| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not RPG MediocreStar or RPG Just-Kinda-OK-Star or RPG Middle-of-the-pack-Star.
I am often amazed by what people choose to submit to RPG Superstar. This is your homerun swing and so many people bunt. Seriously, this is your one entry. Your one shot. And its a +2 competence bonus item? Or a magic map? Come on! Think Superstar!
A detect magic item or a +2 competence bonus item is probably not going to get us all hot and bothered and excited. That kind if item is certainly not making us quiver with antici...say it...pation.
I'm not saying everything needs to be a helm of brilliance or gonzo. In fact, we often really value the amazing low level item. But that doesn't mean boring.
Show us something, sex it up! Su-per-freak-ing-star! Bring it!
Boring. Yawn. Meh. Are often written followed by the word REJECT by the judges when we evaluate and quickly reject items. Often times, just a tiny cut above, you raise our interest to "Might make a book of magic items, but not good enough for Superstar." Though maybe a tad better, even that isnt good enough. Look at the prior top 32.
Take a swing, dammit! For your own good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teach Clark a lesson! :-) Show him something he has never ever seen before. Even better, show him something he would never have thought of himself.
Personally that's what I hope to see in the Top 32.
People want to be modest. I wouldn't wanna post a Minor Artifact and get my head full of hot air only to suddenly get rejected.
Teach Clark a lesson! :-) Show him something he has never ever seen before. Even better, show him something he would never have thought of himself.
Personally that's what I hope to see in the Top 32.
Funny you would say that. One thing that fills me with joy (and leads me to IMMEDIATELY hit the KEEP button) is to see and item that makes me say "now why didnt I or anyone else think of that?" I love that. I know Mona loved that, too. I just had one of those items again this year. And guess what pile it is sitting in right now--the KEEP pile. Now, that doesnt mean it will make top 32 for sure, but it made the first cut between keep and reject.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
The surest sign of a good idea is that it makes other people say, "Wait, you mean we haven't always had one of those? How did we not have that? Why didn't *I* think of that?"
I remember thinking that about the hurricane gloves in year 2's contest. Perfectly obvious, except that they weren't, and that's what made them AWESOME!
[paraphrased rant] Your items are all useless and rubbish and pathetic!!! How dare you submit this pile of steaming baatezu dung?! [/paraphrased rant]
I must say, I've written and rejected so many of my ideas at this point trying to narrow down what might be "Superstar" that I feel like my head is spinning. It's kinda like I'm starting to lose track of what's unique and creative and what's just an intereting twist to a SIAC and what's unique but with such extensive, complicated mechanics that it would never fit within a 300 word limit!
I didn't compete last year because I hadn't played in several years, was "coming back" and didn't feel confident in my ability.
This year, if nothing else, it's certainly an experience (of chasing myself around in circles if nothing else!)
Try using the process we went through on the So You Want To Be A Superstar panel. You can find a link to the audio in that thread.
There is an interesting balance to be struck between item complexity and creativity.
A more complex item lends itself to a certain creativity by the very nature of being complex. However you also run the risk of frackin' it up because it is, after all, more complex.
A really smart item does something that no one has done before, but does so without requiring you to read it a couple times and scratch your head.
From my perspective its those items that do something cool and original without necessarily being complex that are the ones to go on to be the "oooh that is so cool and so elegantly simple" items that get fussed over.
I'm sure Sean said something like this in one of his guidelines, but one of the best guidelines is:
Is this an item someone would really love to find?
This gets back to Clark's original post in this thread. It's not hard to come up with a useful functional item. For example: there are tons of useful and functional items at K-Mart, and Home Depot. We're looking for something a little bit cooler yet.
Need a tip? Start looking in Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Bestiary 3. Look for new spell concepts and monster abilities, and whatever inspirations you can glean from them. There are new concepts and themes that have not been exploited or touched.
