My Estranged Item: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Cull

[James Casey]

Hmm, methinks some of the malcontent may be coming from such a deep cull. I am not interested in anymore arguments over the "Ranting" threads, especially on this thread which is supposed to be about the cull. And more importantly, what I learned from the cull.

Chris- If Paizo is interested in the cull, then I think this thread isn't a bad place to begin.

[Steven Helt]

For my part, I liked last year's rant thread. I thought it was funny and it's good for the community to be able to loosely refer to items while celebrating or complaining about them.

I support off-site efforts to count or sort items. If people could conceivably keep their own list and then talk on phones or FB, then there's no reason to restrict the community from talking about the items.

Finally, I support pit crews. Great designers use their best contacts to create the stuff we all play. That doesn't make them not great designers. Do I think pit crews should be limited to feedback and left out of the creative process? Of course. But I don't know any examples of Superstar contestants (from any year) seeking feedback on the creative level.

Getting discrete feedback from designers you respect is smart, and part of the evolutionary process for design careers. Once you do a little work or do well in the contest, you become the person giving feedback to your friends who want to model your success. That's a great program for mentoring good new designers.

My only other feedback for this conversation is about why an entry may or may not be culled. If your item has fantastic mojo, but has bad formatting or gets a rule wrong, you should have no expectation of getting other peoples' votes. If your item has perfect formatting and coding, but is boring, you should have no expectation of getting other peoples' votes. You can still get votes if you do great at one thing or another, but don't be upset if you were culled because a lot of voters respect coding and presentation. And don't be upset if you were culled because your item didn't resonate thematically. Use everything you can as an opportunity to learn. Did you code your brilliant item badly? Do better next year. Did you gamble on an obscure rule or that you'd be the only technomantic item? Next year, do better. Learn what voters/judges like and accept that that's how you get to the next level of this contest.

I announced earlier today, I'll be critiquing several items in a separate thread at midnight after the Top 32 are announced, and I'll be posting a thread to announce what I'm looking for before Round 4 begins. It's good to get to know your audience, and round one is no different.

[Eric Morton]

Some thoughts about the ranting thread (spoilered for being off-topic):

Spoiler:

I seem to be alone in this, but I'm not fond of the rule against discussing specific items, nor do I feel the need to tune out other voters opinions on specific items.

Firstly, the rule against mentioning specific items is responsible for much of the toxic atmosphere in the ranting thread. It's really easy to write non-item-specific complaints but it's relatively hard to write non-item-specific compliments. Voters aren't allowed to praise unique, never-been-done-before items in real time but they can complain about trends in real time, so of course the thread gets a bit negative.

Second, I don't understand the benefit of making all voting decisions in a vacuum. I want to be an informed voter. If a bunch of people really like an item I keep down-voting, I want to know. That information allows me to double check the item in question and make sure I'm actually disagreeing with everyone instead of just misreading something that everyone else understood properly.

Third, the prohibition against commentary on specific items doesn't happen during any other public voting round. The Top 32 aren't anonymous, so they aren't allowed to comment on their own items, but everyone else can, including the voters. If exposure to outside opinions was somehow detrimental to the voting process, why are outside opinions allowed starting in Round 2?

I could understand a rule against making comments that would qualify as non-constructive criticism, but I don't see much value in a rule that prevents us from consulting the boards about items we aren't clear about or mentioning items we think are awesome.

[Brigg]

Sweet...cuppin'...cakes...

What happened to this thread!?

*Runs*

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Thread mutated right after being born. Which in my humble opinion is just as useful as a thread that "stays on target".

I think there have been many useful and unusual points raised herein. I know I've changed my mind a few times about a few things while reading and thinking about the posts.

[Steven Helt]

Now I feel the need to change my mind about something, just to be cool like my friend OCW.

Hmmm....wondrous items that act as armor or weapon could count as armor or weapons? Nah.

Mushrooms on pizza? Ew. Gods, no.

DLR better than Van Hagar?

