| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the Official "Critique My Item" Thread, I mentioned I'd be starting a separate forum in which to do a deeper-dive analysis on a handful of selected items which missed out on the Top 32. This will be the place where I do that. If any of you followed along last year, you probably already know my process. I basically go line-by-line through a submission, giving the same type of feedback you might get from a developer or an editor. I'm neither of those things, however. I'm just a guy who's gone through the contest before, who then went on to write some stuff for Paizo, and eventually came back to serve as a judge. I'll do my best to examine the pitfalls these items fell into...at least, in terms of why they didn't get pulled up into the Keep folder or stick around for the Top 32. But, anything I share here will still primarily be my own opinion...and it's just a single opinion...not necessarily a definitive one. Hopefully, you guys can take from it what you can, apply the lessons universally to your stuff (whether I select your specific item for a review or not), and then come back better prepared for next year.
Now, I also want to stress one other thing. I'm NOT going to be able to do reviews on every item that requested feedback. There's just too many and I'd go brain dead before I could even get halfway through them. In prior years, Clark and the other judges eventually had to abandon these larger reviews, because they reached their breaking point and the information you're conveying becomes very repetitive anyway. We should be able to talk about items which ran into the exact same pitfall in general terms by selecting and reviewing a single item to represent that particular problem. The trick for you guys following along is to assess the discussion of these items and determine how much the lesson-learned might apply to yours. And, quite frankly, you'll improve much more if you come to these realizations than if you just wait for the judges to point them out for you. That's because improving as a game designer (much like education, in general) is far more in your hands than just the hands of the one talking about a particular lesson.
So, one other thing before I get started. Once I post a review here, please don't attempt to engage me in a back-and-forth rules discussion or a bunch of clarifications. I'm not interested in justifying anything or being put in a position where I have to defend what I've posted. And I'm not interested in hearing your own justifications for why you chose to do something or why you disagree with the conclusions the judges drew. If these critiques are helpful to you, great. If they're not, that's fine, too. As I said, it'll only be one opinion on the things I think could have made your entry stronger. And, because I'll try to move through as many feedback requests as possible...and, due to my obligations to the current RPG Superstar competitors...I won't have time to come back and discuss your items in any more detail than what I manage to provide here for you. I hope everyone understands. It's my goal to be as helpful as I can, but I can't be all things to all people. And contrary to popular belief, I do have a life outside of RPG Superstar I'd like to pursue away from the messageboards.
Cool. Now let's begin.
Irisated Tabard
I thought this item explored an interesting niche. The name felt a little odd. "Irisated" isn't a word I'd normally expect to see in an item name. For some reason, it conjured up an image of "corrugated" in my head...which is just silly...as irisated has nothing to do with an item being corrugated. And it's not the same as an "irritated" tabard, either. So, I looked it up. "Irisated" means something exhibits the prismatic colors, that it's irised or iridescent. So, going off that definition, I expected this tabard to be a multicolored, rainbow-hued type of thing. The item's description didn't match that directly, but it does include an eye-like aperture or iris emblazoned on the tabard. And it's an iridescent iris. So, it fits.
Overall, the name neither sold me on the item concept or detracted in such a way that it left me feeling strongly negative towards it. If anything, the item's name was a missed opportunity. But not a flat out detraction.
Aura faint transmutation and enchantment; CL 12th
When I look at an item's aura and caster level, I immediately jump down to compare it to the spells used in its construction. Do they make sense? For an item using twisted space as the basis for its construction, came off a bit unusual to me. That's a transmutation spell, so it works. But to include enchantement? I didn't see anything about the twisted space spell or the powers of the actual item that would indicate the school of enchantment being involved at all.
As for the caster level, it too seems a little surprising to me. The twisted space spell is a 2nd level spell. Normally, you'd want to go with the minimum caster level necessary for casting such a spell...which, in this case, would be a 3rd level wizard. So, CL 12th seems a bit high. However, that's not a hard-and-fast rule. There are other wondrous items in the CRB that depart from that model. Usually, they do so because they require a higher caster level to support the duration of an item's abilities, the difficulty to negate its powers with dispel magic, etc. Given what this item can do, I didn't necessarily feel like a higher caster level was a bad thing. In fact, considering that the tabard goes far beyond what a normal twisted space spell can do, it makes even more sense the CL might be higher than normal. But that's another design consideration I'll get into more below.
Slot body; Price 33,800 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
When examining an item's slot, I'm looking for a handful of things. One, if it's slotless, the price/value of the item should obviously be higher. That's not a problem here. Two, if it has a slot, does it make logical sense? This is a tabard. You wear it over your chest or your armor. Here, the chosen slot indicates "body" as opposed to "chest." That gives me pause as I consider what type of items usually get associated with those slots. The "body" slot is normally used by robes and vestments. You could certainly consider a tabard a vestment, I suppose. The "chest" slot, however, is normally used for mantles, shirts, and vests. Mantles and vests are items that typically fit over whatever else you might be wearing. So, in some ways, I'd be more inclined to view a tabard as a "chest" slot item than the "body" slot. Regardless, this isn't a huge deal breaker for me. It's close enough that I can buy off on it.
Lastly, the other thing I consider when examining an item's slot is that I want to take into account what a potential wearer of the item has to forego in order to wear it. Or, perhaps more importantly, I also want to consider what else they still get to use in addition to this item and whether any of its abilities might stack with something. We don't really have any of those problems coming into play here. There's no iconic universal item that takes up the body slot that would cause lots and lots of character classes to pass on this item. So, it's fine.
Next, I skip ahead to take a look at the item's weight. Does 2 lbs. seem reasonable for a tabard? A cloak weighs 1 lb., so a tabard (which is often a bit heavier than a cloak) seems reasonable to be a bit more than that.
Now, I take a look at price. The judges generally don't number crunch these things. We basically give it a good eyeball test. If something seems off, we delve a bit deeper. There are certain aspects of wondrous item pricing that have to come into play. If your item is slotless, for instance, that magnifies the cost. If it's got a bunch of powers stacked on top of one another, that can jack up the price. If it grants the equivalent of a feat (and hopefully, it's not just a feat-in-a-can), there are rules for determining a baseline price for that. But, in general, as long as you don't overshoot the pricing table in its entirety...and, as long as we can hold the item up to that table and favorably compare the cost of items in that same ballpark, you're fine here. For 33,800 gp, this tabard seemed reasonable. So, I quickly move on...
Description
The back panel of this sky-blue tabard is embroidered with a giant iridescent iris.
It's smart to lead off immediately with a physical description of what your item looks like. That builds and immediate mental image...which, hopefully, matches your item name. In this case, we get the description of an iridescent iris on the tabard. Makes sense.
Once per day, when a critical hit or sneak attack is scored on the wearer, they may allow the irisated tabard to activate as an immediate action.
This type of mechanic always gives us pause. Items which activate as anything other than a standard action are often problematic for us, because it screws with the economy of actions in the game. Basically, if an item's abilities get to activate as an immediate action or a swift action or a move action, it means you can use this item and still have a standard action left over to make an attack, cast a spell, or even activate another wondrous item. Now, for some defensive items, it makes sense to give it an ability with an immediate interrupt. And, that's what this tabard was pursuing, so it wasn't a complete deal breaker. You do, however, need to contemplate what an item like this would be worth and elevate its price based on the fact that it provides such a useful defense while still allowing the wearer to make an attack, cast a spell, or use another wondrous item in the midst of any battle that triggered its effect. But more on that below.
The other takeaway here in this initial description of the item's mechanics is that it's limited. Once per day? Check. Only when involving a critical hit or sneak attack? Check. Now, those circumstances may or may not come up all that often. But, when they do, they have huge implications in battle. A critical hit or a sneak attack is pretty much the most awesome thing a combatant can pull off. This item is acting directly against those things. So, again, we have to consider the value of that when assessing the item's price. And we also need to consider any game-breaking elements it might be introducing.
Upon activation, space between the wearer and attacker twists and the iris opens. A secondary dilated iris appears within 55 feet, over a creature of the wearer’s choice. The irisated tabard pulls the attack effect into its iris and expels it through the secondary iris with a translucent image of the attack. The critical hit or sneak attack is then scored on the new target.
Now we get to the crux of the item's mechanical description. And this is where the idea starts to go off the tracks for me. The first thing I wanted to compare this item to was the fortification property for magic armor. It comes in a 25%/50%/75% negation chance of both critical hits and sneak attacks. This item grants you a 100% negation chance plus a complete redirection of such a potent attack on anyone else designated by the wearer who's within 55 feet. Pretty powerful. Even for a once per day item. It's the kind of thing you'd either save up until the main fight with the BBEG to make sure you can nerf his awesome critical hit or dastardly sneak attack to ensure you always win. Or, you'd simply slow down your adventuring day to make sure you always recharged the item before you took on the BBEG and get as much use out of the ability as possible in any other encounter. In other words, it's the type of ability that encourages metagaming to an extent, because players will be using it as part of an arms race vs. the GM's adversaries. And that's not necessarily a line of thinking you want to incent with wondrous item design.
Setting that aside for a moment, there are other concerns here. The ability as described for this cloak goes way beyond what a twisted space spell can normally do. Here's the relevant text:
You distort the space around a creature, twisting the path of its melee attacks unpredictably, but always toward a nearby creature that the target threatens. Until the start of your next turn, melee attacks made by the target creature affect a random target instead of their intended target.
As worded, twisted space is quite limited. And with good reason. I can appreciate the attempt to alter what this tabard can do so it's not just a SIAC. But, it's been altered in such a way that it came off as having far more game-breaking potential to me. I don't know if the other judges shared that concern. Some of them seemed to. One judge (not me) even questioned the balance of the actual twisted space spell after comparing it. And, if they felt that way about the spell, you can imagine how they felt about the tabard's enhanced ability.