Need a tip? Start looking in Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Bestiary 3. Look for new spell concepts and monster abilities, and whatever inspirations you can glean from them. There are new concepts and themes that have not been exploited or touched.
Excellent advice, Jim. And there are many concepts and themes that have been touched on but reached a creative dead-end (for whatever reason) waiting for that secret door of inspiration, that tweak to bring something fresh, new, and "why isn't this around already?" - there are many other settings and systems for material when it comes to concepts - heck, even 1E had some "interesting" concepts. Are they Superstar material? Perhaps...
...
Need a tip? Start looking in Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Bestiary 3. Look for new spell concepts and monster abilities, and whatever inspirations you can glean from them. There are new concepts and themes that have not been exploited or touched.
There are some really cool ideas in those books. In the practice thread three of us come up with ideas that were pretty cool. Then someone points out a new spell which does X and dropped it from 'pretty cool' to D'oh! SIAC.
You need to be checking these sources for knowledge base.
But first check them for inspiration. :)
Cause their cool.
Just say'n.
I'm going to stir the pot on this thread once more. I just spent the better part of a migraine-wracked weekend and this morning powering through several item reviews. And, while some warranted an initial visit to the Keep pile for further evaluation, so many more made me question the thought process of the designers who submitted them.
Clark's emphasis on swinging big for a homerun can't be understated. I've seen so many items now where I'm like, "Okay...that's it? What's the Superstar element in this idea? Why would anyone read this item and view it as awesome...as a must-have for their PC? Why would multiple PCs fight over who got to claim this item from the treasure pile?" If you can't conjure up some good answers to those questions, there's a pretty good chance the judges can't either. And if it's uninspiring (or worse, just plain boring), we're going to have a real hard time staying away from that Reject button.
So bring the awesome, people! We want something inspiring! And by that, I don't just mean a carbon copy of an item out of the Core Rulebook. We see plenty of items that might be good enough for a book of magic items, but they're not exciting or inspiring enough to make us want to lift that designer into the Top 32 for a shot at the overall competition. That's because we want to find someone who can bring something awesome. Not something run-of-the-mill.
Now bring it!
Clark's emphasis on swinging big for a homerun can't be understated. I've seen so many items now where I'm like, "Okay...that's it? What's the Superstar element in this idea? Why would anyone read this item and view it as awesome...as a must-have for their PC? Why would multiple PCs fight over who got to claim this item from the treasure pile?"
I feel some of the best items, currently, are ones that make the game better: not just items PCs want.
The item can create moments of tension and excitement like a ticking bomb or utter utility like an immovable rod. I feel the best items are ones that a GM knows will create interesting situations and that players would be happy to have in (or near) their arsenal. I don't mean to quibble but that would mean, to me, items that don't seem significant at first but when applied right can create some of the most interesting game situations: not simply catering to the uber-cool.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel it's utterly in your best interest to assume you made the Reject button. You don't quit, though. You remove the pressure from yourself and work hard on your round two ideas, and cast a few glances at future rounds.
The point isn't to be down on yourself, or that I in any way could possibly know you or your item. The point is, give yourself some peace about it. Assume you didn't make it and accept that it's okay. Then bust your hump on the best organization you could design. I write better when I'm writing ideas for fun instead of because I absolutely have to.
Get some sleep and then hit the books. That's what I'm trying to do.
I feel it's utterly in your best interest to assume you made the Reject button. You don't quit, though. You remove the pressure from yourself and work hard on your round two ideas, and cast a few glances at future rounds.
The point isn't to be down on yourself, or that I in any way could possibly know you or your item. The point is, give yourself some peace about it. Assume you didn't make it and accept that it's okay. Then bust your hump on the best organization you could design. I write better when I'm writing ideas for fun instead of because I absolutely have to.
Get some sleep and then hit the books. That's what I'm trying to do.
That some good advice Steven. I put a lot of unnecessary pressure on myself the first year I submitted but that was a complete waste of energy. I know that the judges can tell pretty quickly if you are ready to do freelance work and no amount of stressing will change that. If you don't make the cut and truly want to get into the business, just keep working to sharpen your skills, enjoy the process, and you will eventually succeed.
