This is good stuff right here. It feels fresh to me, a cool new idea with great possibilities. But it also feels like it has some mileage in it, something comfortable and familiar. The writing is smooth for the most part as well as informative without using too many words. My thoughts on this may be skewed by my recent absence from The Citadel, but I think it's quite nice. Go to Comment

Nice and orginal. Go to Comment

Interesting. I wonder what uses a dragon would have a mortal man, but the ways of dragons are often inscrutable. I'm sure Galafox has his reasons. Go to Comment

It takes the mind of a dragon to comprehend carving off a section of your own hide and painstakingly crafting the bits into a magical artifact.

I really like that line, because dragons *should be* inscrutable as Dozus says.

So what is Old Fox's grand purpose? I want to know. Also, how many suits would you say exist? I ask because each time the dragon skins himself a bit more?

And that begs the question, does dragon hide (scales) grow back?

Something about this idea stimulates me.

Welcome to the Citadel! Unless you're not new, in which case, just "hi" :) Go to Comment

This has a lot of possibilities, used a plot delivery device or interesting opponent, if I were to take this armor into a game I would have the Dragon be able to animate without a living host. Thus if the owner dies in the suit of armor, the armor and the corpse would fight on.

I like the writing style in the first four paragraphs but the perspective and intend audience is not clear.

" perhaps previously unseen by the characters" This suggests that this is a metagame discussion of the item. Yet if it is a metagame discussion the best part of the write up, the enigmatic nature of the dragon's motivation and will, becomes moot. Lines like "treated as rune item" also suggest a metagame discussion and do not fit into the narrative which presents us with a narrator who both respects and is in awe of the dragon character.

Nice item though, I enjoyed reading it. Go to Comment

This has a lot of possibilities, used a plot delivery device or interesting opponent, if I were to take this armor into a game I would have the Dragon be able to animate without a living host. Thus if the owner dies in the suit of armor, the armor and the corpse would fight on.

I like the writing style in the first four paragraphs but the perspective and intended audience is not clear.

" perhaps previously unseen by the characters" This suggests that this is a metagame discussion of the item. Yet if it is a metagame discussion the best part of the write up, the enigmatic nature of the dragon's motivation and will, becomes moot. Lines like "treated as rune item" also suggest a metagame discussion and do not fit into the narrative which presents us with a narrator who both respects and is in awe of the dragon character.

Nice item though, I enjoyed reading it. Go to Comment

Moving on from your intended audience being a GM, (I am just really curious about how people like you perceive the stuff you write.)

"Galafox was not given the moniker "Old Fox" for nothing, and this suit of dragon scale armor is but one example of the dragon's guile."

When you wrote this line do you intended it to be percieved as one GM talking to another, or was it intended to viewed as an observation or conclusion made by some character or personality within the narrative of the game world? Go to Comment

Moving on from your intended audience being a GM, (I am just really curious about how people like you perceive the stuff you write.)

"Galafox was not given the moniker "Old Fox" for nothing, and this suit of dragon scale armor is but one example of the dragon's guile."

When you wrote this line do you intended it to be percieved as one GM talking to another, or was it intended to be viewed as an observation or conclusion made by some character or personality within the narrative of the game world? Go to Comment

People like us, RPG enthusiasts and I am not one to speak to standards here. If there are any standards they are the result of group think (Example: Did you see Firefly, we should really write more stuff that embraces genres but breathes new life into it by mixing genres) , dogmatic bullying (Example: You can't post in game stats, and drow are stupid!) or people just raising the bar by writing better and more involved posts (Example: I may like a 100 word item description about a shield of wind but it just doesn't have as much detail as flamesilk, so I won't give it as high a score).  Go to Comment

My name is not Lunarstalker, I will not tell you what is write or wrong (get it?....write as in written?....painful?....bah). Is generic more helpful? Perhaps. Then why add the name at all? I would say anything that drives the narrative or pushes the plot along is not fluff.

The only I would change is the metafluffist (patent pending, thanks muro) stuff in the forth paragraph Go to Comment

I am new, so thanks AND hi!

I hadn't really thought about Galafox's grand purpose, nor whether he was good or evil. I could see him as either, and as this was an item submission (and I'm not quite sure of the protocols yet), I thought such things should be left generic so that they could be fleshed out by an interested GM.  Go to Comment

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

My audience was intended to be a GM. I think any item should have some fluff to generate ideas, and some crunch to give ideas on how it would fit into a system.  Go to Comment

"People like me?"

That line, and really the top three paragraphs, was intended to be a flavorful description and background. It could be an observation of someone in in the game world, but it doesn't have to be.

Is the manner in which I have written this submission wrong, or at least not fitting to the standard here? Should the entire submission be written in the same style, ie: from an in-world perspective?

Perhaps I should have read more before I posted a sub.

Thanks for the comments and criticism. Go to Comment

Attacked? Not at all. I was just curious what you meant by it. I welcome the input and the discussion from a peer, it will help me better my writing and create a better submission the next time. And that helps everyone who might read it. I like raising the bar and fair judging, too.

Honestly, I did not give thought to who was describing the dragon and making those specific conclusions. I was doing it from my omniscient view. I could have done that and specifically attributed the words to a character name (ie: Beltor, the Bard), but you are correct, that would have created another character (which I didn't want to do). When I wrote this, I was keenly aware of not including too much detail. In some aspects, I think that a lack of detail is helpful in ideas such as these. It serves two functions:

1. Hopefully, by not having *everything* laid out it will spark some creative juices in the reader who say to themselves "Hey, I could work with that.", and they could twist it to their uses.

2. If it is too precise in some details, it limits the usability of the content and the less likely a person will be able to fit it into their game-world. If I detailed who gave him the moniker, then I have made it even less useful because it adds another puzzle piece that has to fit.

Here's where I'd like some discussion. Is that wrong? Should it be as fleshed out as possible? Of course, readers can take what they can use and discard what they can't, but it is my thinking that more generic is more helpful.

On the other hand, if I was writing an adventure/plot, then that might not be the case, and specifics would be needed for completeness and ease of use by the game master.

I'm rather new here and this was my first submission, so this is very helpful. Thanks :) Go to Comment

Attacked? Not at all. I was just curious what you meant by it. I welcome the input and the discussion from a peer, it will help me better my writing and create a better submission the next time. And that helps everyone who might read it. I like raising the bar and fair judging, too.

Honestly, I did not give thought to who was describing the dragon and making those specific conclusions. I was doing it from my omniscient view. I could have done that and specifically attributed the words to a character name (ie: Beltor, the Bard), but you are correct, that would have created another character (which I didn't want to do). When I wrote this, I was keenly aware of not including too much detail. In some aspects, I think that a lack of detail is helpful in ideas such as these. It serves two functions:

1. Hopefully, by not having *everything* laid out it will spark some creative juices in the reader who say to themselves "Hey, I could work with that.", and they could twist it to their uses.

2. If it is too precise in some details, it limits the usability of the content and the less likely a person will be able to fit it into their game-world. If I detailed who gave him the moniker, then I have made it even less useful because it adds another puzzle piece that has to fit.

Here's where I'd like some discussion. Is that wrong? Should it be as fleshed out as possible? Of course, readers can take what they can use and discard what they can't, but it is my thinking that more generic is more helpful.

On the other hand, if I was writing an adventure/plot, then that might not be the case, and specifics would be needed for completeness and ease of use by the game master.

I'm rather new here and this was my first submission, so this is very helpful. Thanks :) Go to Comment