So far I've seen....

[frank gori]

You have to win the public without losing the judges... I suspect this is why favorites of mine miss top 32 every year.

[Sir William]

That is clever and simple.

[Cthulhudrew]

Anthony Adam wrote:

Items that are camping items tend to be alarm based, auto watching based, tents, campfires, and generally very boring for one of the quiet moments of the game.

Don't forget the ones that reduce camping to mere fractions of the game day.

[GeneticDrift]

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Ohhhh, a "RPG Superstar Round 1 Entry"

which one? There are a few.

[Cthulhudrew]

Drejk wrote:

Interesting, I voted for an item out of pair, got them again immediately with reversed places - but the time count was only about 20 seconds.

I've seen that happen a couple of times. I think it might be a result of a vote not going through correctly the first time and the system resetting. (Though I don't know, and would be very interested to know if it is a bug or not.)

[R D Ramsey]

Finally, a shield that I like! And its power is a clever outgrowth of the uses of a shield.

[Tripp Elliott]

GeneticDrift wrote:

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

Ohhhh, a "RPG Superstar Round 1 Entry"

which one? There are a few.

More than one?

[Gennerik]

I think my voting experience boils down to three different match-ups.

Really bad item vs something else - In this case, the item I start reading is just so bad with major flaws in understanding how the game is played, I just vote for the other item. I figure in this case the other item has to be better, and if it isn't, I would probably have picked the "not a real vote" option.

Moderate item vs moderate item - For this scenario, the first item I read doesn't immediately grab me, so I read the second and then weigh my thoughts on them both. This is the most common case.

Keep item vs something else - When this happens and the first item makes me so excited that I don't care what the second item is, that says to me "Superstar!". I never end up reading the second item (at least if this is the first time the keeper item has come my way), and while I allow for the possibility that the second item could be better, I don't feel that I could properly evaluate the second item enough to get over my excitement for the first. But then I guess since I'm not a judge, I don't really need to.

[terraleon]

The black raven wrote:

Great Chakram. Keep (never thought I would say this about this kind of weapon)

If only the name didn't make me think, "I do not think this (usually) means what you think it means."

[Brigg]

That armor....I want one....

For all my PFS characters...

[Brigg]

Yet another Dimension Door cutting blade vs. Captain Bland's Armor of Redundant Blandness and Blandy Bland Bland.

[Brigg]

And it looks like Captain Bland's Staff of Only Casting Spells has decided to pop in right behind. Unfortunately for it, it is pit up against a clearly superior staff.

[terraleon]

That can't be the name. Seriously. No. ...No, there it is in the text. Again, and again, and again. Really? ...ok...wow.

[Brother Fen]

Hey! Saw my item for the second time.

And Star Voter! Oh, yeah!

[Jeff Lee]

Rich Malena wrote:

Jeff Lee wrote:

Okay, I'm at least familiar with the idea that some countries use periods rather than commas for numbers. However, I saw one using apostrophes rather than commas. Where does that come from?

Decimal Mark - Examples of Use - Wikipedia

So, Switzerland? Though it is used in other cases as well. I often have to sit down with exchange students in my math classes to make sure we're on the same page, which meant one from Kazakhstan was gleeful in her use of non-period decimals.

Thank you. My Google Fu was failing me the other night.

[Jeff Lee]

That's an interesting weapon concept. I wish there had been more mechanical detail. There was word count enough for specificity.

[Starglim]

Oh, that one. 56 seconds to wait to vote for the other thing.

[Monica Marlowe]

When this is all said and done we're all going to need to sit down and talk about the Cleric class, the deities of Golarion and what it means to be a channeling class.

[Jeff Lee]

I know what it means.

It means you got undead problems and I feel bad for you, son.

I got 99 problems, but a lich ain't one.

[Gennerik]

Finally, I got to see the item for the serious cornoisseur. And I liked it....

[Gennerik]

I also feel that if you "cleverly" use your 300 words to describe possible uses of your item, you not only insult the player's intelligence, but perhaps your item is a little narrow in purpose.

[TotalAnarchy]

Better to enhance an item's strenghts, rather than trying to replace its inherent weaknesses.

[Brigg]

Either this guy's item completely rewrites the use of Bardic Performance, or I'm misunderstanding how his item works...

