Very General Constructive Feedback

[Andrew Marlowe]

Okay so participating RPG Superstar's snark thread makes it really hard for me to remain August Positive which has been very important to since I read that article 3 years ago. So rather than wade into the temptation of the snark thread I'd like to start a more positive feedback thread.

Groundrules:

We still need to keep things vague. Don't call out specific examples from actual items seen this year.

Keep your feedback constructive. Offer solutions when possible--but again keep it general.

Don't be a jerk.

if you are reading this thread as a contestant, I cannot promise what is included here won't sting. If you think a comment might be about your item. DO NOT DISQUALIFY YOURSELF...SAY NOTHING. Take the advice offered here in the compassionate way it is intended and apply it to next year or future rounds (if you make it that far).

So with all that in mind here goes.

From the tiny sampling I've seen so far quality does seem to be up. Good on everyone!

I've already seen two items using illegal sources. Please do yourself a favor and read the rules for each round. In years past these would not have been illegal but the rules changed this year again don't assume you know what you can and cannot use. Check the rules.

Attempt to use the proper formatting. A couple of the entries I've seen look like they might have been written up for another edition of the game because most of the required info was present but the order was odd. One of these had enough mojo I upvoted it despite the flaws but I don't know that I'll be able to justify doing it often.

I cannot think of an official source that uses hast, willst, whilst or other similar words...I'd avoid it.

[Jeff Lee]

I've found five items thus far that have impressed me. Whether they're superstar quality or not remains to be seen, but they're definitely keepers, and each was vastly superior to the item it was paired against. Well, except for two of them that came back to be paired against one another. That took a bit of comparison to determine which was superior.

[Monica Marlowe]

I am impressed with the small sampling I've seen so far, all have been formatted, while perhaps not completely, they have the look of effort. There are references to other things in PRD and it looks like this year the designers items I've seen so far have taken this pretty seriously. I'm a lot excited.

[Matt Morris]

I have seen some dynamite item names this year. Kudos!

Advice:

Read Sean's excellent advice collection, even if you are making a weapon or armor. Honestly, it covers 90% of the missteps that I have seen.

Read the gripe thread from years past. (Even if, at times, it is unpleasant and negative.) This is an easy way to see if your item description is treading on hidden memes from the contest that would be easy to overlook. (Filigree, torc, runes, etc.)

Unless there is a good reason not to, have your item's function compliment its form. Usually, swords should do hit-y things! Armor should be protective. Playing against this can be interesting, but run your design by some friends and make sure that the form of your item doesn't seem arbitrary.

[Andrew Marlowe]

Another couple tips.
Please preview your entry. The Preview button offers a clean look at how your entry will look to the voters and also provides a word count. I've seen a few items whose names don't match the header and formatting issues from bbc code errors that could have been caught with a preview.

I think this often (but not necessarily always) comes from designers who work on their entries right in the submission field. Which is another habit I would recommend against.

[Kiel Howell]

My first constructive criticism is to use the template provided. The formatting is done for you already.

My second constructive criticism is to nail down the primary power/concept. The secondary (or tertiary) should naturally flow from that.

My third constructive criticism is to use the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Sillyhead (yes I'm a parent if you can't tell). If you find yourself running out of wordcount, or you are considering leaving clarifications out to keep wordcount down, then it is probably too complicated.

My fourth constructive criticism is go back over your description and switch up some of your adjectives. It doesn't need to sound like a thesaurus, but basic tips (like the excellent articles on what to use besides the word "very") will help make your writing more dynamic.

[Gabriel Almer]

I've seen several decent, if somewhat niche items so far.

A very common mistake is using second person ('you') in place of third person ('the wearer/wielder').

[Twisted Path]

Nice thread. :)

I've voted on a few pretty cool items so far, some of which will probably get DQ'd for lack of formatting. Echoing what several others have said, use that template!

I've also seen some pretty wild pricing, but I'm not even sure that my pricing was correct, so let's hope the accountants take the week off!

