Jacobs and I agree about "fluff" vs. "flavor."
Calling it fluff is basically saying, "everything but the game mechanics doesn't really matter."
Have to say I despise the term "fluff."
"Fluff" to me implies pointless, useless filler included to fill space; I use the term "flavor" when I want to describe the part of the text that is not "mechanics." That's not even sufficient, but it certainly is not as denigrating to me as "fluff."
Agreed. I dislike it just a bit more than I do the term "crunch" in place of "mechanics." (Or "meatshield" for fighter...or "healbot" for cleric...) I suppose it's just a general dislike for terminology that grinds everything down to a single term for convenient pigeon-holing.
That item you posted is so stripped down to simple mechanics it doesn't even say what the "item" is. It's called a Reusable Potion, but a potion is a one-shot item and a liquid. Since it can be held, we're presumably talking about some kind of vial or other small container. One single, specific noun would be enough.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
Define 'Matter' :-)
I mean for a magic item to 'work' in a game all it needs to do is fill in the blanks without being unbalanced.
When you get into the fluff/flavor is what makes an item unique.
Take the cloak of resistance. Simple straightfoward. It doesn't need 'flavor' anymore than a nail does. It's also not superstar.
Fluff/flavor is what seperates "Room, orc, pie" from Tomb of the iron Medusa. It's what seperates a +5 holy disrupting mace from the Mace of St. Cuthbert.
Edit. I mean unique = stand out. It's what makes Last Leaves of the Autumn Druid not spell in a can
..."healbot" for cleric...
Hey, my group calls them heal-busses. That's much better. ;)
I agree that as a generalized term, fluff implies something that's not important. Flavor and crunch are fairly good terms, but perhaps we could go even more extreme? We could call them pizazz and bulk, perhaps?
Didn't SKR come up with the fluff / crunch terms? I've always attributed that to him, at least. Not sure why.
Didn't SKR come up with the fluff / crunch terms? I've always attributed that to him, at least. Not sure why.
The terms have been around for awhile. I remember submitting an article query many years ago to the then-editor of DRAGON, Dave Gross. He asked me to make sure my article had plenty of "crunch" to go with the "fluff." I didn't have a clue what he meant!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't SKR come up with the fluff / crunch terms? I've always attributed that to him, at least. Not sure why.
I didn't come up with those terms, but you may have been influenced by this story.
If I recall weren't you involved with some of those forgotten rums books, SKR? LOL, I knew there was something about you missing. I finally found it, it was the CRUNCH !!!!!
I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I feel like my item likely won't make the cut because it doesn't have enough flavor.
My first few ideas I initially loved, but after taking a closer look at them, I somewhat felt that they were just jazzed up SIACs and MIACs. Not straight up copy past spell/monster, but not interesting enough to be Superstar.
I finally settled on an item, that while I think is both mechanically tight and unique, probably lacks the mojo that comes with a few brilliant dallops of flavor.
I suppose my lesson learned is balancing the "crunch" and "fluff", and then there's always next year...
I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I feel like my item likely won't make the cut because it doesn't have enough flavor.
There's an easy solution to that. Append, to the end of your entry: "Also, this item tastes strongly of rum."
Kentucky Fried Gnome is the ultimate in flavour PLUS it rids the world of more gnomes :P
I don't know, the more I think about it, the more I feel like my item likely won't make the cut because it doesn't have enough flavor.There's an easy solution to that. Append, to the end of your entry: "Also, this item smells strongly of monkeys."
Fixed that for you. Haven't you learned anything? There's always monkeys.
Didn't SKR come up with the fluff / crunch terms? I've always attributed that to him, at least. Not sure why.I didn't come up with those terms, but you may have been influenced by this story.
It's still smart to attribute everything to either Sean or Monte. Just saves time and you are likely right. :)
There were quite a number of cases in the past where the judges said "Well, this has some issues. But they're the type an editor would pick up." From things I've seen, they are more interested in the innovation or spark of creativity. Now if your item has 10+ minor issues...
Haven't you learned anything? There's always monkeys.I think you may have something there. . .
