I completely understand SKR's stated reasons for not having the archetype round this year. Archetypes are hard and may not be a good indication of being able to write a good adventure. Heck, I scrubbed out bad in that round last year and my entry was described as seeming more like an NPC than an archetype for PCs, so maybe I'm one of those.
But I guess I don't see why the second round was completely dropped and the other three moved up to fill the void. Isn't there something else that could fit the second round word count that would be more relevant for finding a good adventure writer?
I guess my biggest issue with the lack of the archetype round, or the organization round of 2012, or the villain/monster concept from previous years is that this way, each round after the first has a higher word count than the same round in previous years. 32 fully flushed out monsters at 500 to 600 words apiece was a lot to go through. It took me about 5 days of spare time to get through them all and I had to take notes to remember what I liked about each one so by the end I could vote. I got pretty fatigued toward the end and there is a chance I was not giving the final entries I read a totally fair shot at getting my vote. I'm feeling the same thing as I go through 16 encounters. Eight encounters is plenty to go through.
I don't know. Anyone else feel this way, or miss the fact that this year has one fewer round in it?
Yes. Yes I do miss the archetypes.
Sixteen encounters is a LOT to read through.
-Matt
It definitely feels like something is missing. And sixteen encounters is indeed a lot to wade through.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think an Organization round would be nice. That shows some writing chops aside from mechanics and allows the entrants to add a little bit of flair in a round.
Honestly, I thought the last organization round was fun, and was looking forward to it.
Well, that and I am better at coming up with, and writing things along those lines, than something needing a heavier mechanics hand.
If you could do freelance work for Flavor alone ... I would be a happy camper.
But you can't, obviously. So I try to come up with ideas with each round, and improve myself.
However, I really would like to see the organization round make a comeback.
The first year R2 was create a country and I liked the shape those entries gave to Golarion. The archtypes, villains, organizations filled a similar role. That is the part I miss. I am a little biased as fluff is easier than crunch for me.
However I have always struggled to read the entries in time (I am a slow reader) especially as I like to add (constructive?) comments on each.
I was just talking with a friend who wishes more people were commenting. It's hard to get a read on the favorites :) I think word-count is why.
Though over all time will be shortened, I do miss the flavor of previous R2s. :)
I did miss the archetype (or organization or villain) because it's fun, but does there NEED be another round in there? Usually the encounter round is 8 entries, of which 4 or 5 stand out. This year there were 16 entries, of which 4 or 5 stood out. Seems like the same thing was accomplished with ultimately less reading (because there is one fewer round).
What I did miss from previous years was consistent judges across rounds.
I think an Organization round would be nice. That shows some writing chops aside from mechanics and allows the entrants to add a little bit of flair in a round.
Honestly, I thought the last organization round was fun, and was looking forward to it.
Well, that and I am better at coming up with, and writing things along those lines, than something needing a heavier mechanics hand.
If you could do freelance work for Flavor alone ... I would be a happy camper.
But you can't, obviously. So I try to come up with ideas with each round, and improve myself.
However, I really would like to see the organization round make a comeback.
I'm with you Amy, I have said this on an earlier thread. It shows great creativity and a understanding of the game world to make a good organization.
I'd suggest a trap/haunt/ or chase round to replace archetypes.
Lets designers innovate in a way that remains relevant to adventure writing without a massive amount of text for round 3.
I agree I miss the archetype or organization round. Organizations could also be used to fit into a module. And actually, honestly, I feel like so could an archetype, because you can use it to flesh out an NPC.
No matter what--I agree it was a lot of monsters and encounters to read (I skipped voting on the monster round because an editing job came in and I did not have time to read all 32), and it does feel like SOMETHING is missing. OTOH, I dig them wanting to try something different--and not needing as many judges/rounds for other reasons.
My utter bias in this is that I feel far more comfortable designing classes and archetypes than anything else. Which may just mean I really should stop trying at Superstar and focusing on my strengths. (It is a worthy challenge of course to work on one's weaknesses, but maybe this isn't the best place to do it.) (Or focusing on my editing, but nobody ever wants to hire a freelance editor these days. Well, except the guy who just did. But I don't ever see on 3PP sites "we need an editor!")
I'd suggest a trap/haunt/ or chase round to replace archetypes.
Yeah, these might work. I liked the organization round in previous years as well and wouldn't mind seeing that return. Heck, I'd be happy with the return of the archetype round. I would also not be opposed to a spell, or even a second magic item round for the 2nd round of the competition. Maybe the second magic item round lifts the Wondrous Item restriction?
