Remember, that every item you look at is someones best effort to enter this contest. Not everyone is ready to be a RPG Superstar or has the chops to be a game designer, but they all made an effort and from positive and constructive feedback they may get there.This is a pretty feel-good way of looking at it, and it is valuable to remember that we're dealing with real people on the other ends of these items. But I think it's pretty obvious on its face that many, many items were not "best effort". Some items I would have a hard time even characterizing as "effort".
Standards are important, and while it may make us uncomfortable to contemplate the fact, not everyone is capable--or willing--to meet them.
Yes, it is a feel good way of looking at it. They submitted what they thought was best, and it is their feelings that will be hurt if the boards start panning their idea. Like I said, not everyone has what it takes to be a designer, that doesn't mean that we should be mean about the way we point out the short comings. Some will never get it, but some can and will learn to be better. Constructive criticism doesn't have to be belittling.
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if the Paizo Template Model is correct and properly formatted next year and not spread out over several other threads with "clues" someone could easily overlook since not in the rules or provided example. Making it clear one cannot underline their item.
What? You mean like right here? ;)
It would be nice if the Paizo Template Model is correct and properly formatted next year and not spread out over several other threads with "clues" someone could easily overlook since not in the rules or provided example. Making it clear one cannot underline their item.What? You mean like right here? ;)
That's exactly where I went when I read that.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
|
That's exactly where I went when I read that.It would be nice if the Paizo Template Model is correct and properly formatted next year and not spread out over several other threads with "clues" someone could easily overlook since not in the rules or provided example. Making it clear one cannot underline their item.What? You mean like right here? ;)
Hey, great minds and whatnot. ;)
It would be nice if the Paizo Template Model is correct and properly formatted next year and not spread out over several other threads with "clues" someone could easily overlook since not in the rules or provided example. Making it clear one cannot underline their item.What? You mean like right here? ;)
Yes you have been reviewing and observing items with formatting issues using the default template correct?
I would not be surprised if Paizo is the only place many entries have ever had to format on line despite being proficient typists or data key entry proficient.
Little things:
The instructions could have been clearer. Missing Italics. Item Name not listed twice when the entry is going to be auto formatted in the first sentence typed. Underlining not an option.
IMO there were some "creative item gems" with formatting issues which seem to have been voted down this year primarily using formatting as the criteria based on what I have seen since the culling.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not so much a phrase that I tire of, but there are a lot of decent items in the list if the authors had stopped writing after the first benefit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The instructions also are part of the test, how well you read them (I am now reading the round 2 for the sixth or seventh time just in case I get to submit for round 2)
For the round 1 rules, in answer to the original posting, the use of italics for spells, spell alphabetical ordering, etc can all be found from the following line in the rules linked above...
"Use the presentation for magic items found in the Wondrous Items section of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook (page 496)."
Basically pointing you to the page to start reviewing the wondrous items, which in the core rules, have italicised, alphabetised spells. There are lots of other things to note there as well, like capitalisation or not of feats, skills, abilities. As well as looking for terminology used by the game "DC, check, round, etc."
This very line is also followed by the statement about where the title of the submission goes...
"The subject line of the submission form should contain only the name of the item. The body of the form should include only the complete item text in the appropriate format (this means the item name will be included in the body as well)."
And it also informs about the use or not of all capitals...
"You should not use ALL CAPS for any part of your wondrous item submission."
I suspect people are starting to get tetchy from the approaching crunch time for the end of voting, being tired, so please, if someone posts something you don't agree with, try to politely point them to the answers they seek. I know we are all feeling it, so count to 10, that sort of thing. You will feel better in the long run.
|
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be nice if the Paizo Template Model is correct and properly formatted next year and not spread out over several other threads with "clues" someone could easily overlook since not in the rules or provided example. Making it clear one cannot underline their item.What? You mean like right here? ;)Yes you have been reviewing and observing items with formatting issues using the default template correct?
Yep ... and they did not follow the guidelines as laid out on the round 1 rules page. Missing italics I'm not too concerned over for the reason you gave (it being, quite possibly, the first time some folks have utilized the formatting capability of the message boards. But the rest of it (i.e. - general layout, missing elements, etc.) is a definite strike, especially since it is laid out on the rules page.
