Hi everyone.
Round 3 was hard. Real hard.
This is one heck of a contest.
There just aren't enough spots for all the good submission.
Sure, there were 4 or so that were clearly great and a couple that clearly weren't. Then there were a bunch on the bubble.
This was a really, really tight round.
I spent a ton of time (as did the other judges) on these 16. I read them, re-read them, thought about them, weighed them against each other, and finally came to conclusions about them. Giving out my final two recommendations was tough.
Good luck to everyone!
To all the community members--please vote this round. Your vote will be crucial as always, but particularly so in this close round.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 6
aka Albanus
|
The work that you guys put into all this really impresses me. I was not aware of this contest at all until a few months ago and the amount of information pouring out has been really overwhelming. So my hat goes off to all of you upstairs.
I read through all the entries and wish I had final say, assuring myself that I would be fair, impartial, critical but encouraging, and know I would make the right choice. And then I ponder how much work all that would actually be, and how torn I already am between submissions when I DON'T have it all resting on me. You have all my respect, but absolutely none of my envy.
Now that you've seen the 16 submissions I hope you see what I am talking about :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Impressions:
1st sweep: 11 keeps, 5 clear eliminations (none suck just not as good)
Sorry these didn't get my vote:
Abandoned one- memory loss power is too abusable for me.
Argopelter- I liked it but its also not that far off from a poop flinging monkey which wouldn't fly at my table.
Quiet Ones- too weird, its an air monster with acid limbs needs an edit or 3 to develope.
Boto-Octa- too complicated name, sorry but I can't deal with making dolphins cry after living thru that Live album.
Miremanes- I know the judges loved this but I can't deal with a bug with a mullet, my inner Swedish murder machine (Brock) won't stand for it.
2nd sweep: 6 absolutely grab me leaving 5 to contend for 2 votes.
Awesome Job these 6 get my vote for sure:
Blackwood drake: extremely cool plant loving dragon monster, makes other monsters meaner which I like.
Egelsee Cocktail: Way cool alien ooze loving both gob and addiction powers.
Yellowtongue Hulk: Frog monster whoot! MAkes little frog monsters, eats gobos, these are fun as heck!
Caliban: little guy with an axe has crazy deformities me likey, back story solid.
Iceroot Devourer: Cool cold stalker plant monster, like that its a tree and sold on how its formed.
Leechlorn: Really cool blood pool abilities don't like fractured souls power though.
3rd sweep is going to be hard will get back to you.
Notes thus far:
Leechroot: vampiric tenicle like roots that are undead, not to be confused with leechlorn
Bloodroot Vines: Vampiric plants made from vrok spores interacting with dead fey, cool but I liek the leech better, ok plants + blood clearly a thing this year, this one is good too!!!
Deadfall Dweller: spitting spider, like its ambush sneakiness.
Thoughtstealer: an ooze that attacks int, neato.
Thunderer of Gozreh: launches thorns and swarms, makes a thundering noise, me likey.
I'll get more articulate later but might skip my good bad ugly reviews this round.
To be honest, I'm seeing a lot of "meh" in the monsters this year. The only one that made me think "damn, that's cool," and "I wouldn't have thought of that," was the Abandoned One, but I recognized immediately that my like of it was due to my own play style preferences and that it does not work very well in the average game. Because I'm trying to curb my preferences to make myself a more mainstream designer, I can't vote for it.
Maybe it is due to the low CR restrictions this year, but there was nothing that jumped out at me as being super awesome. There are some solid entires to be sure, but on concept alone, there isn't a one that I'm dying to use in my games. Last year, I think there were about three that met that criteria for me, so it is not a huge swing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
continued
Final call
In the end I picked deadfall dweller and Thunderer of Gozreth took my last 2 votes. I love the image of a frost covered spider popping out of the snow and spitting that cold entanglement attack was a favorite and I"d love to see the Thunderer of Gozreth chilling out with thornies or twigjacks.
The blood sucker plants were over designed for me and I liked Leechlorn best. The ooze was outdone by the other ooze for me.
I can't condone this idea that low CR or other restrictions limits coolness or creativity.
Think about it this way: if you bought a low level adventure from Paizo in the River Kingdoms, wouldn't you expect awesome low CR monsters? I think your answer is yes.
All this is is a test of awesomeness as a part of real world design assignments.
