What is DQ worthy?

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Open Call Rules wrote:

Disqualification

• Submission does not conform to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

What exactly does this mean? Would the following be DQ worthy:

A) Listed CL too low for the spells used?

B) Wrong level of aura for the caster level?

C) Listing multiple strengths of auras when only the strongest should be listed?

[Wolin]

They're errors. Easily fixed errors, but errors nonetheless. I think it would be cruel to disqualify items outright for something like that, when it's not as big an issue as, say, using the wrong sources, or using a pre-existing item. I'm not even sure it's as big a sin as improper formatting.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

I agree with Wolin. Does not conform to Pathfinder means it's made for 4th/5th edition or Numenera or 1st/2nd edition or Call of Cthulhu or Shadowrun or some OTHER game, IMO.

[frank gori]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Open Call Rules wrote:

Disqualification

• Submission does not conform to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.

What exactly does this mean? Would the following be DQ worthy:

A) Listed CL too low for the spells used?

B) Wrong level of aura for the caster level?

C) Listing multiple strengths of auras when only the strongest should be listed?

I think there's a line of reason this clearly starts to cross over. I can without much effort point to top 32 entries that violate all three of the examples you are citing along with entries that have messed up the format.

-Word count is critical and you absolutely have to adhere to that it impacts the publishing side.
-Sourcing properly is also critical because it can lead o legal entanglements.

Formatting minutia while important does not endanger Paizo's ability to work with that freelancer. People can be trained. That said, Trust the voters, I think something has to be pretty awesome to get by with any of those mistakes intact.

Personally I want to wind because people like my item enough to vote for it, not because the other designer tore an ACL...

Just my 2 copper.

Edit: changed to gender neutral "designer"

[Ambrosia Slaad]

I'm not going to worry about the aura or caster level being slightly off when there are still items in contention that attempt to replace a class, or break the action economy, or think full-casting wizards need to be uber-buffed even higher.

[Feros]

I believe it means designed for Pathfinder and not 4e, 5e, Swords & Wizardry, Hackmaster, etc. Even if they make a rules mistake—but still obviously designed for pathfinder—it's OK. It may be voted down as a result, but not a DQ.

All of your examples are just mistakes, not designed for something else.

[Mike Kimmel]

I agree with Wolin and Jacob. That rule basically means, "design content for this game, not some other game or no game at all."

[Clay Clouser]

I agree with Jacob and Feros.

[Wolin]

Yegads, it's like one of those logic puzzles where someone comes in at the end and makes some statement like "Mike Kimmel and Clay Clouser are either both right or both wrong."!

[Thomas LeBlanc]

I am just saying that is a very open ended disqualification...

I has riled up the mob!

[Nyan Cat]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I has riled up the mob!

U kan haz hugz.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Nyan Cat wrote:

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

I has riled up the mob!

U kan haz hugz.

Thanks! I needed that. Deletes an email with 40+ items on it.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

BTW, I was using the dictionary definition of conform –(en-dash) comply with rules, standards, or laws. All of those things I posted are detailed in the rules...

And don't get me started on price/cost, I will wait to start looking at that after final cull.

[Feros]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

BTW, I was using the dictionary definition of conform –(en-dash) comply with rules, standards, or laws. All of those things I posted are detailed in the rules...

And don't get me started on price/cost, I will wait to start looking at that after final cull.

Yeah, for all the impressive design I'm seeing I've also noticed a number of costs...well, you've probably seen we have a new record holder. :)

[Jacob W. Michaels]

While I've certainly seen a few items worthy of DQ*, I personally don't think we should be looking for entries to DQ. My feeling is most of the items that are DQ-worthy mean the designer's not quite ready for the spotlight but here's the thing -- that's usually reflected elsewhere in the design and it probably isn't going to make the top 100 anyway.

I suppose I had some small concern other items were getting more upvotes over weaker/DQ-worthy competition in the past, but with this new version of voting, even that doesn't matter because, as Feros has pointed out, we'll see more of the top items matched up against each other as voting goes on and the cream will rise to the top.

* This year, that's mostly for using something not in the PRD, but even then, I'm typically not checking every single item because why would I? If something that breaks that rule gets into the Top 32, it should be disqualified, but that'll just give an alternate a chance. That designer at least gets recognition for making a good item though he/she suffers the penalty of not being able to be in the contest for failing to follow the rules.