IMO there were some "creative item gems" with formatting issues which seem to have been voted down this year primarily using formatting as the criteria based on what I have seen since the culling.
Yeah, I've been getting a bit of that feeling too (that some decent items may have been cut for technical reasons rather moreso than mechanical), but if I come up with two items that are otherwise comparable, the one that follows the formatting conventions gets my vote.
Happy New Year Guys.
This year has been very enlightening and enjoyable looking behind the curtain so to speak particularly combined with many of the How I am voting comments and what was actually cut. This year and next year should be very interesting.
There were some creative items belonging to others I had hoped would advance which do not appear to to have done so due to formatting issues.
Not so much a phrase that I tire of, but there are a lot of decent items in the list if the authors had stopped writing after the first benefit.
Like Mine!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember the judges have the final say on the top 32, if they like a entry and fell the formatting mistakes are out weighted buy its other qualities they can and just may chose it over others. Have faith in the judges.
There's a lot of shadow themed items. A lot. Enough that I'm starting to get sick of them.
You continue to haunt my voting page, nemesis. But my resolve is strong and your promises are empty. I will not give you what you want.
Approaching this thread's topic from a slightly different angle, there's one particular criticism I've seen that's driving me bonkers.
There's nothing wrong with the criticism itself; I just get a paranoid feeling that this particular criticism is being wrongly applied to my own item.
Such is my fear. It also seems there are trends in the type of items seen by some people, it has been bardic items for myself, and I fear people will vote against my item just because they are tired of seeing something similar, regardless of comparative quality.
I suppose one must trust in the system.
"this item is useless except it gives lots of bonuses..."
A trend I've noticed is a lot of people submitting items that players would want, not characters. They fall into two categories: items players want to make managing the game easier (player hates having to track spells cast, so submits a 2,000 gp gizmo that turns all his ninth-level spells into at will abilities...fortunately, actual examples tend not to be that insane) or items the players think would be cool to have in real life, but have little in-game value to PCs (player hates paying for cable, so submits a 70,000 gp magic mirror that automatically let's them scry on any on-going theatre production anywhere in the multiverse).
A lot if the latter kind have gone MIA since the cull.
I keep seeing an item that's not all that bad except the "myth busters" spent an episode debunking the bases of its premise, I know this is magic but it's still annoying. But I still vote for it.
Not so much a phrase that I tire of, but there are a lot of decent items in the list if the authors had stopped writing after the first benefit.
Or had settled for just one benefit. I am seeing a trend that many items have multiple disparate abilities. I guess the judges have referred to this as the Swiss Army Knife item? I haven't seen that brought up in this thread, but a good portion of the items I'm seeing are like that. One particularly sad example was an item where I had determined to downvote it after reading the first ability, which was terrible. Then I read the second ability and I absolutely loved it. I ended up voting for it over the other item, but I doubt it will win, because of that first ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A few items I've seen seem Golorian-specific. In the past, weren't the submissions supposed to avoid this?
Nope, not really. There have been several Golarion items in the top 32, usually having to do with the gods. Last year alone, there were four that referenced Golarion gods: the scent of the savored sting (Calistria), Night Monarch vardo (Desna), Cayden's cup (Cayden) and the elixer of resurgent flame (Nethys).
Now you can argue those are the system's generic gods, the way the Grayhawk gods were D&D's, I suppose, but having some Golarion ties is fine. I think the challenge is knowing when to say it's OK and how much it should be included in the description (your item shouldn't have first been created by Old-Mage Jatembe and his Ten Magic Warriors, but it could probably be called a Mwangi War Mask, for example).
A few items I've seen seem Golorian-specific. In the past, weren't the submissions supposed to avoid this?Nope, not really. There have been several Golarion items in the top 32, usually having to do with the gods. Last year alone, there were four that referenced Golarion gods: the scent of the savored sting (Calistria), Night Monarch vardo (Desna), Cayden's cup (Cayden) and the elixer of resurgent flame (Nethys).
