There are a lot of folks already doing item critiques, so I'll take a pass on that. (Though if you want my specific thoughts on an item, feel free to shoot me a PM.) Instead I'm going to do a list of general advice to address a number of stumbling blocks I saw this year.
- Read the Rules:
It seems a bunch of people jumped right in this year, as they seem to do every year, without learning about what they're getting into first. So you have disqualifications right off the bat, because people submitted wondrous items unaware of the format change.Speaking of format, a whole lot of items didn't do as well because entrants used an improper format, or sometimes no format at all. While not every voter places as much value on formatting as some, nearly everyone will vote for the better formatted item out of two equally creative pieces of work. You can't follow the rules and do your best if you don't know what's required of you.
- Write What You Know:
This is one of those cliches that gets thrown at writers all the time. However, it's cliche because it's true. If you show, as a writer, that you don't have command of the language, or the subject you're writing about, then you've lost your reader (in the case of this contest, your voter).Don't assume you know everything. Go back to basics. Creating a staff? Then go look at the rules for staff creation in the book. To this day, when looking up rules for a game, I'll find that I'm remembering things from 3.5 that were changed in Pathfinder. It's never wrong to refresh your memory on how things function. That includes the language you're using. There are certain formats for rules that are used. If you're using them, then your item will look and sound more like a Pathfinder item. For example, the use of "to" and "on" in reference to bonuses. You add a bonus "to" a static number (+2 enhancement bonus to Strength) but you add a bonus "on" a roll or check (+5 competence bonus on Bluff checks).
Some of the most painful voting moments I had were where people used language that was either ambiguous, or simply wrong. (Don't call your item a "bodkin" if it's not a dagger. Yes, there are types of arrows that go by that name, but they're "bodkin arrows," not just "bodkins." "Frog-crotch" is another type of arrowhead, but most people wouldn't think of naming their item the "Frog Crotch of Scalping.") If you're going to pull out the 25 cent words, be sure you're using them correctly. Also be sure you're using them appropriately. Use the beautiful language for the item description. Stick to plain language when dealing with the actual mechanics.
- Think Like A Designer:
This one's tricky and not always easy to define. I'd define it as "think about your item from multiple perspectives. In other words, if you're approaching your item creation by saying "I'm going to make the coolest item for a fighter ever!" then you're being too limited on your perspective. You're designing an item as a player. You're looking at something from the perspective of how cool it would be to have such an item in a game. That's good, but it's not enough. There were plenty of items in this year's mix that seemed cool on the surface, but once I started thinking about running a game where one of the PCs had a particular item, I'd see the nightmare that it would cause (in terms of action economy, or slowing the game down to determine the effects, or some other thing that would cause a general headache in play rather than roleplay).Likewise, you can't look at it purely from a GM's perspective either. That's how you end up with items that aren't so much an item as they are a plot device, or an item that would be fine for an evil character, but would likely be destroyed by a more traditional party of heroic PCs who won't sell it because it will just end up in the hands of some other villain.
I fell into this trap myself this year. Mark Seifter's comment on my item talked about a nightmare scenario where players would sacrifice their own items to power up the weapon. It had not even occurred to me. That kind of munchkinism is not the way I play, and it's not how my group plays. I could easily argue that a good GM can keep this from happening. (It's not like hacking things to bits in the next room is quiet. One Perception check and the monsters in the next room are coming in to attack, or preparing themselves for battle.) However, my group isn't the mass of Pathfinder players at large, and not every GM is going to handle things the same way. It's something that I should have considered during the design process. I left a loophole for potential abuse of the item, and it cost me.
So, that's it. Feel free to discuss or question. Hopefully this will be of use to those participating next year.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Off the top of my head:
- Do Your Research:
Once you have thought of an item you feel has potential, search around to make sure there isn't already something similar out there. Check past years, check the pathfinder SRD (it contains a fair chunk of 3PP material as well as published Paizo items) and do some Google searches for both the name and phrases related to what it does. If there is something similar to your item out there, make sure that your item is distinct and unique, because if it bears strong similarities to existing items or something from other media, people will pick up on it and it will probably count against you, even if completely unintentional.There are a lot of creative people in the world, and creative processes can run in parallel quite frequently: Don't assume that no one else has done something before, check.
I meant to touch on that a bit in "Write What You Know." That's an excellent addition, especially considering someone had an entry with a name identical to an iconic staff that's been in the game since 1st edition AD&D.
Sean K. Reynolds covered these in his original advice thread, but they bear repeating.
- Don't make a joke item:
Seriously, just don't. It doesn't matter how funny it is, it's not superstar. It was great for the April Fool's issue of Dragon, but notice they only did that once a year. It's a niche thing, and not everyone may share your sense of humor. The idea of the contest is to design a really cool magic item, not a really funny one. Puns are especially bad. Your blue tooth that fits in a person's ear and allows them to send message spells at will isn't especially clever, nor is it a good joke. And speaking of bluetooth... - Don't make magic items that mimic real world technology:
It's not particularly creative, and most things will be easy to identify as technology that's been reskinned as magic. There should be some innovation. Besides, most tech items provide fairly mundane and uninteresting (if wondrous) abilities.