American No-Brainer Utilitarian Item that every person eligible to use it would snatch up in a cold second, doesn't mean that it's as sexy as a silk papoose that has an animated dead monkey ninja in it.
While I'm sure many of us would like to add a seventh 'must-have' item to the 'big six,' and have everyone exclaim 'why didn't we do more magical scabbards before now!,' RPGA Superstar might not be the best venue to unleash that upon the world.
This. So much this. Looking at last year’s winning items only a couple of them would qualify as Why don’t we already have this? items. Even those are pretty situational.
The winning strategies are more along the lines of, That would look cool! and How do they come up with these things?.
My rookie mistake was going off of what the rules and guidelines state, instead of what types of items the judges actually vote for. A dumb move on my part.
A lesson I learned in high school, unlearned in higher academia and unfortunately had to relearn: write for your audience and the audience (except researchers and professors apparently) rarely make it clear to what they really want up front. It is something you must intuit for the most part.
To be fair, the judges of RPG Superstar are extremely transparent, give lots of great feedback and one doesn’t have to search very hard to figure out that the ‘rule of cool’ is second only to the dead line and word count. However, it is still too easy for contestants to believe fundamental design principles are more important than it factor.
... write for your audience and the audience (except researchers and professors apparently) rarely make it clear to what they really want up front. It is something you must intuit for the most part.
Yeah, I learned that last year. I feel that my mistake last year was in trying to make it practical for the purpose I intended it for (making an affordable magic item that would help out low-level characters with swarms), as opposed to the actual purpose of it, which was as a contest entry that should be cool and make people want to see more writing from me.
The two don't always go together well :)
My rookie mistake was going off of what the rules and guidelines state, instead of what types of items the judges actually vote for. A dumb move on my part.
That's not dumb at all! Remember, you actually have two tiers of judges, the first being the official ones, the second being the dreaded community. Write for the public, not the judges. The judges can tell if they're being pandered to, and it doesn't help you any - but if the community doesn't like your item, you won't win in the long run.
My rookie mistake was going off of what the rules and guidelines state, instead of what types of items the judges actually vote for. A dumb move on my part.That's not dumb at all! Remember, you actually have two tiers of judges, the first being the official ones, the second being the dreaded community. Write for the public, not the judges. The judges can tell if they're being pandered to, and it doesn't help you any - but if the community doesn't like your item, you won't win in the long run.
Not for round one. For round one, the only ones who decide if you're in or out are the judges.
After you've made it into the top 32, you're subjected to a community vote on the organization you write. And there will be plenty of commentary on your item ... but there is no community selection process for the items.
Now, if everyone hates your item, of course, it lessens your chance of moving on ... but that is probably unlikely given it was selected by the judges.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
aka primemover003
|
I have to say that the community can send you pretty far in the contest if your Round 1 item oozes with cool. I'm fairly certain that last year my item helped me get extra points to get through the dreaded Archetype round.
--Vrock the vote!
Yeah, I know when I voted for Eric Hindley on the strength of his Round 1 item a couple times. Still love that dang glove; probably my favorite item so far in any of the rounds.
|
Contributor
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Boxhead
|
Yeah, I know when I voted for Eric Hindley on the strength of his Round 1 item a couple times. Still love that dang glove; probably my favorite item so far in any of the rounds.
And I appreciated any votes no matter why gave them!