The only other advice I might offer, and as a first timer I'm not sure I should be offering any, is to avoid tacking on some random powerful ability just to beef up your items street cred. Stick with the theme you've created and leave it at that!

I'm pretty concerned about the wording on my entry. While I was reading over it again and again, I kept finding ways that it could be misconstrued and ended up using the name of the item more than just once or twice in its description. I did it for the sake of clarity, but it seemed clunky.

[Andrew Marlowe]

Twisted Path wrote:

The only other advice I might offer, and as a first timer I'm not sure I should be offering any...

Offer what ever advice you see fit. Even those of us who are "old hands" at this can still benefit from a fresh perspective.

[Garrick Williams]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Unless there is a good reason not to, have your item's function compliment its form. Usually, swords should do hit-y things! Armor should be protective. Playing against this can be interesting, but run your design by some friends and make sure that the form of your item doesn't seem arbitrary.

I always encourage this piece of advice. Especially true for wondrous items. It really amps up the item's cool factor.

[Wren Brown]

If you include a proper noun in your item name, make sure it is a person, place or thing that exists in Golarion lore. Don't use the name of your PC or something from your homebrew campaign. Also avoid pop culture media references – outside IP can be grounds for disqualification.

[Browman]

Overall item quality this year is good.

That being said there are two things I have noticed.

- formatting, it doesn't have to be perfect but at least get it mostly right.

- sometimes less is more. Just because you have 300 words doesn't mean you need to use all of them, most of the best items don't go over 250 words. The same can be said of item abilities and associated costs, not all items need 3 or more abilities and a six figure cost.

[Flanwaw]

Some of these item's are great - but for a few of them the biggest thing holding them back for me has been pricing.

These item's need to be usable, and some of them have been double, triple, and sometimes even half of a reasonable price.

While I've voted for many of these despite this (and one of them I believe to be top 32 material) - as their abilities are unique and interesting - I do hope future submissions will look at pricing a bit better.

[chaoseffect]

Flanwaw wrote:

Some of these item's are great - but for a few of them the biggest thing holding them back for me has been pricing.

These item's need to be usable, and some of them have been double, triple, and sometimes even half of a reasonable price.

While I've voted for many of these despite this (and one of them I believe to be top 32 material) - as their abilities are unique and interesting - I do hope future submissions will look at pricing a bit better.

Pricing can definitely be problematic, especially as the pricing guidelines really are guidelines outside of Big 6 items as everything else tends to be quite niche. Should you go with the suggested price, even though it seems much too steep meaning that no PC would ever own it unless it was DM dropped, or should you try to ballpark it down to something you think is reasonable but at the risk of invalidating similar items and/or creating something too powerful for the price? I really have no answer here, but from several entries I've seen I wish they had gone the more conservative route; at the very least make sure your "+4 magic weapon with other awesome stuff" isn't less expensive than a base +4 weapon.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

My method is to use the pricing guidelines and then slide it on the scale based on items in the same slot. It's not perfect, but honestly the pricing guidelines in the CRB are far from exact.

[Wren Brown]

So when the contest rules say to submit "an item" that is exactly what they mean. Submitting and entire set of items or items that must be used in pairs or groups are rarely popular choices with the voters or can even violate the item categories allowed in the contest.

[Dana Huber]

If your item inflicts a condition, positive or negative, of any sort, then definitely double-check that you are clearly listing the duration of that condition somewhere! I've seen more than a few items that would presumably make somebody shaken, or sickened, or blinded.... forever, because the item stated no duration for these conditions. :P

[Googleshng]

I know I really struggled with pricing mine this year. The problem is, the farther away you get from items that already exist, and the low end of the price scale in particular (which I would generally recommend- you can either go for low-level utility or high level novelty, while pricey items have to compete with high level mainstays) gets more inconsistent for value estimation. Permanent special abilities here, whip feather tokens there.

One issue I'm particularly seeing this year is people erring on the side of too descriptive. It's nice to really convey what it looks like when you activate an item and what it's made from, but you don't want to bury the actual use of the item under a long backstory.