Star Voter Season 9
|
That some good advice Steven. I put a lot of unnecessary pressure on myself the first year I submitted but that was a complete waste of energy. I know that the judges can tell pretty quickly if you are ready to do freelance work and no amount of stressing will change that. If you don't make the cut and truly want to get into the business, just keep working to sharpen your skills, enjoy the process, and you will eventually succeed.I feel it's utterly in your best interest to assume you made the Reject button. You don't quit, though. You remove the pressure from yourself and work hard on your round two ideas, and cast a few glances at future rounds.
The point isn't to be down on yourself, or that I in any way could possibly know you or your item. The point is, give yourself some peace about it. Assume you didn't make it and accept that it's okay. Then bust your hump on the best organization you could design. I write better when I'm writing ideas for fun instead of because I absolutely have to.
Get some sleep and then hit the books. That's what I'm trying to do.
Thanks for the solid advice Steven & Jerett. On to the organization for the sake of whetstoning my game developing skills!!
I feel it's utterly in your best interest to assume you made the Reject button. You don't quit, though. You remove the pressure from yourself and work hard on your round two ideas, and cast a few glances at future rounds.
The point isn't to be down on yourself, or that I in any way could possibly know you or your item. The point is, give yourself some peace about it. Assume you didn't make it and accept that it's okay. Then bust your hump on the best organization you could design. I write better when I'm writing ideas for fun instead of because I absolutely have to.
Get some sleep and then hit the books. That's what I'm trying to do.
Wow, that is some of the best advice I have heard in a long while...
bravo!
Clark's emphasis on swinging big for a homerun can't be understated. I've seen so many items now where I'm like, "Okay...that's it? What's the Superstar element in this idea? Why would anyone read this item and view it as awesome...as a must-have for their PC? Why would multiple PCs fight over who got to claim this item from the treasure pile?"I feel some of the best items, currently, are ones that make the game better: not just items PCs want.
The item can create moments of tension and excitement like a ticking bomb or utter utility like an immovable rod. I feel the best items are ones that a GM knows will create interesting situations and that players would be happy to have in (or near) their arsenal. I don't mean to quibble but that would mean, to me, items that don't seem significant at first but when applied right can create some of the most interesting game situations: not simply catering to the uber-cool.
For my own purposes, I agree with you entirely. I'm more interested in the players and the story being cool than in giving them cool things other people have thought up in advance.
But of course, those two are very far from being mutually exclusive (the immovable rod being a clear example, as well as many, many Superstar R1 items). And more to the point, it's important to understand what the contest is looking for. An item which is only useful in very particular, deliberately-constructed circumstances (and then is really cool and interesting) is not what the contest is after. Why? As far as I understand, because:
- If such an item came into play in a game that allows trade in magic items, it would probably be immediately sold off in favor of something more generically useful.
- In order to actually use it in the interesting ways you intend, you'd have to spend more time and wordcount setting that up, either in the item description (which is very nonstandard) or elsewhere. So the "magic item format" on its own is a bad fit for "items with obscure interesting uses."
- A lot of items in this vein would be best presented in the context of a particular adventure, where some NPC uses them in the interesting way, or the PCs need to use them in the interesting way. But that's obviously way outside the scope of a mere magic item description.
This isn't to say that all interesting items are plot devices, or that all Superstar items need to be constantly useful - consider the key of closed doors ("This is perfect") or the assassin's rose ("I really like this one, and am happy to overlook some of the smaller style issues in favor of keeping a designer with this sort of idea in the competition"). It does mean that an item that seems initially unhelpful or un-enticing isn't likely to win back points because it's great if used "just right."
In other words, I agree with you entirely, but doing something like that in a generic, well-designed, mechanically-sound way is much more difficult than a whirligig of the awesome original combat ability - and that's saying something :)
|
|
What a player or DM (even those who have been around the game since it first came out) think is cool, and what Neil and the other judges think is cool, differ greatly.