Here's why: The spell has a limited range. You can only take a creature's melee attacks and turn them against another target within its reach...not something that's 55 feet away. Secondly, the spell is supposed to be unpredictable...i.e., random. You have no control over it. This tabard lets you pick who you want to suffer a devastating blow...and, presumably, that's always going to be another enemy. The twisted space spell is much more limited and could actually make the attacks still target one of your fellow companions. So, this tabard keeps reinterpreting twisted space in ways it was never intended to function. And with good reason.
Additionally...and here's where at least one judge saw real problems with the tabard's mechanics...the twisted space spell only indicates that the affected creature's attacks target someone else, not that they automatically succeed against them. In other words, the affected creature still makes attack rolls, they're just applied against another nearby creature's AC to determine if they hit and then the damage is applied to them rather than you. This tabard, on the other hand, determines the outcome against your AC first, then directs it against another target of your choosing and automatically hits. That's completely out of bounds for what the twisted space spell is intended to do.
And it also has game breaking potential. For instance, what's to prevent one of your own party members...say, a rogue...from purposefully executing a sneak attack on your back so you can create a ranged sneak attack for them on a target 55 feet away (and ensuring it automatically hits!) while you keep holding the front line and hacking away with your sword? As worded, your item would completely auto-ensure the rogue's sneak attack hits at its maximum effectiveness while never compromising any expenditure of actions on the part of the one wearing the tabard.
Likewise, this is really a "save my bacon" item. It's there for the power-gamer who doesn't want anything too potent or too crippling to happen to their PC. By allowing its use after an attack, it goes too far. There are other abilities (like luck-based items) that can force re-rolls and such, but nothing that let's you turn a creature's most potent attack back on its own allies after you know how devastating it is (i.e., critical hits and sneak attacks). One of the judges (again, not me) called it out for such. And rightly so, I believe. Another judge didn't like treating damage as an "effect" you could transfer in this manner (i.e., after the fact). You can transfer attacks (and resolve them as normal) and you can transfer damage to yourself (like a shield other spell, but even then only half). But transferring incoming damage to someone else and having it auto-hit is a no-no. And that pretty much killed this item for us.
If there is no secondary target available, this ability may not be used.
This came across as an attempt to further limit your item. However, any single monster facing the party can still be deemed as an available secondary target if you have your own party's rogue sneak attack someone who's wearing this tabard. So, it isn't really a limitation in the sense you were imagining.
The irisated tabard confers a +10 circumstance bonus to Perception checks to avoid being surprised.
This was a further deal breaker for us...and another indication that maybe you weren't ready for competing in the Top 32. We've discussed this elsewhere on the boards, but a +10 circumstance bonus to a skill check is pretty much an auto-success. Basically, any character with even a moderate number of ranks in the skill will surpass any reasonable DC they're facing at their level/CR with a +10 bonus to the roll. This is compounded when you grant this as an "always-on" bonus. There are wondrous items in the game that do grant +10 bonuses to skill checks (several elixirs, for example), but they're time-limited to an hour or so...and it's a consumable resource you have to keep buying if you want to maintain that level of skill expertise.
There are also armor properties which grant elevated bonuses to particular skills (even as high as +15), but you pay a pretty heavy cost to weave them into a suit of armor. A +10 bonus alone runs you 15,000 gp, for example (nearly half the cost of your tabard). And, they often correspond to skills which are still impacted in significant ways by armor check penalties (i.e., Escape Artist, Stealth, etc.), so there are more built-in offsets for it.
Additionally, this is much more of a throwaway ability in the overall assessment of an item's innovation for possible inclusion in the Top 32. A bonus to skill checks isn't the sexy, alluring part of an item submission. Including them doesn't necessarily add much (though we do appreciate the ones which make good, thematic sense). It is possible, however, for a misapplied or ill-considered skill bonus ability to be held against your design during our judging process. And, I think we all pretty much did so. In and of itself, that wasn't the single fatal flaw to your item design, though. We were far more concerned with the abuse potential of the redirected attack.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, twisted space; Cost 16,900 gp
You did pretty well here. Everything's in its proper place. The cost is exactly half the price. You obviously took great inspiration from one of the new spells in Ultimate Combat. That's actually a good thing. We appreciate items which make use of new rules. There's no question about that, because it immediately tells us you're looking for ways to innovate. And, that's one of the primary characteristics we want to see in RPG Superstar competitors. Unfortunately, you just "twisted" the twisted space spell a little too far. It's good that you kept it from being a SIAC. But you actually broke the spell's most game-balanced aspects in doing so.
Summary:
Decent, somewhat creative name.
Innovative, if flawed idea.
Broken mechanics, not quite thought through enough in terms of game balance.
Decent writing ability, but left too many holes. Could have used more of the available wordcount.
Polished, professional presentation.
Sluggard’s Coffer
An intriguing name, at least initially. I'm kind of hoping this won't wind up being a "makes adventuring easy" kind of item for lazy adventurers, though. So, the name had me raise my shields a little. Not terribly much, though.
Aura Moderate transmutation; CL 11th
The item's aura and caster level matches what you'd expect for something based on the animate objects spell. Well done here.
Slot -; Price 7,000 gp; Weight 50 lbs.
We didn't point it out this year (or hold it against anyone), but the 5th printing of the Core Rulebook has done away with slots of "-" now. Everyone should start using "none" instead. A 50 lb. weight to this item makes my eyebrows shoot up. Normally, when items come in with a weight that hefty, you start wondering how anyone would carry it around with them. As it turns out, you meant for your item to be mobile. So, you kind of handled that problem okay. The price seems relevant for the moment. Originally, I thought you were going for a bag of holding type of effect, but that's not what we've got here. So, 7,000 gp might be adequate. Lets go deeper into your item's description and its abilities to find out. I will point out, however, that slotless items should generally cost more. And I'm not sure you elevated this item as high it might have needed to go. That's just a gut feeling, though. I'm not number-crunching any of these items.
Description
This large bronze plated wooden coffer is engraved with avian imagery and feathery patters its lid decorated with the long necked head of a heron. It can hold 400 lbs. or a volume of 50 cubic feet.
It's smart to lead off with a description of your item. One thing I'd have liked to see you do here though is to define its actual dimensions. Unless it's an extradimensional storage item, I don't think you can get away with just saying it holds 400 lbs. and 50 cubic feet. The weight part is fine. We need to know that, actually. But the 50 cubic feet needs to let us know the height, width, and depth of the coffer. Otherwise, we won't be able to figure out if a 10-foot pole or spear can fit in it vs. a simple club. You know what I mean? Extradimensional storage items like the bag of holding and portable hole get around this a bit, because they have unlimited depth...for the most part.
The coffer’s key grants anyone carrying it the ability to verbally command the coffer as a move action (see below).
These paired item concepts always give me pause. That's because the magic is invested across two items as opposed to just one. Because your item is mobile and doesn't take up a slot, it's obvious that you need an attunement/control mechanism. Otherwise, it runs around aimlessly and doesn't know who its master is. So, I get why you had to introduce this. I just want to point out this potential problem area for others who might be reading along. Be careful with paired items.
Additionally, we always get concerned about items that can be used with anything other than a standard action. Items using a command word activation method normally require a standard action. So, you've gone with something different. What this means is the item's owner can direct your coffer (like an animal companion) and still take a standard action to attack, cast a spell, or use another wondrous item. So, again, this type of design decision should elevate the price/value of your item. It's a cut-above the other command word items.
On command the coffer animates as a medium size animated object (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) extending a pair of long birdlike legs.
You've misused game terminology here. When referencing a creature's size, you should always capitalize it as a game term. So, it should be a "Medium size animated object." I like how you've directed the reader to the animated object entry in the Bestiary. Animated objects (of any size) come with a limited number of construction points (or CP's), which you're supposed to use to purchase various abilities for it. Your item's description goes on to tell us the actual stat-block information they'll need to substitute for your animated coffer. It's clear that you spent the 2 CP's on giving the coffer a metal (bronze) exterior to increase its natural armor and hardness. Personally, I would have preferred to see that information pulled up here in this statement rather than tucked away towards the end of the descriptive text and explanation of the item's mechanics.
The coffer can be commanded to animate, to revert to its inanimate state, to move to a destination within line of sight of the key bearer, to follow the key bearer, to stop in place and to pick up an object within line of sight of the key bearer. The coffer can pick up unattended objects of up to 50 lbs. using the heron head on its lid. Items picked up in this way are immediately deposited inside the coffer as the heron swallows it. If the key bearer is adjacent to the coffer he can drop an item into the coffer as a swift action (the coffer automatically opens its lid to catch the item). If the coffer is ever more than 60 feet from it’s key it immediately reverts to its inanimate state.
You've got an "it's" vs. "its" problem here that's a common error we sometimes see. I'm going to assume that was a proofreading problem, as you used it correctly in the very same sentence.
The actual function of the coffer is to have it serve as a mobile item retrieving and storage device for you. That means you can pretty much direct it to move into a treasure room and set off traps without having to expose yourself to danger. Yes, it can only go 60 feet away from you and pick up unattended objects of 50 lbs. or less, but that's plenty of distance and plenty of weight to cover most adventuring situations.
I also found the heron-head swallowing trick to be a bit odd. Again, as described, this item isn't suggesting that it has an extradimensional space inside of it like a bag of holding or a portable hole. So, the physics of the equation comes into play a bit more. In terms of dimensions (and not just weight), what items can this heron-head reasonably "swallow." Can it scarf down a spear or does it choke on it? Can it "digest" an entire 50 lb. cask of ale or wine? In terms of weight, the answer is presumably yes. In terms of what can actually fit inside the heron's mouth, is that still the case? Or are we handwaving it as "magic" whereby the head stretches enough to accommodate anything that fits the weight requirement? I felt like conceptually and descriptively the item didn't make things clear enough here. And, in some ways, I'd have preferred to see it done up as an item with an extradimensional space. Even then, however, I'm fairly certain the judges would have still passed on the item. We see a lot of items playing around with extradimensional spaces among the hundreds and hundreds of submissions we see. It's an overused, not-very-innovative design space at this point. Yes, your item has the novelty (and added functionality) of being able to walk around, but I think that creates overtones of "makes adventuring easy" since you can ostensibly use this animated coffer to go scout for you and retrieve stuff without really risking yourself as much as you would normally.
