| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tight timelines are understandable. I think they should be a measure of a potential freelancer which RPGSS is all about. I wonder if tight timelines need be a measure every round. That is: do five tight timelines tell you more about a potential designer than four do? more than two? more than one? I am guessing a huge difference exists between one and five, but it might be a smaller difference between three and five.
The open call had the tightest deadline of any Round 1 yet. Tight not only in terms of days open, but tight as in here's a twist go back to the drawing board.
Revealing the rules early might not be needed for every round, but for one or two it might help. Especially in the middle just to give the contestants—who have already proven two or three times that they can produce on a tight timeline—a break. It may also be helpful for R3 when the stakes are at their highest (second highest, with Top 16 still eligible for the contest, Top 8 not).
R5 will (almost?) always be an adventure proposal. Any twists can be revealed earlier and let contestants get started on the longest round of the contest. I can see any Top 8 who did not make Top 4 turn their started-but-not-finished proposal into a query for the already open PFS open call, or into a proposal for a 3PP. Something of that size & scale has other options.
I certainly don't go for "mean," any jokes to the contrary aside. I do want to go for "effective," both in finding a writer we can actually use and in filtering out people who are unlikely to be able to survive the long-term pressure of freelance RPG writing.
I wasn't suggesting you or anyone else involved was being mean about how the rounds were set up. I apologize if that's how my post came across.
The contest is meant to be a challenge. "Nice" things are rarely challenging. That's all I meant. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tight timelines are understandable. I think they should be a measure of a potential freelancer which RPGSS is all about. I wonder if tight timelines need be a measure every round. That is: do five tight timelines tell you more about a potential designer than four do? more than two? more than one? I am guessing a huge difference exists between one and five, but it might be a smaller difference between three and five.
The open call had the tightest deadline of any Round 1 yet. Tight not only in terms of days open, but tight as in here's a twist go back to the drawing board.
One good reason--that has nothing to do with testing entrants' sensitivity to deadlines--to elongate the R1 deadline is to ensure enough people find out about it and have time to enter. I know a lot of die hard Pathfinder fans. None of them, save one who is a regular poster on this board, had EVER heard of the Superstar contest until I told them I was in the top 32. And even though I know about Superstar, I only heard about the contest opening until a few days before the deadline. Obviously I did alright ;) . But regardless, making sure the word gets out is a good thing. OTOH, I know there were a lot of R1 submissions so maybe restricting visibility is intentional. Anyway, just food for thought.
Thanks, Owen, I really appreciate your insight to the contest.
Modules Overlord
|
R5 will (almost?) always be an adventure proposal. Any twists can be revealed earlier and let contestants get started on the longest round of the contest. I can see any Top 8 who did not make Top 4 turn their started-but-not-finished proposal into a query for the already open PFS open call, or into a proposal for a 3PP. Something of that size & scale has other options.
Actually the Top 8 did all know the rules for R5 in advance. :D Since they have to get an elevator pitch approved, and we want them to be ready with that as soon as R5 opens, an email was sent out with the full R5 rules to all the top 8, letting them know that if they were top 4 they should already know what adventure they want to pitch.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9
aka Arkos
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi there! Long-time lurker, first-time poster (this month, at least)...
I stinking love this competition. I continue to bring it up on my podcast, and I just can't stop talking about or checking the boards to find the next reveal. I think RPGSS is unique in its scope, and I definitely don't want it to change... much.
For a competitor, this whole process is a super busy time. You're reading critiques, writing some work, looking at the work of your competition, reading those reviews, tearing up your work, rewriting your work, checking the clock, and most importantly, talking to your team about your next submission. Maybe that means talking to myself at my desk, or annoying my non-RPG friend. Or maybe I get a playtest group together. Whatever. The competition is about communication.
For a spectator, dialogue is super important. It keeps you active and entertained. It's why the epic posts build up during the initial month of voting. We're constantly engaged in a community effort. At the end of round 1, folks move on to the Critique My Item thread, and they also create a community dialogue. But after that runs out, the ability to create dialogue is gone.
I can write a critique, but the author is unable to respond. And it isn't great form to workshop a submission. So each post is just "this is what I think" in a bubble. I haven't commented, because I'd rather just vote than write something that can't really get a timely response from anyone.
I wish we had more opportunities for dialogue. Conversation beyond an Exit Poll. I realize that requires time spent on the spectators and not the competitors, but the spectators are the ones who comment and keep focus on these boards. Anyway, that's what I want to change.
