Voting Trends & Personal Preferences

[James Casey]

At this point in the competition, most of us have seen many, many, many items. A lot of people, myself included, have created lists of possible Top 32 candidates and lists of items that we want to keep for our own personal amusement and use. I was examining my list and I started to notice some trends in my keep preferences as well as my voting preferences.

I find the results very interesting and contrary to my pre-contest pre-conceived notions of my voting trends. So I figured I would share with everyone and also elicit response from others who have tracked their preferences and voting trends.

My current Top 32 list has 23 confirmed items on it with 17 "border-line" items that I will cull once the voting is done. Statistics of those 40 items follow:

Armor: 8 (20%)
Rings: 1 (2.5%)
Rods:8 (20%)
Shields: 3 (7.5%)
Staves: 3 (7.5%)
Weapons: 17 (42.5%)

So I am predispositioned toward Weapons (which I knew ahead of time). The two numbers that surprised me the most were the Rod and Ring numbers. I thought I was prejudiced against Rods but there are several that I am really fond of as well as several other items in the competition I saw that had they been categorized as Rods instead of something else I would have up voted. Based on the above numbers, I am prejudiced against Rings. Pre-contest I would never have thought that of myself. I was expecting a prejudice against Staves, but so far Rings are getting the shaft... (pun intended)

I also have a list of 26 keep items that aren't Top 32 but I like or need some re-working. When I add those numbers into the mix my statistics look like this:

Armor: 11 (16.8%)
Rings: 6 (9%)
Rods: 9 (13.7%)
Shields: 6 (9%)
Staves: 4 (6%)
Weapons: 30 (45.5%)

These numbers feel a little more representative of what I thought my trends would be. I still heavily favor weapons and armor, but rings and staves normalized out.

The following is a list of items I am biased against and that I knew pre-contest I was biased against.
Soul Stealing/Sucking Items
Spell Stealing/Sucking Weapons and Armor
Evil Items
Level Draining Weapons
Technology Items
Gravity Items
Guns
Summoner Class Items
Gonzo
Items priced in excess of 100,000 gp

The following are all biases I acquired during voting, most likely due to the number of entries with these themes:
dimension door weapons
Tentacle Items
Disarming/Grappling Shields
Wedding Items (please don't hate me)

I would love to know what trends people are discovering about themselves, so please feel free to post whatever observations you have made this year!

[Oceanshieldwolf]

[threadjack]Bring on King Cull[/threadjack]

sorry James

* Eh, I'm liking the tech items.
I don't mind a good evil item.
Gravity items need to do more than just reverse gravity, but it is still hard to resist the visuals. :P
Gonzo is nice.
Jokes and Pop Culture derivatives draw my ire.

* Haven't got a list of even 5 I would say are Superstar for my tastes or interests, or even evince the authors' design chops. Then again, I'm no caster-fan, so I'm not seeing staves in the same way as perhaps others.

* Folk are saying the quality is up, I'm not seeing it, though this is only my third year voting.

* I read with little favor entries suitable for one class, though if super special I give them the vote they deserve, or if their competition is woefully underprepared.

As a complete aside: My there really are a lot of earthbreakers. I don't even think I think earthbreakers should be called earthbreakers in the first place, but when I got two at the same time that did things to the ground, I kinda understood it better…

Sorry that wall all garbled. Like my trends and preferences I guess...

[James Casey]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

* Folk are saying the quality is up, I'm not seeing it, though this is only my third year voting....

As a complete aside: My there really are a lot of earthbreakers. I don't even think I think earthbreakers should be called earthbreakers in the first place, but when I got two at the same time that did things to the ground, I kinda understood it better…

I agree with the Earthbreaker comment. It's a freaking Maul! As far as the quality, I agree with everyone else. Last year the disparity between entries was more pronounced. This year I am seeing a lot of items that are equal. That being said, I am not as WOW'ed as I was last year by the items I have set aside. On my list of items I only have 5 Strong Keeps, which means I have really only been wowed by 5 items.

[Riftwalker]

I mostly agree with James above in terms of bias.

One bias I have is against items that require additional bookkeeping. Staff charges are exempt because that's how they work, but otherwise, if an item works for X minutes per day or has X charges or uses per day or has effects that continue for X rounds I know it's just going to be one more thing to keep track of at the gaming table. On the other hand, I am good with items that expend spell slots or ki or grit or other existing resources because those resources are already tracked by the player.

[benjamin wilkins]

I have precisely 25 items on my list of keeps so far, which break down as follows.

Armor: 2
Ring: 4
Rod: 4
Shield: 2
Staves: 4
Weapons: 9

I will admit that not all of these are items that I expect to make top 32, but they are items that I intend to use in games after the competition. I see a lot of creativity and potential in them. One of them is clearly a joke item, and I saw it referenced repeatedly in the snark thread. Another hit a rather sore emotional note and actually made me cry. It took some effort not to vote against it for that, as it was a good item otherwise. I had to keep them both regardless, as I fully intend to use them after the competition is over.

I've found that I am far more likely to vote for an item that creates a new option than one that simply does something well. Whenever someone attempts something truly novel, I give them far more leeway with their execution than I do with someone who is simply expanding on rules that already exist.

Rings feel like far too open of a design space, so they are having to go farther to impress me. Far too many of them feel like wondrous item ports. On the opposite side of that coin, I'm giving staves more thought and slack than I am some other options as they are more constrained by the limitations of their choice.

In terms of simple personal preference, if the amount of blood would bump the game from a PG rating to a PG-13 from the item description alone, I'll generally vote it down. It's not uncommon to have children at the table.