*reads more*

*Looks at Price*

*Looks at Other item*

OH! You Again!! You're one of my favorite-est items!

Sorry Bard item. =(

[Allana Sliwinski]

Some of these items really make me want to see how the games the writer plays in runs. Not in a bad "you're doing it wrong!" kind of way, just in a legitimately curious manner. I mean I'm even wondering if the different style could lend me some ideas to add to my current games.

[mplindustries]

Jeff Lee wrote:

That's an interesting weapon concept. I wish there had been more mechanical detail. There was word count enough for specificity.

Uh-oh, there's a pretty good chance that's mine. I actually thought simplicity and brevity was a good thing when I submitted, but reading this forum has made me question that belief.

[Moik]

How long is it 'til critiquing can begin? Voting ends, or Winner's Announced?

[Azouth]

Moik wrote:

How long is it 'til critiquing can begin? Voting ends, or Winner's Announced?

It is usually a day after winners are announced.

[Brigg]

Best...arrow...in...this...contest.

So now I have my keeper Rod, Ring, Thrown weapon, and Ammunition.

I have yet to see a bladed weapon that totally wows me.

EDIT: Go figure, right after I vote for my keeper ammo, I see my keeper ring!

[Jacob Kellogg]

mplindustries wrote:

Jeff Lee wrote:

That's an interesting weapon concept. I wish there had been more mechanical detail. There was word count enough for specificity.

Uh-oh, there's a pretty good chance that's mine. I actually thought simplicity and brevity was a good thing when I submitted, but reading this forum has made me question that belief.

Brevity is important, just not at the expense of clarity. Obviously I don't know what your item is (or which one Jeff Lee was referencing), but the key is this: does the player/GM have to make anything up?

It's fine if the user would have to look up how a universal monster rule works, or a spell, or the illusion/disbelief rules; thus, it's okay to say "this grants the X universal monster ability"/"this functions as the X spell"/"Will DC 14 to disbelieve" instead of detailing those mechanics yourself.

It's less fine if create a new effect—something that they can't just look up—without giving enough detail to run it, or if you describe something that could be handled a couple of different ways without saying which way it's supposed to be handled.

For instance, suppose you made an item that caused the moisture in the air to merge on a target and freeze, hindering their movement. Do they become grappled? Entangled? For how long? What kind of action gets them out? What mechanic (Escape Artist, STR check, CMB, deal X damage, etc) is used, and at what DC? Are they stuck to the floor, or can they wander around? Can a flying creature keep flapping their wings?

That's the kind of stuff that you can't cut for brevity. Hope that helps!

[Tripp Elliott]

So, umm, rather than have a Rod that acts like a [spoiler omitted], and then do other stuff, why not just have it be a [spoiler omitted] that does that other stuff? Seems a much cleaner design to me. With that said, I WILL upvote you, because your opponent is completely jacked up in more ways than I care to mention.

[Brigg]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Jeff Lee wrote:

That's an interesting weapon concept. I wish there had been more mechanical detail. There was word count enough for specificity.

Uh-oh, there's a pretty good chance that's mine. I actually thought simplicity and brevity was a good thing when I submitted, but reading this forum has made me question that belief.

Brevity is important, just not at the expense of clarity. Obviously I don't know what your item is (or which one Jeff Lee was referencing), but the key is this: does the player/GM have to make anything up?

It's fine if the user would have to look up how a universal monster rule works, or a spell, or the illusion/disbelief rules; thus, it's okay to say "this grants the X universal monster ability"/"this functions as the X spell"/"Will DC 14 to disbelieve" instead of detailing those mechanics yourself.

It's less fine if create a new effect—something that they can't just look up—without giving enough detail to run it, or if you describe something that could be handled a couple of different ways without saying which way it's supposed to be handled.

For instance, suppose you made an item that caused the moisture in the air to merge on a target and freeze, hindering their movement. Do they become grappled? Entangled? For how long? What kind of action gets them out? What mechanic (Escape Artist, STR check, CMB, deal X damage, etc) is used, and at what DC? Are they stuck to the floor, or can they wander around? Can a flying creature keep flapping their wings?

That's the kind of stuff that you can't cut for brevity. Hope that helps!

I had to make sure I utilized this thought process a lot during the making of both my test items AND my entry.

