Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the spirit of Sean's awesome advice in previous years, I will provide a much shorter list of advice for this year. Note that in some cases, this advice might not help you make it past the voting to the point where the judges get to see your item, but if you do make it past, it will help you win me over. I may add more tips over time later in the thread and will probably collect them in this post also if I do.
1) Do not submit a wondrous item: If you submit a wondrous item, you will be rejected. If you submit a weapon that is basically a wondrous item that starts with "This +1 longsword..." then you have submitted a wondrous item.
2) Use the templates: I'm not going to reject you automatically if you use the templates but don't get a perfect 100% Template Fu score, but if you don't even give us some of the information we ask for (for instance submitting body text alone with no price, requirements, etc) that is an extremely bad sign.
3) Watch your spelling and grammar: It makes you seem unprofessional if there are numerous spelling and grammar errors, and if you have, for instance, blatant misspellings that could be caught by a spellchecker, it makes it seem like you didn't take the time to ensure the quality of your submission. Misspelling a weird Golarion name that isn't in the spellchecker is more understandable.
4) Staves are the hard option this year: Staves might seem to be the easiest option on the surface, in that you can pick a few spells and call it a staff. However, in reality, making a Superstar staff is going to be harder than any of the other types. If you actually do so, and you make an item that is both Superstar and distinctly an item that fills the staff design space (as opposed to a rod, for instance) I will take notice. But that's if you both succeed and make it past the voters. Take this path at your own risk.
5) Consider who can use your item: Making an item incredibly expensive or limiting your item to a tiny niche (such as warpriests of Desna only, or something like that) is quite risky. On the one hand, it might seem like a higher price tag makes it easy to give a crazy and exciting power that seems more Superstar to you, but on the other hand, if you can do that with a lower price tag, you've made an item that is much more usable throughout a campaign, and you've demonstrated your own skill more so than with the enormously expensive item.
6) Beware of using odd rules from obscure books, and if you do so anyway, be sure to cite it: For instance, if you created a mortifying armor that started talking about its effects on rituals of mortification out of the blue, with detailed rules text that interacts with the nuances of the text in Chronicle of the Righteous, then you need to cite Chronicle of the Righteous there so that people have a chance of figuring out what your item does. Even then, someone voting on your item probably doesn't have the book, so they're likely to vote you down, since they won't be able to figure out what your item does.
7) Think like an author, not like a player or a GM: Designing something that sparks your own excitement is a great way to tap into a wellspring of awesome and come up with a Superstar item. But beware when you do this; if the reason the item excites you is how thrilled you are at the power the item would have were you to own such an item, you'll fall into this trap, as you're more likely to design the item for the wrong reasons and wind up with an item that is way too powerful or that falls into too much of a niche (see #5 above).
8) Even if you have enough wordcount for it, don't use your wordcount to explain your item, or try to convince the reader: For instance, if you include a note that says "Note: Even though helms are usually a wondrous item, my dwarven boulder helmet is still a weapon because that's actually a type of weapon, so don't vote it down for being a wondrous item, OK? Notice how the powers are all weapon related and how tightly the dwarf theme connects each one. It's a work of art, man." In that case, you're right. A dwarven boulder helmet indeed is a weapon. If you just made it and didn't try to explain, I wouldn't have downvoted you for submitting it or rejected it as a judge. But now I will.
9) Don't outthink yourself: Sometimes you have the item perfect and then you ruminate on it for too long and you outthink yourself and change something that actually makes it worse. It's one of the hardest things you'll ever have to do as a freelancer, but you need to be able to figure out the time when it's just ready to send, after which more time is going to hurt you. As people, we like to abstract the world in such a way that more time in means more effect out (it's why we love progress bars even though many progress bars are just guesses to give the illusion of progress), and figuring out when that isn't true is really hard. Glad that's you guys who have to figure it out this year and not me!
More possibly to come.
Oceanshieldwolf Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 |
Mikko Kallio RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 |
1) Do not submit a wondrous item: If you submit a wondrous item, you will be rejected. If you submit a weapon that is basically a wondrous item that starts with "This +1 longsword..." then you have submitted a wondrous item.