[Lucky Pips]

Here are my two cp. I'm personally championing proper use of CL and Aura power on the snark thread because I feel it shows the people who went past the conceptual design phase, and really went over all the rules to ensure their item works as intended. That said, I have voted the other way when an item really wows me with it's design. While I have not done the exercise yet, I all but guaranty that due to the huge amount of them published, some of Paizo's items break the rule, and I know for a fact previous years top 32 items had these problems.

The rules are riddled with quiet exceptions from standard guidelines (weight of equipment kits being my favorite), but they are still the rules. My quick test to see if something doesn't conform with pathfinder rules is: "If this was printed right now, would it be a self encapsulating exception?" If so, it might be sloppy, but it can play. Just an example of specific trumps general. If it invalidates other rules or references things that are not in the pathfinder rules set, then I would say it is DQ worthy.

TLDR: no

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Lucky Pips wrote:

I'm personally championing proper use of CL and Aura power on the snark thread because I feel it shows the people who went past the conceptual design phase, and really went over all the rules to ensure their item works as intended. That said, I have voted the other way when an item really wows me with it's design. While I have not done the exercise yet, I all but guaranty that due to the huge amount of them published, some of Paizo's items break the rule, and I know for a fact previous years top 32 items had these problems.

I am not saying I don't vote for them (1 is on my keep list). I was really just posting it for a response (like a good troll often does).

[Feros]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

Lucky Pips wrote:

I'm personally championing proper use of CL and Aura power on the snark thread because I feel it shows the people who went past the conceptual design phase, and really went over all the rules to ensure their item works as intended. That said, I have voted the other way when an item really wows me with it's design. While I have not done the exercise yet, I all but guaranty that due to the huge amount of them published, some of Paizo's items break the rule, and I know for a fact previous years top 32 items had these problems.

I am not saying I don't vote for them (1 is on my keep list). I was really just posting it for a response (like a good troll often does).

Oh! Well then, bravo! :)

[sleepingdragon]

question.

If you have been dq and/or didn't make the cut can you put it up and get it critiqued to see why?

I'm really not sure if because it's considered property if you could.

[Isaac Volynskiy]

You can when the CMI (Critique My Item) thread goes up, usually a few days after the round ends.

[Garrett Guillotte]

sleepingdragon wrote:

question.

If you have been dq and/or didn't make the cut can you put it up and get it critiqued to see why?

I'm really not sure if because it's considered property if you could.

There's usually a critique thread that opens up where you can post your item. Paizo's fine with it; last year, Mark Seifter posted judges' commentary for most items, though I imagine that won't happen this year as the judges aren't involved.

EDIT: Alchemist'd!

[Thomas LeBlanc]

sleepingdragon wrote:

question.

If you have been dq and/or didn't make the cut can you put it up and get it critiqued to see why?

I'm really not sure if because it's considered property if you could.

If you don't want a public post, you can PM me.

[R Pickard]

NOTHING IS WORTHY OF ME, NOTHING! ALL IS BENEATH ME!!!!

.

*cough*

.

Oh, right.

You know, "disqualification" is one word. Shouldn't it be "D"?

Thus ends DeathQuaker's annual THE ABBREVIATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION HURTS MY HEAD post

Anyway, yes, just to repeat it the nth time for fun, it's if you obviously designed the item for a different game. Errors are not auto-disqualifications. It'd be like saying leaving in one of the ZZs in the pastable template is against the rules. It's not, just a mistake. IIRC, even some of the winning module proposals have had (minor) rules errors in them.

I think the disqualifiable stuff is the big, broad rulebreakers like breaks 300 word limit, is written for other game, violates IP, writer identifies their own item prematurely, etc.

*goes off to buy a Blizzard(TM)*

[Cthulhu_DMs]

R Pickard wrote:

NOTHING IS WORTHY OF ME, NOTHING! ALL IS BENEATH ME!!!!

.

*cough*

.

Oh, right.

You know, "disqualification" is one word. Shouldn't it be "D"?