It just need something to whittle down the competitors before the 500 to 600 word mark. It is totally up to Paizo and the organizers, but I definitely think we, as fans of the competition, would like to see something smaller in the 32 competitor 2nd round.
Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
Archetypes were right to be scrubbed but it'd be nice to have another round to replace it. Perhaps making an NPC, be it a villain or ally.
It's different than making a monster, you need to worry about gear, you gave to write a tactics section, and there needs to be a tight background and RPing notes. And it's something you'll need to be good at for an adventure.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't have a preference to what the skipped round could have been, I do miss it. Not only do the rounds now simply have too much to read through (since each round now has a higher word count than the same round did in past years), but I think missing a Top 8 round is taking away an additional round of opportunity for the contestants to learn and develop. Each round gives them a chance to grow, and by truncating the process this year, that's removing some of that growth process.
Not only would the growth be good for the contestants, but for the voters as well - I've ready through half of the entries so far for encounters, and haven't found one I want to vote for. Having the best 8 of the 16 to read through would have made this round a lot more entertaining as a voter, and less of a grind.
On the other hand, making the top 8 without making the top 4 seems like a real bummer. You don't get a contract and can never try again. This prevents that from happening. Granted it only saves 4 people a year.
On the other hand, making the top 8 without making the top 4 seems like a real bummer. You don't get a contract and can never try again. This prevents that from happening. Granted it only saves 4 people a year.
Yeah, good point. But that could also be easily fixed by changing the rules for who can enter in following years, if this was the reason for them dropping a round from the competition. I'm not even sure why they limit it to those who have never made a top 8. I would think it would only be limited to whether the person has done professional design work in the past.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka JoelF847
|
I'm pretty sure there's a good number of top 8 who didn't make top 4 and who went on to be prolific freelancers though. It's not an automatic contract, but Paizo (and 3P publishers) seem quite happy giving the top 8 opportunities.
I'm pretty sure there's a good number of top 8 who didn't make top 4 and who went on to be prolific freelancers though. It's not an automatic contract, but Paizo (and 3P publishers) seem quite happy giving the top 8 opportunities.
I'm sure that's true, but I just think being published should be the disqualifier rather than a simple top 8 finish. But I don't make the rules and I'm sure Paizo has its reasons for the way it is. I'm just posting my thoughts to garner a discussion and to possibly make the future of RPGSS more appealing to the audience.
I'm pretty sure there's a good number of top 8 who didn't make top 4 and who went on to be prolific freelancers though. It's not an automatic contract, but Paizo (and 3P publishers) seem quite happy giving the top 8 opportunities.I'm sure that's true, but I just think being published should be the disqualifier rather than a simple top 8 finish. But I don't make the rules and I'm sure Paizo has its reasons for the way it is. I'm just posting my thoughts to garner a discussion and to possibly make the future of RPGSS more appeal
RPGSS is looking for new. The Top 8 have already been 'discovered' and they survived the first two eliminations.
Benner, Bruck, Russell, all fall into this category. Check out the designer credits on your Mythic Adventures or others to see their names. :)
Benner, Bruck, Russell, all fall into this category.
Right, but they have design credits and therefore should be excluded from the competition in my opinion.
... I just think being published should be the disqualifier rather than a simple top 8 finish.
It is not a huge deal to me, and doing away with the Top 8 round does avoid this possibility. I'm just questioning whether this was a reason for eliminating the Top 8 round or if there would be other solutions to the problem that would retain the five rounds, instead of four. Also, would Benner, Bruck, and Russell (and possibly other 5th through 8th finishers) been discovered and utilized if there were not a Top 8 round in their year of RPGSS? Possibly since Paizo will still have a ranked finish of the Top 16 this year.
Heck, I'm just supporting a smaller word count in round 2 and for that to ripple through the other rounds. Reading 32 monsters and 16 encounters is just too much in my opinion. I can't say for sure that this requires the return of the Top 8 round, but I would welcome a lower word count overall.
What was the reason to eliminate the archetype/organization/villain concept round?
I was really confused when I saw the encounter. I religiously read all the monsters entries and vote in an honest way, but this round there are too many words to read, to many unmbers too.
Benner, Bruck, Russell, all fall into this category.Right, but they have design credits and therefore should be excluded from the competition in my opinion.
The timeline was:
1. They made it to the Top 8.
2a. This got them noticed by Paizo.
2b. This also made them ineligible for later competitions.