The coffer has the properties of a medium animated object with the following exceptions: AC 16, hardness 10, speed 20 ft. (cannot run) and cannot attack.
I went back and crunched the CP numbers. So, your animated coffer makes good statistical sense. I just would have liked to see this information (as short as it is) included above when you first established it as an animated object.
Opening the coffer without the key requires a Disable Device skill check or a Strength check (both DC 30) or a knock spell or similar effect.
This is a fair bit of information to include. Perfectly relevant. You know it's something that'll come up in the game when the item sees use. So, it's wise to include it.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, animate objects; Cost 3,500 gp.
Everything is presented here the way I'd expect. You've got the template down. I'm not, however, convinced this item had the proper pricing/cost figured into it. As a slotless, move-action-use item, I think it goes a bit further than what you've calculated here.
All in all, this wasn't a terrible item. It just wasn't a particularly innovative one. There were some missteps in using game terminology and a couple of ways it could have been written better. Cleaned up, it's the kind of item that might make a book of magic items. But, for RPG Superstar, it's just not quite innovative enough (despite the animated object element) to draw our interest. We see way too many storage-related items and we pretty much frown on things which, when we imagine their in-game use, come across as making adventuring easier for PCs. I know that's a hard category for folks to wrap their head around sometimes. Magic items by their very nature are usually making something easier for the PCs. But if it's the type of object that sticks around all day and can move around to set off traps or draw out ambushes or pick up things so the PC doesn't has to...it starts venturing into territory where we see it more negatively than positively in terms of a Superstar design. And, quite honestly, an item with a name that characterizes the individuals using it as "sluggards" doesn't do anything to offset that image.
Summary:
Initially intriguing, then disappointing name after examining the item's abilities.
Bland overall idea, despite some decent attempts to jazz it up. Not innovative enough.
Mechanically decent, but primarily leans on work already developed in the Bestiary.
Missteps in writing ability, use of game terminology, and proofreading.
Decent presentation and polish.
Ki Waterfall
Wow. This name put us all in a really bad mood before we even got into reading about the item. It sounds more like a location in a Tian-themed palace than a wondrous item. So, this was a pretty big, initial miss. The only thing it really told us that it's probably a monk (or ninja) item.
Aura strong transmutation; CL 11th
Your item's aura and caster level are appropriate for something based around mass owl's wisdom.
Slot chest; Price 20,000 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
Your slot and weight seem okay for bunch of thick linen bands meant to wrap around someone's chest. Very thematically appropriate for monks. Price seems impossible to determine based on the item's abilities.
Description
Frayed and thick, these linen bands bestow a deep-rooted sense of tranquility and an exceptional mastery of ki flow.
Good initial descriptive statement. It paints an immediate picture. You need to properly reference game terminology, though. The word ki is always italicized.
The item grants the ability to confer the benefits of the wearer's ki techniques onto both the wearer and his allies; though only ki abilities that target the wearer himself can be conferred this way.
Right away, I've got concerns here. Sharing class abilities is fraught with danger. At least you've been wise enough to make it something the monk has to consciously choose to do...kind of like a ranger extending his class ability via a hunter's bond. And, thankfully, it's not simply an item that automatically grants the sneak attack ability by poaching something from the rogue. Even so, you're venturing into some choppy, uncharted waters here...and not in a way that makes us feel comfortable about your innovation. We've got game-balance concerns.
Normally, class abilities are already carefully structured and layered over the course of a single class's level progression. They're what makes that class unique. And they're properly game-balanced within that class. When you start "loaning" them out, even on a temporary basis, you're venturing into an all new class ability and/or archetype or sub-system. And that's almost never something you simply want to introduce in a wondrous item. For instance, if you'd presented this idea as a replacement power for another of a monk's normal class abilities and turned it into an archetype-like substitute where it functioned similarly to a ranger's hunter's bond class ability, I think we might view that as more innovative...and a lot more balanced. But injecting this kind of class ability modification or sharing into a wondrous item isn't something we were comfortable with. It's just not a Superstar design decision.
The wearer may, as part of the action to activate a ki ability, touch up to 2 willing, adjacent allies. For each ally the benefits gained are identical to those gained by the wearer, variables such as monk level, or ninja level if appropriate, are treated the same for wearer and each ally - with the exception that the ki ability's duration is limited to 1 round for creatures other than the wearer. For example, depending on the ki ability used, the wearer could grant allies one additional attack at their highest attack bonus when making a flurry of blows attack that round; they could gain a speed bonus of 20 feet for 1 round; they could heal a number of hit points of damage equal to the wearer's monk level through the wholeness of body ability; or they could magically slip between spaces together with the wearer using the abundant step ability.
So, now you're compounding our concerns here. By allowing a monk to share his class abilities and have it function at his level is problematic...even if you're just granting it for a limited duration. Those ki-related abilities are meant to be obtained/learned by a monk when he reaches a certain level. But, to have him be able to grant them to those who are even lower in level than him goes too far.
Additionally, lets consider what happens if a higher level monk spends ki in this fashion to empower another monk...who also expends some of his or her own ki to power themselves that much more. Can an extra attack in a flurry of blows be granted both by this item and the recipient's own ki to give them two extra attacks in their own flurry of blows? The magnification of what this item can do between two monks elevates its function beyond what it should normally allow if properly game-balanced. There's some potential for teamwork innovation in such an idea, but again, a wondrous item just isn't the place to open up this can of worms.
In addition to this ability, the enhancement bonus of the wearer's unarmed strikes is considered 2 higher for the purpose of determining what damage resistances his attacks overcome.
This too felt like a bit of an unnecessary power-up. You're essentially making a monk even better at what he can already do. And, by extension, that means you're escalating the arms race between player and GM. Monks area already really good with their unarmed strikes. No need to make them more potent in what they can do with it. Not to this degree, anyway.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, mass owl's wisdom, creator must be a monk; Cost 10,000 gp
Why would you require the creator also be a monk? To cast mass owl's wisdom, they already need to be a pretty powerful spellcaster (i.e., 11th level). To also require them to be a monk, means they'll have to multi-class. Thus, by the time anyone can create this item, they won't get much use out of it until they proceed to gain several more levels in monk where they actually obtain a ki pool and can activate it with any meaningful ability to share with others. It also requires them to therefore foresake whatever levels they took in cleric/druid/sorcerer/wizard, thereby cutting down on ability to stick with everyone else in the party when it comes to the potency of their spell power compared to whatever creatures they're facing at an advanced CR compared to their individual class levels. So, it's just not a wise design decision. You'd have been better off dropping the monk requirement and just say that priests make these items for monks who serve their temple.
Everything else you've got here is generally okay. Presentation is fine. Price/cost ratio is correct.
Summary:
Really, really...bad name. Yes, lots of Asian-themed stuff like to go with analogies and what-not. Just don't do it in the item's name.
Innovative idea, just not applicable to a wondrous item.
Flawed mechanical considerations, potentially abusable and breaks game balance.
Well-written, good use of an example to illustrate a complicated concept.
Polished, professional presentation, but still needs work on referencing game terminology.
Thank you Neil, that helps a lot to put things into perspective and to understand the judges intentions better.
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
Neil's great stuff on:Irisated Tabard
Thanks a ton Neil. Looks like I need to stick to the KISS principle when working with innovative ways to use game mechanics. This was the same failure I had last year, was some shortsightedness in the long term implications of the game mechanic "twisting" in my item.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka FaxCelestis
|
Would you be willing to do this kind of review for my spellbreaker gauntlets? You touched on it somewhat in the original thread, but I'm curious to a more in-depth breakdown to its merits and flaws.
Would you be willing to do this kind of review for my spellbreaker gauntlets? You touched on it somewhat in the original thread, but I'm curious to a more in-depth breakdown to its merits and flaws.
At this point, I think it's far more important to help those who haven't made it into the Top 32, James. ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka FaxCelestis
|
Well, I was thinking of it as an example of an item that does demonstrate "superstar" quality (not to toot my own horn): sometimes a positive example is as helpful as a negative one. Still, this is your show here, so if that's how you feel, carry on and all that.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Rules of Neil's Feedback Club:
1) Do not ask questions.
2) DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS!
3) Neil picks the items. Your item may not get reviewed.
4) There is no back-and-forth rules discussion or clarifications.
5) Neil has a right to his opinions.
6) You have the right to ignore me and any other poster that is not Neil.
Hi Neil,
I'm not sure I should ask, I do realize how INCREDIBLY busy you are here and outside of Paizo and RPG Superstar, but would my Eavesdropper's Torc happen to be among your "selected" items for review?
If so, that's great and I'll await my turn, if not ... well that's okay the bare-bones judges forum responses were helpful in what I need to work on (grammar and punctuation apparently) and perhaps tightening up on game mechanics.
I'd just honestly like something more in depth (but who doesn't, I know).
Thanks in advance for (any) consideration.
Really hope I didn't kick up a hornet's nest with my question, and I don't want you flooded with requests because of me. I just wasn't sure who or what made the "selected" review thread.
~Dean
Mostly, I'm picking those which I think are representative of a particular lesson that might be important to highlight. If I encounter another item as I look through all the ones which requested feedback and I feel like I've already addressed most of the lessons it has to offer, I'll skip it.
Mostly, I'm picking those which I think are representative of a particular lesson that might be important to highlight. If I encounter another item as I look through all the ones which requested feedback and I feel like I've already addressed most of the lessons it has to offer, I'll skip it.
Ah... I see. Thanks for taking a moment and giving some further clarity Neil. I have a better understanding of the process that you are going through, and the overall intention of this thread.