(Unlike Nickolas Floyd, I don't think that's a function of a low CR limit; four or five of these entries have proven that low-CR monsters can be quite fun and interesting.)
I didn't say that I believe this was definitely the cause for the rather lackluster monster entries overall. I said "maybe it was the cause" (as it was one of the differences from last year) but I also pointed out that there were not that many that stood out for me last year either. Just more than this year. It was just an off the cuff suggestion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guess I disagree with the general tone of the thread because I generally like the monster entries this year and I think its actually tough to narrow down to 8. Guess to each their own
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't dislike any of the monsters this round. Given a few minutes, I could tweak any one of them to fit it into my home game. But as with the archetypes, I'm not voting for monsters that require me to make adjustments. I'm voting for the ones I can use more or less as written.
Just a point I'd like to raise...but, why are you voting for the monsters at all? And I say that whether it requires anyone to make adjustments to them or not...
Instead, isn't it more important to be voting for the designers behind these monsters? To me, that's the point of the voting in this contest. It's not simply to decide what's the best wondrous item...or archetype...or monster...and so on. Sure, you always assess those work products in every round. But, I think the reason for doing so is to really assess the designers who created them.
And, remember, none of these guys are Superstars yet. They're not expected to be. They're going to make mistakes. Those mistakes are going to be pointed out for them (both by the judges and the voting community). And, hopefully, they're going to learn and grow from the lessons they learn as a result of those mistakes. I know I did during my run. My execution wasn't perfect on everything. And there were lots of moments where the judges and the voters made comments that opened my eyes to better ways of approaching my designs.
That's why I think a lot of the assessment of any individual designer needs to take into account their entire portfolio of work up to this point, as well as how much they've appeared to grow round-by-round, in addition to the creativity and execution of each round's specific design. And, once you've done all that, I think it ultimately comes down to who you want to see advance so you can see what else they're capable of. Who deserves that opportunity based on what you're seeing in front of you? Think like a publisher who's looking for a new freelancer and less like a GM who's examining a bunch of monsters for the next campaign or bestiary wishlist.
In the end, this is about finding the one designer who ran the gauntlet whom you'd like to give an opportunity to write a full-fledged Pathfinder module. And, hopefully, you'll look forward to buying and running that adventure at your gaming table. Over the course of the competition, you're basically helping to winnow down the candidates by examining what they've produced one round at a time. Each round is testing different aspects of what'll be required of them if they go on to write such an adventure.
So, based on that end-goal, I'd challenge folks to look back across the submissions and use all of your votes. Even if an entry has a number of flaws, try to look past that at the growth potential in the designer. And, in future rounds, keep looking for that growth as you measure their continued creativity and execution. I think that's the best way to approach the voting.
But that's just my two cents,
--Neil
Just a point I'd like to raise...but, why are you voting for the monsters at all? And I say that whether it requires anyone to make adjustments to them or not...
Instead, isn't it more important to be voting for the designers behind these monsters? To me, that's the point of the voting in this contest. It's not simply to decide what's the best wondrous item...or archetype...or monster...and so on. Sure, you always assess those work products in every round. But, I think the reason for doing so is to really assess the designers who created them.
Well said Neil. I was getting the general feeling that a lot of people have been focussing too much on individual round entries rather than each contestants overall progress.
It's one of the reasons why I like the listings of each rounds contestants showing their previous entries - its a quick reminder of what they've already done, have they shown some good rpg design skills or real imagination in their previous entries, or if I think they've been lacking so far, is their current round entry good enough to be the thing that picks them up to potentially win this thing.
It's one of the reasons why I like the listings of each rounds contestants showing their previous entries - its a quick reminder of what they've already done, have they shown some good rpg design skills or real imagination in their previous entries, or if I think they've been lacking so far, is their current round entry good enough to be the thing that picks them up to potentially win this thing.
I think Neil has hit it on the head and I'm glad to see him point this out. That is why all of my reviews include, at the end, a summary of how I thought they did with prior rounds and how they have grown or not grown or taken our advice or in some instances failed to take advice.
Sorry Neil and Clark but I have to disagree on that point. You could be my fovrite designer form round 1 & 2 if your round 3 submission isn't up to snuff someone else is getting my vote. If that wasn't the case why not have the top 32 just do all the subsequent rounds at once and judge the whole body of work? Each round need to sink or swim on its own merits, but hey what do I know I'm just 1 vote...
crap Ninja'd by Caedwyr!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a contestant makes it through the previous rounds, then they are good enough to qualify in those other categories and as such I'm not going to give them a pass necessarily if they fall flat or bring a sub-par entry for the current round.