3. They got design work because of 2a.
4. They became even more ineligible because of 3.
In other words, they weren't excluded because they have design credits, they were excluded because they made it to the Top 8.
What was the reason to eliminate the archetype/organization/villain concept round?
What was the reason to eliminate the archetype/organization/villain concept round?
I see.
If not much to ask, are not the majority of archetypes made by freelancer?
By the otehr hand, what about the villain/organization concept?
I realy like the rider of the blak steppe or that wizard tha made goelms.
Everything published by Paizo is written by freelancers, even if it's written by a staff member (very little is actually designed on the clock in the office).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I held off on commenting on this since I'm still in the contest and voting was still going on, but I wanted to weigh in because I'm a huge fan of Superstar as well as a participant (I stick around the forum year-round, even if it's just in the Nine Blazing Months thread)...
While I don't know if it needs to be archetypes/organization, I think the extra round is sorely missing. I agree with Nickolas that the higher word count is turning off some voters. I think 32 monsters at 600 words apiece and 16 encounters at 1,500 words were too much for a lot of voters to get to. *More on that below...*
I think going from 16 to 4 voters felt like too steep a drop. The judges only gave two designers unanimous recommendations, which mean it felt like there was a lot of rejection. I think voters pick up on that and it brings them down and makes them less interested in adding their comments, votes, etc. Previous years have had complaints that the judges weren't being positive enough and that it was bringing down the excitement for the contest.
I think the judges' specific comments were very fair for this past round (and I say that as someone who got three recommendations to not advance) but for a lot of people it boils down to the final recommendation for or against a design. I think this round when they had to say three-quarters of the time that they didn't think you should vote for someone, it feels negative even if the bulk of the comments were very positive (*please* don't read this as me talking badly about the judges, since I think they had an incredibly difficult challenge in this round and did an excellent job; I'm really worried this could come off as sour grapes and I don't want/mean it to at all). For that reason alone, I'd say find some way to bring back a Top 8 round.
I know SKR said organizations and archetypes didn't tell Paizo too much about potential designers, but I think they did help voters narrow the field and stay invested in the contest and more importantly the contestants, who they get to know better.
I think having more of a rules-light round (i.e. not archetypes) helps, as it really reduces the amount voters are reading, even if there is an extra round. I liked organizations for that reason -- you could just judge them by how cool they were, with minimal focus on rules and balance, and I think having a good organization can be relevant to whether people can do a good antagonist, which modules do need.
If organizations don't work, though, what about making Round 2 the location round? Everyone's got 400 words to create a cool new location on Golarion. They could do anything from an entire country (which would be risky of course, but it could possibly be underwater or outside the Inner Sea, since those areas haven't been developed) to a single building. Then instead of being location/map/encounter, Round 4 becomes more focused on the map and encounter itself -- perhaps requiring use of one of the R2 locations even as part of the twist.
Reason for concern?
During some down time, I decided to crunch some numbers:
In 2010, entries in the encounter round averaged 63 responses (ranging from a low of 52 to a high of 84)
In 2011, they averaged 54 responses (ranging from 31-76)
2012: 45 average (31-62)
2013: 22 average (15-29)
2014? So far it's 14.4 on average (with a range of 21-9 -- that last number means only *5* people beyond the judges commented on two of the entries; I'd argue these designers put in too much blood, sweat and tears into these entries for them to only get five people to comment)
I got more curious, so figured I'd run the last three years of monster rounds to see if there was a similar drop (the contest was a bit different before then, with villains and separate monster concept/stat block rounds, so it's hard to compare beyond that):
2012: 43.5 average responses
2013: 25.4 average responses
2014: 22.5 average responses (well, at least that drop wasn't that bad...)
I think that's a really worrisome trend. As would-be professional designers, we need the comments to improve. Further, while I know Paizo will always need freelancers, as a huge fan of the Superstar contest, I worry that they may decide this method of finding new writers isn't worth it if people aren't going to respond.
So what's the problem? I think the word count/early heavy crunch focus is part of it, as noted.
But I also wonder how much is the public voting. Our sample size is definitely small -- just two years -- but we've seen precipitous drops in comments in those two years. Are more people just deciding they don't need to follow once they and their favorite items don't get in under this format? Are some of the people who are just commenting on the non-Top 32 not participating as much in the rest of the contest? (I certainly was guilty of that last year with the items, and will make sure not to do that in future years.
I'm not sure. I wonder whether Paizo should look and find a different way to winnow down the number of entries the judges have to look at. I know voting's fun/interesting, but if it's hurting the overall contest (and I have no idea if this is in fact a cause-effect situation or just coincident), then I think they may need to try to find a different way to handle it. What that is, though, I don't know...