Technology items and guns can be rather refreshing when done well. I like to give them the benefit of the doubt, as it's rather risky going down that road knowing how many people disapprove of those styles in pathfinder. Some of the items seem to have turned out quite well.

Apart from that, most of my other biases tend to echo those listed elsewhere.

[Dana Huber]

I haven't been keeping an official keep list yet, but I do note trends on items I like and tend to consistently upvote.

-I'm biased against 'evil' items, but if they are themed around something that is legitimately a part of Golarion and I can see reasons why Golarion NPCs would craft that, I'm more forgiving. As a non-related-to-any-item-I've-actually-seen example: a ring of devil's command that is crafted by Asmodean priests and wielded by Chelish nobles is likelier to get an upvote from me than a "here is the evil sword of evil that does things with demons and blood and spikes and souls and stuff". However, it's pretty obvious when you try and shoehorn Golarion references into a generically evil item, at least to me... so it needs to organically feel like a part of Golarion's evil side.

-Given a choice between an item that is 200,000+ GP and one that is 10,000+ GP, and I don't have a particular strong pull either way, I will go for the cheaper item. There is simply more chance for an low-to-mid-priced item to be used in the game than for your epic +10 bonus item, which, to me, indicates a greater command of the design space. If you really NEED a +10 equivalent budget to show me "your best work" then you don't know how to build a simple item, and throwing powerful spells and enhancements on it isn't a substitute for actual design skill.

-I've grown very fond of two different items that use mechanics we wouldn't normally think of as 'combat mechanics' in an offensive capacity. It's clever, outside-the-box, and memorably thematic in both cases. Doing something fresh with mechanics is way cooler than simply finding a way to do more HP damage.

-Names matter. Say your name aloud a few times when you do design, see how it flows. Ask random friends, both gamers and non-gamers, what they think of the name. If it sounds like a death metal band you might have liked in high school, well, that definitely may appeal to some people, but it won't to this voter, at least. Evocative names that create a mental image are great, as long as that mental image isn't 'gratuitous gore'... Just my voting preference there, anyway.

-Tech items.... ehhnn. I have a small negative bias towards them because I'm just not crazy about that in my Pathfinder, but I try and judge them fairly and I have definitely upvoted some.

-Items that create substantially more work for the GM are almost auto-downvotes for me unless their competition is really awful. If you haven't GMed at least a half-dozen games of Pathfinder, with a minimum of house ruling, then... well, I don't want to say you shouldn't submit to the contest, because that would be exclusionary, but, I feel that I can definitely identify the items where the designer has simply not given any thought to "oh, wow, that's going to make the GM's job ten times harder and slow down play for a half-hour while this gets adjudicated". And I do not like those items, no sir.

-As I play a lot of PFS, I devote a fair chunk of thought with each item to "would this be legal-- or useful-- in PFS play? If so, does it have potential to be exploited like hell there?"

I think that's most of the big ones...

[Brigg]

As a guy whose dreams of marriage and a family were abruptly shattered back in June, it's safe to say that I have the most extreme, bitter, seething bias against the marriage related items.

Items that are +1 Stabby things that transform into +137 everything-bane Gargantuan broadsword of weefness when held by a Paladin (because Paladin) have consistently been getting my downvotes.

No effort in the format and templating will almost always get downvoted.

Other than these, I just read, picture it in action, and pick which one I would be more likely to use. If I would use neither myself, I look into how balanced the item is overall.

I also keep in mind that not every magic item has to be an ultra-powerful cash-dump. There have been some fantastic items with really low price tags.

[Kiel Howell]

My personal Top 22 (so far) breakdown is:

Weapon -> 13 -> 59.09%
Shield -> 4 -> 18.18%
Staff -> 2 -> 9.09%
Ring -> 2 -> 9.09%
Armor -> 1 -> 4.55%

My Keep-But-Not-Top-32 breakdown is:

Weapon -> 2 -> 22.22%
Shield -> 3 -> 33.33%
Staff -> 2 -> 22.22%
Ring -> 2 -> 22.22%
Armor -> 0 -> 0%

Personal observations:

A lot of weapons/armors failed the "specific magic arms and armor" rule listed and instead were either a collection of special weapon/armor special abilities or were a group of specific magic arms and armors, e.g. Weapon of Awesome - These weapons... (totally contrived example) Sure, it's a specific name but the description says that there are multiples. I don't automatically downvote because of this but it is interesting to me that folks entered non-specific stuff for magic arms and armors when the R1 rules wanted them to be specific. Still, the sheer amount of weapons entered naturally means that more will make Top 32.

I don't think any of the rods I've seen will make Top 32, and some of the ones I've seen have interesting ideas but I would rework them to be pretty much completely different. Of course, I don't play casters that much (at least in PF) so I've never really had too much truck with rods.

Rings are an interesting space. It is so easy to cram some wondrous items into a ring, yet it then costs an arm and a leg and takes out my ring of force shield or ring of feather falling which, while not Superstar, are so utilitarian that I commonly use them on characters or NPCs all the way to high level. There are a couple I really like but by and large I detected far too much wondrous items as rings.

Staves are...well...interesting. There are a couple that I REALLY REALLY like, but so many are book of magic items quality.

Shields, while potentially repeating on certain themes, grabbed my interest personally either for writing style or idea.

Armors are lacking in general, but I think it is because armors have to be a certain amount of flashy to grab voter attention and either fail to be interesting enough or way too much.