These guys have seen thousands of submissions over the years, we only see our own and the others that get into the "What happened to my submission Clark?" thread.
This is a totally subjective round and that is why Clark asks for a homerun, not a ho-hum generic item.
I will never forget Clark's reason for one of my submissions a couple years ago. Not only did I have no idea of aquatic elves and their habitat, but to assume they could throw pearls at enemies was just plain stupid on my part.
Although, I had been the first to submit a clam idea at that point (even though it was horrid), so I have that going for me... hehe.
CC
What a player or DM (even those who have been around the game since it first came out) think is cool, and what Neil and the other judges think is cool, differ greatly.
Goodness. Not too greatly, I hope.
This is RPG Superstar, not Indulge-the-Judges Superstar. It just seems that way 'cause they're so good :P
I think it's much less an issue of subjectively determining what is an isn't cool, and much more combining what's cool with polished, professional, well-designed writing. That's a really tricky balance, and one which even extensive gaming and GM-ing experience doesn't necessarily prepare you for.
I will never forget Clark's reason for one of my submissions a couple years ago. Not only did I have no idea of aquatic elves and their habitat, but to assume they could throw pearls at enemies was just plain stupid on my part.
Although, I had been the first to submit a clam idea at that point (even though it was horrid), so I have that going for me... hehe.
Hey, I remember that item! And believe me, I have read THOUSANDS of submissions. To remember an item, that says something. You captured something with that submission. The entry itself might not have made the cut, but you were on the right track in some ways. Keep it up!
This is RPG Superstar, not Indulge-the-Judges Superstar. It just seems that way 'cause they're so good :P
I know you are kidding a bit here, but this is an issue that is really important to me.
You are right, this is NOT "Indulge the Judge Star." But that said there is a big subjective element. I think that is one of the reasons why we judges are so vocal and up front about what it good and bad and how we judge. That helps reduce the subjective element if we discuss design issues and why things are good and bad. So you actually hit on one of the big philosophical issues for me in judging. The contest shouldn't be "submit an item and see if you are lucky enough to catch the judges' fancy!" That is NOT what it is, and one of the ways of keeping it from being so subjective is the way Sean and others are so good in instructing the theory and design behind why we feel how we feel. But in the end, there is some subjectivity in judging and that can't be eliminated.
|
Quite frankly I think you folks creating these Superstar threads really need to switch to decaf. Is every subject on this something you need to open with a yell?
Having met Clark at PaizoCon, that's just his personality. It's not the caffeine.
Person at PaizoCon that was the ABSOLUTE LEAST like what I envisioned based on forum interaction and career highlights: Clark Peterson.
Honestly, I thought Clark would be like a 50 to 55-year old guy with some longish, greying hair. Instead he looked like someone I'd play racquetball with. And who would beat the snot out of me at it. Granted, I did no homework on him before going.
Basketball. Not racquetball. I suck at that.
I'm 44 for the record. :)
I envision him with red hair, fangs and horns. But I tend to read too much into people's avatars...
I think the fangs are retractable. So, they're easy to miss. ;-)
I envision him with red hair, fangs and horns. But I tend to read too much into people's avatars...
What a terrifying existence you must live at times.
Aah! Deep crow!
Oh...it's just you, Tark.
So basically an item, like a red polka dot tie, that only gives the user a +2 competence bonus to bluff and diplomacy checks, needs to turn into a iron claw gauntlet that gives a +2 hard ass bonus to ripping a guy's heart or lung out? Maybe a spine?
SWEET!
I just got internet access back so i can enter again this year. altho in the past 2 years i've entered it's become apparent that what me and my players consider to be awesome and "superstar" often vary greatly with what the judges put into the top 32.
but, i'm glad just to have the chance to try. good luck and a belated merry christmas to all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically an item, like a red polka dot tie, that only gives the user a +2 competence bonus to bluff and diplomacy checks, needs to turn into a iron claw gauntlet that gives a +2 hard ass bonus to ripping a guy's heart or lung out? Maybe a spine?
