Loadout Pitch

Pitch copy for a deliberately unconventional build — proof that a stat allocation can be a persona, not just a spreadsheet

Due: 12 April 2027 · Weight: 20%

The brief

Given 50 attribute points, design an unconventional build and write the pitch copy that would sell it to a skeptical player.

Week 7’s lecture argues that a stat allocation is a persona a player projects onto the game, not just a spreadsheet optimisation. Your job is to design a build that commits to an identity a min-maxed build wouldn’t — Sekiro’s pure-prosthetic-tool run is the reference case, but pick your own. The build has to accept a real cost for that identity: naming the cost is part of the persuasion, not a weakness to hide.

What you submit

A 50-point attribute allocation (name the game or state your own system), 150–250 words of pitch copy written to sell a skeptical player on trying it, and one sentence naming the specific weakness the build accepts in exchange for its identity.

Alongside the pitch, a 120-word reflection: the moment during design where the persona and the statistically stronger allocation pulled in different directions, and which one you let win. The pitch shows the build you landed on; the reflection is the only place that shows you noticed the trade-off rather than stumbling into it.

Where this goes next

A build with a clear persona is a strong seed for the opening level in the Final Project — several students design their one-pager around a level that specifically rewards the build they pitched here.

The spec

The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.

allocates a stated 50-point attribute budget to a build that is not the default balanced or meta allocation
the pitch copy sells a persona the numbers support, not a spreadsheet justification of the numbers themselves
names the specific cost the build accepts in exchange for its identity

Reflection

Name the moment while designing this build where the persona and the statistically stronger allocation pulled in different directions, and which one you let win. (120 words.)

How it is marked

Criterion	Weight
Coherence of the build as a persona	50%
Persuasiveness of the pitch copy	50%

Coherence of the build as a persona — what each tier looks like
Tier	Descriptor
Full-health clear	Every stat choice is load-bearing for the persona — the allocation, how the build actually plays, and the pitch copy all point at the same identity.
Clean kill	The persona is coherent, but one point is a residual optimisation rather than a commitment to the bit — a spare point dumped into a "safe" stat the persona doesn't call for.
Died once, adapted	The persona is named, but nothing about this specific allocation is load-bearing for it — a different 50-point split could support the same persona equally well.
You died	The allocation is the default balanced or meta build with a persona description bolted on after the fact.

Persuasiveness of the pitch copy — what each tier looks like
Tier	Descriptor
Full-health clear	Sells the specific weakness as the whole point — a skeptical reader finishes the pitch understanding why the cost is the appeal, not despite it.
Clean kill	Persuasive and specific, but the cost is stated rather than sold — a sentence naming the weakness, not one that makes accepting it sound worth it.
Died once, adapted	Reads as marketing copy for the genre generally ("challenge yourself!") rather than for this specific, costed build.
You died	No stated cost, or the copy could be pasted onto a min-maxed build without changing a word.