Now you can argue those are the system's generic gods, the way the Grayhawk gods were D&D's, I suppose, but having some Golarion ties is fine. I think the challenge is knowing when to say it's OK and how much it should be included in the description (your item shouldn't have first been created by Old-Mage Jatembe and his Ten Magic Warriors, but it could probably be called a Mwangi War Mask, for example).
I reviewed all the top 32 from last year, and the judges liked it when items referenced the lore and setting of Golarion in the description. What they didn't like was when items were locked into a certain culture, such as saying they were only crafted in Tian Xia.
Approaching this thread's topic from a slightly different angle, there's one particular criticism I've seen that's driving me bonkers.
There's nothing wrong with the criticism itself; I just get a paranoid feeling that this particular criticism is being wrongly applied to my own item.
You wrote a shadow vampire item, didn't you?!!
Seriously though, I understand your concern. I am also worried that some of the judges' advice is taken too literally or completely misunderstood. For example, an item as creative and flavorful as Neil's Last Leaves might be written off as a SIAC. Not to mention the item's a bit feminine and might be shunned by paranoid people who think it's written by a bald guy in a basement who wants the voters to think he's a she to get more votes... :D
Ehh, anyway what drives me bonkers are plain weird creatures disguised as wondrous items. They just seem like Migrus Locker rip-offs. Thankfully there have been fewer of them after the Culling.
A trend I've noticed is a lot of people submitting items that players would want, not characters. They fall into two categories: items players want to make managing the game easier (player hates having to track spells cast, so submits a 2,000 gp gizmo that turns all his ninth-level spells into at will abilities...fortunately, actual examples tend not to be that insane) or items the players think would be cool to have in real life, but have little in-game value to PCs (player hates paying for cable, so submits a 70,000 gp magic mirror that automatically let's them scry on any on-going theatre production anywhere in the multiverse).
A lot if the latter kind have gone MIA since the cull.
Yeah. It shows in the descriptions, especially when they start ascribing game mechanics to the characters rather than the players. They start talking about the character can do with the item, but then halfway through start talking about dice rolls. The character doesn't roll the dice; the player does. Metagaming within 300 words is not a good sign.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect there's a number of previous top 32s that wouldn't make it through this process. Public taste is a different beast.
Personal rule of thumb: if it costs more than 1500gp, it's not a consumable. No, not even then.
Unless it's wish or resurrection in a can. Both already done. Better have a very brilliant idea for a Superstar item that involves one of those...
I suspect there's a number of previous top 32s that wouldn't make it through this process. Public taste is a different beast.
I'm very keenly aware of this. Just when I figure out how to appeal to the tastes of the judges, they go and change things. Time will tell if I have managed to adjust.
They did it because they knew you learned too much about them! :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect there's a number of previous top 32s that wouldn't make it through this process. Public taste is a different beast.I'm very keenly aware of this. Just when I figure out how to appeal to the tastes of the judges, they go and change things. Time will tell if I have managed to adjust.
Don't forget that those same judges are still the final arbiters to allow your item to pass to Top 32 spots. I suspect if an item is popular due to munchkin ism, luck of pairing draw, or other reasons, that they will still be looking at their bigger picture.
So this round is like a double whammy - please the public AND then the judges. Then again, that mirrors exactly what a designers work needs to do outside of the competition too!
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Locke1520
|
I'm very keenly aware of this. Just when I figure out how to appeal to the tastes of the judges, they go and change things. Time will tell if I have managed to adjust.
Agreed Jacob. Although I have to admit I did not alter my design strategy much, I decided against specifically trying "woo" the voters and instead focused on making my idea work the best I could.
I'm cautiously optimistic about my chances this year but I have read some good entries, so who knows maybe we'll be back in the guildhall this year.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Locke1520
|
So this round is like a double whammy - please the public AND then the judges. Then again, that mirrors exactly what a designers work needs to do outside of the competition too!
This.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if we'll ever find out, but I'll be curious to see how much the judges take the public sentiments into account. I'm wondering whether they'll basically be there to weed out anything that's just completely ludicrous but otherwise giving precedence to the public ranking or if they'll be as stringest as they've always been and just use that as the order to look at things in (i.e. item 33 might be better than 32 but 32 was good enough that the judges never bothered to look at 33...).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that they will merely be using our ordering for which items to look at first. And also some schadenfreude at our frustrations.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually saw an item that was a better rendition of my item from two years ago. For the record I am not in any way accusing plagiarism. Clearly it's a coincidence, but I wish I had done the mechanics the way this contestant did.