Thus ends DeathQuaker's annual THE ABBREVIATION FOR DISQUALIFICATION HURTS MY HEAD post

Anyway, yes, just to repeat it the nth time for fun, it's if you obviously designed the item for a different game. Errors are not auto-disqualifications. It'd be like saying leaving in one of the ZZs in the pastable template is against the rules. It's not, just a mistake. IIRC, even some of the winning module proposals have had (minor) rules errors in them.

I think the disqualifiable stuff is the big, broad rulebreakers like breaks 300 word limit, is written for other game, violates IP, writer identifies their own item prematurely, etc.

*goes off to buy a Blizzard(TM)*

Saying that item got the 'D' might not go over so well...

[william collins]

R Pickard wrote:

*goes off to buy a Blizzard(TM)*

Hehe, I just got it. :P

[william collins]

Slow.

But steady.

[Template Fu]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

sleepingdragon wrote:

question.

If you have been dq and/or didn't make the cut can you put it up and get it critiqued to see why?

I'm really not sure if because it's considered property if you could.

If you don't want a public post, you can PM me.

Ditto.

[Mikko Kallio]

I completely agree with Wolin and everyone else who commented they're just mistakes. And as Frank Gori has pointed out, many top 32 items in the past have had mistakes like these.

I would never, ever downvote an item because of such mistake. Creativity and mojo should always matter more, so if you see a perfectly formatted item vs an item with just one or two of these mistakes, please always choose the item that shows more creativity. (And if one item clearly has more mojo, please vote for it even if it has many formatting mistakes!) I guess you can use simple mistakes like these as tie breakers, but if your mojo sense is strong enough, it's quite easy to choose.

Also--at the risk of sounding a bit cynical--I think some voters are looking for excuses for downvoting items they fear might bump their own item out of the top 32. The past few years that we've had public voting, and consequently, snark threads, I've sometimes gotten the feeling that some comments are intended to make a category of items look bad so that other voters, too, would start disliking them even if some items in that category are actually very good. It may not always be intentional, but it's harmful for the contest regardless of intent.

And lastly, as judges have pointed out in the past, you can teach template use but you can't teach mojo. (Though I've noticed that you actually can teach mojo, it just isn't very easy and it'll take a long time. I've also noticed that some people will never learn to use the template.)

[Kalindlara]

I've only submitted DQ emails for blatantly missing information or use of non-PRD materials, thus far. I've still sent almost fifty emails...

[CripDyke]

@Kalindlara:

Oh, I bugged them with somewhere between 5 & 15 (probably closer to the former, but I wasn't counting) items that I thought were DQ-able.

Although I later decided that one item that I **thought** was clearly DQ-able was actually more arguably DQ-able.

Still, eventually I decided that I did the right thing. I'm not actually DQing the item, and if they had to read all the items for DQing, it would be a hard slog. So notifying them about a minority of items, which they then have to read and axe -or not- is what was going to happen anyway, regardless of whether I changed my mind about whether the item was a clear, horrible violation of the rules or just a very significant violation of the spirit of the rules and should be left in to determine its fate.

FWIW: If that particular item wasn't DQ'd, it seems to have missed a cull, so even though Paizo can and must be the final arbiter, my judgement wasn't **too** bad.

[line]
============

So,

@Mikko:

I'll PM you about something else, but here I'll say that I favor mojo-detection as the deciding criterion, and I weigh it more heavily than anything else, BUT THAT SAID...

This isn't RPGSS 1 [Despite what it says about our voting habits].

While teaching template-use can be done, and a few errors contained within what is, apparently, an attempt at template use indicate no serious problem, a huge part of writing as a freelancer (which I haven't done for game companies, but have experience with outside the game industry) is ***following directions***.

The 300-word DQ is, in part, a following directions test: it's just as easy to ask a writer to cut 50 words as it is to teach a template. Easier, in fact. What makes it an unforgivable sin in this contest is that it's **announced** as an unforgivable sin. Either our budding RPGSS in question is reading the instructions and caring about what the publisher wants, or the budding RPGSS is decidedly **not**.

When I see something that takes the form of a template error or pricing error or requirements error, I will choose to weigh it quite heavily indeed IF it happens to look like it results from not reading the instructions and not trying your best to write to your publisher's requirements.

If you prioritize your own sense of cool over what the publisher wants, that's bad ***even if*** you have a good sense of cool.

When the publisher wants an adventure/module and you send in a bestiary full of mojo, I'm sorry, you're not a SuperStar.