I had to review the rules for certain aspects of combat to make sure I didn't put anything in my test items or entry that wound up reiterating core or universal rules (For Example, not repeating the details of conditions like Sickened or Grappled in the description). You save on word count by trusting the players know how to play the game.

I've seen quite a few entrants that clearly were able to catch themselves before adding redundant, chaff words into the descriptions. This goes DOUBLE for items I've seen that involved grappling.

Another thing I made absolutely sure of was to, at all costs, avoid using the phrase "As the spell 'spell name'". After all the talk about "Spells in a can", I had the feeling that that phrase would create a predisposition for the readers to say "Spell-in-a-can! Downvote!"

[mplindustries]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

mplindustries wrote:

Jeff Lee wrote:

That's an interesting weapon concept. I wish there had been more mechanical detail. There was word count enough for specificity.

Uh-oh, there's a pretty good chance that's mine. I actually thought simplicity and brevity was a good thing when I submitted, but reading this forum has made me question that belief.

Brevity is important, just not at the expense of clarity. Obviously I don't know what your item is (or which one Jeff Lee was referencing), but the key is this: does the player/GM have to make anything up?

It's fine if the user would have to look up how a universal monster rule works, or a spell, or the illusion/disbelief rules; thus, it's okay to say "this grants the X universal monster ability"/"this functions as the X spell"/"Will DC 14 to disbelieve" instead of detailing those mechanics yourself.

It's less fine if create a new effect—something that they can't just look up—without giving enough detail to run it, or if you describe something that could be handled a couple of different ways without saying which way it's supposed to be handled.

For instance, suppose you made an item that caused the moisture in the air to merge on a target and freeze, hindering their movement. Do they become grappled? Entangled? For how long? What kind of action gets them out? What mechanic (Escape Artist, STR check, CMB, deal X damage, etc) is used, and at what DC? Are they stuck to the floor, or can they wander around? Can a flying creature keep flapping their wings?

That's the kind of stuff that you can't cut for brevity. Hope that helps!

I appreciate that. I believe it is clear, but not...explained in depth. In the pursuit of elegance, I simply stated the rule and avoided examples or directly stating the implications of what using that rule allows. My fear is that another item in the competition has similar implications and outright stated them. I think it comes across as clunky (and overpriced ;P), but it worries me when people complain about short entries.

[Nazard]

Hello, new weapon. Your description sounds familiar, but your wording strongly suggests that your designer thought he was making you up as a new weapon, since half your powers are what a weapon of your type does naturally. I suppose the weapon table in the CORE RULEBOOK is rather long, so he or she can be forgiven for not reading all of it.

Not! Down you go!

[James Raine]

Alexander Bennett wrote:

How often would these marriage items come up in game?

I dunno, my wife and I often play characters with intertwined backstories. Usually it's brother and sister or something, but we've played married characters once or twice.

Not at the same time, obviously. What do I look like, a Lannister?

[Jacob Kellogg]

Brigg wrote:

You save on word count by trusting the players know how to play the game.

That said, sometimes you also have to be careful. A couple years back in the "Critique My Item" thread, I found out that my item kept getting downvoted by people who thought I failed to specify a range for a magical effect, when in reality it was the voters who were unfamiliar with the standard range categories that are used for 99% of the spells in the game (touch, close, medium, long).

So it's kind of a balancing act between trust and hand-holding.

[James Raine]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Brigg wrote:

You save on word count by trusting the players know how to play the game.

That said, sometimes you also have to be careful. A couple years back in the "Critique My Item" thread, I found out that my item kept getting downvoted by people who thought I failed to specify a range for a magical effect, when in reality it was the voters who were unfamiliar with the standard range categories that are used for 99% of the spells in the game (touch, close, medium, long).

So it's kind of a balancing act between trust and hand-holding.

To be fair, Close/Medium/Long standardized ranges are usually for spells, not for items, so seeing them on a non-SIAC item is a bit of concept dissonance. I'm not saying it doesn't work, nor am I saying you did it wrong, just that I can see why they voted the way they did.

[Sir William]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Brigg wrote:

You save on word count by trusting the players know how to play the game.

That said, sometimes you also have to be careful. A couple years back in the "Critique My Item" thread, I found out that my item kept getting downvoted by people who thought I failed to specify a range for a magical effect, when in reality it was the voters who were unfamiliar with the standard range categories that are used for 99% of the spells in the game (touch, close, medium, long).