[GeneticDrift]

dana huber wrote:

If your item inflicts a condition, positive or negative, of any sort, then definitely double-check that you are clearly listing the duration of that condition somewhere! I've seen more than a few items that would presumably make somebody shaken, or sickened, or blinded.... forever, because the item stated no duration for these conditions. :P

this was not one of your examples so just to clarify for others, fatigued and exhausted have their own duration listed in the rules.

[Dana Huber]

GeneticDrift wrote:

dana huber wrote:

If your item inflicts a condition, positive or negative, of any sort, then definitely double-check that you are clearly listing the duration of that condition somewhere! I've seen more than a few items that would presumably make somebody shaken, or sickened, or blinded.... forever, because the item stated no duration for these conditions. :P

this was not one of your examples so just to clarify for others, fatigued and exhausted have their own duration listed in the rules.

I would say that it's still a good idea to list the duration, even of those, because not all instances of those conditions match the default situations given in the rules. Consider 'fatigued' -- barbarians are fatigued after raging, but not for the duration listed as the 'default' for fatigued. And I would wager that rage!induced fatigue is the most common instance of fatigue in the game.

Then there's fatigue induced by non-lethal hustling damage-- which goes away as soon as that NL damage is healed.

Then there's fatigue induced by spells, such as Touch of Fatigue or Waves of Fatigue-- except that one goes away when the spell ends, and the other doesn't.

So if your item is magically causing fatigue, I would say it's better to cover your bases and clarify whether it's fatigue as per the normal condition, or whether it ends after a certain duration, etc, rather than let the reader assume.

(Note that no item I have seen causes fatigue, so this is entirely hypothetical.)

[Anthony Adam]

I am not too worried about pricing, that is a formulae that can be fixed a lot easier than the core ideas and execution of the design itself.

I am letting the item design outweigh the pricing and so far, taking the time to do that, I haven't had to use Price at all as a deciding factor.

Try not to let yourself get focused on one factor from these comment threads and vote how you feel about your pairs and not how others are saying they feel.

[Flanwaw]

On that note, any item that becomes animate for the express purpose of inflicting harm should have clearly defined statistics - such as a small stat block, or a reference to an existing creature with defined attributes. I would generally discourage such items when working under a 300 word limit, but if we don't know what sort of damage the animate object is capable of it's impossible to judge its effectiveness or balance.

[Wszebor Uriev]

Maybe its me, but to this point I think I'm seeing a lot more overpowered / game breaking items than last year. Also a lot more items with broken formatting.

Having said that, there were several that made me think "I wish I'd done that!".

My concern with the straight open-voting is that enough voters will ignore game balance and vote themselves more powerful items.

[The black raven]

Wszebor Uriev wrote:

My concern with the straight open-voting is that enough voters will ignore game balance and vote themselves more powerful items.

Based on last RPGSS' voters' threads, I think you need not worry, as they clearly favored elegant and creative, well-formatted, items that fired the imagination ;-)

[JJ Jordan]

The black raven wrote:

Wszebor Uriev wrote:

My concern with the straight open-voting is that enough voters will ignore game balance and vote themselves more powerful items.

Based on last RPGSS' voters' threads, I think you need not worry, as they clearly favored elegant and creative, well-formatted, items that fired the imagination ;-)

Most of the voters, I believe, are GMs or game designers. Especially towards the end of voting, only the hardcore will be around still after the culls. While some overpowered/gonzo items will go through, I don't think they will dominate the top 32.

[Kiel Howell]

I'll chime in too; the judges have said, since the beginning of voting, that the voters have done a pretty good job of putting the items in order. There may be an exception or two that doesn't get Top 32, maybe Top 50, but those are the exceptions.

[RonarsCorruption]

One trend I've noticed is a lot of items with one (generally great) primary power that's well explained in the first paragraph, and then a short list of add-on powers that barely relate to the original.

So far, I don't think any of them are improved at all by the list of "and here's four other add-on powers you can use while the primary power is active." They clutter the item and take away from it's primary focus. And often also jack up the price beyond what it needs to be.