So it's not that the individual mistakes in formatting/pricing/requirements/etc. matter that much. It's what I think I can divine about why and how the mistakes were made.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Kalindlara wrote:

I've only submitted DQ emails for blatantly missing information or use of non-PRD materials, thus far. I've still sent almost fifty emails...

I usually just save up a bunch to send in batches. Like before lunch, before bed, or when I have 10.

[Mikko Kallio]

CripDyke wrote:

This isn't RPGSS 1 [Despite what it says about our voting habits].

While teaching template-use can be done, and a few errors contained within what is, apparently, an attempt at template use indicate no serious problem, a huge part of writing as a freelancer (which I haven't done for game companies, but have experience with outside the game industry) is ***following directions***.

The 300-word DQ is, in part, a following directions test: it's just as easy to ask a writer to cut 50 words as it is to teach a template. Easier, in fact. What makes it an unforgivable sin in this contest is that it's **announced** as an unforgivable sin. Either our budding RPGSS in question is reading the instructions and caring about what the publisher wants, or the budding RPGSS is decidedly **not**.

I agree that following directions is very important, but I disagree that the 300-word DQ is an unforgivable sin just because it's announced to be that. Cutting 50 words (in such a way that the item still makes sense) is much more work than bolding every word that needs to be bolded, or checking the auras, for example. Submitting an item of the wrong type (another DQ-worthy mistake) is even worse. (Though again, something entirely different from what the OP or I were talking about.) I noticed you mentioned an example of submitting "a bestiary full of mojo" when the published asked for something else, so I guess you agree there is a very good reason it's on the list of DQ-worthy mistakes rather than being an unforgivable sin just because it was announced to be that.

And I'm not saying that formatting mistakes are a non-issue. Far from it. I'm only saying that fixing them is infinitely easier than fixing an unoriginal, uninspired, boring item, monster, villain, or whatever. If an author submits 2,000 words worth of magic items that are brilliant but poorly formatted, it'll take a developer one or two hours to fix them. If an author submits 2,000 words worth of magic items that do nothing but duplicate feats, spells, or class features, or ones that only use the "old wells" of +X bonuses and damage, it'll take a week or three to get it fixed.

When I was developing villains for the Villain Codex, I cringed each time I saw (and fixed) a formatting error. But I cried when I had to rewrite the entire description of a villain. It takes two seconds to fix "Speed 30ft" but it can take hours to fix a flawed or unfinished description of a villain. The authors whose villains were brilliant but poorly formatted will get another chance (along with a long list of things they'll have to internalize before submitting another villain), whereas any authors whose work I had to rewrite are much less likely to get another shot.

Since you were talking about the publisher's requirements / what they want, I'd also like to point out that each freelance assignment has an implied requirement: Give us your best work! If you submit lackluster entries, you've failed to fulfill that requirement. Either you don't understand what makes a good magic item (or other type of entry), or you simply have no interesting ideas. Neither is good. Formatting mistakes are annoying but nowhere near as bad as that.

Personally, I always turn over work that is both properly formatted and represents my best ideas (and conforms to the publisher's requirements). Which is--I firmly believe--the main reason why Paizo keeps offering me more work. (Devs, correct me if I'm wrong.)

[CripDyke]

@Mikko:

Quote:

And I'm not saying that formatting mistakes are a non-issue. Far from it. I'm only saying that fixing them is infinitely easier than fixing an unoriginal, uninspired, boring item, monster, villain, or whatever.

...2,000 words worth of magic items that are brilliant but poorly formatted, it'll take ...[1-2] hours to fix them.
...2,000 words worth of magic items that do nothing but duplicate [others' ideas] it'll take a week or three to get it fixed.

I don't think we're on different pages here at all. (Save possibly-but-not-necessarily the word-count thing: Maybe the writing work that I've done outside the game development industry is different, but I generally get something back saying, "cut 50 words" rather than have the editor try to cut the 50 words.)

