Only voted Go to Comment

Rereading this, my first impression is that it all sounds very 2nd ed AD&D. There's a few good ideas, but the metal-bird people are so. . . ordinary as far as metal bird-people go. Maybe I can spice them up some more. Go to Comment

This is quite original and very well written. You have provided plenty material for numerous adventures that will keep the players guessing and on their toes.

If nothing else, I must find a use for magma-dwelling dire octopi!

5/5 Go to Comment

Very nice! As scras said, masterful role reversal going on. I'd love to see some cursed "denizens" of the surface. Go to Comment

I do enjoy seeing someone's logic on how they make decisions and it certainly caught my eye when one of my own posts is a suggestion. I will resolve to put more up. And thank you. Go to Comment

I agree, assuming alien life forms will follow the lines of terrestrial biology is perhaps worse science than chitinous space turtles. I usually stand on the other side of this argument but the Rule of Cool does come into play, and we are already stretching realism and reality with elves, dragons, cyborg commandos and turtles in space. Go to Comment

Only voted Go to Comment

Nice. Go to Comment

Well said, Forganthus. Oh, and funny too. Struggling on how to vote on this though :p

Go to Comment

Why are chitinous space turtles bad science? If on present day earth turtles and reptiles as a whole do not produce chitin does that mean that alien resembling a turtle or a reptile or futuristic animal also similar to a turtle could not produce chitin? Go to Comment

Only voted Go to Comment

Actually it *is* useful in that now someone who wants to know why you voted high/low on a sub now has a nice reference sheet to get a rough idea of what might have given you cause to HOH their sub or what not, pretty handy really from a informative point of view.
.

Go to Comment

Useful stuff, it's always helpful to get a glimpse into the inner workings of someones vote criteria and what they like to see/not see in a sub.

Be kinda neat to see more of these by various members. Go to Comment

Ah Forganthus, yet another writer has beaten me to it.

The 'How I Vote' theme is a personal favourite of mine, allowing for more transparency and openness on the site.

In my opinion this also allows for better feedback, and negates/lessens the negative feelings that some authors have when they feel they have been given a lower score than they deserve.

One thing I'm not too fond of personally is when people 'peer vote'.

Hmm, I think I've enough of a comment to finally finish my own version of this. All in all a good contribution to the site.

+3.0 = good sub.

+0.5 = usefulness.

Overall rating: 3.5/5

Go to Comment

What Silveressa said Go to Comment

I am not really that active a voter really but I am quite interested in how different people vote so I thought I will share my own system of voting here for those who felt this topic is interesting. Actually, in essence, my voting system is really quite similar to that of Forganthus. The differences are:

1. The score of 3 is my benchmark score for submissions that do not have obvious problems with respect to spelling and grammar, content and logic (but in reality, I’ve hardly ever given a submission just a 3, I somehow always managed to find something that I like enough about the sub to rise it up to 3.5)

2. I mainly judge a sub by two parts: content and write-up. (I am not a gamer, I just visit this site as someone whose hobby is writing fantasy related things) Regarding content, I only grade its originality and underlying logic, with more weights given to logic (after all, I think there’s really nothing new under the sun, a lot of original ideas are just new spins on existing ideas). And write-up obviously includes anything basic and objective from spelling and grammar to more complex and subjective domains such as expression, tone and atmosphere etc.

3. My 5’s are what I think perfect. Of course, that doesn’t mean the submission has to be perfect with respect to both content and write-up. I think a submission that scores 4-4.5 on one aspect and 5 on the other aspect will already get a 5 from me.

4. I also have a habit of abstaining from voting on particular submissions. These are either: 1) those that I don’t have anything to say about it for whatever reasons, mainly subs that are not really my type; 2) those below my benchmark score for which I usually leave a comment on suggestions on areas to improve and might revisit if revised; 3) those that I read and found I didn’t agree with the existing score but didn’t want to downvote without providing some constructive feedback on how it could be improved (and usually for these I couldn’t).

5. My Hall of Honour isn’t really reserved for submissions with high scores. It could be something voted low for the write-up but has an underlying idea that’s quite interesting. But of course, it could also well be an old but quality submission that has already been acknowledged by existing votes but maybe hasn’t received enough votes from my point of view or I felt was inspirational and deserved to be looked at again.

Go to Comment

Eh. I'd give it a 3.5. It's not creative, awesome, or useful (since we all use our own criteria). Go to Comment

My fear of causing an infinite loop of meta paradoxes prevents me from voting on this. Go to Comment

This is really in the wrong category. It is actually a plot.

As plot goes, it is sort of interesting, but it is very, very hard to pull off. You need to keep people alive (explain how we had thief from the future, when our thief got gicked by that orc band?) Foreshadowing is a nice idea, and something to deal well with, but again hard to pull off. Having played TimeMaster and C0ntinuum (the Time Travel game), this is harder to pull off than you think.

That aside, there are only a few lead ins... and needs some more. There are loose ends. And you need to explain the Time God in your pantheon (which in some worlds will be easy and in others, hard). Go to Comment

As typical with more and more subs lately I read and have comments but due to something that doesn't set with me I am having issues voting in them.

A few points from me. When reading this something didn't sit well. I was expecting details or rules on how to implement ways to railroad impatient players but instead, like Moon said, this is more a plot. It seems far to specific for an article. Far to specific to be put into any campaign, and much like a campaign would almost have to be built around it. Which if that is what the intent is than it isn't bad.

Something else that gets me. All the quote blocks. I understand that you use them to change from point to point to separate them but I think it is over done a tad. This is just a personal peeve of mine and I find the over use of them extremely distracting from subs.

I can't say if this is a good sub or not as it isn't an article but as plots go it needs more information to complete it. Not saying other people won't like it but as for me. I I were to vote at the most I would vote is a 2 but since I have chosen not to vote on subs unless I fnd them very useful I won't derail those who like it by voting low. Go to Comment