You're almost there. Now, how about a red polka-dot tie that gives a bonus to spine-ripping? Bonus points if you're a barbarian and you strap it around your bicep.
Note: In the past, the judges have expressed a dislike for ribbon-related items. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Show us something, sex it up! Su-per-freak-ing-star! Bring it!
I changed all of my bold tags to url tags that link to various lingerie catalogs. That's sexy, right?
Show us something, sex it up! Su-per-freak-ing-star! Bring it!I changed all of my bold tags to url tags that link to various lingerie catalogs. That's sexy, right?
You joke about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a last minute flood of entries that are magical lacy undergarments and adult toys. Some people just don't do well with figurative language.
You joke about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a last minute flood of entries that are magical lacy undergarments and adult toys. Some people just don't do well with figurative language.Don't forget about chainmail bikinis - a true classic.
Based on artwork from various Pathfinder Adventure Paths, I'd say that chain armor already becomes "chain bikini" when worn by female antagonists. It's a simple magic trick that blacksmiths learn early in their apprenticeships. As such, any submission that converts armor to bikini armor is an auto-reject as it duplicates normal mechanics.
The best foot forward effect is what they want here. Not "perfect" per se, but the best you can muster from writing an intellectual, magical, mechanical (game/play standards), and well formatted item. It is a contest of epic proportions. The sheer volume of submissions and sheer intelligence and rules gurus running homebrew stuff is mind-boggling competition, but let it not stop those from competing. Take a stab in the dark with shadow-veined gloves of assasination and hopefully you can "kill" your submission into the top 32. Even if that is as far as I go, I will still smile. I love this game, the people who play it and the fountains of mountain dew that run dry because of it...THIS IS RPG FREAKIN' SUPERSTAR!
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
I write better when I'm writing ideas for fun instead of because I absolutely have to.
It's curious how some people perform better when doing something just for fun, and others perform better when under the gun (hey that rhymes!), myself included. I'm totally not disagreeing with what you said, but I think it's important to note that different people work in different ways.
Last year I hadn't even started designing an archetype when I learned I was one of the alternates, and then I got sick and whipped up my archetype while having a fever. Despite the unfavorable circumstances, it was Ryan Dancey's favorite that round, and received a lot of praise from Mark Moreland, too, so it really gnawed at me that I wasn't in the 32... But this year I intend to be in the 32 (hey, one can always hope, right? :D ) and I plan to work on the second-round submission accordingly. Sickness or other unpredictable events can ruin your work, so it's good to be prepared. (Though maybe the fever-induced dreams helped me create the slightly lovecraftian archetype. :D )
So, to those people who perform better under pressure, my advice is to work on the organization with the same fervor as if you already were in the top 32. Of course, there may be a twist that will change everything, but there's a lot or preparatory work that can already be done. Working on the second-round submission will also get your mind off the first round. ;-)
Interesting. Some write better under pressure, some write better for fun.
I'm kind of in both groups.
Me, I write better when I'm enjoying it. If it becomes a grind, I pause, I let the muse soothe the stress, fan the flames of inspiration and then return to writing.
I do set myself targets, e.g. ok, competition announced, so I will have my base idea by end of week one, 1st draft by end of week 2.
I then carry my notepad and pencil everywhere. Watching, noting, writing, as the mood takes.
This year, I started taking that notepad everywhere after not making the cut in last years competition. Not sure if that was wise or not as I have way too many ideas to sift through >.<
Then I do the actual graft of that 1st draft, Getting the core theme down.
So I work better when I schedule myself, and I work better when I enjoy the creative process and writing process.