My understanding is that the judges will be responsible for a ceremony summoning a reincarnation of the Marquis de Condorcet, who will be the final arbitrator of the Top 32.
They will also complain to him about the wacky, ridiculous entries they had to wade through, and de Condorcet will go, "Yeah, I hate that so much!" and they might share a beverage.
I actually saw an item that was a better rendition of my item from two years ago.
Hey, that's really nifty! I've seen several items that were near-identical to past Top 32 items, but not as well written. But the other way around obviously should show up too! How nice :)
I dunno if the judges would golden ticket something from 300 slots down or something. Seems unlikely. I can see them weeding out the popular but deeply flawed items, but wholesale ignoring the votes seems unwise.
I actually saw an item that was a better rendition of my item from two years ago. For the record I am not in any way accusing plagiarism. Clearly it's a coincidence, but I wish I had done the mechanics the way this contestant did.
Conversely, I've seen a couple of items similar to one I wrote up for last year's contest and didn't submit. I'm counting this as a good thing, as they're fairly close in both form and function and simply don't read "superstar" to me. (I'd still love seeing them in a book of magic items though.)
I actually saw an item that was a better rendition of my item from two years ago.I've seen two different items similar to ones I almost submitted this year.
I've seen a couple items that are disturbingly similar to items I've posted in various 'custom magic items' threads. They were both pretty generic items, so I'm assuming they were just similar thought process and not knock-offs.
I've seen nothing like what I submitted or considered submitting. I don't know if that's good or bad.
I've seen nothing like what I submitted or considered submitting. I don't know if that's good or bad.
I'd say it's good. You have broken from the herd, and will either take the lead or be devoured by lions. Either extreme is better then just being "meh".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've stayed fairly quiet during this whole process, only posting once or twice. I have, however, come across the aspect that drives me the most bonkers.
It is not a phrase, as much as a trend. That of the ridiculous DC's. How do so many items using 1st level spells, have DC's in the 20's?
I thought the rule for DC's was the level of the spell, cast with the minimum modifier required to cast those level of spells? Regardless of item caster level. If I'm wrong, please point me in the right direction, because I can't seem to find it under the magic item creation rules.
So, if a 1st level spell, requires an 11 in the casting stat to cast, then the DC of the item would be 11 (10 + spell level + plus ability modifier of ability required to cast the level of spell).
This bothers me because I have seen a few fairly decent items, but they have ridiculous DC's, and it marks them down as far as which item I would vote for.
I saw one kind of similar to the one I submitted lasted year, but it had a lot of different flavor and mechanics.
I also haven't seen anything similar to what I submitted this year, so hopefully I will also not be lion-fodder. :-P
I've stayed fairly quiet during this whole process, only posting once or twice. I have, however, come across the aspect that drives me the most bonkers.
It is not a phrase, as much as a trend. That of the ridiculous DC's. How do so many items using 1st level spells, have DC's in the 20's?
I thought the rule for DC's was the level of the spell, cast with the minimum modifier required to cast those level of spells? Regardless of item caster level. If I'm wrong, please point me in the right direction, because I can't seem to find it under the magic item creation rules.
So, if a 1st level spell, requires an 11 in the casting stat to cast, then the DC of the item would be 11 (10 + spell level + plus ability modifier of ability required to cast the level of spell).
This bothers me because I have seen a few fairly decent items, but they have ridiculous DC's, and it marks them down as far as which item I would vote for.
This has been bugging me too. I don't mind when they also include Heighten Spell as a requirement, with a corresponding increase in caster level to accommodate the higher level spell slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am more worried by highly priced items with very low saving throw DCs making them obsolete by the time PCs can afford sensibly them.
I am more worried by highly priced items with very low saving throw DCs making them obsolete by the time PCs can afford sensibly them.
That is just as concerting, and I have marked those down as well. If what I face, by the time I can find/afford the item, can just about auto succeed, then the item is mostly worthless to me.