You could be my fovrite designer form round 1 & 2 if your round 3 submission isn't up to snuff someone else is getting my vote.
If I vote for the strongest entries each round, the strongest designers will inevitably rise to the top without my having to look at their portfolios before voting.
I hear what you guys are saying...and I don't doubt for a minute that many other voters share your exact same perspective and apply it when they decide who they want to see move on to the next round. However, by that criteria, I doubt Mike Welham would have ever won RPG Superstar last year. He stumbled pretty badly with the Monster Reformation Alliance in Round 2. Likewise, I think I made some mistakes with my stat-block and encounter location which jeopardized my standing when I made my run in 2009.
Not every competitor is actually going to be among the frontrunners in every single round. And yet, I think it does them a disservice if you don't examine their strengths from all of the prior rounds. To me, I think it's important to reassess everything you perceive about a designer at the end of each round. And by that, I don't just mean how they performed in that round. Examine everything you know about them...including their prior work and how much growth they've demonstrated. Among the three of you, I'll take Eric Morton as an example. I happen to think Eric's design strengths are really pretty strong. He's made this competition twice, and that's no small feat. And yet, even he had a serious misstep in his last run through RPG Superstar with the six hundred geisha Tian Xia succubi organization dropped into the River Kingdoms. That's what caused him to fall out of the competition. And, because of that, he missed out on competing in the very next round which would have played to one of his greatest design strengths...i.e., monster designs. Mike had his own misstep that round, but he won through and redeemed himself in the monster round, because that, too, is one of his design strengths. And he went on to win the whole thing. There's nothing saying Eric couldn't have done that, too. But, because a lot of people voted just according to his one design that round, he fell out and never had that opportunity.
That's why I'm more inclined to give a full examination of the designer at the end of each round. Not just that one submission. Sure, if a designer bombs a particular round, that certainly tells something more about them. But, if they've done particularly good work leading up to that round, I think it's important to recognize that and weigh it in the full evaluation of the designer. We're not voting to select which of these monsters...or which archetype...or which wondrous item...gets to advance or be included in an upcoming sourcebook by Paizo. Instead, we're determining which of the designers get to move on and keep showing what they can do across all the various design challenges which comprise RPG Superstar.
Lastly, I'm not trying to convince anyone here of how they should vote. That's clearly in the hands of each individual voter and you get to voice your opinion with your vote just like you would with your money if you were choosing not to buy the work products these guys created. I just think if the end-goal of the contest is to identify a crop of new freelancers for Paizo, we kind of owe it to them to assess the designers (and the full suite of skills we've seen them display so far) in each and every round. And just because 16 guys advanced last round, I don't view them as all being on par with one another. Some of them squeaked in. And others took the last round or two by storm. You instinctively know who those guys are. They're the ones you look forward to seeing what they'll do this round. And, just because they might have stumbled a bit with a sub-par entry in one round, I don't think that's an immediate reason to dump them. Not if their body of work is still stronger than those vying for the 7th and 8th spots to advance to the next round.
But that's just my two cents,
--Neil
Sorry Neil and Clark but I have to disagree on that point. You could be my fovrite designer form round 1 & 2 if your round 3 submission isn't up to snuff someone else is getting my vote. If that wasn't the case why not have the top 32 just do all the subsequent rounds at once and judge the whole body of work? Each round need to sink or swim on its own merits, but hey what do I know I'm just 1 vote...
crap Ninja'd by Caedwyr!
How the community takes prior rounds into account is up to the individual voter. I don't think there is a set tradition, nor is there any requirement. I have always focused on the round's submission and only in the event several submission are close in competing for the final recommendation do I look to prior rounds (you will see that I have even stated that very thing in my reviews). That said, I often note that if prior rounds were taken into account perhaps the voters may want a particular person to advance.
In the end, my vote goes to the best submissions of the round as I think it properly reflects the current state of the designer and people who can get through three rounds with B+/A- stuff consistently are better than someone who goes A+/A-/C in my view.