Seth, you're leaving out the most important monkey of all. Yes, even more so than my beloved cacophonous monkey. So important that it never even became an official entry because it wouldn't have been fair to the rest of the competition. I refer, of course, to Clinton Boomer and his amazing monkey pants.
Sorry, I was thinking more "Weapons of Legacy" less "Mirror, Mirror on the wall". Guess I'll have to try again next year.
Well, balls. I just wrote out a 500-word item, and added a bit of non-specific fluff at the bottom for flavour. That's what I get for not paying attention to the rules... Bleah... Any way I can re-do my submission?
500 >>> 300 - so you don't have to care about the fluff. (even if this sounds hard)
200 words max is clearly stated in the rules, "no fluff" isn't ;)
Well, balls. I just wrote out a 500-word item, and added a bit of non-specific fluff at the bottom for flavour. That's what I get for not paying attention to the rules... Bleah... Any way I can re-do my submission?
Nope. All you can do is wait for next year, and spend the wait reading up on the rules, the forums, making practice items and of course follow the competition rounds.
Don't feel too bad about it, though. There is a lot of things you have to know and pay attention to in order to do well in this contest. Take it as a learning experience and come back strong next year.
200 words max is clearly stated in the rules, "no fluff" isn't ;)
Mine was just below that 200 mark, so I think I met the short-length dealing little to no "fluff" mostly descriptors, which I think qualifies as "beefy-crunchy taco supreme" or whatever. Either way you look at it though the length clearly defines the complexity of your item, based on explaining its function to eliminate "grey..erm gray" areas for play functionality. As has been said before, too much fluff in the "story" of the item draws away from its utility and imaginative uses for DMs and Players alike. It's just not needed really.
Though I will say I originally had fluff and a very small backstory on the original item I submitted, I eliminated it from the name and the backstory altogether when I thought about it/read this thread. Names and the likeness of characters/people don't really roll well with wondrous items, look at most of the cannon ones. Notta.
200 words max is clearly stated in the rules, "no fluff" isn't ;)
Erhm, just to make sure everyone are 100% clear on this:
The entire submission, including the title, must not exceed 300 words.
Also to be clear, the judges are fine with "fluff", but only so long as it adds to the item. "crafted from sterling silver" is good fluff "also, this will prevent you from losing your keys" is fluff the judges don't really like.
What the judges hate, however, is backstory. Wondrous items are not unique. They are also not based on unique items or historical events. And most importantly, they never reference characters (unless the character is an existing Golarion pantheon god - they one only get a flag, instead of a reject).
Good mechanics have flavor too. Fluff is something that JUST has flavor (it might be delicious, but there's no crunch to be found).
Crunch is the pecan pie. Fluff is the dollop of whipped cream on top. Some people like more, some people like less, and some people will just brush it right off and eat the crunchy part.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Backstory is what it sounds like: Background Story. Don't include this.
Do not go into its history, its creation, its crafter, or the lost empire it's from. Do not write about how it was made, how exotic animals were hunted down and their body parts harvested, or the nature of the mad wizard who invented it. Don't talk about the kobold tribe that worshipped the ancient dracolich and crafted the orb around its phylactery. Don't talk about the line of priests or the rites they practice while creating these items. Don't talk about the famous barbarian who wrenched this tooth from the mighty dragon to create the totem.
If it's something about the past, ditch that part.
It doesn't matter.
Think of it this way: if the One Ring from LOTR was a wondrous item (and not a ring, or an artifact), its description for this contest would be the description in The Hobbit. Bilbo found the simple gold ring, and when he put it on, it made him invisible. It didn't talk about Sauron, or ring wraiths, or any of that stuff. All that mattered to Bilbo was that it was a cool ring of invisibility.
This is about the item -- not the history of it. and this item isn't unique. It may be cool, but it's not a perfect special one-of-a-kind item. Any spellcaster who meets the requirements can make one of these. They don't need to belong to a secret cult, or a race of monsters, or forge this item in the deep furnaces of the mountain kings.
Stick to the present. Show us what it does, and what it looks like now.
You can describe the intricate runes etched along its surface if you want. You can talk about how it glows, or how it makes its wielder hover over the ground, or how the owner's hands become caked in thick hardened clay, etc. That stuff is description, or flavor, or fluff, or whatever, and is necessary to adequately describe the item. Don't spend all your time on description, but please include some description- even if it's just a line or a few words with a lot of imagery sprinkled here and there.