I guess thats the secret really, doing what works for you and more importantly enjoying the work - it's the work we all dream of doing for a living, so let's enjoy it.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
aka primemover003
|
You joke about it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's a last minute flood of entries that are magical lacy undergarments and adult toys. Some people just don't do well with figurative language.Show us something, sex it up! Su-per-freak-ing-star! Bring it!I changed all of my bold tags to url tags that link to various lingerie catalogs. That's sexy, right?
Well the RPG Superstar seminar was all about making a Wondrous Corset... so not exactly a surprise if one showed up!
--Fishnet Vrockings
|
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
Me, I write better when I'm enjoying it. If it becomes a grind, I pause, I let the muse soothe the stress, fan the flames of inspiration and then return to writing.
Well, admittedly the results are always better if you are in the right mood for writing. That's how it works for me, too. The thing is just that the kind of material I'd write for fun, for my home campaign or an RPG I'm designing, for example, isn't necessarily the kind of material the judges and audience want to see. So, writing for this contest or at work doesn't always count as "fun", and therefore I need some pressure to get the creative juices flowing. But I guess it's part of professional writing to be able to finish the deliverable even when you're not in the right mood for it.
Really wishing I had read this thread and last year’s top 32 before submitting… doh! My bad for thinking the contest rules and Sean's Consolidated Advice Thread would give me a good sense of what the judges are looking for. That thread even advises against this, but I fell into the trap of taking Sean’s #27 as more ‘cover our ass’ and ‘not to stifle creativity too much’ instead of ‘the one piece of advice you should really take to heart’.
I think there is a real disconnect with some constants and the judges on this. On what “superstar” means. We are thinking Adele. The judges are thinking Brittney Spears. We (try to) bring polished to a shine, but the judges prefer glammed-up with sparkle. Glitter will distract from some egregious flaws.
I’ll know better next time. Please take my word that I immensely appreciate the judge’s tips and tricks and this isn’t meant as whining or a gotcha. I’m trying to explain why I don’t really get why Clark is so amazed by the blandness of some entries. Personally, I was under the impression that an item that is useful, desirable, and publishable quality (with minimal editing) was the main goal. Then the most interesting, unique and downright cool of those would make the final cut. Looking over last year’s top 32, I see that it is it is really more the reverse. Only about 10% of the winners would have been top picks using those criteria. (I realize this is somewhat unfair to say without being privy to the rejected items. This nothing more than my impression, based on the info I do have.)
Nothing wrong with that of course. Just putting it out there that I, as a first time participant, did not realize this until seeing the winning items. I would say that this failing is mostly mine. Clearly, anyone with this notion should have done more extensive research. On the other hand, there is no reason for the rules not to give a more accurate understanding of what the judges are actually looking for. “Superstar” may seem self-explanatory, but as my Adele vs Brittney comparison and meh entries illustrate, it really isn’t.
Thanks for the further clarification. I only humbly suggest that it be explicitly stated from the get go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there is a real disconnect with some constants and the judges on this. On what “superstar” means. We are thinking Adele. The judges are thinking Brittney Spears. We (try to) bring polished to a shine, but the judges prefer glammed-up with sparkle.
No. The judges prefer talent.
I watched the first two seasons of American Idol. I liked Clay Aiken's voice. He's a good singer. I was disappointed that he didn't win. He doesn't have the look of a pop star... but he has a great voice. As a guy who can sing decently, but not well enough to be a professional, I recognize a talented singer. Some in the audience may vote for the pretty girl who can passably sorta sing, but the judges make their selections on talent.Glitter will distract from some egregious flaws.
No. Talent gives us a reason to overlook some technical flaws. You can train someone to correct their technical flaws. You can't train someone to be talented.
I’m trying to explain why I don’t really get why Clark is so amazed by the blandness of some entries. Personally, I was under the impression that an item that is useful, desirable, and publishable quality (with minimal editing) was the main goal.
No, because anyone can make a useful, desirable, publishable item. A +5 sword is useful and desirable. Boots that give you +5 on Stealth checks are useful and desirable. Both of them are publishable (they're in the Core Rulebook). They're also incredibly boring.