Regards,
Dean
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules of Neil's Feedback Club:
Really, Thomas?
Why are you in every thread, not just commenting but trying to assert yourself? Neil is more than capable of saying what his rules are.
Didn't Sean just post this: LINK
You're not helping yourself right now. I'm not sure why I am trying to help you, maybe I should just let you post away and things run their course. But I'm a helpful guy. Of course, if you get what I am saying, you will see it as help. If you don't get it, which is possible, you will just think I am picking on you.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
(not to toot my own horn)
That's how it sounds.
Guys, really?
Top 32, please stop. Push back from the computer. Work on monsters or something. I get the excitement, but this year has been a tad over the top for post-top-32 postings. Would Neil have tried to summarize Sean's post rules for him? No. Would Neil be blowing his own horn (or seeming to even if not intended)? No. Do yourselves a favor. None of the top 4-8 from any year did this kind of stuff. Please learn from that. Now, this is not DQ territory, but that doesnt make it smart to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's a machine, that's how. Seriously. He's like a robot from the future or something. I've literally never seen anything like it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone ever does a Spicer sorcerer bloodline, wall of text would definitely be one of the bonus spells.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka FaxCelestis
|
(not to toot my own horn)That's how it sounds.
Sorry. :\ I'm really just interested in helping everyone get better at their entries in the future. In retrospect, I should've asked for a commentary on any one top 32 item, rather than just my own, or one from a previous year.
I'll shut up now.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
Rules of Neil's Feedback Club:
Really, Thomas?
Why are you in every thread, not just commenting but trying to assert yourself? Neil is more than capable of saying what his rules are.
Didn't Sean just post this: LINK
You're not helping yourself right now. I'm not sure why I am trying to help you, maybe I should just let you post away and things run their course. But I'm a helpful guy. Of course, if you get what I am saying, you will see it as help. If you don't get it, which is possible, you will just think I am picking on you.
I apologize. Shoulda put a joking at the bottom or quoted closer to Fight Club.
Well, I was thinking of it as an example of an item that does demonstrate "superstar" quality (not to toot my own horn): sometimes a positive example is as helpful as a negative one. Still, this is your show here, so if that's how you feel, carry on and all that.
Another reason I'm not inclined to do an in-depth item review for one of the Top 32 is that it would potentially sway the voting by doing so. Granted, I know Round 1 is already behind us, but wondrous items are still a part of a contestant's overall portfolio and a lot of voters weigh that in deciding how to cast their votes round-by-round throughout the entire contest. So, for a judge to give an actively competing contestant props or a salvo of criticism with regards to something they either did well or poorly in any of their designs--and then not do that for everyone else, as well--would just be an unfair treatment (positively or negatively).
Additionally, the Paizo community already has all the Top 32 items (not just from this year, but each preceding year, too) to serve as examples of "what to do." And, the judges already went to the effort to identify various strong points and weaknesses in their design. And, we did it equitably from four different points of view (or seven, if you count the guest judges). So, that should be plenty of "positive" examples--though the Top 32 are by no means "perfect."
Pharasmian Tomb Stone
Well, there's a couple of problems with this name. As Clark graciously pointed out, it should be "Pharasmin" not "Pharasmian." And, despite the creative play on words, I still think it's more confusing than wise to call it a "Tomb Stone" when the eye is naturally going to look at that and want to auto-correct it to "Tombstone." But maybe that's just me? What I do appreciate about it is the immediate tie-in to Golarion. Not because I think everybody should somehow go out and make items that are related to every faith in the campaign setting. Instead, the reason it helps is because it immediately helps set up a bunch of expectations about the item. If it's related to Pharasma, there are certain things the reader will already know about the goddess of death and it'll put a set of expectations in their minds as to what a wondrous item connected to her might entail. If you live up to that expectation in your actual item design, it synergizes. It's why an item name like Cayden's cup works really, too. And so on.
Aura Moderate Conjuration; CL 9th
Some presentation problems start here. An item's aura is always lowercase. So, it should be "moderate conjuration"...
Other than that, the caster level and school of magic choice all seem appropriate for an item based around plane shift. It's also the appropriate spell to reference for an item dealing with the ghost touch property.
Slot none; Price 3,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Whether you knew it or not, you accommodated the change from "-" to "none" being used for an item's slot when it doesn't have one. Kudos on that. The weight seems appropriate for a stone. I'll assess the item's price more fully once we get through the descriptive text and down to the cost in the construction requirements.
Description
This pocket-sized whetstone is crafted from a headstone fragment of a hero-priest of Pharasma, goddess of the dead.
And here's where I'd probably suggest that you call the item a "grave stone" rather than a "tomb stone." That way, it doesn't come off as a play on words and an inside-joke kind of item. It's not always a bad idea to inject a little humor into your writing with some tongue-in-cheek stuff. But, for the purposes of putting your best foot forward in an RPG Superstar submission, you're probably better off staying serious with it and not trying to rely on wit to help you stand out. As judges, I think we're far more interested in the innovation you bring to the actual item moreso than the humor element.
This is also the point where I'm pretty taken aback by the wordcount. You only used 79 words for this item submission. And just two sentences. The item template alone uses nearly as many words as the actual descriptive paragraph. Now, it can be a talent to be as succinct as possible in your designs. But, again, for the purposes of RPG Superstar, I don't think it's the wisest idea to go this brief with it. That's because you actually want to write enough that you give the judges a sense of your writing ability and game design skills. Rightly or wrongly, this kind of writeup doesn't really do that.
Up to three times per day as a full-round action, it can be applied to any slashing or piercing weapon to give it the ghost touch property for 1 minute.
And here's the rub. It's basically just a weapon property enhancement-in-a-can. Normally, weapon and armor enhancements are exponential increases in power. They layer over what a magic weapon is already providing. So, it's not a simple, one-for-one, easy-to-price element to build into a wondrous item. I cited this issue a number of times in last year's entries, where a lot of people made the mistake of just layering on the flaming property to whatever weapon the owner wielded. If that gets added on top of a +2 weapon rather than a +1 weapon, it would normally carry a much higher increase in a weapon's overall cost. So, it's not an easy-to-apply thing in a design.
To offset that kind of concern, you should generally look for ways to limit it. Busting it down to a limited number of times per day doesn't go far enough, though....because, players can just have their PCs camp and wait until the next day to have access to it again. In other words, they can metagame and turn their adventuring day into a three-encounter-only affair to make sure their wondrous item is always at its best anytime they enter into combat. And, because you're letting this ability function for 1 minute, it's going to pretty last for a full combat each time. So, this doesn't nerf the stacking problem far enough. And example of items conveying special weapon properties which I've liked is when it replaces an existing weapon property rather than adds to it. But, there are other ways you could potentially address it. And therein lies the innovation test for a would-be game designer.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Plane Shift, Patron Deity - Pharasma; Cost 1,500 gp
We've got more presentation problems here. Spell names should always be lowercase and italicized. And, if you're going to stipulate a religious requirement, it should generally be stated as "creator must worship Pharasma" or something similar.
As far as the price/cost ratio, you go that right. But, I do think the pricing is off on this item. Again, because of the stacking issue with pre-existing weapon properties, this item is more valuable than just 3,000 gp. How valuable? You'll never really know. Depending on what weapon you're able to stack it with, it varies. So, this was a design pitfall you fell into...
Summary:
Too cute with the name, misspelled "Pharasmin"...
Not really an innovative idea, we've seen this type of thing before...
Mechanically bland. It's just ghost touch on request...
Difficult to assess in terms of writing ability, really low use of wordcount...
Needs more work on proper presentation, use of provided template.
Sponge Stone Maid
This one really gave me pause. A "sponge stone" that acts as a "maid"...? Just based off the name, I think the judges had an immediate, uphill struggle not to treat it as a joke item. We get a fair number of these types of ideas each year and, though the items stand out, they're not usually standing out for the right reasons. So, it was an interesting reach to go for a sponge as the physical object for a wondrous item. Certainly unexpected. There's just no way that's really going to come off as Superstar, though...and that opinion gets reinforced when the stone is turned into a magical maid circling your head, you know?
Aura;weak conjuration CL 12th
There's a presentation error here with the semi-colon between "Aura and "weak conjuration."
The chosen school of magic definitely applies to the core idea of this item...i.e., the light and unseen servant spells in the construction requirements. The caster level seems really high, though. A 1st level caster ought to be able of crafting this thing. I suppose you went with a higher CL because of the ioun-like elements to it and maybe you used the ioun stone as a guide. Regardless, this concept would work better as a low-level item, both in terms of cost and crafting.
Slot None; Price 18,000gp; Weight 1lb
More presentation missteps. The slot should be lowercase. You need a space between the numberial value of your price and the abbreviation for "gp"...and the same applies to your weight, which should read "1 lb."...
Description
This yellowish brown sponge the size of a small fist flies around its master in an orbit similar to Ioun Stones.
Without any commas here, the sentence reads somewhat awkwardly. This is one of those times when it might be more useful to reach for a potentially passive verb like "is"...so you could re-word it to say: "This yellowish-brown sponge is the size of a small fist and flies around its master in an orbit similar to ioun stones." Notice that I also lowercased and italicized ioun stones. You need to do that with any reference to a magic item, including any references to your own item. Never capitalize them.
It glows with the strength of a candle. Upon command the sponge can be asked to clean an area, this is a free action.
The second sentence here is actually sentences that really ought to be separated rather than strung together.
The sponge will clean a 5 foot cube every round, removing any spilt liquid on the floor, removing all webs in the area, cleaning the air including getting rid of any fog, mist or smoke and destroying any non-creature fungus in the 5 foot cube it cleans.
When you reference an area in your description, you need to present it the way such game terminology gets used elsewhere in the rules. So, "5 foot cube" should really be "5-ft. cube"...