[Monica Marlowe]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

* Folk are saying the quality is up, I'm not seeing it, though this is only my third year voting.

* I read with little favor entries suitable for one class, though if super special I give them the vote they deserve, or if their competition is woefully underprepared.

As a complete aside: My there really are a lot of earthbreakers. I don't even think I think earthbreakers should be called earthbreakers in the first place, but when I got two at the same time that did things to the ground, I kinda understood it better…

Sorry that wall all garbled. Like my trends and preferences I guess...

This is only the third year we have voted on the Top 32. :-)

As for the earthbreakers, this weapon seems to be this year's "filigree." Some of them are pretty good and some of them are not, but they are something that has stuck out and really latched on to the collective voter mind. I think it's a shame that we're seeing people say things like (total paraphrase here) "I'm never voting for another earthbreaker," because that is unfair to the few well done ones. We can never predict going in what the "it" thing will be for a given year, this year it looks like earthbreakers, tentacles, and dimension door items. Some items make those things work and some make those things cringe worthy.

[James Casey]

THK- your response surprised me a little bit. We have probably voted a similar amount of times this year and I have seen very few weapons that only had special abilities such as bashing or keen. I have seen some but not a lot. Most of the weapons I have seen have had some thematically attached ability which fits the criteria of the rules. I have found Armors have violated that rule more than weapons.

The rules don't require the weapons/armor be "one of" items. The rules state they should be specific named items. Using my interpretation of the rules, a Trident of Fish command fits that definition. No where in its description does it state there is only one Trident of Fish Command created. In fact I would argue, "one of" items tend to be artifacts, intelligent weapons, or plot devices.

If I have interpreted your point of view incorrectly please repost.

As for the rest of your observations, I tend to agree. I have liked a lot more armor than you have, although I know the measuring stick you are using so I understand your point of view there.

[James Casey]

mamaursula wrote:

-)

As for the earthbreakers, this weapon seems to be this year's "filigree." Some of them are pretty good and some of them are not, but they are something that has stuck out and really latched on to the collective voter mind. I think it's a shame that we're seeing people say things like (total paraphrase here) "I'm never voting for another earthbreaker," because that is unfair to the few well done ones. We can never predict going in what the "it" thing will be for a given year, this year it looks like earthbreakers, tentacles, and dimension door items. Some items make those things work and some make those things cringe worthy.

Mama I am glad you posted here. I agree that the snark can sometimes bee a little too biting. I have tried to be a bit more kind this year than last. Have you noticed any trends you display with your voting?

[Monica Marlowe]

Riftwalker wrote:

I mostly agree with James above in terms of bias.

One bias I have is against items that require additional bookkeeping. Staff charges are exempt because that's how they work, but otherwise, if an item works for X minutes per day or has X charges or uses per day or has effects that continue for X rounds I know it's just going to be one more thing to keep track of at the gaming table. On the other hand, I am good with items that expend spell slots or ki or grit or other existing resources because those resources are already tracked by the player.

My item took a serious turn during development when I realized that as I had originally envisioned it, it would require a serious amount of bookkeeping, I had to chuck it. Fortunately it was one of a couple of ideas and even though my pit crew really liked the more involved version, once I pointed out just how laborious it could get, they agreed. Sometimes you have to remember that it's not just about looking at things as a player, a GM or a designer, you have to pull all the parts together and decide if the item will work smoothly at the table and if it won't, you really aren't doing anyone any favors by putting out an overly complicated item.

[James Casey]

mamaursula wrote:

My item took a serious turn during development when I realized that as I had originally envisioned it, it would require a serious amount of bookkeeping, I had to chuck it. Fortunately it was one of a couple of ideas and even though my pit crew really liked the more involved version, once I pointed out just how laborious it could get, they agreed. Sometimes you have to remember that it's not just about looking at things as a player, a GM or a designer, you have to pull all the parts together and decide if the item will work smoothly at the table and if it won't, you really aren't doing anyone any favors by putting out an overly complicated item.

I wonder if there was a way to simplify the book keeping enough to make it a plausible entry. I am not a fan of the book keeping items, although something with a 3 uses per day doesn't bother me too much. I am not a fan of things that need to be tracked during combat. There is too much going on already during combat for a GM to have to keep track of an additional effect(s).

[Moik]

I really feel like there would be value gained from the community trying to suss out a solution to filigreeing/dimension-dooring/earthbreakering.

When I went to make my item, I looked over a certain broad array of options in order to pick out a thematic inspiration. In voting, I see others using that sphere of inspiration, and for some reason a decent chunk of them landed on the same selection as me. Dozens of options, and everyone seems to have clustered around the same few.

Probably after voting ends and critiquing starts, we should try to collect as many people as we can from the duplication groups and ask "Why did you pick it over the others?" and see if there's a trend that can be reversed or warned against.

[Matt Morris]

As I have been voting this year, my method of evaluating new items has basically come down to answering the following questions, in this order:

1) Is it clear?
2) Does it break the game/make it harder to play?
3) Is it interesting?
4) Is it appropriate for the item type?
5) Is it something that a character or NPC in the world would craft/use?

Also, if the item deals with one of the following, it gets some extra scrutiny:

-Action economy
-No save effect
-Metamagic effects without level adjustments
-Automatically detects something (traps/undead/enemies/etc.)
-Time traveling
-Initiative
-Drawback for the user
-Teleports

There are certainly items that do those things well, but designing around them is a razor's edge between fun and breaking the basic assumptions that make the game work

[quibblemuch]

Moik wrote:

I really feel like there would be value gained from the community trying to suss out a solution to filigreeing/dimension-dooring/earthbreakering.