Just don't go into the item's background. The judges could care less about the history of the item. They want to know what makes it awesome right this instant.
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
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"also, this will prevent you from losing your keys" is fluff the judges don't really like.
I don't care if the judges don't like it - that would be the hottest selling item IRL if it existed. I know I'd buy at least 2.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
Also to be clear, the judges are fine with "fluff", but only so long as it adds to the item. "crafted from sterling silver" is good fluff "also, this will prevent you from losing your keys" is fluff the judges don't really like.
What the judges hate, however, is backstory. Wondrous items are not unique. They are also not based on unique items or historical events. And most importantly, they never reference characters (unless the character is an existing Golarion pantheon god - they one only get a flag, instead of a reject).
See, I'm going to disagree.
Sometimes that little bit of fluff is what makes it 'Superstar'.
Just to give everyone a worst case example of what we judges sometimes see in the judging chambers, I just reviewed a submission that clocked in...I kid you not...at 1,137 words. Of that, 335 words were spent on backstory.
And no, it didn't have enough mojo to override any of the auto-reject advice and was in clear violation of the actual rules. Strangely enough, the item would have been even longer if they'd bothered to include any construction requirements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just to give everyone a worst case example of what we judges sometimes see in the judging chambers, I just reviewed a submission that clocked in...I kid you not...at 1,137 words. Of that, 335 words were spent on backstory.
I think the thing that amuses the most here is not that you know the actual word count- because that's provided for you, these days- but that you were apparently so dumbfounded by it that you actually went and gave yourself a separate word count just for the backstory.
|
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
|
Strangely enough, the item would have been even longer if they'd bothered to include any construction requirements.
Hey, at least they trimmed something to try to get the word count lower. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The geeky part of me wishes that submission would have been exactly an extra 200 words longer.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32
|
Ah, crap, I cocked up and put some backstory into my submission. It was vague, but it's still there. This is what I get for not doing a double check of the advice forums.
well if it's got plenty of mojo, you can get past some of the auto-rejects. Good luck on a back-to-back top 32!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to give everyone a worst case example of what we judges sometimes see in the judging chambers, I just reviewed a submission that clocked in...I kid you not...at 1,137 words. Of that, 335 words were spent on backstory.
Perhaps we have gotten to the point where the RPGSuperstar process has become self-aware, and is now attempting to spite its masters through deliberately outrageous ironic meta-humor, Andy Kaufman-style.
'This entry appears to be a 5,283-word transcript of the pilot episode of Silk Stalkings, mixed with some LOTR Smaug/Bilbo slash fic and half a brownie recipe. In Portuguese. In ALL CAPS. And then they added "-7" at the end, signed it, and then invited us to join Farmville.'
'It gave two judges spontaneous peptic ulcers, killed an endangered species, endangered a non-endangered species, and made Neil's computer smell like old haggis.'
Just to give everyone a worst case example of what we judges sometimes see in the judging chambers, I just reviewed a submission that clocked in...I kid you not...at 1,137 words. Of that, 335 words were spent on backstory.Perhaps we have gotten to the point where the RPGSuperstar process has become self-aware, and is now attempting to spite its masters through deliberately outrageous ironic meta-humor, Andy Kaufman-style.
'This entry appears to be a 5,283-word transcript of the pilot episode of Silk Stalkings, mixed with some LOTR Smaug/Bilbo slash fic and half a brownie recipe. In Portuguese. In ALL CAPS. And then they added "-7" at the end, signed it, and then invited us to join Farmville.'
'It gave two judges spontaneous peptic ulcers, killed an endangered species, endangered a non-endangered species, and made Neil's computer smell like old haggis.'
OMG, The new Douglas Adams ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "tyranny" of active voice here is important, though.
1) As written, you don't know who infused the quill with the essence of clear writing. So the entire sentence is irrelevant to what the item does. In other words, "mysterious origin, wooOOooOOooOooo!" doesn't make the item cool. Don't hint at stuff that's not relevant to the item, tell me about the item.