R5 will (almost?) always be an adventure proposal. Any twists can be revealed earlier and let contestants get started on the longest round of the contest. I can see any Top 8 who did not make Top 4 turn their started-but-not-finished proposal into a query for the already open PFS open call, or into a proposal for a 3PP. Something of that size & scale has other options.Actually the Top 8 did all know the rules for R5 in advance. :D Since they have to get an elevator pitch approved, and we want them to be ready with that as soon as R5 opens, an email was sent out with the full R5 rules to all the top 8, letting them know that if they were top 4 they should already know what adventure they want to pitch.
Wow! Paizo does it again! Thanks for listening to the fans! :)
I figured the elevator pitch included something like that. Do Top 8 get make the elevator pitch or only Top 4 (I realize that might be a rhetorical question :). If it is only the Top 4, the result is almost the same: not being able to delve too deeply into R4 work. If it is 8, there will be four partially finished submissions that can be offered elsewhere.
One other thing I would like to see, which is more for the community than for Paizo. Can we limit participation in the 'let-voting-steam-off-thread' to people only with a Star Voter* tag. (This year's So far I've seen or last year's Voter's Incessant Ramble.) I feel those threads sway voter's against something particularly mentioned. Even non-negative comments can affect this. 'I see a lot X' makes it look like X is not very creative, when in fact X** is just a weapon found on page 123 of the CRB. A lot of new voter's especially take cues from more experienced people here.
As Rich mentioned it adds to the community dialogue so is very easy to bring new people in. Maybe it is just me,*** but I feel it can really sway opinions when people get excited about a very cool contest and want to participate.
To whomever starts that thread next year please include a little bit of etiquette along the lines of Eric's Guildhall. Maybe Mamaursala's New viewer's guide can also mention it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 4
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka mamaursula
|
Wow! Paizo does it again! Thanks for listening to the fans! :)I figured the elevator pitch included something like that. Do Top 8 get the elevator pitch or only Top 4 (I realize that might be a rhetorical question :). If it is only the Top 4, the result is almost the same: not being able to delve too deeply into R4 work. If it is 8, there will be four partially finished submissions that can be offered elsewhere.
Last year the entire Top 16 received the final Round Rules prior to the reveal, as they went from 16 to 4. This year the Top 8 received the rules and were instructed to have our two sentence elevator pitch ready to roll for the Tuesday vote reveal. We then sent in our quick pitch and I personally received approval within a matter of moments, I cannot speak for the other 3 contenders.
As an aside, every contender I spoke to worked in advance of the next round throughout the contest. We cannot talk during the voting period, so we have to do something with our time. Again, I only speak from my personal experience, but there is plenty of stuff to fill the time between voting and turn over. Anything that was started without being submitted is person IP and can be used at a later date with any publisher.
Thanks Monica.
I guess it everyone will be (or should be) working on it. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One other thing I would like to see, which is more for the community than for Paizo. Can we limit participation in the 'let-voting-steam-off-thread' to people only with a Star Voter* tag. (This year's So far I've seen or last year's Voter's Incessant Ramble.) I feel those threads sway voter's against something particularly mentioned. Even non-negative comments can affect this. 'I see a lot X' makes it look like X is not very creative, when in fact X** is just a weapon found on page 123 of the CRB. A lot of new voter's especially take cues from more experienced people here.
As Rich mentioned it adds to the community dialogue so is very easy to bring new people in. Maybe it is just me,*** but I feel it can really sway opinions when people get excited about a very cool contest and want to participate.
To whomever starts that thread next year please include a little bit of etiquette along the lines of Eric's Guildhall. Maybe Mamaursala's New viewer's guide can also mention it.
I really dislike this idea. I know the root of what you want to achieve is a good thing, but I am not fond of the suggested method. Voting requires time and Internet access not everyone has in great supply. I get "merely" to Star because that's what my time allows for, and that "small" amount seems to absorb an inordinate amount of my free time I really probably should be using for the rest of my life. If people vote--or even if they just want to observe the contest, ask questions, etc--they should feel free.
Restricting to voter count also just increases the bizarre competitiveness for voter ranks as well. It frankly got really boring watch people bicker over who was going to get to Champion, Marathon, etc. first. And anyone who votes at all, whether it's once or 10,000 times should feel appreciated.
The issue of those posts is they can build a negative tone. (And I apologize for any of that I might have contributed to in the past.)