I reiterate my suggestion (on another thread) that it may not be a "problem" that requires a "solution." In Feros' data post, there were 10 earthbreakers out of 327 weapons. That's 3%. Hardly seems like a problem that merits community action.

It can be easy to focus on unusual corner cases or clumping and call that something that is a "trend" or making it the "year of." But in an open call, with this many entries, there is always going to be something that fits that criteria. You will notice that nobody is complaining about this being the "year of the daggers" or posting repeatedly about how many daggers they are seeing - despite daggers making up 11% of Feros' weapon count.

It may be unfortunate that whatever pseudo-patterns occur in a given year become an automatic downvote criteria for a subset of voters, but it is also conceivable (likely, even) that the subset of voters who are vocal about perceived "year of" trends do not represent the voting pool as a whole. Therefore, even the presence of snark itself may not be having a net effect on the voting, nor on the selection of the Top 32. Thus, that too would not be a "problem" for the community to solve.

Consider this thought experiment: Tell each of the 1,500 entrants use the random generation tables in the CRB to create their items - but don't make the random generation public knowledge. Sit back and watch. Is it likely that contest becomes declared the "year of" whatever small subset of objects the random generation created small clusters around? Is it further likely that explanations based on pop culture, shared mythology, or speculative psychology will abound?

My guess would be yes.

[Moik]

quibblemuch wrote:

In Feros' data post, there were 10 earthbreakers out of 327 weapons. That's 3%. Hardly seems like a problem that merits community action.

Statistically it's not an issue. By 'customer feedback', it's an issue. If as many people tried to find a solution as were complaining about the issue, we'd have something that looks like community action.

The goal is to increase submission diversity. Is this not desirable?

[Covent]

I find that I look at things based on several factors, mostly in this order.

1.) Is the item an already existing item?

2.) Is the item a "Make me safer item", i.e. a auto mapper or a "safe sleeping bag"?

3.) Does the item have any new functionality, or is it just old content with new fluff? I.E. a weapon with just properties, a + and a back-story, no unique abilities.

4.) Will the item make the game more or less fun?

5.) Is the item priced so low/high that is is an always buy or a never buy? Alternatively is the item an artifact?

6.) Was some attempt at using the proper format made?

Things in items that will get you a very hard look from me and that make it difficult to get my upvote unless done exceptionally well:

*Meta concepts, such as at level up or exp based.

*Meta-magic for free, or other wizards win more items.

*Time or turn manipulation.

*Items with a baked in individual back-story, indicating there is only one.

*Items with a large amount of abilities, unless very tightly themed and written.

*Items that are made specifically to auto-win against a situation a player finds frustrating.

*Items that offer effects without saves.

*Camping/Safer down time items.

Items that almost always get the down-vote unless paired against another of their type or in possession of an exceptional saving grace.

*Joke items

*Items using rules that do not exist in Pathfinder.

*Items violating IP.

*Gross for no reason but shock items. Gross for theme is ok, but some items are just shock jocks.

*Items with no attempt at formatting. I mean none, missing BB code does not put you here. This is block of text with no attributes listed territory.

*Items where the author addresses me and tries to explain him/her self.

*Pseudo-cursed items, A.K.A. items with drawbacks to "Justify" their power.

[Brigg]

Covent wrote:

*Items that are made specifically to auto-win against a situation a player finds frustrating.

+1'ed

This bugs the tar out of me.

[Riftwalker]

ChesterCopperpot wrote:

Also, if the item deals with one of the following, it gets some extra scrutiny:

...
-Automatically detects something (traps/undead/enemies/etc.)
...

As a GM, items that do this make my eyes narrow. It's really easy to forget that a character has an item that detects something. Which can easily lead to mistakes along the lines of "Oh yeah, I should have told you a couple minutes ago that your sword is glowing because there are orcs nearby" right as the orc encounter starts.

If the GM needs to know ahead of time that an adventurer has an item, then that item contributes to GM overload and in the opinion of this GM, not a Superstar item.

[Vrecknidj]

As many others have noted about their own voting, I've had a handful of items show up so repeatedly that it's become annoying. That said, a huge number of items have shown up to me only once or twice.

But what troubles me most is the frequency with which I have to stare at two sub-par entries and work hard to think of a legitimate reason to vote for one rather than the other. In this regard, I have no simple algorithm. I could, of course, follow something like "When you can't decide, always vote for the one that's better formatted," but that rule itself doesn't seem entirely legitimate (for me).

That said, one thing I've begun to notice, now that I've given so many items a third, fourth or fifth look, is that I'm finding items that would be much better with one or two changes--often minor changes (like specifying a missing range of effect). So, one guideline that I've given to myself is to consider that each of the two items has already been edited and revised so that it's best features shine through. Then I vote on the one that I think would be better.

[quibblemuch]

Moik wrote:

If as many people tried to find a solution as were complaining about the issue, we'd have something that looks like community action.

If, as I suggest, this is not an actual problem, but merely an artifact of spurious pattern-making, trying to find a solution only reinforces the spurious patterns. That is, saying "we have a filigree problem, let's solve it," while injecting positivity into the conversation, still agrees with the people who are complaining. My point is that perhaps the complaint itself doesn't correspond to anything more than a persistent illusion.

Moreover, it is entirely possible that the lion's share of would-be designers are already doing exactly what you call for, unnoticed. I've yet to see a post saying "good job for not using (whatever that year's trend is)." We do not notice things that fail to meet the trend we expect to see.