Additionally, this ability of the item gave us pause. Having it clean up things for you is a natural interpretation of unseen servant and prestidigitation. But, extending those generally low-level spell effects in a way that allows them to remove all webs (does that include the web spell?) and any fog, mist, or smoke (does that include magical effects like obscuring mist, fog cloud, and stinking cloud?) is going a bit too far. Without referencing whether you mean mundane vs. magical effects, the item's description leaves too much open to interpretation. As worded, it'll lead to arguments at the gaming table between the GM and a player who both want to interpret it differently.
Likewise, having it remove "any non-creature fungus" sidesteps the issue of actual monsters made of fungus, but it leaves open the possibility that the sponge can clean away fungal hazards. And, defeating those kinds of challenges with a simple auto-cleaning sponge likely goes too far. It doesn't really matter that it's limited to a 5-ft. cube per round. That won't concern anyone unless they're trying to use it in the middle of a battle. And that seems unlikely. Most parties will just wait however many rounds it requires to completely clean areas larger than a 5-ft. cube. So, it's not really much of a limitation to the item's function.
The Iou Sponge has an AC14, hardness 3, 10 hit points and is immune to bashing damage. The Iou Sponge has a fly speed of 10ft. Since it is very light it can be easily blown away by strong winds.
Here, it seems clear you didn't proofread your own item. It's obvious that you changed the name to sponge stone maid from what I assume was once ioun sponge? But even that looks like it's been misspelled here. Either way, it doesn't inspire confidence and you're not really putting your best foot forward.
Additionally, there are other presentation problems here. You need a space between "AC" and its numerical value. Same goes for the fly speed of "10ft."
Construction
Requirements Craft wondrous item, light, prestidigitation, mage hand, unseen servant; Cost 9,000gp
And we've got further presentation problems here, as well. The Craft Wondrous Item feat needs to fully capitalized, not just the first word. You've properly lowercased and italicized your spellnames, but you forgot to alphabetize them. You also got a little lazy here with your BBCode and dropped the italicizing tags around the entire string of spell names rather than each one individually. If you did that in actual word processor and turned it in as part of your turnover on an actual freelance assignment, it would also italicize the commas in between each name. That actually causes problems during layout. So, you want to break yourself of that habit as soon as you can. Take the time to italicize each name separately. Lastly, you still need to work on your spacing. Your cost should be "9,000 gp"...not jammed altogether as "9,000gp"...
Summary:
Weak, seemingly jokey name.
Mildly interesting core idea, but wouldn't work for RPGSS, needs more innovation.
Mechanically unclear, need to specify between magical vs. mundane.
Writing doesn't flow very well, needs more work/clarity.
Presentation has lots of errors, need further practice.
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
So is it cool to post a request as an example item? I intend to read the input on the other items this weekend (got a game to go to:) ) but other than getting bumped on a technicality (Yeah, I definitely feel like an idiot making a rookie mistake like that...) I would like to see a review of my Profane Larva of Sarkoran Corruption. If it doesn't end up getting a detailed review that's fine, I just really want to know if I had fixed some of the technical issues if this was Superstar material.
So is it cool to post a request as an example item?
I apologize, but I'm really not looking to take requests. I mean, I'm going with the assumption that everyone who posted in the "Critique My Item" thread wants the same thing. So, I don't just want to serve something up to those who make a second request here. It wouldn't really be fair. And some items cry out more loudly for this kind of treatment than others. If I take the time to select one and analyze it, it's because I think it'll provide a valuable lesson to many...not just the individual author of that item.
Also, these are only meant to be examples of common errors or situations designers fall into. Basically, I'm hoping to give some real-world examples of the types of things Sean covered in his auto-reject advice. If people can see several complete submissions that touch on those topics, I think it'll help everyone better identify and avoid those things in their own work. That's my hope, at least.
Pharasmian Tomb Stone
Finally the name 'Hitler' acquires a positive connotation! :)
|
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
Hey, it's all good Neil. :) I'm just glad you're giving as much input as you are. I'm going to be reading the critiques that you gave in this thread either way as soon as I get the time.
So, side note: Have you discussed what working with Paizo was like? If not I know I'd like to hear your two cents on that.
So, side note: Have you discussed what working with Paizo was like? If not I know I'd like to hear your two cents on that.
He can't say, Sinister Me, or else they'll lock him in "the room." Without supper!
Hey Neil,
I didn't list my item in the critique my item thread, but if you feel that the Ragamuffin Cloak can teach a valuable lesson, feel free to use it as one of your examples.
So, side note: Have you discussed what working with Paizo was like? If not I know I'd like to hear your two cents on that.
I'm not sure I fully understand your question, Chris. And this isn't really the thread to explore that topic anyway. If I were a blogger or something, it might make for an interesting subject to write about. But, in general, working with Paizo is exactly how I expected it to be. Prior to RPG Superstar, I already had enough experience freelancing for third-party publishers, and enough insights from friends who worked at Wizards before, that I generally knew what the role of a freelancer would be like when working for a major publisher. Paizo definitely qualifies as one. And, I kind of hit the ground running. It's been a lot of fun supporting them as much as I can.
Starsong Harp
Interesting name. Interested to see where it will lead. A harp generally indicates we're entering bard territory. Looks like you didn't disappoint.
Aura moderate conjuration, illusion and transmutation; CL 9th
Your caster level makes sense for an item with a 5th level spell like monstrous physique III. And I see the case for an aura involving conjuration and transmutation. I don't however see a connection to the school of illusion. None of the spells you've cited rely on illusion magic...though the description of your item's abilities certainly come across that way. So, if you're going to cite illusion in the item's power and its aura, that's probably a pretty good sign that you need to include an actual illusion spell in your construction requirements.
Slot none; Price 38,000 gp; Weight 5 lbs.
A 5 lb. harp is reasonable. It's obviously an item without a slot. But, because of the effects you've chosen, it's a lot harder to price. From a ballpark standpoint, you're reasonable enough for now.
Description
This beautiful harp is often made of black star sapphire, outlined by stylish silvery swallowtail butterflies.
Nice descriptive text. Sets the image in the reader's mind.
As part of a Perform (string) skill check, the wielder can use the harp to provide illumination and comfort to his allies. A great performance (DC 20) causes the swallowtail butterflies to glow like tiny torches and detach themselves from the instrument, shedding normal light as they dance within 20-ft. An extraordinary performance (DC 30) changes the temperature inside the illuminated area to 70° F. The effect persists for as long as the wielder concentrates on the performance.
Variable effects for an item based on skill check results isn't something the judges normally like to see. That's because they really don't scale. As a PC goes up in level, he pretty much can make all the DCs built into the item's power list. And, basically, that means it functions only partially as well for someone with less ranks in a given skill...and better for someone who is highly skilled. That also means the item is more valuable to some users and less valuable to others. And that makes it far more difficult to really price, because it's not got a consistent suite of powers a given owner can always use.
Additionally, going down the path of warming your environment and giving off light isn't really a Superstar level of mojo to introduce in an item. It's kind of bland. It makes us view it more as a "makes camping safer" kind of item. And it's definitely not the power you want to lead off describing, as it's not the primary "wow" ability of your item anyway.
If a bard uses the harp as the audible component for his soothing performance, the ability takes effect immediately (instead of requiring 4 continuous performance). Once per day, when starting a soothing performance in this manner, a bard may expend two additional rounds of bardic performance and select one type of terrain from; Cold, Desert, Forest, Mountain, Swamp, Underground, and Water. The next time the targets of his soothing performance sleep (within 8 hours), they dream of the whispers of Desna within the beauty of a clear night sky. When they awaken, they gain various 24-hour benefits depending on the selected type of terrain; Cold (Burrow 30ft., Snow Vision), Desert (Burrow 20ft., Tremorsense 30 ft.), Forest (Low-Light Vision, move through any sort of undergrowth at normal speed), Mountain (Climb 30ft., move through any sort of slope, and rubble at normal speed), Swamp (Swim 20 ft., move through any sort of bog, and hedgerows at normal speed), Underground (Climb 30 ft., Darkvision 60 ft.), Water (Swim 30 ft., Hold Breath special quality).
This too goes off into the "makes adventuring safe" trope. Essentially, it's a mass monstrous physique III effect to apply all those monster abilities to a group of adventurers so they can all negate the potentially debilitating effects of a given terrain. While certainly useful, it's not really a Superstar design decision to build an item that does that.
Additionally, you've got some misapplied presentation elements here. You don't need to capitalize all the terrain types. You should have taken your lead from the ranger's favored terrain listing and you'd see how they should normally be presented. The same thing goes for the monster abilities. You don't need to capitalize things like darkvision, hold breath, etc.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, dream feast, monstrous physique III, tiny hut; Cost 19,000 gp
Your presentation should have italicized your spell list. Everything else is reasonably okay. I was surprised to see you go for the Desna-specific dream feast spell from Pathfinder #2: The Skinsaw Murders. As-written, that spell was built for 3.5, not the Pathfinder RPG rules. Regardless, there isn't anything that really changes about it. So, it's fair game. That spell really just has "go to sleep and wake up fully nourished with your full spell allotment prepared" effect. You didn't really borrow anything from it for your item other than the "go to sleep and wake up with something new and different about you" though. So, I didn't feel like it added much. I can see how the starsong harp is meant to work with Desna's faith. I just felt like if you were going to use that spell, it would make more sense to do something further with it and more specific to that spell's function.
The monstrous physique III is the crown jewel effect of this item. Unfortunately, that made this a SAK/SIAC item for the most part. Normally, that spell can only affect the spellcaster. You've tried to avoid a straight SIAC by making it apply to a group of people. I think the judges all pretty much felt that it went too far.
So, you really fell into three main pitfalls here. SAK/SIAC. Camping item. And a "makes adventuring easy" item. Individually, any single one of those things could have been overridden if you'd brought a truly awesome effect. Combined, however, there just wasn't enough to the core idea to win past those things.