The hard part is making an interesting item, whether it's mechanically interesting or thematically interesting. It takes talent to recognize, "there's a cool mechanic here, I'm going to build something around that." Or "this is a cool theme, I'm going to make an item that fits it." Or "there aren't any items that deal with this aspect of the game, I'm going to make one that does." That's talent.
If I can build your item by randomly rolling 2x or 3x on a chart of all spells, feats, and monster abilities, your item isn't interesting. Your item may be useful, it may be desirable ("I rolled wish 1/day twice!"), it may be publishable, but it's not interesting. There are utility items, and there are interesting items--items with "mojo," as we call it.
On the other hand, there is no reason for the rules not to give a more accurate understanding of what the judges are...
I think you have an unrealistic expectation of what the rules should tell you. The rules tells you the minimum you must do to qualify for the competition. They don't tell you the best option for your submission. Take American Idol again as an example, the only section of their audition rules about songs says this:
The American Idol rules don't tell you:
* don't sing an opera, because this is about pop music
* don't sing an 8-minute song, because you'll only have 2 minutes to audition
* don't sing a children's song like "Mary Had a Little Lamb," because this isn't a children's song competition
* don't sing in French, because this is American Idol
* don't sing a song full of profanity, because we have to broadcast this
* don't sing a rap song, because this is about pop music
And so on.
If you just read the American Idol rules and nothing else about the contest, and you sang "Happy Birthday to You," you wouldn't advance because you didn't bother to find out what the contest is about (and probably because that is a crappy song and doesn't reflect well on your singing talent).
Likewise, if you just read the RPG Superstar rules, and didn't read anything else about the contest, even though line 1 of the RPG Superstar page says "the fifth season of its popular RPG design contest" and "search for the newest talent in RPG design" (which should indicate to you that there's more to this than "Spell A + Spell B = I win!"), that's not the fault of the rules. This isn't a lottery where everyone has an equal chance of winning--it's a competition, and the people who prepare and train are going to have an advantage over those who don't.
TLDR: The rule for a marathon is "be the first one to cross the finish line." That doesn't mean "run fast" is all you need to know to win a marathon.
All I am trying to say is that if you make it clear what are looking for in the contest rules and description, you are more likely to get it. And if you don’t, it is silly to be surprised when you don’t get what you want.
American Idol is a good comparison. Billed as a singing competition where singing ability, is not what the judges are really looking for. Again, nothing wrong with that. But… for the Idol judges to then be surprised about contestants assuming singing is the talent being judged, at least for the first round before the public voting starts. It just doesn’t make sense. Yes, anyone who watches Idol can easily figure out singing isn’t what it is about. I’m simply pointing out, there is no reason to give contestants and viewers the impression that it is. Or maybe there is a reason that I simply don’t understand. Either way, don’t be surprised when people get the wrong impression.
It was wrong for me to expect the rules and guidelines of RPG Superstar to tell me what the contest is about. I get that now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that singing isn't what American Idol is about. Appearance and presentation is part of the American Idol competition, but you can't actually believe that "ability to sing well" isn't a critical part of the competition. I don't recall the judges ever saying, "you have a really great look that we want in the contest, even though your singing is only mediocre."
Likewise, the very first line of the R1 rules says the assignment is "Design a compelling wondrous item for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game."
Just because something is useful, desirable, and publishable doesn't mean it's compelling, and that word is actually in the rules for R1.
And if you scroll down just a little bit on the rules page, the R1 FAQ's first question is answered with "The best items will be both creatively unique and mechanically interesting."
I think that's pretty clear. So when (as you say) "Clark is so amazed by the blandness of some entries," that's justifiable amazement, because we don't understand how someone could submit a bland item when the R1 rules and FAQ tell you to be compelling, creatively unique, and mechanically interesting.