Moik wrote:

The goal is to increase submission diversity. Is this not desirable?

I am not sure I see how that is germane to what I was saying. Nor how collectively you can mandate diversity of creativity. Suppose four different people in a pool of 1,500 (.2%) had an idea to make a weapon that struck backwards in time, allowing them to damage opponents in previous rounds. Which three of those four should change their idea? Should the community act to avoid that in advance?

Were four such weapons to appear in the voting round, it is likely that they would be seen as imitative or derivative or it would be the "year of the timestabbers." One such a weapon would inevitably draw attention, and seeing two or three would make it seem like an unoriginal idea. Trying to solve that problem seems quixotic to me.

The spread of items in Feros' data set seems fairly diverse, while at the same time not being too diverse. If the notion of over-diversity seems incorrect, consider that there is some value in choosing a base kind of weapon that lots of people will want to use, as opposed to a submission pool of 327 different base kinds of weapons.

All things in balance, of course, but given the mechanics of the game, there will be a tendency for a handful of base kinds of weapons (just as an example) to dominate, based on the utility of their mechanics, while base kinds of weapons with unusual mechanics will have a home, but be less popular. In accommodating a variety of play-styles, it makes sense for this kind of distribution - and, given that, we might expect to see what we have seen thus far, which is this clustering effect.

[Kiel Howell]

James Casey wrote:

THK- your response surprised me a little bit. We have probably voted a similar amount of times this year and I have seen very few weapons that only had special abilities such as bashing or keen. I have seen some but not a lot. Most of the weapons I have seen have had some thematically attached ability which fits the criteria of the rules. I have found Armors have violated that rule more than weapons.

The rules don't require the weapons/armor be "one of" items. The rules state they should be specific named items. Using my interpretation of the rules, a Trident of Fish command fits that definition. No where in its description does it state there is only one Trident of Fish Command created. In fact I would argue, "one of" items tend to be artifacts, intelligent weapons, or plot devices.

If I have interpreted your point of view incorrectly please repost.

As for the rest of your observations, I tend to agree. I have liked a lot more armor than you have, although I know the measuring stick you are using so I understand your point of view there.

I don't think I'm stressing the right thing...It's ok to be able to create multiple Trident of Fish, but the entries I'm seeing assume that multiples have already been made. And using the CRB for specific magic weapons, those present the item as being the first of its kind. And while the weapons presented this year mostly have unique names, they aren't more than a collection (thematically fitting or not) of weapon special abilities. There ARE many that do present a "specific magic weapon" but from what I've seen it seems like many more are trying to be that but aren't.

I would agree that Armors also violate this as well, but weapons comprise 40-something % of the unique items I've voted on so by nature there will be more that are guilty in the weapon category.

[Matt Morris]

Covent wrote:

*Items with a baked in individual back-story, indicating there is only one.

Saw much more of this problem this year than last. I think this is a particular temptation with weapons--though I saw it throughout the item types.

It is definitely a balancing act between making an engaging specific magical item and making an artifact.

[Monica Marlowe]

James Casey wrote:

I wonder if there was a way to simplify the book keeping enough to make it a plausible entry. I am not a fan of the book keeping items, although something with a 3 uses per day doesn't bother me too much. I am not a fan of things that need to be tracked during combat. There is too much going on already during combat for a GM to have to keep track of an additional effect(s).

Without going into specific detail about my own item, it does use something that the player is already record keeping, as Riftwalker mentioned. I had hoped to do something else with it, which I think would have been cool, but by extension potentially unbalancing.

I think there are ways to keep book keeping to a minimum and have game balance, but not if you're trying to make a "screw you GM item," which is where I think most overly needy book keeping items fall. I could be wrong on that and it could just be my opinion. I'm afraid to be more detailed because my only real experience with creating something like this is the item I submitted and all of it is in context with that. If you want to talk about it privately though, PM me.

[quibblemuch]

mamaursula wrote:

James Casey wrote:

I wonder if there was a way to simplify the book keeping enough to make it a plausible entry.

I think there are ways to keep book keeping to a minimum and have game balance

What we need is one wondrous item that, in-game, does book-keeping on all of the wielder's use-per-day items and then you only have to track—GAK!

I appear to have put the design portable hole into the mechanics bag of holding...

[Monica Marlowe]

ChesterCopperpot wrote:

Covent wrote:

*Items with a baked in individual back-story, indicating there is only one.

Saw much more of this problem this year than last. I think this is a particular temptation with weapons--though I saw it throughout the item types.

It is definitely a balancing act between making an engaging specific magical item and making an artifact.

There is a big difference between saying 'This gonzo weapon was made by a mad scientist Joe-Bob because the villagers made him angry' and 'born from the need to wrangle torch wielding mobs.' I won't say either is particularly "superstar" but one is way more acceptable than the other and less likely to be a ooak, unique or artifact item.

[Covent]

mamaursula wrote:

ChesterCopperpot wrote:

Covent wrote:

*Items with a baked in individual back-story, indicating there is only one.

Saw much more of this problem this year than last. I think this is a particular temptation with weapons--though I saw it throughout the item types.

It is definitely a balancing act between making an engaging specific magical item and making an artifact.

There is a big difference between saying 'This gonzo weapon was made by a mad scientist Joe-Bob because the villagers made him angry' and 'born from the need to wrangle torch wielding mobs.' I won't say either is particularly "superstar" but one is way more acceptable than the other and less likely to be a ooak, unique or artifact item.

*Nod* Exactly Mamaursula.