Can you elaborate on this one? What is a "weapon that is basically a wondrous item" like? Are you talking about magic items that are not mechanically wondrous items but fill the same design space as wondrous items instead of doing things appropriate for weapons, rings, staves, etc.?
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
Mark Seifter wrote:1) Do not submit a wondrous item: If you submit a wondrous item, you will be rejected. If you submit a weapon that is basically a wondrous item that starts with "This +1 longsword..." then you have submitted a wondrous item.Can you elaborate on this one? What is a "weapon that is basically a wondrous item" like? Are you talking about magic items that are not mechanically wondrous items but fill the same design space as wondrous items instead of doing thing appropriate for weapons, rings, staves, etc.?
Remember in previous years where sometimes a wondrous item was actually a weapon in disguise? It's the reverse. The below is not a real submission, and also formatted hastily as an example, so don't use this as a template!
Sword of Tricks
Aura faint (gray or rust) or moderate (tan) conjuration; CL 3rd (gray), 5th (rust), 9th (tan)Slot —; Price 5,715 gp (gray); 10,815 gp (rust); 18,315 gp (tan)
Description
This +1 longsword has a hilt that appears normal. Anyone reaching into the hilt feels a small, fuzzy ball. If the ball is removed and tossed up to 20 feet away, it turns into an animal. The animal serves the character who drew it from the hilt for 10 minutes (or until slain or ordered back into the hilt), at which point it disappears. It can follow any of the commands described in the Handle Animal skill.Each of the three kinds of sword of tricks produces a different set of animals. Use the following table to determine what animals can be drawn out of each.
Gray Sword Rust Sword Tan Sword
d% Animal d% Animal d% Animal
01–30 Bat 01–30 Wolverine 01–30 Grizzly bear
31–60 Rat 31–60 Wolf 31–60 Lion
61–75 Cat 61–85 Boar 61–80 Heavy horse
76–90 Weasel 86–100 Leopard 81–90 Tiger
91–100 Riding dog — — 91–100 Rhinoceros
The heavy horse appears with harness and tack and accepts the character who drew it from the hilt as a rider.Animals produced are always random, and only one may exist at a time. Up to 10 Animals can be drawn from the hilt of a sword of tricks each week, but no more than two per day.
Construction Requirements
Craft Magic Arms and Armor, summon nature's ally II (gray), summon nature's ally III (rust), or summon nature's ally V (tan); Cost 3,015 gp (gray); 5,565 gp (rust); 9,315 gp (tan)
Mikko Kallio RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 |
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
Hahah, ok, now I see what you meant. :) Thanks, Mark!
Yup. Basically, if it's obviously just your wondrous item submission with some weapon information replacing the item description, it will be clear to the judges.
Now, if you take the seed of your wondrous item idea and transform it into something cool that fits in the weapon design space, that's totally awesome!
Grumpus RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 |
I also am confused about tip #1.
See the weapon Frostbrand for example:
This +3 frost greatsword sheds light as a torch when the temperature drops below 0° F. At such times it cannot be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Its wielder is protected from fire; the sword absorbs the first 10 points of fire damage each round that the wielder would otherwise take.
A frost brand extinguishes all nonmagical fires in a 20-foot radius. As a standard action, it can also dispel lasting fire spells, but not instantaneous effects. You must succeed at a dispel check (1d20 +14) against each spell to dispel it. The DC to dispel such spells is 11 + the caster level of the fire spell.
To me, I can totally see a wondrous item like an icicle that does all the things this item can. (except the obvious +3frost)
What does this item have that seperates it from just a magic weapon with a wondrous item tacked on?Owen K. C. Stephens Modules Overlord |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grumpus, just as Sean's advice in past years mentioned about wondrous items, just because we have an item in the CRB doesn't mean that item would be a good Superstar entry.
That said, Mark's "Sword of Tricks" does not manage to tie its magic power into it's existence at all. It's just a magic sword that then has totally unrelated powers. Frostbrand takes elements tied to magic swords (illumination, frost ability), and ties them to further powers (frost protects you from, and can extinguish flames).
Summoning animals is not, by itself, always a wondrous item power. But if you want a weapon (or armor) to summon creatures, you need to find a way to tie it to the theme of the sword/armor.
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
I also am confused about tip #1.