I don't think Neil is saying ignore the submission and pick the person. I think the point is vote for the monster, but remember what is really happening: the monster is a reflection of the designer and the designer at this stage is not perfect, that is why their growth and other factors all play a part. However, how you use prior round's successes or failures is up to you as an individual voter. But in the end you are really voting for a designer even when you are voting for the monsters. You are simply saying you are not weighing prior rounds when you are making that decision.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
allot... :p
Neil, as someone who is actually also looking at these boards for design talent, I get what you're saying. I'm actually working on a project I hope to leverage into a 3PP (Clark you kind of inspired me to go for it so thanks for that) and I've actually approached a few folk as possible creative partners. I based those approaches on allot more than just the design talent I've seen thus far, I researched each person I've approached and went for people that are talented but also in my opinion people that would be good to work with and that I believe will work well together.
I have run con games with 2-300 people in Whitewolf larps with a 24 person staff and I had a regular larp survive 5 years with a regular attendance of 80 people. I say this because I've learned the hard way out gamers that do not work well together when given responsibility. I've also managed people in the retail, restaurant, and call center environments and if this was called interview a designer I'd agree with your points and be more inclined to look at the entire body of work rather than round by round.
I'd look at the body of work outside the round in only situations where I have extra votes after the gotta votes are in and I'm left with a group of weak keeps.
This is Superstar and you are not going to win if you're a weak keep more than once. Please don't be offended Neil (you're actually one of my heroes, Fell Knight Queen is my jam) but I'm not sure 2009 you would do as well in this year's competition, I think the competition has gotten allot harder because people have had more time to develop year over year. The overall quality has gotten good enough where everyone has hits from the previous rounds and any misstep can send you packing and that's a good thing! I truly think you need to be good every round to deserve the title because if you aren't someone else will be.
I want the contest to become harder and harder every year, because that means people will be getting better at designing, which means there's more interest, which means winning will be more meaningful and produce even stronger talent. I don't want the next generation of great designers going to WotC, I want them here working on Pathfinder. I also intend to be one of the designers in the next great wave (so watch out.)
I'll see your 2 copper and raise you 2 silver (we allow string bets right!)
-Frank
Please don't be offended Neil (you're actually one of my heroes, Fell Knight Queen is my jam) but I'm not sure 2009 you would do as well in this year's competition, I think the competition has gotten allot harder because people have had more time to develop year over year. The overall quality has gotten good enough where everyone has hits from the previous rounds and any misstep can send you packing and that's a good thing! I truly think you need to be good every round to deserve the title because if you aren't someone else will be.
I think Neil would have little problem with any top 4 from any year except for year 1. Christine and Boomer and Jason and Rob are, in my view, the best top 4 we've ever had and Neil would have been able to hang with them. He might even have beaten them. That is the only year, including this year, where I would say Neil would not be the winner (I thought 2009 and 2010 were very solid, probably the next best set of final 4). Neil is that good. As a judge for all those years, take my word for it (Now, many of those top 4 have gone on to be great freelancers, really great ones, I'm just saying taking Neil from where he was at at the time of his adventure submission versus where others were at at that same time of their contest, Neil was just much more advanced at that time).
The quality has improved every year, but when I say that I don't mean the top 5 or 6, I mean the bottom 10 or 20. I think that is true this year, too. The floor has raised, not the ceiling. You have more really good contestants, but you don't have more obvious superstars in the making. You still don't get more than 4-6 a year and none of the recent top 4, while they have been good, are better than our first year. So while the floor has risen the ceiling has stayed about the same, in my view.
And if you want proof, when I started Legendary Games I made three calls: Neil, Jason and Boomer. I could have called any of the prior Superstar finalists. There is a reason I called those three. Then I called my pal Rob Lazaretti for cartography.
Clark you kind of inspired me to go for it so thanks for that
You're welcome and good luck!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Neil is saying ignore the submission and pick the person. I think the point is vote for the monster, but remember what is really happening: the monster is a reflection of the designer and the designer at this stage is not perfect, that is why their growth and other factors all play a part.
Exactly. By no means am I saying the work products in any round should be ignored. Quite the contrary, they must be taken into account. Just not in isolation. Or, in game terminology, I feel that a designer's cumulative talent (on display round by round) stacks. Each round's submission isn't a standalone "bonus" to be weighed independently of everything else...because each round is usually testing one of many different skills a Superstar freelancer will likely need. Even so, no one should expect a Superstar freelancer to be Superstar in every single one of them. Competent and capable in all of them? Yes. That's why if I see a guy stumble with his idea in one round, but his execution appears to be mostly there...and his ideas in the challenges of prior rounds are pretty innovative...I chalk that up to one bad round, but still not a bad designer who necessarily should be dropped.