[Monica Marlowe]

Riftwalker wrote:

ChesterCopperpot wrote:

Also, if the item deals with one of the following, it gets some extra scrutiny: ...
-Automatically detects something (traps/undead/enemies/etc.)
...

As a GM, items that do this make my eyes narrow. It's really easy to forget that a character has an item that detects something. Which can easily lead to mistakes along the lines of "Oh yeah, I should have told you a couple minutes ago that your sword is glowing because there are orcs nearby" right as the orc encounter starts.

If the GM needs to know ahead of time that an adventurer has an item, then that item contributes to GM overload and in the opinion of this GM, not a Superstar item.

brigg wrote:

Covent wrote:

*Items that are made specifically to auto-win against a situation a player finds frustrating.
+1'ed

This bugs the tar out of me.

Sometimes you just want to ask these players if their GM is a jerk. I mean that in the nicest possible way, but honestly, if you're feeling stonewalled by your game every time you turn around, maybe it's not Pathfinder, maybe it's the guy/gal behind the GM screen.

[Monica Marlowe]

James Casey wrote:

Mama I am glad you posted here. I agree that the snark can sometimes bee a little too biting. I have tried to be a bit more kind this year than last. Have you noticed any trends you display with your voting?

I keep trying to get back to this, but then you guys say something else interesting!

I have noticed something about my style of voting which has not changed in the three years of open voting, I only vote on things I can understand without having to do a lot of research on them. The item that best explains itself without the need of cross referencing or 32 hyperlinks is what I vote for. Also, clearly well formatted and mastery of the English language on a high school level. Basically, did you follow the submission rules.

Let me explain. While I have played Pathfinder since its inception and D&D 3.0 and 3.5 prior to that and even some older D&D, I also played White Wolf's WoD and a lot of LARP. I watched players pull rabbits out of their hats all game long because they read all the books, knew all the secret lores and generally wanted to punch someone because they had meta-information and weren't afraid to use it. Because of that experience, I do not read all the books, I do not read all the supplemental/3pp, and I definitely am not well versed in all things magic in the setting. This isn't because I mind spoilers, I am just here for the ride and I like to see it unfold and be part of the collective storytelling process.

An item should be able to stand on its own without expecting the reader to have vast amounts of information to support the understanding of it. I should be able to understand why this item would be necessary or desirable in game play without having experienced the exact set of gaming campaigns as the creator (see bard hating item.) Campaign specific items are great, but they don't really belong in this contest, imo, they belong in that game's AP.

Items can help replace missing party members like cure wands, but those aren't superstar. And heaven help you if you don't have a rogue, we don't in one game and it's good we have a cleric rolls eyes.

A good item, for me, is one that is easily identified as what it does and is described using good language skills. 300 words isn't a lot, so each word needs to do a lot of work, don't just pick the lazy man's word (I also hated the over and misuse of "filigree," I felt sorry for the word like it had feelings, toward the end.) It should have some cinematic resonance to it, to draw me in and please, oh please, tell me what it is. I should not have to go to the Construction line to see what the hell it is you're talking about, a LOT of rings are really bad about this and fail to do it, but they are certainly not alone.

The item that gets my vote is also something that I could see more than one character utilizing. There are always items that are for one class only, ki items come to mind, and I give that a pass if the item shines in the other places, but generally armor, weapons and a lot of the rings should be universally ready to go on most party members who are able to utilize them through proficiencies.

I do not generally vote for "evil" items, but there have been some over the years that were really well done and I'm not a huge fan of swarms, but I have voted consistently for a couple this year.

Fortunately for me I know that I'm not one of the Top 32 judges, because my method wouldn't get me very far in that selection process, but I do think that my method helps to find the designers who are most suitable for developing and working with while possessing a creative flair and understanding of general role playing needs.

[Monica Marlowe]

Well..that was a lot more words than I meant to write. That will teach James Casey to ask me questions.

[Matt Morris]

mamaursula wrote:

Sometimes you just want to ask these players if their GM is a jerk. I mean that in the nicest possible way, but honestly, if you're feeling stonewalled by your game every time you turn around, maybe it's not Pathfinder, maybe it's the guy/gal behind the GM screen.

Sometimes this is a reflection of player preference, as well. For some people, the point of character building and itemization is to limit or eliminate the effect of chance on their characters. For those people, auto-detect or auto-win items are very appealing.

[Magesmiley]

Obviously, I'm not as hardcore of a voter as most folks here on the forum.

I find that I personally tend to be a bit harder on magic weapons and armor than most others. Weapons and armor have to do something to really wow me AND the wow factor has to fit with whatever other abilities the item has. I also find that I don't like too many effects on these types - that turns me off too.

I also know that I am biased towards items priced in the five to thirty thousand range. Those prices of items get the most use in games I play, so I usually like them better.

I also find that I keep my eyes out for stuff that suggests a new area where similar items could be created. Those almost always get an upvote from me as they suggest a strong bit of creativity in the writer.

[Oceanshieldwolf]

I have no problem with bookkeeping.

Or earthbreakers. Just saying a: there are a LOT of them, and I think the name of the weapon is unnecessary. But you could say that about almost any weapon's fantasy name/word.

[Kiel Howell]

Bastard Sword.

Always bugged me.

[James Casey]

mamaursula wrote:

Well..that was a lot more words than I meant to write. That will teach James Casey to ask me questions.

I enjoy your verbosity.

[Tripp Elliott]

There are a lot of different reasons I vote one way or another, more and more in weapons and armor, if your price is exactly 2x your cost, I might just down vote the item right then and there for making no effort to understand how those items are costed.