See the weapon Frostbrand for example:
frostbrand wrote:
This +3 frost greatsword sheds light as a torch when the temperature drops below 0° F. At such times it cannot be concealed when drawn, nor can its light be shut off. Its wielder is protected from fire; the sword absorbs the first 10 points of fire damage each round that the wielder would otherwise take.
A frost brand extinguishes all nonmagical fires in a 20-foot radius. As a standard action, it can also dispel lasting fire spells, but not instantaneous effects. You must succeed at a dispel check (1d20 +14) against each spell to dispel it. The DC to dispel such spells is 11 + the caster level of the fire spell.To me, I can totally see a wondrous item like an icicle that does all the things this item can. (except the obvious +3frost)
What does this item have that seperates it from just a magic weapon with a wondrous item tacked on?
As with Sean's list, some printed items in the CRB may not follow all of my tips. For instance, longsword, cold iron masterwork in specific items is not going to win this contest. In the case of the frostbrand, the theming of how the abilities work together with the frostiness, and the way it produces its effects bring it more towards the weapon design space. These seem like powers that work as extensions of its frost ability. I can use that iciness from the weapon's frost weapon ability to put out fires and holding it protects me from fire. Compare to if it was a +1 greatsword that granted the wielder a +10 foot enhancement bonus to movement speed and a +5 competence bonus on Acrobatics checks.
EDIT: Also, I think the fact that Owen and I independently gave the same basic explanation at the same time strengthens both points, particularly since we are 2 of the 3 judges for round 1 this year.
Grumpus RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 |
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
So you guys are saying 'Frostbrand' would be a better submission than 'Sword of Tricks' but would still be lacking as a superstar entry?
Precisely. I would immediately reject sword of tricks for being a poor attempt to shoehorn a previously-written wondrous item entry into a weapon. I would consider frostbrand on its merits against the other items, though admittedly, it likely wouldn't reach top 32.
Owen K. C. Stephens Modules Overlord |
Grumpus RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 |
frank gori RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Champion Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 aka GM_Solspiral |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Summoning animals is not, by itself, always a wondrous item power. But if you want a weapon (or armor) to summon creatures, you need to find a way to tie it to the theme of the sword/armor.
Irate Armadillo sling- BAM, This sling transforms sling bullets into pissed off armadillos.
feel free to use that one fellow competitors
(tongue firmly in cheek)
Jacob W. Michaels RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 aka motteditor |
Raisse Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
What about the case of the base item being a Wondrous Item that can explicitly be enchanted as a weapon? Would a specific magic weapon that uses a wondrous item (instead of say, a longsword) as its base item be within the rules?
Even if it is allowed, it still may be treading dangerously close to the public's auto-reject pile.
Edit:
For example:
The Bladed Belt from Ultimate Equipment specifically says it can be enchanted as a piercing and slashing weapon.
A specific magic weapon version could be something like:
Chained Fury
This adamantine bladed belt (Ultimate Equipment) is made of linked octagonal plates. When used to transform into a two-handed weapon, it acts as a +2 furious version of that weapon. Furthermore, the wearer can draw and transform the belt into a weapon as a swift action, by expending 4 rounds of rage.
Obviously, this is a horribly written and formatted item. Its only purpose is to provide an example of a wondrous item being used to create a specific magic weapon.
Owen K. C. Stephens Modules Overlord |
Garrick Williams RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8 aka Cyrad |
The 1st advice still feels a little vague to me. I'm guessing the weapon's use or form should play a major role in its special ability?
It feels weird that I was worried that one of my items would be too much like a weapon, and now I'm worried a converted version of that item is too much like a wondrous item.
Radsworth |
I think it can probably summed up as this..
Is the weapons main focus hitting things and powers that revolve around hitting? (with *other* powers perhaps.)
If so, its probably a weapon.
If the weapon is just a +1 weapon that has 400,000 gp worth of monster summoning powers, its a wondrous item that can be used as a weapon and not the other way around.
The Golux Star Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
6) Beware of using odd rules from obscure books, and if you do so anyway, be sure to cite it: For instance, if you created a mortifying armor that started talking about its effects on rituals of mortification out of the blue, with detailed rules text that interacts with the nuances of the text in Chronicle of the Righteous, then you need to cite Chronicle of the Righteous there so that people have a chance of figuring out what your item does. Even then, someone voting on your item probably doesn't have the book, so they're likely to vote you down, since they won't be able to figure out what your item does.