Oh, forget it. I'll just have to stick with being right about things. : )

[Nickolas Floyd]

Eric Morton wrote:

Some thoughts about the ranting thread (spoilered for being off-topic):

** spoiler omitted **

Interesting points and I agree. But this creates its own issues. Are you suggesting that we try to retain anonymity while being able to discuss items openly on the forums? You can't mention that an item is yours, but you can praise and defend it as much as you want? That might be difficult. It might be fairly obvious sometimes who designed what item, but sometimes you might be wrong and someone might just really love someone else's item. And then you might have a problem with pit crews and all of them supporting their friend's items "anonymously" to skew voting. And then there is the issue of editing the item mid-contest by "anonymously" suggesting that "if it were my item, which it is NOT" I would change this and that. And would we find that each of the 800+ items has its own discussion forum? I don't know. Could be a mess.

Do we just loose anonymity in the first round having everyone's name on the item? That has problems too. Anonymity was established so that the judges were not accused of favoritism. It might work better if the top 32 was just taken directly from the public voting allowing the subsequent rounds to weed out the less favorable designers. We might have the favoritism problem with the community too. How many of us would vote to see if we could make sure Anthony has a shot at the top 32? Does this make it a personal popularity contest?

I'm not sure what exactly how you would amend the rules to allow public discussion. Are there other options that might work?

[Anthony Adam]

If I ever made top 32, the first post I would make as part of the thanks would include this...

"Please do not vote from my entries going forward because of who I am, please only vote for me if you think my submissions deserve to advance."

I do worry that my "forum presence" may be too much temptation to gain votes I wouldn't deserve - it is one of the reasons I have chased the dream through other avenues :)

So yeah, I would prefer anonymity - but for every single round, only finding the names out at the very end!

Just in case I get tempted by all the Jacob(s), Marmasula, Curaigh, Andrew, Feros, Brill, Nickolas, Jeffrey, Jason... and any long term Blazing 9'er I missed in that brain dump... entries that will be Top 32 this year! ;)

[Mark Seifter]

Anthony Adam wrote:

If I ever made top 32, the first post I would make as part of the thanks would include this...

"Please do not vote from my entries going forward because of who I am, please only vote for me if you think my submissions deserve to advance."

I do worry that my "forum presence" may be too much temptation to gain votes I wouldn't deserve - it is one of the reasons I have chased the dream through other avenues :)

So yeah, I would prefer anonymity - but for every single round, only finding the names out at the very end!

Just in case I get tempted by all the Jacob(s), Marmasula, Curaigh, Andrew, Feros, Brill, Nickolas, Jeffrey, Jason... and any long term Blazing 9'er I missed in that brain dump... entries that will be Top 32 this year! ;)

It's a good point. On the other hand, though, having a positive and professional presence is part of being a Superstar. Neil Spicer, for instance, really conducts himself like a Superstar, and it's easy to see. It's a skill that is useful to any freelancer, even one who never wins this contest.

[Eric Morton]

Nickolas Floyd wrote:

Eric Morton wrote:

Some thoughts about the ranting thread (spoilered for being off-topic):

** spoiler omitted **

Interesting points and I agree. But this creates its own issues. Are you suggesting that we try to retain anonymity while being able to discuss items openly on the forums? You can't mention that an item is yours, but you can praise and defend it as much as you want? That might be difficult.

That is what I am suggesting, and I agree that the issues involved would have to be carefully considered.

However, I don't think it's impossible to guess what open commentary (without breaking anonymity) would look like. I suspect it would play out almost exactly like one of Paizo's open playtests: hundreds of posters would show up, many of them championing their own pet suggestions, but there would be so many things to talk about, no one poster or topic would dominate the discussion. A few folks would try to oversell something and get tuned out by most other posters. A few folks would get too negative and would have to be reminded to restrict themselves to constructive criticism. A few particularly popular ideas would gain traction. But for the most part, we would just see lots of respectful, interesting discussion of various ideas' merits.

That, at least, is what I've observed happening during Paizo's open playtests, and I suspect it is exactly what we would see if we were allowed to talk about specific items during Superstar voting. Like the playtests, it would require moderater oversight, but I think it could be done in a constructive, positive manner.