Keep it simple! If you're ever adding more than a second effect to your item, consider it very carefully.

[bdk86]

I think my biggest piece of constructive feedback so far is thus:

Ask yourself If your item is built to bypass something you find difficult about the rules/status quo. If the answer is "yes", your item is really more in line with a custom magic item made by a PC in the course of a campaign; not one that should go in a book for wider use. I'm seeing a lot of items that fall into this trap of "I want to bypass this thing I find annoying as a player in the system"; especially regarding material based DR.

A good item should fan the flames of imagination, make an encounter more interesting, make for a fantastic story, or help a player/GM do something neat/thematic with a character. A great item does this while still being something a player wants to use mechanically.

[JJ Jordan]

I'm not a master item writer but I have some suggestions from the viewpoint of as a voter/consumer.

Item description:
You've got one to two sentences to describe this item's physical appearance. If it goes beyond two sentences then the required quality of the writing has to go up exponentially for every word beyond two sentences.

Why? While voting through hundreds of items, I stop caring about the fluffiness. It would be the same if your item was in a "Big Ol' Book of Magic Items". I'm just looking for something to help my character or get neat character ideas.

The best items have a physical description that are either a subtle or not-so-subtle hint at the items function. Establishing a theme gets bonus points.

Line Breaks:
Use additional line breaks to separate the main ideas and powers of your item.

The space between this sentence and the last was a line break. This makes the item friendlier on the eyes and helps alleviate that wall-of-text awfulness.

Be Concise:
You have an item idea. Awesome! Try to write it up in less than 200 words. If it's absolutely impossible to write it up with 200 than up your max to 250.

Going above 250 should be a conscious decision made with extreme caution. 250-300 words is like a page in a novel and longer than the hook on a book jacket.

Since this advice is nearing 250 words...I'll stop.

[Isaac Volynskiy]

I've seen items I've workshopped, some of which took my advice and some which did not.

I'll repeat my main advice.

Read your item aloud.

When you read something you wrote, your mind is prone to read it as you believe you wrote it rather than what you've actually put down, automatically smoothing over mistakes. Reading it aloud will force you to confront them and thus give you the opportunity to correct them.

Want to run a template check? (yes, you do)
Read an SRD item (similar to yours if possible) aloud including punctuation and formatting (bold tags, line breaks). "lbs." isn't "pounds", it's "el be es period". Do the same thing with your item.

[Wszebor Uriev]

RonarsCorruption wrote:

One trend I've noticed is a lot of items with one (generally great) primary power that's well explained in the first paragraph, and then a short list of add-on powers that barely relate to the original.

Totally agree there. Several times a good item has been ruined by last minute additions, like pork added to a bill in Congress lol.

Will the senator please tell me why this simple Wand of Magic Missiles can also cast Summon Monster IX at will? No wonder this project continues to go over budget!

[R Pickard]

One really well-written strong ability is better than a million. 1-3 very related things can work, especially if it reinforces a theme. Too many abilities can actually dilute an item's effectiveness however, rather than increase it.

Pretend my post is agreeing with/corroborating Ronar's post rather than me totally missing it the first time and not realizing till Wszebor ninja'ed me.

[Jarrett Sigler]

If your Consumable Item can be a potion, don't make it a wondrous item. It can be a potion, and chances are, the potion is cheaper.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

But one of the most simple ways to be professional is to meet the requirements of the task given. That means coming in under 300 words. That means no non-allowed item types. That means no non-allowed sources. That means doing basic spell-checking and proper formating. If you can't do those basic things, your item will never get any further than the reject pile.

Yeah, I know many people enter never expecting anything to come of it. But if you're serious about the opportunities this contest can open to you, then please take the rules seriously.

[The black raven]

When you check in the PRD that there is not already an item doing what yours do, be sure to check for keywords that are usually synonymous with your item's keywords. For example, spikes, spines, thorns and other words with the same overall meaning.