Does this mean that things that use or require spells from obscure books should be cited, and if so, how?
Anthony Adam Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 |
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
Mark Seifter wrote:6) Beware of using odd rules from obscure books, and if you do so anyway, be sure to cite it: For instance, if you created a mortifying armor that started talking about its effects on rituals of mortification out of the blue, with detailed rules text that interacts with the nuances of the text in Chronicle of the Righteous, then you need to cite Chronicle of the Righteous there so that people have a chance of figuring out what your item does. Even then, someone voting on your item probably doesn't have the book, so they're likely to vote you down, since they won't be able to figure out what your item does.Does this mean that things that use or require spells from obscure books should be cited, and if so, how?
I'm less concerned about construction requirements than I am for something than means that your item is speaking in tongues to anyone who doesn't own a particular Campaign Setting or Player Companion, and those voters can't really be sure why, as they don't even know what it is they don't know.
Anthony Adam Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 |
I believe referring the book in round brackets?/bracers? - not sure what US English calls them - in the description text is okay too.
But you should only need to do it once, the first time you refer to the thing that's from the obscure thing needing to be referenced.
If the thing is a rule type of thing, check the PRD, if it's on there then it is more easily found by people who don't own the book being referenced. This doesn't stop you needing to reference the book, but does mean you can have confidence it won't necessarily dissuade public voters from voting for you.
But, for setting type references, yeah, not only do you need to reference the right book, you have another danger too. If you reference the Golarion setting/lore and get it wrong, even by a tiny little bit, the public voters will spot it - they are voracious about the setting and lore, so getting it wrong will likely hurt your votes.
RonarsCorruption Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 9 |
James Raine RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8 aka FaxCelestis |
Mikko Kallio wrote:Remember in previous years where sometimes a wondrous item was actually a weapon in disguise? It's the reverse. The below is not a real submission, and also formatted hastily as an example, so don't use this as a template!Mark Seifter wrote:1) Do not submit a wondrous item: If you submit a wondrous item, you will be rejected. If you submit a weapon that is basically a wondrous item that starts with "This +1 longsword..." then you have submitted a wondrous item.Can you elaborate on this one? What is a "weapon that is basically a wondrous item" like? Are you talking about magic items that are not mechanically wondrous items but fill the same design space as wondrous items instead of doing thing appropriate for weapons, rings, staves, etc.?
I'm going to chime in here and say that, as a voter, I'll not only be downvoting weapon-is-actually-wondrous-items, but also weapon-is-really-another-weapon-or-armor. Morphic weaponry and armor is such a tapped out design space that it would really take an incredible item to get that through.
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it can probably summed up as this..
Is the weapons main focus hitting things and powers that revolve around hitting? (with *other* powers perhaps.)
If so, its probably a weapon.
If the weapon is just a +1 weapon that has 400,000 gp worth of monster summoning powers, its a wondrous item that can be used as a weapon and not the other way around.
Here's another way to look at it. If you want to be a Superstar with a weapon, then your thought should probably be, "Oh my gosh! Now that I can make a weapon, a whole new design space just opened up, and now I can try this concept that just couldn't work as a wondrous item." If you are instead thinking "Oh great, I already had a wondrous item. Oh well, I can just make it a weapon or armor and keep the same power. It's not like you couldn't put those powers on a weapon or armor, since you could theoretically put any power on any item" then that's not so good.
Rose Stack RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka mechaPoet |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While this is a little more nitpick-ey, be careful with your brackets. You should write spellnamefromadvancedninjaship (Advanced Ninjaship), and not spellnamefromadvancedninjaship (Advanced Ninjaship).
The difference between these is really hard to see without looking at the post formatting. :P
For clarity: the difference appears to be that the first example does not have italicized parentheses, but the second one does.
JJ Jordan |
RonarsCorruption wrote:While this is a little more nitpick-ey, be careful with your brackets. You should write spellnamefromadvancedninjaship (Advanced Ninjaship), and not spellnamefromadvancedninjaship (Advanced Ninjaship).The difference between these is really hard to see without looking at the post formatting. :P
For clarity: the difference appears to be that the first example does not have italicized parentheses, but the second one does.