[Eric Morton]

Anthony Adam wrote:

I do worry that my "forum presence" may be too much temptation to gain votes I wouldn't deserve - it is one of the reasons I have chased the dream through other avenues :)

I don't think you need to worry about that, Anthony. I was still running my very popular Custom Monster thread the last time I made the Top 32 and that didn't help my chances one bit when my Round 2 entry stunk up the place. Voters don't care what you've done in the past; they are going to vote on what you are doing right now.

[Terminalmancer]

For what it's worth, I'm a first-time RPGSS entrant and I found the "rant thread" (although it wasn't really that much of a rant thread...) incredibly useful. My reasoning is that:

1. Those of us who are new to RPGSS almost certainly don't know the audience or environment in which your item gets ranked.
2. Exposure to off-the-cuff or informal reactions can be as much or more important than a rational, critical review. Biases are still biases even if you do the responsible thing and edit them out of your critique in the CMI thread.
3. I don't know how much I'm going to get to participate in the CMI thread!

The thread also seemed like a good mix of overexposure/formatting/bias-related venting, positivity, and chatting to keep the mood light. Some of the comments were getting awfully specific, but I'm not sure that's a problem with the existence of the thread itself.

The "Armory of Awesome" thread, for what it's worth, was exceptionally positive and made me feel good about myself when I read it. It was also way less interesting, had many fewer posts in it, and provided me with almost zero useful information on how to make a better item.

Bias in voting is an interesting concern. I know that I voted differently based on how far along I was in my own personal voting curve--I voted very differently in the beginning than I did in the middle, and very differently in the middle than I did at the end. I think I was a better voter at the end, and anything to speed up my progression along that path is probably a good thing for the items that came up on my screen. There are a lot of different contexts in which you can (and maybe should) be evaluating an item, and most people aren't going to know about them unless they're exposed to them in some way.

An example of what I learned from the "What I've Seen" thread: I've played D&D 3 for over a decade, I've been playing Pathfinder for two years now, and I re-read the magic item section before submitting my item. I never processed that you add the masterwork cost separately from the enchantment cost for arms and armor until I saw people talking about downvoting items with that mistake in the thread. I've done it right before, even--talk about feeling stupid! If I'd gotten it in a critique, I'd probably have considered it minor--and honestly, it's not something I ever made a voting decision on, nor do I plan to start--but seeing it come up repeatedly in the thread suggests there's an audience that does care, and you will lose votes if you make that mistake.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Terminalmancer wrote:

An example of what I learned from the "What I've Seen" thread: I've played D&D 3 for over a decade, I've been playing Pathfinder for two years now, and I re-read the magic item section before submitting my item. I never processed that you add the masterwork cost separately from the enchantment cost for arms and armor until I saw people talking about downvoting items with that mistake in the thread. I've done it right before, even--talk about feeling stupid! If I'd gotten it in a critique, I'd probably have considered it minor--and honestly, it's not something I ever made a voting decision on, nor do I plan to start--but seeing it come up repeatedly in the thread suggests there's an audience that does care, and you will lose votes if you make that mistake.

I agree, messing up the masterwork quality in pricing was minor. It only became a factor in my voting if the items were similar in mojo and I was looking for a tiebreaker. If that was someone's dealbreaker for an item, it saddens me.

[Terminalmancer]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Terminalmancer wrote:

An example of what I learned from the "What I've Seen" thread: I've played D&D 3 for over a decade, I've been playing Pathfinder for two years now, and I re-read the magic item section before submitting my item. I never processed that you add the masterwork cost separately from the enchantment cost for arms and armor until I saw people talking about downvoting items with that mistake in the thread. I've done it right before, even--talk about feeling stupid! If I'd gotten it in a critique, I'd probably have considered it minor--and honestly, it's not something I ever made a voting decision on, nor do I plan to start--but seeing it come up repeatedly in the thread suggests there's an audience that does care, and you will lose votes if you make that mistake.

I agree, messing up the masterwork quality in pricing was minor. It only became a factor in my voting if the items were similar in mojo and I was looking for a tiebreaker. If that was someone's dealbreaker for an item, it saddens me.

I doubt it's a dealbreaker for very many people at all, but it is going to be a factor. If you want to be SuperStar, you want to see your item winning those matchups against other items with good mojo! :)

[The black raven]

How this thread mutated since my previous post. Real interesting though.