You may find out that your item is not that original. Hopefully in time to design another one ;-)

[R Pickard]

You know, I had posted this in Sean's Consolidated Advice thread before the submission period ended/voting period began. But as it can serve as feedback as well as advice, why not put it here?

DeathQuaker wrote:

For whatever it's worth, as I find "do"s more useful than "do nots," here's my sense of what voters and judges are looking for, based on some of Sean's prior advice and that of others:

DO - Take the contest seriously and submit the best work of the kind you would want and expect to read in a Paizo product.

DO - Create an item that reflects your own never-seen-before, original ideas and feels truly magical.

DO - Give your item a unique, evocative name.

DO - Create an item that has a clear, well-established theme.

DO - Create an item that does one or only a small number of related things well.

DO - Create an item that, as much as possible, does something new (as opposed to something that is already easily possible within the rules via a feat or spell).

DO - Copy the template straight from the one provided and use it.

DO - Proofread your work! And ask a friend to read it over too!

DO - Respect the 300 word limit is a hard limit--you will be disqualified if you exceed it, including through "tricks" like deleting spaces--and use those words to their best effect.

DO - Limit your text to the item's description only.

DO - Remember you are describing an item rather than telling a story. A well written item inspires story ideas without any suggested narrative actually included.

DO - Use original language--your own words! The only text you should copy from anywhere else is the item template. If your text feels like something you've already read in another item description, revise it.

DO - Be sure your item fits easily and naturally into the category of wondrous item, weapon, or armor.

DO - Be sure your item uses and follows Pathfinder game mechanics.

DO - Be sure those mechanics includes necessary specifics, such as the action required to use or how many times per day it can be used, etc.

DO - Pay special attention to price calculation and look at lots of examples for guidelines

DO - Be sure the rules for your item are very clear and understandable by all. (I suggest running it by a non-gamer and see if they can at least understand its basic function even if they don't understand the bonuses, etc.)

DO - Create items with mechanics simple enough that tables, etc. are not necessary to understand its function.

DO - Create items that Game Masters would feel comfortable with and even excited to use in their games.

DO - Be sure that if your item has a drawback to balance its effect, it is a real drawback.

DO - Imagine you were teaching your 12 year old child or niece or nephew to play Pathfinder, and the item you designed showed up in the materials you are teaching them. Would you feel comfortable with them reading/seeing/using it?

DO - Ensure item's abilities are not contradictory.

DO - Presume known rules can be looked up by the voters and judges.

DO - Proofread your work again! Seriously! And make sure the template is the one copied from the rules!

DO - Really, seriously, proofread! This is a simple way to help your text look professional and shows you appreciate attention to detail, which is a crucial trait in a game designer. No, creativity is not enough, because you will be beaten by someone who both is amazingly creative AND proofreads.

DO - Remember "disqualify" is really not that hard to spell out.*

*This may not have anything to do with item design.

And I'll shut up now.

[Jarrett Sigler]

I'm just going to add, Try to avoid 'rumored to exist' lines.

You need to make a singular KIND of item. If you HINT that there are other items like this, that's nice. But these items while having unique names, CAN be mass produced by the players.

So of course there will be items similar or exactly like it out there.

Imagine reading an advertisement about the Ipad. The Ipad has a lot of competition, but it doesn't advertise that it is very similar to other pad-based devices out there.

Only cheap knock offs do that. And, as a consumer, as a player, and as a designer, this is what you are unconsciously comparing your item too.

[PathlessBeth]

While not universally, true, I've found that a good rule of thumb is to avoid using proper names. If your item references specific NPCs or places, there is a good chance your item is inappropriate for a world-neutral book. Moreover, items with proper names tend also to fall into the Backstory/History/Description trap.
Furthermore, in my experience, proper names are the most common type of Intellectual Property violations in item submissions. If you are practicing to become a freelance designer, then in most of your future work you won't even be able to use the non-OGC names from Paizo's IP.

It's possible to write a good RPGSS item with the name of a specific NPC or place in it. However, avoiding proper names makes you more likely to avoid three common design traps.