So it's kind of a balancing act between trust and hand-holding.

I found out that my item was downvoted (by multiple people) for not including a weight, when it included a weight. Fortunately for me there was plenty of other things wrong with it, so it wasn't worth worrying about. In the end I think the sorting aspect of the first round minimizes the effect that a small percentage of the audience not understanding an item might have.

[Jacob Kellogg]

James Raine wrote:

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Brigg wrote:

You save on word count by trusting the players know how to play the game.

That said, sometimes you also have to be careful. A couple years back in the "Critique My Item" thread, I found out that my item kept getting downvoted by people who thought I failed to specify a range for a magical effect, when in reality it was the voters who were unfamiliar with the standard range categories that are used for 99% of the spells in the game (touch, close, medium, long).

So it's kind of a balancing act between trust and hand-holding.

To be fair, Close/Medium/Long standardized ranges are usually for spells, not for items, so seeing them on a non-SIAC item is a bit of concept dissonance. I'm not saying it doesn't work, nor am I saying you did it wrong, just that I can see why they voted the way they did.

It was for a spell effect. One of the item's functions was to change a spell's range from "touch" to "close" (as per Reach Spell, which if memory serves I referenced in the description).

But anyway, my item was just an example. The point is, you can't assume the reader will know all the core mechanics you use, so you have to use some judgment as to which things to explain.

[Moik]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

The point is, you can't assume the reader will know all the core mechanics you use, so you have to use some judgment as to which things to explain.

Full disclosure; I've never played Pathfinder. For the first 500 votes or so any time I encountered "CMB" I was like "... Cuse Magic Bevice?" Around 500 one designer actually wrote it out rather than acronymize it. They got an upvote.

[Constantine]

Did Paizo get less entries this year? I swear I'm seeing the same items over and over again. I don't think I've voted THAT much...

I've only been wow'd once or twice, but I've seen a lot of neat items.

[Joseph Kellogg]

I can't believe I just voted for the item that reminds me of Psycho, and not because of the violence.

[frank gori]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

I can't believe I just voted for the item that reminds me of Psycho, and not because of the violence.

She doesn't like it when you say such things.

[terraleon]

SO many items that remake real-world things. *clutch brain*

[mplindustries]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

I can't believe I just voted for the item that reminds me of Psycho, and not because of the violence.

Ugh, I've only voted for that one when it was against terrible, unformatted items (well, assuming I'm thinking of the same item).

[Thomas LeBlanc]

mplindustries wrote:

RainyDayNinja wrote:

I can't believe I just voted for the item that reminds me of Psycho, and not because of the violence.

Ugh, I've only voted for that one when it was against terrible, unformatted items (well, assuming I'm thinking of the same item).

I think I need to rewatch that movie, because I am not seeing an item reminiscent of it.

[Brigg]

What are the odds of me having two items side-by-side with the same Diety's name in the name of the item?

I guess they're pretty good.

EDIT: And BOTH Construction requirements state they the creator must worship the deity.

EDIT2: And they're BOTH Simple, solid weapons told in less than 150 words!

[xebeche]

Clouds Without Water wrote:

If you vote long enough, you'll eventually have to vote for that item you swore you'd never vote for. The matchup gods come for us all!

So you're telling me there's a chance!

[xebeche]

Constantine wrote:

Did Paizo get less entries this year? I swear I'm seeing the same items over and over again. I don't think I've voted THAT much...

I've only been wow'd once or twice, but I've seen a lot of neat items.

I imagine they may have gotten less item submissions because of the short period between announcement and submission.

[Brigg]

SUCH a great item and you botched the Construction Requirements!!! I can think of an additional Feat and a Spell that belong there! I'm going to be mentioning you after voting.

[James Casey]

xebeche wrote:

Constantine wrote:

Did Paizo get less entries this year? I swear I'm seeing the same items over and over again. I don't think I've voted THAT much...

I've only been wow'd once or twice, but I've seen a lot of neat items.

I imagine they may have gotten less item submissions because of the short period between announcement and submission.

You are probably correct. Between the short time frame for those who actually took the time to create something entirely different than their pre-existing wondrous item and those who decided to convert their wondrous item, we probably lost a lot of people.

Does anyone remember how many submissions there were last year? I think I heard that this year there are approximately 750-800 unique items prior to DQs.