Round 3 is fast approaching, and I've started planning how I intend to review the 16 monster entries. Below is a sort of a checklist I'm going to use, though of course it doesn't cover everything, just the most obvious things. So don't be surprised if I comment on something not specifically mentioned below.
It's also good to remember that not all things are equal; creativity and a good, consistent concept usually mean more to me than getting the math and presentation 100% right. Though of course, any contestant that makes it this far should be able to make their monster Superstar in every way without neglecting any part.
Name & concept
Is the monster consistent with the Golarion canon, while also being new and original?
Does the name sound interesting and fitting for what the monster is and does?
To make a monster fresh and original, I generally recommend original creations as opposed to variant creatures (e.g. "elder treant" or "dark unicorn") or creatures from real-world mythologies. I think building a creature from the ground up tests your creativity more than statting up an existing concept or changing a few things around.
That said, a Superstar designer can make nearly any concept seem original. If you pick a mythological creature or a variant creature, I recommend changing it enough (but not too much) to make it seem like your own creation rather than merely an imitation. Furthermore, I personally prefer myths from cultures that haven't been explored so much in RPGs yet.In any case, the monster should be consistent with itself (every part of it makes sense) and with the campaign setting (introducing the monster doesn't involve drastic changes in the status quo).
As for names, generally speaking, I think that any name in an RPG should be both informative and evocative. Monsters sometimes break this rule by using onomatopoeia, i.e. names that suggest malevolence (or other characteristics) through sounds rather than words. "Glabrezu" sounds very sinister, for example. Both approaches are fine; it really depends on the monster which approach makes more sense. Names are difficult, and usually you know a good name when you see it, but it's more difficult to put your finger on what makes it a good name.
Descriptive line
Is the descriptive line usable as read-aloud text regardless of when and where the monster is encountered?
Is the descriptive line dynamic and engaging enough to make me want to read more?
To make the descriptive line usable as read-aloud text, avoid any references to time or location, or actions that depend on any particular circumstances. In other words, do not describe the monster climbing a tree at night, for example. You simply don't know where, when, and how the monster is encountered when you're writing a bestiary entry.
To make the descriptive line interesting to read, keep it concise and focus on a small number of interesting details about the monster. Describe the details using dynamic words without actually describing specific actions (e.g. "The eyes of this simian creature glisten darkly..." instead of "This simian creature has dark, glossy eyes.")
The details should be observable facts, such as its appearance, smell, or mannerisms (e.g. constant vocalizations, whirling, or heavy breathing). Do not describe subjective sensations (how it makes you feel or think); that is a cop-out. If your descriptive line is evocative enough, it will make the reader think and feel something.
Does the formatting and presentation match the Round 3 template and the style used in Paizo's bestiaries?
This is the part of the monster entry that tests your attention to detail. Once you've got every detail nailed down, go through the whole stat block one more time. Check the validity and formatting of every word, value, and piece of punctuation.
Hitting the target stats for the CR may be difficult with some creature types (oozes and constructs in particular) and very small creatures. It's ok to compensate with other stats, but if you don't know what you're doing, stick to ”normal” creature types and sizes until you get the hang of it.
Getting the formatting and presentation right involves (but is not limited to) the correct use of the bold typeface and italics, Capitalization and lower case, the en dash – and the em dash —, the colon and the semi-colon as separators between the different parts of the stat block, terminology and abbreviations, and numbers and their units. The different parts of the stat block should also appear in the right order, and within the individual lines of the stat block, the items (such as feats, skills, ability names, and AC components) should be listed in the alphabetical order.
Some of these things are included in the template, but whenever you run into something that the template doesn't cover, compare your monster with similar monsters in Paizo's bestiaries. Don't make guesses, make informed choices.
Special abilities
Does the monster have new, interesting, and unique special abilities?
Are the special abilities mechanically fairly simple but elegant?
In my opinion, it's important for a Superstar monster to have at least one wholly new and original special ability. While the ideas should be innovative, the structure and presentation of the new special abilities should imitate existing abilities. If any part of the ability functions exactly
like an existing ability, use exactly the same words and expressions for that part.
Special abilities are read to be understood, so make the rules text clear and crisp, not vague or fuzzy around the edges. Make the mechanics reasonably straightforward because elegance comes from creativity rather than complexity. Also, special abilities should be quite light on flavor text. A little bit of flavor is fine, however, especially if it helps the GM understand the mechanics.
The abilities should make sense for the monster to have. To make the monster thematically tighter, consider having synergies between its abilities. It's also good to consider the utility of the abilities: if an ability is useful only in a very specific situation, it may mean that the monster will only be used in a very specific type of encounters, if ever.
Description
Does the description give the GM useful information that can be used in adventure and encounter building?
Does the description provide enough information so that the monster's abilities, environment, behavior, and every part of the entry make sense as a whole?
Unlike the short descriptive line, the description is intended to be useful for the GM, and as such, it should focus on information about the monster that the GM can use in not only combat encounters, but also exploration of locales where the monster is likely to be encountered, social interaction with the monster, if applicable, and including the monster as part of an adventure. In contrast with the descriptive line, your style of writing should be more informative than evocative, though that doesn't mean the text shouldn't also be lively and interesting to read.
Include meaningful links between the description and other parts of the entry. For example, if the creature has a climb speed, it probably affects where the creature builds its nest or how it hunts. However, avoid repeating too much of the same information or just stating the obvious (e.g. "Portal cats live in temperate forests.") It's also a good ideas to include setting tie-ins. While doing so, respect the setting's canon and build upon it.
Find a logical order for presenting things in the write-up. See if there are natural links between the different subjects you discuss, so as to make the transitions from one subject to the next smooth and natural. For example: origin > appearance > physiology > dietary habits > predatory behavior > interactions with other creatures > communication. In other words, connect the dots!
Final verdict
As for my recommendations / final verdicts, I'm going to use several tiers so that the contestants and voters get a better idea of which entries were good and which were Superstar. I'm going to use at least the following three tiers for recommendations:
Interesting post, Mikko. Has Paizo instructed you on this criteria and/or what they are looking for in a superstar monster? Or are you free to judge the entries as you see fit?
Good question! There is no strict set of rules I have to follow, but I intend to use my prior experience as an RPG Superstar finalist, freelancer, and monster design contest judge as the basis for how I review the entries. Basically what you see above is the result of dozens/hundreds of pages worth of advice, feedback, research, and observations squeezed into a condensed, reader-friendly format. (Btw, I'm still adding more bits of advice to the post, so it's currently a WIP.) Some of it reiterates advice that RPG Superstar judges give to contestants and Paizo's developers give to freelancers, some of it builds upon and expands on that advice. At any rate, since I'm a new judge, I think it's fair that contestants and voters have a chance to see my judging criteria before they submit their entries. I hope that answers your question!
Interesting post, Mikko. Has Paizo instructed you on this criteria and/or what they are looking for in a superstar monster? Or are you free to judge the entries as you see fit?
ReplyDeleteGood question! There is no strict set of rules I have to follow, but I intend to use my prior experience as an RPG Superstar finalist, freelancer, and monster design contest judge as the basis for how I review the entries. Basically what you see above is the result of dozens/hundreds of pages worth of advice, feedback, research, and observations squeezed into a condensed, reader-friendly format. (Btw, I'm still adding more bits of advice to the post, so it's currently a WIP.) Some of it reiterates advice that RPG Superstar judges give to contestants and Paizo's developers give to freelancers, some of it builds upon and expands on that advice. At any rate, since I'm a new judge, I think it's fair that contestants and voters have a chance to see my judging criteria before they submit their entries. I hope that answers your question!
Delete