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
I wanted to comment on this but also held off for the same reason as Jacob. The reasons for which I think five rounds is better than four are:
a) If fewer people become ineligible to enter, there'll be more and more repeaters in the top 32, which means it's harder for any newer contestants to have a chance to advance. Also, the people who would have gotten the top 8 tag in previous years now only get top 16, and if you accumulate an endless string of top 32 and top 16 tags, I think it eventually becomes a burden rather than a badge of honor. I totally get it that the top 8 in a way get the raw deal -- can't enter again, are not guaranteed a deal. But I'm sure people who've gotten that far will get work if they're wiling to continue to work hard.
b) Cutting 75% of the contestants in one round is more unforgiving for designers who make a tiny small blunder. Of course, you could soften the curve by going 32 > 12 > 4. Also, top 12 would be a sweet new tag that would give a slightly stronger sense of accomplishment than top 16.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
Jacob, one of the reasons that there are fewer replies is that the top 32 are more afraid to say thanks in their own thread because of DQs. Ok, that maybe only accounts for 1 or 2 missing posts in each thread. And well, we don't comment on each other's entries so much anymore, something for which I'm probably partially responsible for. In 2012 and again this year, I urged contestants still in the running to refrain from saying anything that could be interpreted as a snide way to draw negative attention to another contestant's entry. (Because this is RPG Superstar not Rap Battle Superstar. :P )
Maybe these two things + any posts never written because of the lack of bumps contribute to the observed loss of replies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup, that's also a good point, Mikko, and one I meant to mention that got lost in the shuffle (I'd been working on that reply in my head for a few days -- I crunched those numbers during some free time on Saturday, I think -- and just put it "on paper" today).
I think there were some comments in 2012 that felt like some contestants putting down others' work, and that was IMO rightly frowned on. Add to that, Bob getting DQ'd for comments on his monster, and I think we're rightly scared of saying anything. You and I both held off on posting in this thread even though I don't think anything we said here could be construed as adding to our entries, which is I believe all that's against the rules.
The average number of comments for this year will obviously go up as the contestants now get a chance to reply (and I think if I don't advance, or even after my pitch is done if I do, I'll try to circle back and get to everyone) but it still seems like it's "quieter."
Maybe Paizo needs to find a way to take the reins off the contestants a little? I like the policy of not elaborating on our entries, no matter how tempting it is, but perhaps there's a middle ground between the almost complete radio silence of our day and the Gulga Cench situation of '09.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8
|
A few somewhat disjointed thoughts on the various topics brought up in this thread...
I think a villain concept round would make a good "round 2" if Paizo decided to bring back another round. 300-400 words of background, motivations/goals, plot hooks, and so on, but no mechanics. Good villains are essential for good adventures, after all!
Thanks for compiling those post numbers, Jacob. It's certainly interesting to see them laid out like that. I'd be interested in seeing how things look at the end of the contest, as I imagine some folks might go back and post more later (myself included).
As for things being "too quiet," I feel that the Know Direction interviews and bios were a great way to give the contestants a chance to talk without posting on the forums and I hope we see more like that in the future. Maybe they could be made more visible, such as by linking to bios/interviews in the entries themselves.
I like a villain concept idea -- I wouldn't think it would even need to be a single NPC, but could be a villainous organization.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8
|
I like a villain concept idea -- I wouldn't think it would even need to be a single NPC, but could be a villainous organization.
Nice! That's a cool idea. I wonder if the rules could be designed such that a contestant could submit an NPC OR an organization, so long as it was a villain/antagonist.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
I know I don't miss the organization round, though it's simply for the fact I hadn't developed a sense of what Superstar meant in rounds 2-5 and failed miserably. It's possible to get good at writing items because there's so much advice but the other rounds are stabs in the dark for for people who haven't been in the top 32 before. This year I created two organizations which served as a background for my entry, and my encounter seems to have been well received and nobody complained, so I guess I can write organizations after all.
Archetypes, oh I miss them, though I understand why the round was removed. Whenever archetypes are mentioned, I never fail to mention 2011. :P I hope I'll get to design them for Paizo someday.
I think all the rounds except the last one should have as little overlap with each other as possible, so that different sets of abilities are tested.
But I also wonder how much is the public voting. Our sample size is definitely small -- just two years -- but we've seen precipitous drops in comments in those two years. Are more people just deciding they don't need to follow once they and their favorite items don't get in under this format? Are some of the people who are just commenting on the non-Top 32 not participating as much in the rest of the contest?