I think the judges would let that one slide. Far worse template errors have been made in previous Top 32s.
Rose Stack RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka mechaPoet |
Covent Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 |
6) Beware of using odd rules from obscure books, and if you do so anyway, be sure to cite it: For instance, if you created a mortifying armor that started talking about its effects on rituals of mortification out of the blue, with detailed rules text that interacts with the nuances of the text in Chronicle of the Righteous, then you need to cite Chronicle of the Righteous there so that people have a chance of figuring out what your item does. Even then, someone voting on your item probably doesn't have the book, so they're likely to vote you down, since they won't be able to figure out what your item does.
Just to give a concrete example, I believe that what Mark is referring to is something like my last years item. In it I used the honor system from Ultimate Campaign. 99% of the feedback I got centered around the fact that the honor system is incredibly niche and that not many people were familiar with it, so I was down voted.
I was told several times that while it was tightly written it was just too niche. I cannot blame people at all.
Hope this helps!
P.S. Please do not take this in any way as whining, the comments were in my opinion correct and very helpful as they illustrated to me a pitfall in the contest now that it has a voting round. Also while that was the majority of commentary, it was not all that was wrong with my item.
P.P.S. Thanks Mark for the excellent advice!
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
Mark Seifter wrote:6) Beware of using odd rules from obscure books, and if you do so anyway, be sure to cite it: For instance, if you created a mortifying armor that started talking about its effects on rituals of mortification out of the blue, with detailed rules text that interacts with the nuances of the text in Chronicle of the Righteous, then you need to cite Chronicle of the Righteous there so that people have a chance of figuring out what your item does. Even then, someone voting on your item probably doesn't have the book, so they're likely to vote you down, since they won't be able to figure out what your item does.Just to give a concrete example, I believe that what Mark is referring to is something like my last years item. In it I used the honor system from Ultimate Campaign. 99% of the feedback I got centered around the fact that the honor system is incredibly niche and that not many people were familiar with it, so I was down voted.
I was told several times that while it was tightly written it was just too niche. I cannot blame people at all.
Hope this helps!
P.S. Please do not take this in any way as whining, the comments were in my opinion correct and very helpful as they illustrated to me a pitfall in the contest now that it has a voting round. Also while that was the majority of commentary, it was not all that was wrong with my item.
P.P.S. Thanks Mark for the excellent advice!
Yep, and there are things out there in items obscure and niche enough to make the UCampaign honor rules look like a +5 on Perception checks in comparison.
Jacob Trier RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8 |
Covent wrote:Yep, and there are things out there in items obscure and niche enough to make the UCampaign honor rules look like a +5 on Perception checks in comparison.Mark Seifter wrote:6) Beware of using odd rules from obscure books, and if you do so anyway, be sure to cite it: For instance, if you created a mortifying armor that started talking about its effects on rituals of mortification out of the blue, with detailed rules text that interacts with the nuances of the text in Chronicle of the Righteous, then you need to cite Chronicle of the Righteous there so that people have a chance of figuring out what your item does. Even then, someone voting on your item probably doesn't have the book, so they're likely to vote you down, since they won't be able to figure out what your item does.Just to give a concrete example, I believe that what Mark is referring to is something like my last years item. In it I used the honor system from Ultimate Campaign. 99% of the feedback I got centered around the fact that the honor system is incredibly niche and that not many people were familiar with it, so I was down voted.
I was told several times that while it was tightly written it was just too niche. I cannot blame people at all.
Hope this helps!
P.S. Please do not take this in any way as whining, the comments were in my opinion correct and very helpful as they illustrated to me a pitfall in the contest now that it has a voting round. Also while that was the majority of commentary, it was not all that was wrong with my item.
P.P.S. Thanks Mark for the excellent advice!
Incidentally, a +5 competency bonus was also so common among items in previous contests that it evolved into a running joke with the voting crowd. Think long and hard before you add a +5 bonus, especially a competence bonus to your item.
Joseph Kellogg RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 aka RainyDayNinja |
Incidentally, a +5 competency bonus was also so common among items in previous contests that it evolved into a running joke with the voting crowd. Think long and hard before you add a +5 bonus, especially a competence bonus to your item.