2) If rewritten as active voice, you'd have to identify who infused the quill... at which point you should realize who created the quill is irrelevant to what the item does. In other words, "Bebopaloola the Mighty, who created the first quill" doesn't make the item cool. Don't hint at the item's creator, tell me about the item.
Don't make the mistake of dismissing a suggestion to use active voice as "tyranny." You should look at both voices and pick the better one... especially when looking at both can make you realize a flaw in the item's description.
Marathon Voter Season 6
|
Yes, yes, the terror of passive voice, I mean why do we even have that crappy part of our language at all? Oh wait, maybe its active voice is not better for everything, and gets really dull to read ALL the time.
Sorry, but the tyranny of active voice really gets to me, there is nothing better about active voice, each voice has its place, and ads to variety in reading.
In terms of RPGSS, active voice normally requires less words to clearly say the same thing and that makes a difference when constrained by word count. I agree that there is a time and place for the passive voice. In terms of wondrous items though, I believe they read more evocatively when the active voice is primarily used. YMMV.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
The big difficulty with active voice with magic items is that items are all about being used. The items are passive by nature; the whole entry is talking about what happens when someone else uses them. Often lines can be improved by using active voice anyway, or at least not harmed (e.g. rather than , or rather than ).
But sometimes, using the active in a "how to use this" guide is awkward, artificial, and unclear. (A common issue is when using the active voice misplaces the focus, stressing the user and "burying" the action on the item, which is the entire point of the piece.) Passive definitely has its place, and should be used - judiciously.
SKR once mentioned the possibility of diverging from existing material, referring to the user in second person, as "you" - e.g. . Can't find the message right now - I'll look. I'm wondering if that's in any way on the table, since it does simplify things rather elegantly.
Also to be clear, the judges are fine with "fluff", but only so long as it adds to the item. "crafted from sterling silver" is good fluff "also, this will prevent you from losing your keys" is fluff the judges don't really like.
What the judges hate, however, is backstory. Wondrous items are not unique. They are also not based on unique items or historical events. And most importantly, they never reference characters (unless the character is an existing Golarion pantheon god - they one only get a flag, instead of a reject).
See, I'm going to disagree.
Sometimes that little bit of fluff is what makes it 'Superstar'.
Ohhh boy interesting..
Stuff
Wait, I didn't remember commenting in this thread.
...Wait.
...
Ohohoh! Hello, there, you handsome devil!
(Also, feeling less bad about my two-to-ten words lacking, though I'd still have liked to get them in).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
Ohhh boy interesting..Also to be clear, the judges are fine with "fluff", but only so long as it adds to the item. "crafted from sterling silver" is good fluff "also, this will prevent you from losing your keys" is fluff the judges don't really like.
What the judges hate, however, is backstory. Wondrous items are not unique. They are also not based on unique items or historical events. And most importantly, they never reference characters (unless the character is an existing Golarion pantheon god - they one only get a flag, instead of a reject).
See, I'm going to disagree.
Sometimes that little bit of fluff is what makes it 'Superstar'.
Kaanyr Vhok,
Read the comments on some of the past items. Obviously I know my own stuff best, so you look at the tankard and what caught the eye of the designers were two bits of 'fluff'. The first being that you had to hold the item to get the full effect, and the second being that it didn't spill. There's no game mechanic for 'spilling a potion while drinking it in a fight' but the flavor caught the judges' eye. Spilling drinks is akin to 'losing your keys' in my book.
As was pointed out elsewhere, an item that gives a +1 luck bonus to AC, +2 if held and cures light wounds X times a day isn't superstar, it's the elements around the tankard that put it there.
Now if I took the other 140 words available and talked about the drunk priest and his wizard buddy who made the first tankard, that's bad.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka WalterGM
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't make the mistake of dismissing a suggestion to use active voice as "tyranny." You should look at both voices and pick the better one... especially when looking at both can make you realize a flaw in the item's description.
To prospective entrants like myself, do note that what Sean's talking about here is something that 100% of writers struggle to do on a daily basis. Those perfectly polished novels from your favorite author aren't spawned that way, there's a great deal of rewrites/omitted sentences and chapters. So don't discourage if you struggle with voice (like me), just double check that what you're submitting is truly the best it can be.