I agree that going over word count is bad not merely because it's announced to be bad in this contest. To amplify my (metaphorical) wording, when I said going over 300 words was an unforgivable sin because it was announced to be so, I meant that going over 300 words has well-earned its status as a sin, but that its status as unforgivable is defendable and rational but still somewhat arbitrary. Paizo **could** have announced that there's a 300 word limit in the same way that they announced that contributors should use their template and allowed voters to down vote those items over 300 words in the same way that we down vote people who entirely forget the "Construction" section at the end (3 items I saw this year did that). I'm guessing (since I have no relationship with Paizo) that it's for all the reasons you mentioned, but also because it's a proxy following instructions test that can be almost entirely automated by the word-count software, it passed over from "sin" to "unforgivable sin".

Some sins need to be announced as unforgivable. Making them unforgivable serves a useful purpose. Paizo needs to know you're thinking at least somewhat about what they want and not just about what you think is super-cool.

So it's not merely reasonable, but important for Paizo to make it super-clear that some sins are unforgivable and then axe entries that break those rules no matter how much mojo or intelligence they display without giving voters a chance to tell paizo that yes, this 420 word ring or that 700 word Staff is so brilliant and creative that they want to see more from this or that designer even though rules were entirely ignored.

Quote:

Since you were talking about the publisher's requirements / what they want, I'd also like to point out that each freelance assignment has an implied requirement: Give us your best work! If you submit lackluster entries, you've failed to fulfill that requirement. Either you don't understand what makes a good magic item (or other type of entry), or you simply have no interesting ideas. Neither is good. Formatting mistakes are annoying but nowhere near as bad as that.

QFT.

Formatting mistakes are only useful as tiebreakers between two excellent items OR when the formatting mistakes are of an unusual type, nature, or extent that permits some insight into some entirely different problem.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

So back to the idea of content of other RPG systems as DQ offenses, what would y'all consider DQ-able?

A) Using game terminology that fits another system?

B) Using dice conventions related to other systems?

C) Thinly veiled references to non-Golarion campaign settings or lore?

[Adam Daigle]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Personally, I always turn over work that is both properly formatted and represents my best ideas (and conforms to the publisher's requirements). Which is--I firmly believe--the main reason why Paizo keeps offering me more work. (Devs, correct me if I'm wrong.)

You're not wrong. :)

[frank gori]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

So back to the idea of content of other RPG systems as DQ offenses, what would y'all consider DQ-able?

A) Using game terminology that fits another system?

Only if it doesn't fit pathfinder

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

B) Using dice conventions related to other systems?

Possibly, again depends on degree. Now roll a d30

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

C) Thinly veiled references to non-Golarion campaign settings or lore?

Depends are they bordering on an IP violation?

[Anthony Adam]

Adam Daigle wrote:

Mikko Kallio wrote:

Personally, I always turn over work that is both properly formatted and represents my best ideas (and conforms to the publisher's requirements). Which is--I firmly believe--the main reason why Paizo keeps offering me more work. (Devs, correct me if I'm wrong.)

You're not wrong. :)

... Takes comfort that I am not the only returning face still stuck in Star Voter land! ;)

[Covent]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

So back to the idea of content of other RPG systems as DQ offenses, what would y'all consider DQ-able?

A) Using game terminology that fits another system?

This. This is what it means to me. If your reference, THAC0, or Advantage, or 9-again rule you are not playing pathfinder and should be DQ'ed.

However if an item has the spare wordcount to tell me "Roll 2 D20 and take the better" or spell out a specific way of determining its function that is not the normal pathfinder way then as long as it uses no "Terms" from other games and is completely encapsulated in the items 300 words I would see it as not DQ'able.

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

B) Using dice conventions related to other systems?

This would be included in A basically. If the item references by name and call-out to another system yes, if it spells out the dice mechanics without referencing another system no.

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

C) Thinly veiled references to non-Golarion campaign settings or lore?

This would only be IP violations and not anything that is common use such as referencing Shiva, Devi, or Wolpertingers. So if you reference "Displacer Beast" yes, If you reference "The great time wyrm" no.

[Mikko Kallio]

CripDyke wrote:

I don't think we're on different pages here at all. (Save possibly-but-not-necessarily the word-count thing: Maybe the writing work that I've done outside the game development industry is different, but I generally get something back saying, "cut 50 words" rather than have the editor try to cut the 50 words.)

The amount of back and forth really depends on the publisher. I'm not at liberty to comment on the processes of individual publishers, but I think generally speaking, bigger publishers with bigger volumes and tighter schedules are less likely to contact you to cut 50 words. The developer does that. My experience is limited to just a few publishers, so my generalizations may be wrong, and it may be different for different freelancers.