Yeah, and a lot of those +5 bonuses were to things like Profession (farmer)... as if a farmer who had 10000 gp to spend would invest in becoming a marginally more competent farmer, rather than retiring in luxury.
Template Fu |
I'd also like to know if the proper source reference should include the full title?
SpellFromSettingBook (SettingBook)
vs
SpellFromSettingBook (Pathfinder Campaign Setting: SettingBook)
Since you can only refer to Paizo products, I think just the name will be enough, e.g. Inner Sea World Guide.
I certainly won't ding you either way in my reviews on that point, it's your word count you're eating ;)
Ambrosia Slaad Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 |
...1) Do not submit a wondrous item: If you submit a wondrous item, you will be rejected. If you submit a weapon that is basically a wondrous item that starts with "This +1 longsword..." then you have submitted a wondrous item.
It's funny... I started off with IMHO, a pretty good idea, but by the time I got done writing and re-re-re-re-writing it, it now reads almost like this example. Augh!
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
I have a brand new tip for you.
8) Even if you have enough wordcount for it, don't use your wordcount to explain your item, or try to convince the reader: For instance, if you include a note that says "Note: Even though helms are usually a wondrous item, my dwarven boulder helmet is still a weapon because that's actually a type of weapon, so don't vote it down for being a wondrous item, OK? Notice how the powers are all weapon related and how tightly the dwarf theme connects each one. It's a work of art, man." In that case, you're right. A dwarven boulder helmet indeed is a weapon. If you just made it and didn't try to explain, I wouldn't have downvoted you for submitting it or rejected it as a judge. But now I will.
This leads to #9, which #8 is a subset of.
9) Don't outthink yourself: Sometimes you have the item perfect and then you ruminate on it for too long and you outthink yourself and change something that actually makes it worse. It's one of the hardest things you'll ever have to do as a freelancer, but you need to be able to figure out the time when it's just ready to send, after which more time is going to hurt you. As people, we like to abstract the world in such a way that more time in means more effect out (it's why we love progress bars even though many progress bars are just guesses to give the illusion of progress), and figuring out when that isn't true is really hard. Glad that's you guys who have to figure it out this year and not me!
Garrett Guillotte Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Corollary of 9: Don't focus-group it. Feedback is valuable, but not when it starts to dilute your item. You want feedback that catches flaws in the concept or description that are in your blind spot. You don't want feedback that turns your item into something that caters to a specific GM, PC, or situation—or worse, something that turns a tight design into something too complex or broad.
This can be difficult to suss out, and "go with your gut" sadly doesn't work for everyone. Just try to critically examine the feedback you get and take advantage of tips that fix clear bugs and strengthen your own opinion of your item. Try to understand why they provided that feedback. It's OK to disregard someone's advice, even if you trust them, when you strongly believe that advice weakens your submission.
Mark Seifter Designer , Marathon Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Corollary of 9: Don't focus-group it. Feedback is valuable, but not when it starts to dilute your item. You want feedback that catches flaws in the concept or description that are in your blind spot. You don't want feedback that turns your item into something that caters to a specific GM, PC, or situation—or worse, something that turns a tight design into something too complex or broad.
This can be difficult to suss out, and "go with your gut" sadly doesn't work for everyone. Just try to critically examine the feedback you get and take advantage of tips that fix clear bugs and strengthen your own opinion of your item. Try to understand why they provided that feedback. It's OK to disregard someone's advice, even if you trust them, when you strongly believe that advice weakens your submission.
I agree with your corollary in just about everything except its name, as sometimes a focus group might give you the sort of feedback you want. I would call it Don't groupthink it.
Mikko Kallio RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 |
9) Don't outthink yourself: Sometimes you have the item perfect and then you ruminate on it for too long and you outthink yourself and change something that actually makes it worse. It's one of the hardest things you'll ever have to do as a freelancer, but you need to be able to figure out the time when it's just ready to send, after which more time is going to hurt you. As people, we like to abstract the world in such a way that more time in means more effect out (it's why we love progress bars even though many progress bars are just guesses to give the illusion of progress), and figuring out when that isn't true is really hard. Glad that's you guys who have to figure it out this year and not me!
Very good advice. And reminds me of something I've learned over the years in RPGSS and later as a freelancer...