I'll take Charlie Bell as this year's example. At its heart, the argopelter is an uninspired choice for the competition. It's not the super-sexy, see-what-I-can-do, put-all-my-design-talents-on-display kind of design choice for a monster round. The entry is, however, competently and capably executed. It's clear to me that Charlie knows what he's doing mechanically. And, based on that, I think he'd probably make a good workhorse kind of freelancer just based on that round's submission. But I don't want to just evaluate him based on that. I want to look back at what all of his prior submissions in the other rounds tell me about him, too. His archetype for the Green Knight was near or at the top of all the submissions for that round. And his wondrous item was pretty high up the favorites list, too. Thus, his body of work implies to me that he's got the strong, innovative Superstar ideas now and then. Just not every time out of the gate. Meanwhile, his execution is consistently Superstar.
I believe Clark has an established term for that. It's called A-level creativity with A-plus execution. And, quite often, that makes for the best kind of freelancer. Jason Nelson and I fall into that category (at least in how Clark has described us). And that approach has actually taken us pretty far. What I'm seeing from Charlie (and perhaps other competitors) is that he might have the same kind of potential. But, I won't know until I've seen what else he can do. If that's in the next round, great. Or, if it's what he does after he falls out of the competition and Paizo or some other 3PP gives him his first freelancing opportunity, that's fine, too. The only one of those outcomes I can influence is the former. And that's because I'll spend my vote on the designer and not just the monster.
That's my rationale, at least. And I apply it in every evaluation I do when deciding who to vote for in RPG Superstar...including guys like Jason Nelson, Mike Welham, Eric Morton, and so on, from prior years.
You have more really good contestants, but you don't have more obvious superstars in the making. You still don't get more than 4-6 a year and none of the recent top 4, while they have been good, are better than our first year.
I agree 100% with Clarktastic. The Top 4 from year 1 still stand head and shoulders above the rest of the rabble. They're the faces of Mt. Rushmoor for this contest.
I agree 100% with Clarktastic. The Top 4 from year 1 still stand head and shoulders above the rest of the rabble. They're the faces of Mt. Rushmoor for this contest.
I agree, too.
Jason Nelson is the man. I've made no secret I patterned my run through RPG Superstar 2009 by following in his footsteps and emulating some of the approaches and design choices I saw him make. He's been doing a mountain of work for Paizo in just about every single one of their major product lines. On top of that, he's the main guy carrying the pail for Legendary Games. And, if there's anything "legendary" about the products from LG, you better believe Jason had a hand in it, whether writing it, developing it, or providing design input and coordination on it.
Boomer is also the man. All you have to say is his last name and everyone knows who you're talking about. Off the scale creativity. A way with words that's virtually unmatched in his inspiring descriptions. And just one of the most personable, likable people you'll ever meet. Charismatic and a tour de force in the industry. He's not only a Paizo contributor, but he went on to brainstorm the Coliseum Morpheuon setting for Rite Publishing. He's a published fiction author. And he, too, is contributing to Legendary Games as a designer. The man is everywhere. And his stuff still rocks!
Rob McCreary is also the man. From his own mighty contributions to Paizo's products over the years, to his role on staff as a developer for the premiere product line with the Adventure Paths, he's gone on to do exactly what RPG Superstar is designed for--identifying an undiscovered talent who can have a mighty impact in the industry for years on end. He's doing exactly that. But, perhaps more importantly from my perspective, as my occasional developer, Rob helps make my stuff look that much better in print. And I can't thank him enough for it. He's not just good individually. He's also good enough to help others become better, as well.
Last but not least, Christine Schneider isn't "the man" because she's the woman. More importantly, she's also the winner. In an industry which is dominated by men, that's pretty significant all by itself. And, as much as all the guys I just listed above, you have to give Christine major props for a multitude of other reasons. First and foremost, she outlasted, outplayed, outmaneuvered, and outdesigned all those extremely talented guys during her run. That's no small feat. Look at who she was up against! Secondly, she did it during the very first year of RPG Superstar, a time when you couldn't follow in anyone's footsteps or know what was coming ahead of time. I'd say she rolled with the punches more than anyone else who's ever run the gauntlet. And, on top of all that, she did it with English as a second language, constantly striving to improve her writing as well as her designs. More than anyone else, I think Christine demonstrated the most growth over the course of the contest. And look where it got her...