Summary:
Solid, appropriate name.
Kind of disjointed, unfocused idea. Too varied. SAK elements.
Mechanically safe. Nothing especially innovative. SIAC elements.
Adequate writing ability, but misapplied game terminology.
Fair number of presentation issues. Lacks professional polish.
Hi Neil, Clark, Sean, Ryan... everyone.
You may have noticed the round 1 practice for next year has kicked off.
Please feel free to pop in and guide us should you find any spare time - we understand you are really busy though, so no worries if you cant.
We have a small but growing selection of practice items for open discussion now and have tried to improve them based on feedback we are seeing in these threads and between ourselves, but any gentle (or not gentle) nudges you might like to add to our learning would be most welcome.
You might even find lessons and examples in there that you might like to use. And in that instance, anybody is open to say whatever they want about my practice items, judges or not.
So, thank you for all this wonderful analysis on items, I'm sitting back, reading and trying to soak it up for my future endeavours and entries.
I, for one, am very grateful for all the resources you are creating to enable me to work with and improve my chances next time.
Bracers of Skillful Maneuvers
Sufficient name. Tells us what the item is...i.e., a pair of bracers...while also giving us a hint towards what it probably does...i.e., it's either a skill enhancer for something like Acrobatics, or it focuses on combat maneuvers. Reading further, we learn it deals with the latter. So, in that respect, you did a good job living up to the effect your item's name tantalized the reader with...
Aura faint transmutation; CL 5th
An aura of transmutation makes sense for an item based around aspect of the bear. The caster level is higher than you'd otherwise normally expect. As a 2nd level druid spell, this could just as easily have been CL 3rd. But, that's not a hard rule. The effective caster level of an item can be higher, if warranted by the design. So, no biggie. In fact, you've designed this thing in parallel with how a cloak of resistance appears in its writeup. And that's a wise way to approach something like this. It too uses a CL 5th and it only relies on a single cantrip/orison of resistance.
Slot Wrist; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), 50,000 gp (+5); Weight 2 lbs.
Your slot should be lowercase. Otherwise, it and the weight seem appropriate for a pair of bracers. You've got variable pricing laid out exactly the way I'd expect to see it...i.e., identical to a cloak of resistance. The actual pricing pattern you've chosen is debatable. It's essentially twice as much as a cloak of resistance across the board. Is a bonus to CMB/CMD the doubled equivalent of saving throw bonuses to Fort/Ref/Will? Maybe. You're giving the wearer a bonus to offense and defense, as opposed to just a defensive bonus in a cloak of resistance.
More concerning might be the choice of making your item a pair of bracers. That's because you have to think through all the possibilities of what's "stackable" with this item. Since you're granting bonuses to CMB/CMD, what else contributes to that stat? Say, a belt of giant strength or belt of incredible dexterity? Either of those items (or worse, a belt of physical might or belt of physical perfection) will increase your Str/Dex modifier which will also impact your CMB/CMD scores. So, if someone puts on one of those belts while also wearing a souped up pair of these bracers, your design starts contributing to twinked out character builds designed to break the game via combat maneuvers. And that's not something you want to incent with your designs.
Description
These sturdy ironbound leather bracers are adorned with images of heroic figures. Although useful to many, they are often favored by duelists, wrestlers, and shock troops.
Fair enough. Simple description. Simple statement describing who the item might appeal to. But not really a lot in the way of flavorful description of either the item, its effects, or mechanics.
When worn they grant the wearer a +1 to +5 enhancement bonus to CMB rolls and CMD.
And this is where the item kind of falls down in terms of being worthy of RPG Superstar. The cloak of resistance is certainly a staple item that the game very much needs. It's the type of item we'd always expect to see in a book of magic items. But it isn't sexy. It doesn't demonstrate mojo design skills or writing ability. So, although technically proficient (for the most part) in presenting a pair of bracers that give you a +1 to +5 enhancement bonus to CMB rolls and your CMD, it too isn't really a sexy idea. There's no mojo design in the idea behind this item. Held up next to the creativity of other items, it's just not going to have the same appeal...for the purposes of selecting who we want to compete for RPG Superstar.
Additionally, I'm not sure about the reasoning for having a pair of magic bracers increase your CMB/CMD for every combat maneuver straight across the board. A cloak of resistance makes sense that it could apply to all your saves. But a Trip or Dirty Trick or Steal maneuver can be a lot different from a Bull Rush, Grapple, Overrun, or even Reposition. The aspect of the bear spell allows for a +2 bonus to all CMB maneuvers, regardless of which one you're trying to carry out. And, arguably, I think that's a somewhat poor design of the spell, as what's the "aspect" of a bear got to do with maneuvers like Steal or Dirty Trick? Not a whole lot, really. Regardless, even the spell itself doesn't provide a straight up bonus to CMD. You usually only get something like that courtesy of an enhancement to your Str/Dex mod or a size increase. So, it's not fully logical. But then, you don't want it to be a SIAC either. It's kind of a catch-22 in some ways.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, aspect of the bear, creator's caster level must be at least three times the bracers' bonus; Cost 1,000 gp (+1), 4,000 gp (+2), 9,000 gp (+3), 16,000 gp (+4), 25,000 gp (+5)
You need to italicize your spell name...e.g., aspect of the bear. You did a good job of identifying the caster level needed to be higher depending on the bonus the bracers provide. Your price-to-cost ratio is correct. I liked that you reached for one of the new spells to base your item's power around. And it's not just a SIAC, because aspect of the bear goes a lot further than a CMB/CMD bonus.
So, all in all, this wasn't an entirely bad item. Your attention to detail (and following the lead of items like the cloak of resistance which tread similar design spaces) is admirable. Unfortunately, the actual effect of the item is really kind of bland and boring. It doesn't inspire the reader in any kind of really meaningful way. And, as such, it really isn't a very good vehicle with which to showcase your writing skills or your ability to design something that breaks a rule in an interesting way or puts some existing rules together in ways that come across as creative and innovative. I think that's what held you back the most on this one.
Unfortunately, a lot of designers fall into this same trap. They make the error of trying to design a fully competent wondrous item and they lose sight of the fact an RPG Superstar item submission is essentially your freelancing resume. In a short, 300-word item, the judges are looking for candidates who have spark and creativity in their designs, something which goes beyond simple "+X to mechanic Y." Thus, even a cloak of resistance, perfectly executed according to the template and written as succinctly and concisely as possible, would fail to make the Top 32 for the competition.
Seem harsh? Not really. You have to consider the goal of the RPG Superstar contest. This whole competition is meant as a launching pad for a new designer's freelance career. Paizo would like to leverage you, your abilities, your creativity, and yes...eventually your name to help them sell products you've designed. To find someone like that, they need to find designers who are going to connect with their consumer base. Someone whose ideas are inifinitely marketable, innovative, and which resonate with their customers. That's why an item that provides a simple bonus to a certain stat for the wearer isn't enough to showcase those kinds of abilities.
Summary:
Reasonable, effective name.
Pedestrian idea, not innovative or exciting enough.
Mechanically boring. Doesn't do anything especially exciting. Has some limited abuse potential.
Hard to assess writing ability. Concise and clear. But not exceptionally captivating or inspiring.
Pretty good presentation skills. Only a couple of small missteps.
Neil, I love reading these, especially as I can see that a lot of your comments aren't far from my own thoughts on those same items.
Thanks for all the feedback on all these items, and any others you decide to do. The better the average aspiring designer gets, the more our favorite hobby can get out of them, right? :)
And this is where the item kind of falls down in terms of being worthy of RPG Superstar. The cloak of resistance is certainly a staple item that the game very much needs. It's the type of item we'd always expect to see in a book of magic items. But it isn't sexy.
The first thing I thought of when I read this item was 'I can't believe this isn't in the core book.'
I think there are some serious exceptions to that line of thought that reward the augury of innovation over the competence of creativity.
I personally thought there were a few 'makes adventuring easier' items in the final...that really hit me the wrong way...but in my top 32 this item slides in. Not that I would ever recommend this template as a key to success. I just see this example as a pristine example of filling a niche, solid presentation, and disciplined writing.
Chief Technical Officer
|
And this is where the item kind of falls down in terms of being worthy of RPG Superstar. The cloak of resistance is certainly a staple item that the game very much needs. It's the type of item we'd always expect to see in a book of magic items. But it isn't sexy.The first thing I thought of when I read this item was 'I can't believe this isn't in the core book.'
I think there are some serious exceptions to that line of thought that reward the augury of innovation over the competence of creativity.
Remember that we're looking for someone creative enough to write an adventure. Does this item give you any clue that the writer may have that kind of creativity?
Creativity comes in many forms. One of them is the ability to exploit that which hasn't been done... regardless of how mundane.
I'm confident this contestant is 'capable'.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Creativity comes in many forms. One of them is the ability to exploit that which hasn't been done... regardless of how mundane.
I'm confident this contestant is 'capable'.
But we're not just looking for "capable"—we're looking for superstar.
Contestants get one chance to show us that they're capable of designing mechanics *and* that they have a creative spark. If your item doesn't clearly suggest to us that you can do both, you have chosen the wrong item for the contest.
Obviously. I'm not really suggesting anyone should compromise quality when they see it.
What I do worry about is when judges start measuring the esoteric idea of the contest over the product. I, personally, think that leads to shaky judgement...and you get into the crux of having to defend opinion over content.
I'm not suggesting that is what's happening. Nor am I suggesting there isn't a great deal of subjectivity in these types of challenges.
For example I could use the same arguments as above toward the Raptoring Gloves. There is no creativity or invention just a summon, a buff, and a mobility spell. The only difference is the ability to stay on theme.
But, then again, I can speak toward the clearness of presentation, and the niche the item fills. What's troubling is that there is a sense of non-superstar and superstar equating the stage as more significant than the performer.
Of course there is branding to consider...and it must be.