Just speaking for myself...
I will note I commented more during the item round than now for several reasons:
- Voting hit while I was off work for the holidays and had time to post (I am trying to be diligent about not posting during working hours save during my lunch break, which is not long enough to really get into Superstar).
- I had a dog in the race because I submitted an item and therefore had energy to burn off. It's not that I'm disinterested in the contest because I'm no longer in it, but I have less to say about it.
I will note I did not vote during the Bestiary round because I was busy and didn't have time to read 32 monsters and vote for them. Post holiday rush.
I did vote during the encounter round, but haven't felt I have much to say.
I reckon the 1st round falling on the holiday season accounts for a LOT of the buzz--people just have more time.
I know I don't miss the organization round, though it's simply for the fact I hadn't developed a sense of what Superstar meant in rounds 2-5 and failed miserably. It's possible to get good at writing items because there's so much advice but the other rounds are stabs in the dark for for people who haven't been in the top 32 before.
I think the archetypes last year -- and even your own organizations this year -- show that the contestants will get better at tasks a second time around thanks to seeing earlier examples and hearing from the judges what works and what doesn't. I know my monster was a million times better this year, since I had the experience of 2012 to learn from (and of course another two years' worth of other contestants' monsters to study).
I think all the rounds except the last one should have as little overlap with each other as possible, so that different sets of abilities are tested.
I don't know. I hadn't learned of the contest for the first couple years -- when they were building stat blocks and lairs off the previous rounds' concepts -- and I think that'd be a lot of fun (I know I much preferred this year's encounter round with the R2 monsters over 2012's with the choices defined by a collection of minis). If you went with my idea for a location round, I'd totally like to see an R4 encounter requiring an R3 monster in an R2 location.
As a voter, I really missed round 2. It has always been sort of the world-building round, and I've always found those entries much more enjoyable and engaging than reading monsters (for what is worth, I also like NPC/villain rounds better than monsters).
The increased word-count really got to me; I've had very little spare time to follow the contest this year, so I could barely read all entries each round. That's why I did not leave many comments; my plate was full just sorting through all monsters and encounters. Still, I made an effort to be able to vote this round, out of respect for the contestants and admiration for the contest.
In a way, I think this new format lets more people showcase their abilities, since more people get to the encounter and monster round - which are the basis of adventure writing. However, I feel like it steals screen time from everyone, due to the sheer volume of work presented.
I understand that making a shorter contest is less demanding on Paizo judges and staff in general, but much like Jacob (Michaels), my greatest concern is that the contest may suffer from this format as a whole. Increasing the "burden" on voters might be scaring them away.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8
aka Jrcmarine
|
It's funny Jacob posted those stats because I was in the process of calculating the same thing. I am happy that I don't need to continue that line of work! Thanks, Jacob!
I believe eliminating the extra round makes it more difficult for voters to connect with a designer. That lack of a connection means voters are less forgiving when a designer makes a mistake. Additionally forcing voters to choose 25% as opposed to 50% when they don't have the opportunity to make a connection makes missteps have even more of an impact. Most of the voters that posted indicated that they would rather have been able to vote for 8 encounters instead of four. Those voters also indicated that encounters 4-9 were all pretty close. 16 to 4 just seems a bit too large a jump for my tastes and also makes it easier for contestants who already have a following to get ahead.
* I agree with Jacob W Michael's comments above, and as a voter the large swathes of text in the encounter round make the commentary rather difficult to manage. This year I merely voted in round 3.
* Biased in favor of a round 2 that brings back archetypes or introduces villains. It's a less wordy round that engages the voters, adds another feather to the prospective designer's caps, and shows everyone whether the contestants have spread in creativity and ideas. There are a few this year that seem to be stuck on a theme, and I'd like to see that more clearly if it is happening next year.
I'm pretty much agreeing with James Casey above on connection with contestants.
As for wanting to vote for more encounters, I struggled to find a fourth. Three I liked a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The archetype round has always been my least favorite of RPGSS. Honestly, I'm not a fan of archetypes in general, and usually prefer prestige classes to make a character more niche.
I liked the old organization round better. I think that did a better job of showing off the kind of writing chops that a freelancer nerds to write good adventures.
I think that a round of designing an interesting NPC, probably a villain, would be a more suitable round than either: NPCs are needed in just about any adventure, and there's an art to good NPC design that's subtly different than the other rounds.