Yes, I can be shallow, I can provide a string of exes who can attest to this.

[mplindustries]

I've only found 20 items so far that I think are potential keepers--some of them are on the iffy side, though. I have a few more in mind as potentially keepers, but, I keep hoping there are still items I haven't seen.

1 Armor (5%)
6 Rings (30%)
4 Rods (20%)
0 Shields (0%)
1 Staff (5%)
7 Weapons (35%)

I am iffiest on some of the rings--in fact, I know that at least three of them are probably not going to make the top 32 (or even maybe the top 100) because they do things that I like and would want, but probably do not make for great items from the majority perspective. I would not be totally surprised to hear none of them made it, actually.

I didn't keep detailed records of the potential keepers, but there are maybe 4 or 5 staves, the same number of weapons, and one or two suits of armor. Still zero shields. The best one, the shield I like the best, screws up action economy, so, no.

I am not biased for or against the "trends." I have the best of the teleporting weapons on my list, for example, I like several of the gravity items and anti-caster weapons, and I vote fairly regularly for the earthbreakers and energy reversal items, even though I don't necessarily think they're top 32 material. On the other hand, I dislike all the disarming shields (because I feel like Disarming is too hard for how little payoff it provides), all of the sticky armors (none work with the best/only viable grapple builds), or the chakrams or wedding items (because I don't like any of them individually, not just because they are chakrams or wedding items. Well, maybe one chakram is pretty good.

My criteria are different for each slot. I obviously look at stuff like formatting, pricing, language, etc., for everything, but those are secondary, tie breaking criteria.

When I look at armors and shields my first question is:
Given the cost and powers, would anyone actually use this item? I don't care how cool or flavorful your item is--if nobody would want to buy/build/not sell it, it doesn't belong here.

This alone eliminates most of the armors pretty quickly. Unlike weapons, people cannot easily switch between armors, so, these armors have to be good all-the-time armors. If some medium armor costs in the 30-40k range, for example, I question whether it would be as good as just having just straight up +17 AC from +5 Mithril Full Plate (or +16 AC from a +5 Mithril Breastplate). AC is basically only acquired by items in Pathfinder, and giving that up for a "cute" effect is not good enough. It has to be truly awesome, or it has to be the kind of armor that non-front liners would be wearing (support casters or ranged blaster/archer types), or it needs to provide alternate defenses that match the AC value lost (Miss chance, DR, energy resistance, save bonuses, etc.).

Maybe I'm too hard on the armor, but that's the issue.

For weapons, I also ask whether or not anyone would use the item, but people can easily swap weapons for a niche problem, assuming the price is right. So, to impress me, they either need to be all-the-time material for their price range (which usually means their mere existence allows for a certain build to work that is otherwise suboptimal), or they need to be useful to higher level characters that can afford buying it as a backup weapon. Bonus points if there's something useful and flavorful added in for some cool factor.

My list has 3 build-saving weapons, and 4 utility/backup weapons (as a bonus, three out of the four can be used on their own without any problem when actually in their price-range).

Shields have it rough because, well, honestly, I've never seen anyone use a non-buckler shield unless they were built around bashing with the shield, and I have seen only a tiny handful of shields this year that are bash-friendly (i.e. that have an enhancement bonus to attack/an enhanced spike/etc.). Frankly, I'd rather have a shield with an offensive bonus than a defensive one.

Armor and weapons have the hardest time impressing me, honestly, because custom built items with just regular enhancements generally fit the bill better anyway. Rings are the next toughest because Rings of Protection are necessary as well, giving you only one slot to work with. That's why all the rings I picked are utility items that you can take on and off as needed. More than any other slot, they seemed to have the most social effects, and I really liked a few of the more subtle ones.

Staves don't really grab me. I don't really like spells, for the most part, so, the staves I like are full of important utility spells and a useful side power. They're mostly just ok, very little excites me. The idea that they can be weapons as well has recently intrigued me more, but with one notable exception on my "maybe" keep list, the staves that are weapons mostly just tacked the weapon on for...reasons. I'd much rather see staves that are weapons with spells in them and a nice thematic extra power.

Rods are the most all over the board. In a way, they're my favorite class of item because they have the largest design space. Rods, at the same time, have the most game changing potential and are the least necessary/most expendable items, since they don't do anything necessary, and the rods people routinely buy (metamagic rods) don't interfere with having another rod.

So, the rods I have as keepers are fun. I would love to have them all, but don't feel like I would ever need them, and they open up lots of interesting avenues for PCs without auto-solving anything. Two or three of these rods are probably my favorite items in the competition--I might like them more than my own item, even.

Otherwise, the things that get you downvoted more often than not:

1) Items with drawbacks. I do not want any penalties, I do not want to need specific removal spells to take your item off, and I don't want to pay for anything in Constitution damage or whatever nonsense.

2) Elaborate and unnecessary (i.e. all of them) backstories

3) References to other IPs, but especially Cthulhu (even though Cthulhu is essentially open source)

4) Joke items (there's even one that's actually really well done, except the name and I hate voting for it)

5) Really expensive items

6) Inventing a rule or modifying an existing one to do something else when there is already a mechanic in the game that covers what you want (For example, using a ranged drag where the dragger doesn't have to move, instead of the Pull universal monster ability). I don't care how creative you are if you don't know the rules of the game you're writing for.

7) Items that boost spells and spellcaster power in general--I don't really like spellcasters and they are the last people in Pathfinder that need a power boost

8) This goes double for items that alter/boost summons, or create summons. Not only is summoning too powerful, but it makes the game less fun because it slows everything down and takes extra turns and attention.