Do you think a "+X to one skill" item is compelling, creatively unique, or mechanically interesting? Because we have a hundred of those items in the Reject bin. Do you think a "spell X 1/day and spell Y 1/day" item is compelling, creatively unique, or mechanically interesting? Because we have a hundred of those items in the Reject bin.
This isn't about the rules not being clear. This isn't about the judges. This is about people not following directions, whether those directions are "use this magic item format," "don't go over 300 words," or "design a compelling item." Things that are right there in the rules--and in case of one of those, it's the FIRST rule of the contest.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
All I am trying to say is that if you make it clear what are looking for in the contest rules and description, you are more likely to get it. And if you don’t, it is silly to be surprised when you don’t get what you want.
American Idol is a good comparison. Billed as a singing competition where singing ability, is not what the judges are really looking for. Again, nothing wrong with that. But… for the Idol judges to then be surprised about contestants assuming singing is the talent being judged, at least for the first round before the public voting starts. It just doesn’t make sense. Yes, anyone who watches Idol can easily figure out singing isn’t what it is about. I’m simply pointing out, there is no reason to give contestants and viewers the impression that it is. Or maybe there is a reason that I simply don’t understand. Either way, don’t be surprised when people get the wrong impression.
It was wrong for me to expect the rules and guidelines of RPG Superstar to tell me what the contest is about. I get that now.
I don't get the misunderstanding. The judges have been very explicit of what the rules are from the very beginning. And people have consistently been able to not only meet the minimum of the rules, but also come up with items that are also interesting and imaginative.
In 2008, when the contest began, they were able to select 32 people who they felt had the necessary understanding of the rules and the creativity to be able to write for Paizo in the future. And, if you look at the top 4, they were right. Christine Schneider wrote a great module, Jason Nelson freelances regularly for Paizo, Rob McCreary is a developer, and Clinton Boomer has a ton of freelance credits of his own (especially with Rite Publishing). Look at year two. Neil is judging this competition, after all. I won't list every contestant who went on to write for Paizo, but it's obvious that the judges have been pretty spot-on in finding talent.
Of course every person who makes the top 32 doesn't end up getting published. Every year, there are people who aren't quite there, and who peter out along the way because they weren't up to snuff (myself for instance -- I totally flubbed round two with my monster design). Maybe in a few instances, a judge saw some potential and golden-ticketed someone who wasn't ready for the big time. But that's a risk worth taking. Sometimes a lot of "mojo" can compensate for sloppy rules-fu, and maybe really solid understanding of the rules can compensate for the tiny spark of creativity. And then in some items, there is a whole lot of creativity, in addition to a thorough understanding of the rules. And THOSE are the people who often end up doing the best. Because they have a good grasp of the rules, and a deep reservoir of creativity and innovation.
I don't see where you're drawing the conclusion that somehow the rules can tell you everything you need to know to win. In every instance, you need to put in something of yourself to win something, whether it's a game, a business proposal, anything worth doing. The rules are enough to not get disqualified or docked, the advice columns are guidelines to follow to avoid the easy mistakes, and the rest is your imagination, your experience playing the game, your hard work researching areas you're unfamiliar with, etc. And if you managed to come up with a mechanically solid item, that showed strong creativity, and avoided the auto-reject categories, then you probably made it into the top 32. And if you hit on one of those categories, and didn't on the others, maybe you did such a great job in that aspect that you still squeaked into the top 32.
That's up to the judges. But they've had a pretty good track record so far in finding Superstar talent.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to say something here that I've said before.
This isn't a high school English class where everyone could get an 'A' if they follow the rules and just do what's on the rubric the teacher gave out. It is a CONTEST. No matter how much advice we give, not matter how many 'don't do this' things we put in the rules, only a tiny percentage of the hundreds upon hundreds of entries will get selected. The rules are there so everyone is in the same contest, not to tell you how to win.
We can't just tell you exactly what to submit to make the Top 32. Everyone has access to the same advice and rules, and that means you're still trying to trump the same group of people.