I guess I'd just like to see a better mix of qualifiers in terms of capable verses innovative: and would prefer both. The second round usually tells the story.
Do you know what might be interesting? Hold 4 slots for a few items that are very well written and well presented...but not superstar. Kind of like a congeniality spot. It has been my experience that direct competition increases creativity. And having 4 people who you know are competent over creative might add more to the mix...and surprise you.
I'm not suggesting this as an advertised practice...lord that would be a mess. Just a means of weeding out the subjectivity of the exigence of the contest over the meddle of the contestant.
Oops. I just kinda looked at Neil's first post. Sorry about that Neil. I didn't mean to derail this thing. I'll leave this alone. Continue on my good man!
Whip Wrap of Ydersius
A name like this immediately raises my shield. When you select an idea for your item that starts playing around with a weapon or weapon-like element, it causes me to worry that I might have to auto-reject it. That said, the image of the snake-god Ydersius associated with a whip in some way definitely paints a vivid picture.
Aura Moderate Transmutation; CL 10th
Your aura needs to always be lowercase. The CL also seems a little high for an item whose highest spell effect is poison. That's a 4th level spell which a 7th level caster could normally produce. Even a 5th level druid could accomplish it. So, it might be worth scaling back a bit. Get it? "Scaling" back? For a snake item? *sigh* Nevermind.
Slot -; Price 5,000 gp; Weight -
No biggie, but Paizo changed slots of "-" to "none" now in the 5th printing of the Core Rulebook. Weight seems like it could certainly be negligible for what amounts to a simple wrap for the handle of a whip. Price is debatable, but we'll get into that more below.
Description
This snakeskin wrap covers the handle of a standard whip, starting with the tail and ending up with the head on the butt of the handle. This whip accessory was believed to be commonplace amongst followers of Ydersius.
I love me some Ydersius. The very first high-level adventure I've ever penned was for Serpent's Skull with Sanctum of the Serpent God where I actually got to write-up a lesser manifestation of Ydersius. So, it's a cool topic to play around with in a wondrous item. Snake-themed stuff carries a lot of immediate imagery for people.
It's also good that you lead off with the description of your item. A lot of people start dropping backstory here. I felt like you were potentially venturing into that territory, but you were wise to rein it back just enough that it didn't cross the line in a way that the judges would view it negatively. What I mean by that is we don't want to see items where it's suggested that the only way they can be made...or ever sprang into being...was as a result of a single, solitary creator or creation backstory. That's because wondrous items should be craft-able by anyone. It shouldn't require those elaborate situations or circumstances. And that's why we encourage everyone to stifle their internal storyteller during wondrous item creation. There's a time and a place to flex those kinds of creative muscles. But, for the purposes of creating an item submission for RPG Superstar, this isn't it.
Upon a successful attack followed by a successful grapple check, the whip will begin to constrict on its opponent, doing 1d4 points of damage per round the subject is grappled. Additionally, three times per day, the whip will inject poison (Fort DC 13; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Con; cure 1 save) into the enemy, when a command word is spoken while the subject is grappled and constricted.
Okay. So here's where the train left the tracks for us. If you were to just set aside the notion that you wanted to describe this wondrous item as a "wrap" for the handle of a whip...and imagined this paragraph in the description of an actual magic whip, this text reads completely like a weapon more than a wondrous item. In fact, one of the judges (not me) called this out as a cool idea for a weapon, just not a wondrous item. And, the assignment for the first round of RPG Superstar is to give us a wondrous item, not a weapon disguised as a wondrous item.
Sometimes, that can be frustrating. You get all excited with this major burst of creativity. You can envision your idea working perfectly within the game. You're confident in the exact mechanics you want to give it. But, at its core, you're still designing a weapon rather than a wondrous item. A Superstar designer needs to recognize when they're shoehorning an idea into their assignment that doesn't fit the guidelines (or, in this case, rules) given by their publisher. And that's how this item came across. Even though it could make for an awesome magic whip, it's just not appropriate to the actual assignment. And, to us, that's essentially not following the rules of the contest. So, these types of items very quickly fall into auto-reject status.
Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, Poison, Animate Rope; Cost 2,500 gp
You've got some presentation errors here. Spell names should always be lowercase, italicized, and--when you've got more than one in the requirements, you need to alphabetize them, as well.
Lastly, although you got the ratio for your price/cost correct, I actually think you didn't price it high enough. Again, if you view this item as a weapon rather than a wondrous item (which it is), a simple +1 weapon would run you 2,000 gp. A +2 weapon (or its equivalent) is 8,000 gp. This whip wrap lets you do far more with constrict attacks for automatic damage after a successful grapple check...and the chance to inflict a reasonably high-level (for a weapon) spell effect like poison 3 times/day. That's certainly higher than the equivalent of a +1 weapon, which means it should be at least as costly as a +2 weapon. Maybe more.
Additionally, if you did price this item higher (which you should) and just based it on the poison 3/day effect, that's normally (4 x 7 x 2000)/(5/3) = 33,600 gp...which means this item's price is starting to venture into an expensive range where only PCs of a higher level could afford it. That means a DC 13 for the poison effect is likely going to be too low to affect very many creatures that a PC of that level would be facing...i.e., creatures of a correspondinly higher CR would be able to make those Fortitude saves fairly easily, which diminishes the potency of the item's primary ability to the point that it's not really worth the price.
Of course, I think you've got the wrong DC on this item anyway. It appears to me that you simply selected the poison entry from a CR 1 venomous snake and assigned it to this whip wrap. The DC for a CR 1 creature is purposefully game-balanced so it'll be a threat to four 1st level PCs...none of whom could afford this item, even at 5,000 gp...much less 33,600 gp. What you should have done instead is calculate the DC for your spell effect...i.e., the poison spell rather than rely on an entry from the Bestiary. Normally, that DC would be 10 + the spell level + the appropriate ability modifier necessary to cast a spell of that level...i.e., 10 + 4 + 2 = DC 16. Likewise, the damage of a poison spell is 1d3 Con rather than the 1d2 Con of a venomous snake. So, you should have built these things into your item design even if you were able to recast it as something other than a weapon.
So, the bottom line is this item was a clean miss. It's effectively an auto-reject as it's really a weapon masquerading as a wondrous item. And, there were still enough missteps in presentation and mechanical considerations that it wouldn't have made it through even as a wondrous item.
Summary:
Alarming name, unlikely to be appropriate for a wondrous item.
Misapplied idea. This is a weapon, not a wondrous item.
Flawed mechanics. Inappropriate calculation of DC and effects of poison.
Reasonable writing ability.
Poor presentation. Several missteps with using the provided template.
Contestants get one chance to show us that they're capable of designing mechanics *and* that they have a creative spark. If your item doesn't clearly suggest to us that you can do both, you have chosen the wrong item for the contest.
I want to pause and reiterate what Vic asserted here. In fact, I've highlighted what I believe to be the most important takeaway from his comment, above. It's vital that you understand the judges aren't just looking for innovative attributes versus capable attributes in a potential Superstar designer. We're striving to identify both. And, admittedly, we get it in different measures depending on the contestant and their chosen item design. We've got 300 words to try and get a sense of how creative they are and how capable they are...or how capable we believe they can be.
WG, you're completely right that Round 2 usually tells the story. It's why we see a lot of people fall right out of the competition...many of whom just completely miss the boat. Maybe some of them fooled the judges into thinking they had a proper mix of creativity and capability. But, for every contestant like that who flames out, we also have some who clearly demonstrate Superstar qualities in both areas. And those guys not only advance to Round 3. They also set themselves up for moving straight into Round 4 and 5 based on the strength of their work. That's who this contest is looking to identify. And, that's why Paizo (and the judges) don't fret if a larger number of designers fall short in Round 2. The contest is supposed to work that way.
Now, I understand what you're thinking. You're of the belief that someone who's technically proficient (i.e., capable) and who demonstrates a greater degree of that than maybe some of the others who make it into the Top 32 based on innovative ability/spark/mojo/gonzo/whatever could wind up being a better overall competitor (and even future freelancer) than some of the people who get chosen ahead of them. But there's no guarantee down that road either. And, if Paizo wants to err on one side or the other, they'd prefer to take the people who demonstrate the hardest trait to find...i.e., Superstar creativity.
That's because the technical aspects can be taught. A developer can always train up a freelancer on the proper way to do things. They can even teach the rules of the game. And, to a lesser degree, they can even help a freelancer get better at how they write. But they can't teach or train someone to be more creative. Thus, it's the hope (and goal) of the RPG Superstar contest to identify those who have really high creativity and then allow each round of the contest to narrow down who can apply that creativity in a technically proficient manner. Again, the goal isn't to find 32 Superstar freelancers. The goal is to find four. That's because Paizo wants to see four people pitch a creative enough adventure proposal that they, and the voting public, can expect the designer to deliver on it with sufficient proficiency (some of which they may have learned...or at least improved at...over the course of the competition). And, once those guys get that shot, it's all a matter of what they do with it. Meanwhile, Paizo trusts the voting public to identify those who they believe can deliver on it.
So, here's the deal: If you or anyone else is concerned that someone who's technically proficient got overshadowed by someone less proficient who just happened to catch creative "lightning in a bottle" to fool the judges into selecting them for the Top 32, you simply need to make sure that you go back to the drawing board or encourage those technically proficient people to work on their creative ideas. Because, as soon as they submit something conceptually awesome paired with that technical expertise and execution, they'll be a shoe-in for Top 32 selection. But, they've got to stand out with an amazing idea first. That's the most important thing. And from there, the judges will assess everything else when deciding who to Keep or who to elevate into the Top 32.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
And, if Paizo wants to err on one side or the other, they'd prefer to take the people who demonstrate the hardest trait to find...i.e., Superstar creativity.