9) Items that create book keeping. I can track charges, but I don't want to track how many times each individual enemy hit me or how much damage I've dealt or whatever. Stick to what I'm already tracking (HP, for example).

10) Items that require two items, worn by different people, to have their "true" effect.

[Monica Marlowe]

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

There are a lot of different reasons I vote one way or another, more and more in weapons and armor, if your price is exactly 2x your cost, I might just down vote the item right then and there for making no effort to understand how those items are costed.

Yes, I can be shallow, I can provide a string of exes who can attest to this.

I frequently use this as my tie-breaker method for two items that I don't have a strong opinion of one way or the other.

[Nazard]

Brigg wrote:

Covent wrote:

*Items that are made specifically to auto-win against a situation a player finds frustrating.

+1'ed

This bugs the tar out of me.

RPGSS is not the venue by which to "fix" Pathfinder. Items that scream "My designer thinks the X class is underpowered, so this!" almost always get the down vote.

[mplindustries]

Nazard wrote:

Brigg wrote:

Covent wrote:

*Items that are made specifically to auto-win against a situation a player finds frustrating.

+1'ed

This bugs the tar out of me.

RPGSS is not the venue by which to "fix" Pathfinder. Items that scream "My designer thinks the X class is underpowered, so this!" almost always get the down vote.

On the other hand, someone that recognizes there are problems and has ideas on how to fix them is exactly the sort of person I want working for Paizo.

[James Casey]

If an item fixes a "problem" in the game then I really consider that to be gravy. Remember the point of the competition is to find good overall designers as well as niche designers. Someone may be very bad at magic items but great at maps... Ultimately I try to look at the creativity and originality behind an item. Those things are truly what we should be looking for.

Rules, formatting, grammar... those things can be taught. Of course that doesn't excuse not following directions. I guess when I look at trends, multiple similar items make it difficult for designers to stand out creatively. If I perceive there are 40 Earthbreakers in the competition and I am tired of seeing Earthbreakers, then the designer had better have one hell of an Earthbreaker. We saw that last year with Torcs and guess how many torcs made it to Top 32?... that's right ZERO.

A good designer will stay away from niche weapons or items because the creativity should be contained in the actual item's abilities and description, not the uniqueness of the physical item. Admittedly, this year's earthbreakers are better than last year's torcs.

[Jeff Lee]

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

I have no problem with bookkeeping.

Or earthbreakers. Just saying a: there are a LOT of them, and I think the name of the weapon is unnecessary. But you could say that about almost any weapon's fantasy name/word.

Yeah, bookkeeping is part of the game. I hardly ever hear people complaining about having to keep track of the time on all the buffs they get from spells, so why complain about an item?

There aren't any types of items or their appearances that bother me, except when it's a type that doesn't fit the theme of an item, like using a two-handed weapon for a finesse theme, or full plate for a stealth theme.

Or when people really, really want the item to be a certain type, even when when the materials the item is made from don't match. If you've got dragon scales, why would you carve them into little rings and make chainmail out of them?

[Feros]

Jeff Lee wrote:

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

I have no problem with bookkeeping.

Or earthbreakers. Just saying a: there are a LOT of them, and I think the name of the weapon is unnecessary. But you could say that about almost any weapon's fantasy name/word.

Yeah, bookkeeping is part of the game. I hardly ever hear people complaining about having to keep track of the time on all the buffs they get from spells, so why complain about an item?

There aren't any types of items or their appearances that bother me, except when it's a type that doesn't fit the theme of an item, like using a two-handed weapon for a finesse theme, or full plate for a stealth theme.

Or when people really, really want the item to be a certain type, even when when the materials the item is made from don't match. If you've got dragon scales, why would you carve them into little rings and make chainmail out of them?

I differentiate between bookkeeping by a player (which if that is the item they want, then so be it) and bookkeeping by the GM (who has enough on his plate, thank you very much). I will let bookkeeping items slide if they aren't going to slow down game play by getting people other than the possessor involved.

If it causes game play to come to a screeching halt while the GM and the player work out what is going on, I'll vote against it almost every time.

[Tripp Elliott]

Jeff Lee wrote:

Or when people really, really want the item to be a certain type, even when when the materials the item is made from don't match. If you've got dragon scales, why would you carve them into little rings and make chainmail out of them?

Tower shields and Quarterstaffs are made of wood! Mithral ones are a non sequitur and will get down voted by this guy!

[Kobold Catgirl]

I've gotta be honest, I think I'm voting more in favor of "interesting and creative concept" than "balanced and professional design". I'm glad to see I'm not the only one.

[Andrew Marlowe]

Creativity first. Then Readability, Rules, Formatting and finally my many miscellaneous biases.

Admittedly I have found formatting is a pretty good indicator of failures on more than one of my previous criteria. Admittedly there are a few with sub-par formatting that score high on creativity and thus earn my vote but they are rare.

I do not count parallel design against an item either. Whether it's filigree, earth breakers, or animated snowmen I try to take each item as it appears in it's given pairing no matter how tired I am of voting for Frosty the Snowman knock offs.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Let it go, Andrew. Just let it go. Let the snowman be.

[Jacob Trier]

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Let it go, Andrew. Just let it go. Let the snowman be.

Yeah, the cold never bothered me anyway.

[Tripp Elliott]

Jacob Trier wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Let it go, Andrew. Just let it go. Let the snowman be.

Yeah, the cold never bothered me anyway.

Thanks dude, I'll be singing that all day now!