Quote:

I agree that going over word count is bad not merely because it's announced to be bad in this contest. To amplify my (metaphorical) wording, when I said going over 300 words was an unforgivable sin because it was announced to be so, I meant that going over 300 words has well-earned its status as a sin, but that its status as unforgivable is defendable and rational but still somewhat arbitrary.

Fair enough. I agree that the 300-word limit is a bit arbitrary. As far as I know, it's very rare for any publisher to contact you to design a single item with a max. limit of 300 words and without a min. limit. It's much more likely that you get hired to design 1 page or a two-page spread (approximately 850 words or 1,700 words; less is there is art) worth of magic items, spells, archetypes, or feats. Sometimes it's a nice round number like 1,000 or 2,000. And the 850, 1,000, 1,700, or 2,000 words isn't a limit, it's your target number. Being 100 words under the word count is just as bad as being 100 words over the word count.

While the 300-word limit isn't something that is likely to come up in freelancing, I think it's good to consider what that limit represents. It tells me that following instructions is important--you're absolutely right about that. It also tells me that word counts are important. It tells me that being concise is important (that's important even when you can afford the extra words). I also think the judges didn't want to read 500-word items back in the day when they had to read all the entries. And most importantly, the people who wrote the rules (experienced freelancers and developers) know that you don't need more than 300 words to write a good item. If you need more than that, your item is probably too complex or you're just being too verbose.

But (as Neil would say), that's just my 2 cents. :)

[CripDyke]

@Mikko:

Quote:

It also tells me that word counts are important. It tells me that being concise is important (that's important even when you can afford the extra words).

Very true. Also my biggest weakness (uh, of which I'm aware). It's one reason I've done very little publishing in periodicals.

Quote:

(as Neil would say), that's just my 2 cents.

Perhaps.

But my 2 pesos are worth a lot less, given that you have actual experience in game dev and game publishing (and freelancing to boot!) while I've done precisely zero.

If I were anyone else and reading this thread, I should hope I'd prioritize your thoughts over those of that CripDyke person. I still feel I've got something to contribute to threads like this, but that's far from saying I'm any kind of authority.

[Robert Thomson]

Although it's slightly off topic, because I'm not about to post on DQ worthy sins, but my outlook is very different than the majority of the voters. I hear again and again how much pricing errors can be forgiven, but template errors are a major sin. Or that "cool" is ore important than sound mechanics. I come at things from the exact opposite side of things.

Criteria #1 for me is always - How would this item impact the game if it went in as is?
- Is it too powerful?
- Is it too cheap?

Those are the biggest sins for me by far. If it's something that would require errata or house rules to keep it from ruining aspects of the game, then that tells me the author doesn't really have a fundamental sense of play balance. Lots of people can write fluff. I want sound mechanics first and foremost. Good fluff to go with it is icing on the cake.

Why? I see this as a window into how this writer will balance other things. If they start out creating unbalanced items, will they follow with unbalanced encounters in an adventure? A lot of GM's (like everyone running PFS) depend on the writers to walk that fine line between too strong and not challenging enough. Having potential writers who have things that stray far from that line is a huge red flag to me.

So not a DQ worthy thing, but just another perspective from a voter. (A minority perspective I'm sure.)

[R Pickard]

Thrawn007 wrote:

Although it's slightly off topic, because I'm not about to post on DQ worthy sins, but my outlook is very different than the majority of the voters. I hear again and again how much pricing errors can be forgiven, but template errors are a major sin. Or that "cool" is ore important than sound mechanics. I come at things from the exact opposite side of things.

Criteria #1 for me is always - How would this item impact the game if it went in as is?
- Is it too powerful?
- Is it too cheap?

Those are the biggest sins for me by far. If it's something that would require errata or house rules to keep it from ruining aspects of the game, then that tells me the author doesn't really have a fundamental sense of play balance. Lots of people can write fluff. I want sound mechanics first and foremost. Good fluff to go with it is icing on the cake.

Why? I see this as a window into how this writer will balance other things. If they start out creating unbalanced items, will they follow with unbalanced encounters in an adventure? A lot of GM's (like everyone running PFS) depend on the writers to walk that fine line between too strong and not challenging enough. Having potential writers who have things that stray far from that line is a huge red flag to me.