Two things actually.
1) Spending more time working on something usually adds to its complexity. But you should strive toward the opposite: each iteration should make the item simpler, more straightforward to use, until you only have left what the item really needs. What also happens easily is that first you add something, then you remove something, then add again, and so on. It can be an endless process.
I'll quote one of the greatest minds that ever lived: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
Most of my favorite items in RPGSS have been those that do only one thing -- and do that one thing well.
2) One of the most valuable skills a designer can learn is to view one's own creations as if they were someone else's. Only then you can view them with the objectivity needed to take your design to the next level. You usually need to let your item sit for a while before you can look at it objectively; the less experienced you are, the more time it'll take.
Often you don't have that much time. That's why it's good to have reliable people at your disposal (sometimes called a "pit crew" in the context of RPGSS) to review your work.
Even after you learn to look at your own work reasonably objectively, it is a good idea to pick other people's brain from time to time.
But what's the best way to learn that skill? Review other people's work. Very soon you'll start seeing the same things (good and bad) in your own work and you know what to do.
Scott Fernandez RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7 aka primemover003 |
Mike Kimmel RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8 |
Sean McGowan RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32, 2011 Top 4 , Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Marathon Voter Season 9 aka DankeSean |
Garrett Guillotte wrote:I agree with your corollary in just about everything except its name, as sometimes a focus group might give you the sort of feedback you want. I would call it Don't groupthink it.Corollary of 9: Don't focus-group it. Feedback is valuable, but not when it starts to dilute your item. You want feedback that catches flaws in the concept or description that are in your blind spot. You don't want feedback that turns your item into something that caters to a specific GM, PC, or situation—or worse, something that turns a tight design into something too complex or broad.
This can be difficult to suss out, and "go with your gut" sadly doesn't work for everyone. Just try to critically examine the feedback you get and take advantage of tips that fix clear bugs and strengthen your own opinion of your item. Try to understand why they provided that feedback. It's OK to disregard someone's advice, even if you trust them, when you strongly believe that advice weakens your submission.
Can't agree with this one hard enough. While I'm extremely grateful to the small panel of friends I had give me feedback on my round 2 entry ideas back in my first year as a contestant, I really needed to know when to step back and make a decision independently from them. "Well, friend A likes monster 1 the most, and Friend B liked Monster 3 the most, but they both liked Monster 2 as their second-favorite, so obviously that's the one I should go with because nobody dislikes it...
When you go with the average opinion, you get an average entry. I made notes to not do that the next year.
Anthony Adam Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No 9, my nemesis every year - THIS IS A REALLY HARD HABIT TO BREAK
I speak from experience, my entry this year, after going round my review pit crew and being thumbed up, got looked at again by myself.
A long hard look, and I ended up...
CUTTING IT IN HALF!
Just so you know, old hands suffer from this as much as the new ones :)
Garrick Williams RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16 , Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8 aka Cyrad |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) Spending more time working on something usually adds to its complexity. But you should strive toward the opposite: each iteration should make the item simpler, more straightforward to use, until you only have left what the item really needs. What also happens easily is that first you add something, then you remove something, then add again, and so on. It can be an endless process.
I'll quote one of the greatest minds that ever lived: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
Pardon me if I add to that quote with a favorite of mine.
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
If you can make a cool item that does one iconic thing without a lot of moving parts, that's the mark of a great designer to me. Try to keep it simple but highly effective. Making the item complicated will not impress. I've seen many items create really complicated interactions that require an entire paragraph to explain when the designer could have simplified them to a combat maneuver. I've seen many add extraneous bits that did nothing but distract from the item's main purpose. The more you can do with less, the better. Remember there's a difference between depth and complexity. Some of the most well designed content I've ever seen had incredible depth with minimal complexity.
Mikko Kallio RPG Superstar 2014 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Dedicated Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9 |
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Also a very good quote. Wise words such as these apply to (nearly?) all kinds of design, undiluted by the intervening decades.
Lightminder Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Advice from a wounded combatant passing you as you run to the struggle: take some time to read suggestions a clarifications of expectations before clicking send. I gleefully created a badly formatted spell on a chain and missed the opportunity to integrate a few simple refinements... Ah regret. Learning to walk starts with falling on your diaper.