Wayfinder does a good job of showcasing that design ability with its "Weal and Woe" series.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
kind of writing chops that a freelancer nerds to write good adventures
Most apt typo ever. :)
I'll stop in here to give a few comments on the subject. I do miss a second round that helps us get a sense of the designers. I DO NOT miss a round that is essentially a crunch-fest. On this I am in agreement with SKR that the archetypes were not very good indicators of adventure design. How often does a new archetype get added in an adventure module? It may have happened somewhere, but I personally have never encountered it.
I'll second the call for some sort of flavour-centric round addressing new locations, organizations, or villains. Each of these could utilize rules that already exist for a small amount of mechanical crunch. These are somewhat essential skills in adventure writing and could really whittle down the numbers before the monster and encounter rounds.
When reading flavour, a high word count isn't a real issue as a reader can quickly ascertain the full value of the writing. You read it and—if the writer has communicated his/her idea effectively—you know whether it was a good design or not. A few simple mechanical elements are easy enough to analyze. Not much time required at all.
When you start adding in things that rely on mechanics like monsters and encounters, it takes a lot longer to analyze and consider the ramifications of the same number of words. You have to consider how that many hit points and that AC will effect the length of the battle? How will this strategy or that hazard effect the flow of the encounter? The same number of words requires a much larger time commitment on the part of the voters.
This all results in less posting and more of a time commitment by those of us who participate. Once I finished doing my short-and-sweet reviews on the critique my item thread, I found that it was far more enjoyable reading a group of somewhat questionable magic items than reading through a group of decent to very good encounters. I have a lot of free time each year this contest is run and participate strongly. But that many encounters really gave me a large amount of burnout.
Keeping the voters engaged is as important to the strength of this contest as testing the participants. The larger the voter pool, the more the results of each vote will reflect the potential market. And ultimately that is what this contest is for: to find new freelancers that the market will love.
The average number of comments for this year will obviously go up as the contestants now get a chance to reply (and I think if I don't advance, or even after my pitch is done if I do, I'll try to circle back and get to everyone) but it still seems like it's "quieter."Maybe Paizo needs to find a way to take the reins off the contestants a little? I like the policy of not elaborating on our entries, no matter how tempting it is, but perhaps there's a middle ground between the almost complete radio silence of our day and the Gulga Cench situation of '09.
This is what I've been seeing as well, I think the no response rule is hurting the competition. If you can't speak your mind, something dies....
The rules are quite clear, don't elaborate on your whatever. I think we should trust the contestants enough to not break it, if they do, the consequences are quite clear.
Suggestion for next year
Round 1: Wondrous item (fluff and mechanics)
Round 2: 400 word anything (fluff)
Round 3: monster / villain (mechanics)
Round 4: encounter (fluff and mechanics)
Round 5: pitch (fluff)
Fluff isn't the best word for it, I know, but you get the idea.
I think the contestants are the ones being super cautious, though. There was no reason I couldn't have posted most of what I've said here before voting ended -- I didn't elaborate on my encounter at all. That said, I absolutely wasn't going to take ANY chance at potentially DQ'ing myself -- and it seems like Mikko and Mike felt the same way.
I think finding a middle ground will be really tricky for Paizo if that's something they want to do.
I still miss the archetype round! I feel like at least 12 or 14 of the archetypes last year showed great creativity and flavor in an otherwise purely mechanical round. It also helped weed through the monster round because at that point, mechanics mistakes weren't as easily brushed aside.
But I would be all for an organization or villain round. I just don't like going from 16 to 4. This year could evidence that 5 or 6 deserved a shot but 1 or 2 are ultimately going to miss the next round that really should have a chance. Granted, many people who are in position to hire those people as freelancers would be paying attention to the comments and the submissions but that is more of a longshot at the Top 16 level. Top 10 or Top 8 or even Top 6 would be much better (to me). Especially with the expanded judging pool.
Suggestion for next year
Round 1: Wondrous item (fluff and mechanics)
Round 2: 400 word anything (fluff)
Round 3: monster / villain (mechanics)
Round 4: encounter (fluff and mechanics)
Round 5: pitch (fluff)Fluff isn't the best word for it, I know, but you get the idea.
I would like to see a Story Feat for Round 2.
I would like to see a Story Feat for Round 2.
I think one idea in last year's What can we do better? thread was to have Round 2 be an organization round with a related feat to add a little bit of mechanical crunch.
(It's on Page 3, which is where SKR says "I think the Org round from that year was an "easy mode" challenge and didn't really help us find a better game designer--at least, not in the same way that an archetype or stat block round does.")