Judging a Chili Cook Off

[Syrsuro]

If you really want the players to judge the flavor, have them rank in order of preference a small range of flavors (5-6?) such as 'meaty', 'spicy', 'tangy', etc. and then determine the relative proportions of each in the chilis.

This way the player's stated preference will guide them each to a specific chili (and that chili will likely differ between them).

Of course, the question then becomes whether they vote for the best chili or for the chili cooker they want to see win.

And don't forget the "Mr. and Mrs. Tenorman chli"....

Carl

 

[Incendax]

It's just a Skill Challenge for the PCs based on storytelling factors.

"Who is the best athlete among us three?"

PC1 rolls perception to notice who is the 'healthiest' (HP).
PC2 rolls athletics to reference his own experiences and knows which NPC has the highest athletics skill.
PC3 argues with PC2 and rolls acrobatics to reference her own experiences and mentions which NPC has the highest acrobatics skill.
PC1 rolls insight to get an idea which NPC is the better 'team-player'.
PC2 rolls endurance to reference his own experiences, explaining to the other two PCs.
PC3 rolls her intelligence modifier to correctly add up all the 'total modifiers' and get the sum for each NPC. Highest number wins.

You can also make the NPCs use Bluff, Intimidate, and Diplomacy to try and curry favor with the PCs. A successful bluff might allow a PC to cheat and gain +5 points when a PC checks him, for instance.

 

[IceFractal]

This method works better if the PCs aren't completely impartial, and also have different "favorites" from each-other:

Divide the contest into multiple factors. For instance, a Chili Cook-Off might have heat, flavor, heartiness, and aroma. Then each contestant rolls for each category - this can be done either by the DM or by each player rolling for their favorite contestant.

So you get a chart like this:

		Heat	Flavor	Hearty	Aroma
Alex		10	15	6	12
Bob		14	9 	10	17
Cindy		8	13	16	7

Then the PCs can deliberate how important each factor is, call for extra rounds, claim a rescoring is needed, and so forth - trying to make sure their favorites win, or at least are judged fairly. If there are NPC judges with their own preferences, all the better.

Note: If the PCs are completely impartial, it might just come down to "who rolled higher", and if all or most of the PCs have the same favorite, there's not much to work with. NPC judges, especially biased ones, can help in this situation.

 

[Rechan]

ANother idea is to give each contestant just attributes, and then ask the PCs to 'rank which of these is most important to you'.

So if it's a beauty contest, you have 'Personality' 'Talent' 'Body' (Man, I'm tempted to split that into several categories; ahem), and after the PCs rank them in a 10 point spread, the woman closest to the PC's spread is 'their' favorite. And of course, the girls could roll bluff/diplomacy checks to sway the PCs.

However, a friend of mine actually suggested that it would be better if the PCs had some stake in the situation. Or rather, that they are introduced to the situation in a manner to make them want one of the contestants to lose, or want a certain one to win, out of favorability.

 

[mearls]

As someone up thread mentioned, roleplay and description are really important here. As a player, it feels a little weird to make skill checks to (essentially) decide how my character feels.

You mentioned that the three contestants could have an impact on the rest of the campaign, so I'd focus on skill checks that help determine how those NPCs feel about the PCs.

For example, let's say the PCs have to judge chili cooked by three important nobles. One noble makes really, really spicy chili. The PCs have to make Endurance checks to finish their portion or to avoid coughing, gulping down water, and tearing up when eating it.

I'd use those checks to then drive how the NPCs feel. For instance, let's say the warlock blows his check and coughs, gags, and has to take a few minutes to recover. But, the warlock really likes that cook and votes from him. The other nobles feel snubbed, assume that the warlock voted on personal preference rather than chili quality, and hire ninja gourmets to assassinate him.

The way I see it, a skill check should cover stuff that the players can't really control over their PCs. You could also use Bluff or Diplomacy for the characters, to see if their praise or comments ring true or arouse suspicion or hostility in the losers. Even the winner might harbor a grudge if the PCs' actions make him feel like his victory was ill earned.

Another idea: the PCs skill checks could help them learn more about some of the issues at stake in the contest. Maybe one of the entries tastes terrible, but a successful Nature check allows a PC to recognize a spice in the chili that doesn't appear in the noble's description of his dish - someone added it to make the food taste horrible.

 

[Keenath]

This may be more appropriate to the "most heroic deed" contest than the "chili cook-off", but you could have the PCs roll to see if they can come up with insightful questions, skill challenge style.

The NPC steps up on stage. "I slew a dragon!" he proclaims. "I did it myself, with no help from any other man, and brought back its head as proof!"

Player 1: "I have a good Diplomacy, and I can get a +5 from my Whispers of the Fey power. I press for more details."
(On a good roll, he'll come up with something insightful and relevant. On a bad roll, he asks what color it was.)