The only problem I have with this concept (and I know this is going to sound like sour grapes, but its not, I know my item didn't stack up to my own standards this year... just too many errors this year) is that many items that show a spark of creativity are getting passed over because the mechanics innovations the authors have come up with aren't ones that the judges appreciate. You don't want a SIAC, but too much deviation from core mechanics is also verboten. Where is that line? It certainly is a mobile one.
I just feel that what the judges are looking for isn't always what the authors think the judges are looking for. And I feel many authors miss the mark because they are trying to be creative (succeeding sometimes) and innovative (succeeding sometimes) but the brand of innovation isn't one the judges are interested in apparently.
It feels sometimes like the judges don't just want to see the superstar creativity with some innovation, but they want the authors to also put on the developer/game designer hat and consider every way in which their innovation could affect the game as a whole. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because ultimately you don't want a freelancer who consistently gives you stuff you can't use because you don't want it in your game.
However, the average person doesn't think in holistic terms in general, let alone expecting an author to think in holistic terms in relation to the game system.
So I suppose the question has to be asked... Are the judges expectations too high? Are they skewed slightly the wrong direction? Are they actually getting the results they want?
The only ones who can truly answer this question are the Paizo people who make these decisions. If the answers are No, No, and Yes, then everything is playing out the way they hoped.
If the final answer is No, then perhaps a rethink on what criteria they determine an item makes the top 32 should probably be done. A retooling of expectations perhaps.
It just seems odd to see so many creative ideas get thrown to the wayside because the author wasn't wearing the developer cap when working on a new innovation. If the initial comment indicates that they are looking for creativity over technical expertise as a rule, then we'd see less of the gonzo innovations thrown away than we do.
So I'm not saying that the comment I quoted above is a false premise. But in some cases I think that the creativity Paizo is looking for may not be found because the comment above isn't as enveloping of the creative aspect as it could be. I certainly think the 2nd rounds, which over the years have produced some really exceptional pieces, but have largely fallen flat, would be more dynamic as a whole if some top 32 criteria were modified a bit.
You say you can teach mechanics and rules, but you can't teach creativity. But obviously if the first round is creating an item where mechanics does play a huge role, the judging is obviously going to skew the results somewhat toward some technical proficiency with a base idea that caught a judges eye. So you are rewarding technical proficiency to some degree, as long as there is a cool concept to go with it. Then you see 80% of the 2nd round, year after year, mostly fall flat.
If that's the way things are supposed to be, then fine. But if Paizo wants to see even more creativity for round 2, then a change in how they choose the top 32 items probably needs to be explored.
My opinion, is more good round 2 results will ultimately create more good round 3, 4, & 5 results. And the end result will be truly spectacular. Not that the winners in the past haven't all earned it, and been quite spectacular, they have. But instead of finding one great module, and 3 PFS scenarios, you might actually find 15 writers you want to work with instead of just 4.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Champion Voter Season 6, Champion Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Champion Voter Season 9
|
It feels sometimes like the judges don't just want to see the superstar creativity with some innovation, but they want the authors to also put on the developer/game designer hat and consider every way in which their innovation could affect the game as a whole. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, because ultimately you don't want a freelancer who consistently gives you stuff you can't use because you don't want it in your game.
However, the average person doesn't think in holistic terms in general, let alone expecting an author to think in holistic terms in relation to the game system.
The bolded statement above is probably the best argument you could make on behalf of the judging. I think the point of the RPG Superstar is not to find the average person. Anyone can come up with new items, classes, spells, and other innovations. But balancing game mechanics and creativity is much harder. Small changes to some of the core mechanics can have huge balance problems at later levels where characters have access to more potent spells, abilities, and gear that can stack to break the game. Look at how many threads exist where people play using E6 rules or other level variants, limit access to classes/feats/etc., and/or use only low magic campaigns. Keeping the system viable with the addition of new materials is immensely complex and someone who grasps that is going to be more useful.
I think the first round of the contest is setup to winnow hundreds of entries down to the few who can show they understand core mechanics, show creativity, and can follow the rules. The later rounds will focus on those who can truly create interesting pieces of flair that grab the attention of other players. Not everyone is a well rounded game designer. By showing which contestant created the entry, the voters can pick someone who may not be good at designing monsters, but excels at creating attention grabbing story and concepts. Of course this is all my opinion, so you can feel free to ignore me.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
So I suppose the question has to be asked... Are the judges expectations too high? Are they skewed slightly the wrong direction? Are they actually getting the results they want?
Our goal is to identify new talented freelancers, and each year, we manage to do just that. A lot of Superstar finalists—even those who don't make it all the way to the end—are getting work from Paizo and from third-party publishers. So yes, it's working.
It just seems odd to see so many creative ideas get thrown to the wayside because the author wasn't wearing the developer cap when working on a new innovation.
That's kind of like saying "It seems odd to see a student get a 'C' on his creative writing assignment just because he wasn't paying attention to grammar and spelling when he was writing it." We're not looking for "either/or"—we're looking for both.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6
|
That's kind of like saying "It seems odd to see a student get a 'C' on his creative writing assignment just because he wasn't paying attention to grammar and spelling when he was writing it." We're not looking for "either/or"—we're looking for both.
I can appreciate that. When I ran Living Dragonstar, I was essentially the scenario developer, editor, and layout guy for that particular organized play campaign. It would irk me to no extent when my authors wouldn't follow my template or would send me poorly written crap that I'd essentially have to rewrite last minute to make sure we met our deadline.
So I do appreciate it, very much so.
So that being the case, the entire argument that starts, "We can train someone to follow a template, use good mechanics, the rules..." et. al. is a disingenuous argument at best, because you aren't just looking for a creative spark. Yet we keep hearing the argument that the mechanics can be taught, but mojo cannot. That's very true. But its also true that Paizo is not just looking for creative spark. Otherwise there would be some items with significant mechanics issues that would have made the cut despite the creative juice exhibited.
Just come out and say that you need both technical expertise and creative mojo to be considered superstar (well kinda like you just did in the post I quoted I suppose). It just irks me when Neil (or another judge) tries to feed us the line that the technical aspect is less important. Shrug.
So that being the case, the entire argument that starts, "We can train someone to follow a template, use good mechanics, the rules..." et. al. is a disingenuous argument at best, because you aren't just looking for a creative spark.
It's not disingenuous! What's disingenuous is that you guys keep misinterpreting our statements to mean we only look for creative spark...which is patently false and ridiculous.
Yet we keep hearing the argument that the mechanics can be taught, but mojo cannot. That's very true. But its also true that Paizo is not just looking for creative spark. Otherwise there would be some items with significant mechanics issues that would have made the cut despite the creative juice exhibited.
Of course. And, because (as usual) you're not privy to how the judges actually sort items behind the scenes, you don't understand that there are plenty of items with mojo and creative spark that just completely fail at the mechanical and technical side of things and we have to discard them, too. In fact, in the RPG Superstar panel recording, I stated that there are often plenty of items that don't make the cut which I'm sad to see go (and I wish I could put my designer's hat on and fix!), because there's often a spark to them and they're pretty close. But, they've got enough other flaws that it prevents them from making the Top 32. We let some through, but it's usually via "golden tickets" and even then it's only the ones that have a few minor missteps in the mechanics and presentation, which we feel we can educate them on so they become stronger designers over the course of the competition.
But, instead of recognizing that, you start a thread about being in Bizarro World and criticize the judges for being overly critical without providing enough praise to the Top 32. Is there anything else you'd like to go ahead and tell us we're doing wrong? Because, the last time I checked, the contest works just fine as-is. For five years running Paizo has identified several worthy freelancers who have gone on to write some pretty amazing stuff for them. And I'm not just talking about the winners. So, clearly, something must be working right about the process.
Just come out and say that you need both technical expertise and creative mojo to be considered superstar (well kinda like you just did in the post I quoted I suppose). It just irks me when Neil (or another judge) tries to feed us the line that the technical aspect is less important. Shrug.
What "irks" me is the continuous second-guessing you and various others keep poring over with regards to the judges' decision-making. I've been exchanging PMs today with Wild Gazebo (from further up-thread), exploring the very same topic.
I'm also on record, quite clearly in saying I evaluate things using five distinct criteria. In each of my item reviews here, I usually base my summary at the end on those exact elements. And you'll see I occasionally cite something as having a decent or interesting core idea (i.e., spark/mojo/whatever) and yet there are major deficiencies or flaws in other areas that brought an item down.
And, lastly, what further "irks" me is that I specifically requested we not get into long, drawn-out justifications, back-and-forth questioning, and veiled arguments designed to put me in the position of defending the opinions I share here in what's supposed to be an item feedback thread that will hopefully help people understand ways they can improve their chances for making the Top 32 through some universal lessons. Instead, you guys are doing exactly that and I get this...ongoing conversation. In addition, I feel like we rehash this discussion almost every year for someone because folks are a) disappointed they didn't make the cut, b) frustrated with being unable to absorb and apply the advice/lessons/feedback here to improve their chances, because they feel like they've got to find the perfect subjective criteria to get a judge to champion their item, and c) take shots at the judges and the process in order to vent that frustration. That's what it feels like.
And I'm becoming increasingly disenchanted with the whole thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
It's an exercise in futility to second-guess the judges in this contest. There is no court of appeals. They also won't be writing any items for the community to simply copy-and-paste as an entry.
They also do not owe it to contestants to offer feedback- that is what makes not winning great- you get a small glimpse into the process. Why pry that window open? There is no complete formula for winning, besides maybe "mojo + follow the template = keep".
It seems you're casting your net into an over-fished lake.
Entries will be FIAC, SAK, SIAC, break rules, all that 'no-no' stuff, but as has been said, the item might still be Superstar.
In under 300 words.
Can Neil have his thread back now?
Star Voter Season 6
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why bother running the thread every year to cover the same points? Just point to the thread from a prior year, or a blog post, or your podcast, and let those willing to learn learn it there. I really don't see what there is to be gained by retreading old ground just for the sake of people who would rather win an argument than the contest.
Just remember why you do this. Haters gonna hate.