So not a DQ worthy thing, but just another perspective from a voter. (A minority perspective I'm sure.)

Template errors are complained about and considered, in a certain sense, more egregious, because they are ENTIRELY AND VERY EASILY AVOIDABLE. All you have to do is copy and paste the template from the rules page, and use it. Boom! No template errors.

A template error also suggests that if they didn't use that template, which is provided on the detailed rules page, that they didn't in general read said rules page at all.

If a contestant can't be bothered to press Ctrl+C and then Ctrl+V (and probably read the rules to boot), what else can't they be bothered to do? It doesn't make the writer look good on any level. Definitely not Superstar.

Not to mention, most items with major template issues seldom are well-written either. Few if any ever make it into the top 32, and not because of template problems per se, but because they were not Superstar material for many reasons. Failure to perform that kind of attention to detail shows up elsewhere as well, usually.

Pricing issues are, while a major potential balance issue as you say, a far more subjective issue, and nowhere near as easily avoidable. While there are rules that guide one to determine the price of a magic item, there is a LOT of leeway there, depending upon the item's actual effect (the calculation for the crafting spell's effect may not be suitable if the item only does part of what the spell actually does--or more than what it odes). Even following the rules precisely, folks may determine your item to be over- or underpriced (which has happened to me). You can't just copy and paste the magic formula to make your cost automatically perfect; there's nothing in the contest rules to help you (save to reference the very broad and subjective existing pricing rules), and a lot of little stuff to simply remember (like don't halve the masterwork item price when determining cost for crafting weapons and armor.... *whistles innocently*). This is an area where it is as much art as science, and there probably are even published items that are poorly priced, unfortunately, because of this.

Publishing-wise, if the item is otherwise excellent, it's easier for a developer to fix a price/cost issue (one-two numbers need to be edited), than to take the time it takes to fix the formatting (several lines of text need to be edited).

A Superstar will probably ballpark a decent item price, but anyone can copy and paste a template. If someone fails to do even the latter, that person is not only not a Superstar, that person has even failed to accomplish what anyone can do.

Bottom line, if it's easy to do, it's more unforgivable, because the designer should have known better. The harder thing is more forgivable because even a pro might screw it up.

This isn't to say price/cost isn't important, it's just a different level of evaluation. Good pricing of course is always an impressive feat worth a lot of praise, and sign that someone is a talented and careful designer, at least. It will matter more as the vote goes on and more culls occur, when what it may come down to is two very good items, but one is priced better.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Mikko Kallio wrote:

But (as Neil would say), that's just my 2 cents. :)

You're not my real Neil!!!

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Real Neil is busy making lentils. Now help me pull Vyvyan's head out of the wall again.

[Adam Daigle]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

Real Neil is busy making lentils. Now help me pull Vyvyan's head out of the wall again.

Bonus points for the Young Ones reference.

[Arnil]

Since i personally agonized over every word choice and hit the preview button after every change and reviewed like 30 prd pages in order to match paizo's style and the contest's directions. AND all 24 of those suggestions. Personally if an item isn't correct to any of those, including rule 24 about great exceptions, i will vote for the other item unless i really can't stand the creative concept behind the item i would be up voting. But i don't believe they should be DQed cause i don't believe they'll make it to the top 32.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

So how does everyone feel about items from previous years being resubmitted? After all, when submitted they become property of Paizo.

[Tripp Elliott]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

So how does everyone feel about items from previous years being resubmitted? After all, when submitted they become property of Paizo.

Shouldn't even be "legal" in the civil sense, let alone "legal" per the rules of the competition.

[Anthony Adam]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

So how does everyone feel about items from previous years being resubmitted? After all, when submitted they become property of Paizo.

It's not a DQ offence BUT...

If I recognise (or think I do) an item, I go through all my old sheets and IF I can confirm it as a resubmission it makes me wonder if that designer is a one trick pony. It then makes me look for a reason to vote for the other item.

I'm probably not the only long term contestant who does this, so it doesn't bother me too much as they are doing their own chances harm by not submitting something new.

[Gabriel Almer]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

So how does everyone feel about items from previous years being resubmitted? After all, when submitted they become property of Paizo.

I found this post from 2012.

Not sure if that is still the case, though.