You want to have a less negative tone, don't put arbitrary restrictions on people based on what they choose to do with what little or ample free time they might have. Instead, set an example for the tone you'd like to see, by starting positive threads or question/answer discussion threads, and ask others politely who are being overly negative to back off.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Marathon Voter Season 8, Dedicated Voter Season 9
aka Arkos
|
*SNIP*Instead, set an example for the tone you'd like to see, by starting positive threads or question/answer discussion threads*SNIP*
This is a great idea, but that anonymity thing makes it tough. I would LOVE to see a Q&A thread like this:
Random Person: I was voting today and I saw a weapon that had enervation in its construction requirements, but it doesn't reference the spell anywhere in the description. What's up with that?**
Authoritative Non-Contestant: Well, I don't know what that crazy author was thinking exactly, but I do know that if a specific magic weapon has a specific magic quality as well, like icy or shocking burst, then it also has to have those construction requirements along with all of its regular ones.
Random Person: Oh yeah? Well what about this weapon that totally doesn't follow that rule? Or this corner case?
Random Person 2: Interesting! Do you think it's worth it to focus on details like that in your submission?
And then Authoritative Non-Contestant can answer specific questions and comment on the general design process, so that people can learn from voting, rather than just talk about voter tags. This would be helpful for both contestants and soon-to-be spectators.
But this is a thing that instills bias, and it's a little more "official" than just the praise and blah threads.
Basically, we've got the college football playoffs. I just also want to have Sportscenter. /SPORTSMETAPHOR
**To use a totally-not-in-any-way-personal-from-this-year example.
Establishing that kind of bias will happen no matter who is having the conversation -- and for that matter, the greater amount you vote is probably only going to increase your biases and your desire to vent them, not reduce the problem. The amount you vote in no way qualifies you to be capable of policing your language.
Paizo can decide whether these biases create a problem statistically or not. If they really are a problem, then they can ban certain discussions.
The tone is not my primary concern. That would be the swaying of votes. Some of the posts were not negative in tone, but still gave new voters the impression that something was bad/good. That 'something' more often than not wasn't integral to the design (filigree is a great example).
I think long time participants are less likely to be swayed than new folks. Certainly as a three-time voter, a Top 8 contestant and a long time follower of the contest, you aren't likely to be swayed by a random (however neutral) comment. You are more likely to take a joke as the joke it was intended. Star is admittedly random, I do think a better guideline can be found.
We can't stop folks from posting, or from reading even. I am not even saying those threads should stop. I just hoped we could establish a guideline that would allow new participants to make their own opinions before jumping into them and getting caught up in the hoopla.
I don't want to beleaguer the point . Your reasons are valid for not wanting to codify something like this. I'm ok with that. :)
Fair enough, Curaigh. :)
But I think the only possible way to stop any expression of bias would be to ban all discussion of items while voting. And I think that might be too extreme to be a valid solution.
FWIW I think any amount of experience I have in the contest only increases my personal biases. I may try be more careful not to express them, but even then only because I'm the kind of person who tries to be careful about that kind of stuff, but I can't guarantee I never will (I probably will indeed fail to do so; stupid, pesky humanity). Especially as all I can do in the future is vote. A newbie might even be better about NOT influencing voting biases because they're not going to pre-anticipate torcs and filigree and earthbreakers and start joking about them the moment they see one of those things and making others sensitive to or anticipate those sorts of items.
I think I'd like to see the voting period be shorter. I think part of the reason for the complaining is people's seeing the items over and over and building up a frustration with them. Set up a shorter period and that won't be as big a problem.
Does it mean some people may not see every item? Sure, but I don't think that's a bad thing. One of my favorite items was R's harvestweal, in part because I hadn't seen it in voting, so it felt new and fresh to me when it showed up in the Top 32. It actually made me think I'm going to try to vote less next year so I can get more of that element of surprise in the reveal (no idea if I'll stick with that resolution when next year rolls around, of course).
I think it could also shorten the time investment for voters (even if what they're giving to voting is completely by choice), which would hopefully mean they'll stay invested longer into the contest.
I don't know what the minimum time needed to sort items into a usable stack is, but I'd aim for that for voting instead of the longer period we had this year (which was nearly a month).
Well, thanks! #o_o#
I'd be down with a shorter voting period--PROVIDED Paizo would be sure it gets enough votes to get the items adequately sorted. I remember some really tense threads popping up toward the end of the voting period this year and I have a feeling some voting fatigue contributed somewhat toward that.
Another possible suggestion is that...
<cringes in expectation of the response>
Don't open the voting until 3 days after the reveal! But allow the same(ish) voting time once voting opens - this gives those like me time to fully digest the entries and then still have time to consider their votes without the end of vote countdown creeping up on us...
Hey, it was just a suggestion! ;)
I think that's a good idea, Anthony.
A reveal and honeymoon period for entries is a pretty good idea, I am with RP on that one. That may be one of the best suggestions yet (except for bring back the archetype round :)