I would like to thank each and everyone of those who commented on my post. You all show an immense deal of support and generosity that is real rare on the internet. This is an immense help to any who would want to become a designer (and actually to anyone interested in becoming a better person IMO).

Concerning the unanonymous comments, I think that once we accept that we are ALWAYS biased in how we vote, no matter how impartial we try to be, it is easier to keep on voting being as fair as we humanly can.

And identifying items and seeing them upvoted or downvoted will not change that. It won't have any more impact than being prejudiced against oriental stuff or techno items.

It is up to each and every one of the voters to vote as fairly as they can and the current way of doing things already incorporates our all too human tendency to vote with a bias.

One thing I would like though, especially after seeing that some posters did flag posts that were too revealing, would be to have some tag added to posts that are flagged for review (especially when they are my own posts) so that I can try to understand what can be seen as going too far.

[Snorter]

John Bennett wrote:

3. Review the various Pathfinder 3PPs out there and find one who publishes the type of products you are interested in writing. Visit their website regularly/like them on Facebook (if they have a Facebook page) so you can keep up on any news they might have about contests/open calls. Also, see if they have a submission page and how open they are to working with freelancers.

5. Engage in dialogue with publishers. Review their products- what did you like, what did you not like, what kind of material would you have liked to have seen in the product. It might turn out that you and a particular publisher have similar tastes and might work well together.

The whole post was good advice, but I thought I'd comment on these two points specifically.

There was a lot of discussion as to whether entrants would be taking a risk, entering weapons such as pistols, muskets, technoweapons, or making items most useful for non-Core classes from the APG/UM/UC/ACG, or powered by grit/panache/luck, or optional rules like Hero Points.

Would the benefit, from aiming for a less-crowded design space, outweigh the potential downvotes from voters who don't use (refuse to use?) such material in their own games?

It's no secret that classes such as Summoner and Gunslinger are the Marmite of PF material. Loved and loathed in equal measure, but almost no-one has a neutral opinion.

That being the case, maybe those entrants who have strong desire to create supporting material for these concepts would do well to check out the 3PP who've made them their focus.
Paizo's rulebooks are by necessity, going to cover generic fantasy concepts, before going on to attempt niche material. And some of the posters on these boards can be very vocal about what material they consider 'proper' fantasy. And will have downvoted your Banana-Shot Blunderbuss*, Holofield Powersuit*, or Rod of Wuxia*, without even reading them.

So don't be discouraged, if these items didn't seem to get high up the voting list, because somewhere out there is a company pitching their idea for a PF-compatible setting of 'Gun-Toting Monks in Space', where all the above would be a perfect fit.
By pitching to a genre-friendly audience, you might find yourself being the next RPGNow bestseller, or Ennies-winner, while all the detractors who insist on limiting the game to snore-worthy sub-Tolkein rehashes can shake their fists at the uncaring sky.

*not actual entries, as far as I know.

[Snorter]

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Also, one other thing to add:

No one loses anything by entering the contest.

You do lose one thing; the ability to submit that specific item to another publisher for consideration.

But that's a very minor thing.
Anyone who considers themselves to be freelance writer material should never be pinning all their career hopes on one single submission to one competition.
They should be constantly working on things for their home game, and becoming so used to putting together new items/spells/creatures/classes/adventures, that it becomes second nature, and they have enough playtested material, or ideas in their mental to-do list, that they can slam out spell-checked, proofread, balanced, publishable content, at short notice.

[Brigg]

Snorter wrote:

Cthulhudrew wrote:

Also, one other thing to add:

No one loses anything by entering the contest.

You do lose one thing; the ability to submit that specific item to another publisher for consideration.

But that's a very minor thing.
Anyone who considers themselves to be freelance writer material should never be pinning all their career hopes on one single submission to one competition.
They should be constantly working on things for their home game, and becoming so used to putting together new items/spells/creatures/classes/adventures, that it becomes second nature, and they have enough playtested material, or ideas in their mental to-do list, that they can slam out spell-checked, proofread, balanced, publishable content, at short notice.

This.

Forever.