Player 2: "Okay, I want to use my Bluff skill. I'm going to try to make a trick question to see if he really knows anything about dragons or if he's lying."
(On a good roll, he asks how the hero survived the blue dragon's fiery breath. On a bad roll, he asks if the hero found anything awesome in its horde.)

And so on, using History or Arcana or whatever other skills the PCs can come up with.

I'm sort of imagining a quasi-American Idol thing where the judges can ask questions and make comments, and sometimes they come off as goofballs where you have to just say, "Man, why is THIS guy a judge?"

The consequences of failure are important here. What happens if the PCs do badly and fail? They'll end up making a bad choice, but so what? Does that then have repercussions? Does the crowd turn against the heroes? Do the townsfolk just decide that the contest is rigged or worthless? Does the outcome affect another NPC? What reason do the heroes have not to just point at the first guy they see and say, "Okay, first place over here. Done!" ?

 

[Lacyon]

I don't. The situation is a take on the three greek goddesses who asked Paris which of them is the most beautiful. Because when Paris chose Aphrodite, and Aphrodite rewarded him with Helen, this sparked the Trojan war.

It is literally "PCs walk down a road. They are stopped by 3 people, who ask the PCs to settle a disagreement: who among them is the best x".

I just want to present a more interesting/engaging mechanism for the PCs to decide than saying "Eenie Meanie Minee Mo".

After they make their decision, the meat of the situation comes to bare. They receive a benefit depending on who they choose, and which person they chose determines the challenges they have to deal with during the later encounters.

This is a really difficult thing to do in a module for publication. If I were to run this in a game, I'd (focusing on the "better deeds" option for now):

1) make sure that the individual deeds reported are each appealing to different characters in the game. Some players/characters will favor raw strength, others will favor courage in the face of adversity, still others might see the value in simply doing the right thing day after day, etc. This is the hardest thing to do in a published module, because you can't tailor the specific deeds to what will impress the PCs.

2) make it apparent (to the players, at least) that this choice is likely to have consequences downstream. Maybe the NPCs present themsleves as nobility or directly offer "encouragement" for the PCs to choose them. Perhaps the PCs feel magically compelled to answer, one way or another. Perhaps avoiding the encounter entirely is a valid choice with its own consequences. The players, though, should understand that this is a meaningful encounter.

3) provide some mechanism for breaking deadlock if the PCs can't decide on an answer. This could be as simple as making sure that the number of PCs doesn't evenly divide into the number of contestants (so there can't be a tie if it's put to a vote), or as complicated as having the PCs run opposed skill checks to convince each other. Perhaps the actual judges are NPCs, and the PCs must use their skills to convince the judges to vote in favor of the PCs' choice - and if each PC chooses to promote another candidate, the results of that challenge determines the outcome.

 

[MrMyth]

Step One: Come up with specific descriptions for each type of chili (or whatever), allowing the players to then apply personal preference as to which they favor.

Step Two: Allow specific roles to gain insight into more than just the obvious - heal checks to know that one chili is healthy as well as flavorful, endurance checks to withstand the burning enough to notice more subtle tastes, nature checks to identify specific ingredients (some of which might be more impressive, and some of which might seem 'cheap'), insight checks to note how confident the cooks are in their food, history checks to know who is using an original recipe and who is ripping off someone else's recipe, perception checks to learn anything else, etc.

Each PC can roll all the checks, and be provided what they learn on their own. Then, with all the information at hand, each PC can independantly decide what factors are most important to them, and thus rate each contestant as they feel appropriate.

This will prevent there from being any single 'right' answer that a single roll would determine, and allow PCs to both apply knowledge from their rolls, as well as their own personal preferences, in determining who should be the winner.

 

[Rechan]

Step One: Come up with specific descriptions for each type of chili (or whatever), allowing the players to then apply personal preference as to which they favor.

Step Two: Allow specific roles to gain insight into more than just the obvious - heal checks to know that one chili is healthy as well as flavorful, endurance checks to withstand the burning enough to notice more subtle tastes, nature checks to identify specific ingredients (some of which might be more impressive, and some of which might seem 'cheap'), insight checks to note how confident the cooks are in their food, history checks to know who is using an original recipe and who is ripping off someone else's recipe, perception checks to learn anything else, etc.

Each PC can roll all the checks, and be provided what they learn on their own. Then, with all the information at hand, each PC can independantly decide what factors are most important to them, and thus rate each contestant as they feel appropriate.

This will prevent there from being any single 'right' answer that a single roll would determine, and allow PCs to both apply knowledge from their rolls, as well as their own personal preferences, in determining who should be the winner.

I think, after all has been said and done, I might go this route.

Still, a lot to consider.

Thanks, folks!