So, there's no doubt that Year One of RPGSS was a magical time. The Top 4 from that competition are head and shoulders above anything we're likely to see again. They took the bull by the horns and they...were...awesome! In many ways, each and every one of them inspires me.
But that's just my...one, two, three...four!...four cents, ;-)
--Neil
I'm actually working on a project I hope to leverage into a 3PP (Clark you kind of inspired me to go for it so thanks for that) and I've actually approached a few folk as possible creative partners.
Dude!! =D
Good luck on that! I've seen some of your writing and concept chops on your Kingmaker edits and additions. You've got some talent, and I think you could make a pretty darn good chance of yourself at it.
Contributor; Publisher, Kobold Press; RPG Superstar Judge
|
Adam, I have some experience with anonymous voting rounds, which is how projects often get assigned for open design work at Kobold Press. And for the most part, it's not a factor when you are dealing with relatively new and unknown freelancers. People vote for the best-quality adventure pitch, or monster, because as that's what they want when it is published.
The exception to this is when people who ARE well-known pitch something. When Richard Pett pitches anonymously at Kobold Press, his pitches generally win a slot in the adventure anthology, because they are super-solid pitches. When he pitches without anonymity, he wins because voters know, "Oh, Richard Pett is going to ace this adventure."
Since RPG Superstar doesn't allow the established freelancers to compete (and is right to do so!), I would argue it's not a factor here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude!! =D
Good luck on that! I've seen some of your writing and concept chops on your Kingmaker edits and additions. You've got some talent, and I think you could make a pretty darn good chance of yourself at it.
Yeah those boards are where I learned that I'm a rockstar at adapting, expanding, and improving existing materiel. My critique thread here taught me I can give people meaningful feedback quickly and effectively. Unfortunately there isn't a RPG Super Editor contest thoguh and while I have grand ideas, I tend to overlook the execution flaws in my own work.
I'll keep swinging at this contest(and Valahalla Calling) until I get my 3PP off the ground. But if I'm honest with myself, my best design work is working off of other materiel and/or with partners. Same thing happened to me when I wrote stand up comedy routines, I need a sounding board in my process.
|
Contributor; Publisher, Kobold Press; RPG Superstar Judge
|
Adam, while I think some voters are casting votes on body of work, my impression is that a lot of voters just consider the current round. Which is a shame, in my opinion, but people are busy, not everyone wants to review a contestant's body of work each round, etc.
I think the people who vote on body of work is small, unfortunately.
GM_Solspiral, I know we're drifting off-topic a little, but I'm always looking for sharp editors and developers at Kobold Press. Send me a PM if you are interested in pursuing something like that.
Oh, and thank you for mentioning Valhalla Calling. The next one of those contests should go live this Spring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude!! =D
Good luck on that! I've seen some of your writing and concept chops on your Kingmaker edits and additions. You've got some talent, and I think you could make a pretty darn good chance of yourself at it.
Yeah those boards are where I learned that I'm a rockstar at adapting, expanding, and improving existing materiel. My critique thread here taught me I can give people meaningful feedback quickly and effectively. Unfortunately there isn't a RPG Super Editor contest thoguh and while I have grand ideas, I tend to overlook the execution flaws in my own work.
I'll keep swinging at this contest(and Valahalla Calling) until I get my 3PP off the ground. But if I'm honest with myself, my best design work is working off of other materiel and/or with partners. Same thing happened to me when I wrote stand up comedy routines, I need a sounding board in my process.
I know exactly how you feel. I don't enter this contest because I take a look at the ideas I come up with and say "this doesn't have any spark". Coming up with a seed idea in the first place is a struggle. I realized a long time ago that I'm a guy you want reviewing and editting, but not someone you want to rely on for initial creation.
But if I'm honest with myself, my best design work is working off of other materiel and/or with partners. Same thing happened to me when I wrote stand up comedy routines, I need a sounding board in my process.
Oh man do I know that feeling. I have several writing projects I'm involved in. One has stalled to near-death right out from the get-go, while the other two have seen some significant progress. The main difference? The first was a solo project I worked on on my own, the other two I had a co-writer and co-creator to bounce things off of, clear up plots with, hash over ideas with, and nudge/get to nudge me when one of us started feeling slack.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that with a partner I can pull just about anything off, while alone I just end up losing interest and motivation and stop halfway through.