Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
2018 IRON DM Tournament
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rune" data-source="post: 7511194" data-attributes="member: 67"><p><strong>Judgement for Round 2, Match 2: Gradine vs. CleverNickName</strong></p><p></p><p>The two adventures in this match are vastly different in tone, style, and presentation. One is tightly constructed, fairly polished, and slyly humorous. The other is...not. But it has other strengths: namely, an underlying complexity that results in a rich scenario and detailed NPCs with developed motivations. It also appears to have used more ingredients well-integrated, but a deeper analysis may yet reveal otherwise. We’ll get to that. </p><p></p><p><strong>Gradine’s “The Twisted Court” (“Twisted”) is dense.</strong></p><p></p><p>It is peppered with little errors that would likely have been removed with one more editing/proofreading pass. These are things like consistently using “excoriated” instead of “exiled” or “excommunicated,” (which would make more sense in context) or labeling something a hippogriff and then describing the features of a griffon (we will definitely get back to that one). </p><p></p><p>These errors exasperate the lack of focus that is the risk inherent in using a sand-boxy presentation of NPCs, motivations, locations, and associated dangers instead of a more explicitly presented adventure. The adventure elements are present, but get buried among what is otherwise indistinguishable from background information. </p><p></p><p>And the names! I know this is the setting (a setting I like, by the way), but there are an awful lot of D-names and apostrophes, which, given the previously mentioned issues, just make reading the piece harder. Incorporating some bullet-points would probably have done wonders for the presentation of this adventure. </p><p></p><p><strong>Meanwhile, CleverNickName’s “The Cake of Kings” (“Cake”) is fun to read.</strong></p><p></p><p>The piece doesn’t take itself too seriously. Tonally, it reminded me very much of an episode of Adventure Time (at some points, a particularly dark episode, but still...). This might make insertion into an ongoing campaign a little difficult, since the silliness is baked into the very names, but ultimately seems easily adjustable without destroying the spirit or structure of the adventure. </p><p></p><p>...The structure of which is very tight, well-paced, and entertaining. What I’m not sure about is whether or not it is actually <em>better</em> than the adventure we get in “Twisted.” In “Cake,” what we have is a pretty noticeably linear structure that doesn’t care so much what methods the PCs use (this is especially evident in the very well-done “Resolution” section), but does care very much about where they go next. So much so that, at key points, NPCs show up to lead them there. I find it difficult to believe that most groups will fail to notice that. </p><p></p><p>Does it mar the adventure? Well, yes, potentially. If the players then feel the limitation. On the other hand, the linearity also is a major contributor to the tight pacing of the piece. The twist involving Bucky’s poisoning/curse (brilliantly set up at the very outset of the adventure) is a prime example of this. </p><p></p><p>I am left with the following questions: <em>First, would the adventure be fun? And second, can I think of a better way to provide the adventure experience?</em></p><p></p><p>I do think the adventure would be fun, both to play through and to run. And, frankly, I’m not sure I can think of a better way to do it. </p><p></p><p><strong>So, what does “Twisted” offer?</strong></p><p></p><p>Mostly it offers NPCs with motivations designed to run into each other. In some cases, this might cause the role of the NPC in the adventure to shift (for example, either Fernii or Tel’daar might start out as an ally or employer and end up as an antagonist or rival). </p><p></p><p>Added to this, solving the original problem potentially leads to a much worse problem (for the town). This ratchets up the tension and stakes nicely, all while ensuring the interwoven conflicting motivations of the NPCs collide. This is, fundamentally, a richly rewarding structure. </p><p></p><p><em>So, would the adventure be fun?</em></p><p></p><p>To run? Absolutely, if the DM has enough time to absorb the details and understand the implications of all the pieces. To play through? Yes, if the DM can handle it. In both cases, the answer depends on an outside factor: the DM’s skill and preparedness. This could be a problem. </p><p></p><p><em>Can I think of a better way to provide the adventure experience?</em></p><p></p><p>Structurally, no; it’s great. But the presentation really gets in the way, here. Briefer, bullet-pointed NPC descriptions and some more explicitly illustrated results of colliding agendas would do a lot to improve the readability and shoulder some of the burden that now rests on the DM. </p><p></p><p>Also, providing a much more explicit and direct hook for the players would be a significant asset. As things are presented, the players are sort of required to make their own hook out the pieces provided, which muddles the beginning unnecessarily. </p><p></p><p><strong>Ingredients, then.</strong></p><p></p><p>The <strong>Mindful Mind Flayer</strong> fulfills a similar role in both adventures. I must confess, I was a little disappointed not to see a mind flayer that had eaten too many brains and was, therefore, full. Never mind that, though. </p><p></p><p>Both entries go for the awareness angle. “Cake” falls short, here. Xaxfas is described as vigilant, but doesn’t actually do anything when confronted that a mind flayer couldn’t be reasonably expected to do. For that matter, why does it matter that Xaxfas is a mind flayer? The adventure runs just as well if it is a human wizard, for instance. </p><p></p><p>Iacthatkarlosh, in “Twisted,” is more than just vigilant; it is hyper-aware, both of its own motives and its environment. And this is important, because it allows both for the manipulation of NPCs and the curse itself. These things become tools. But, does it need to be a mind flayer? Maybe not, but it needs to be something like a mind flayer in order to avoid the mind-affecting effects of the curse. This also factors into the mind flayer’s connection to (one of) the ancient culture(s), since it was the Daelkyr who crafted the curses in the first place (presumably in such a way as to not affect themselves). Clearly, “Twisted” earns this one. </p><p></p><p>The <strong>Con Artist</strong> presents us with an unusual situation. “Twisted” gives us an NPC who actually attempts to gain and exploit the confidence of others in Tel’daar, but the importance of that con to the adventure is pretty minimal. He really doesn’t need the pretext to carry on exactly as he is. </p><p></p><p>In “Cake,” Tarn is described as a having a con artist background, but is an assassin in the context of the adventure. Except, the lie he tells upon being captured does play upon what the chef wants to belief (just like a good con) and impacts the course of the adventure in a direct and fundamental way. This one has to go to “Cake.”</p><p></p><p><strong>Ancient Culture</strong> is very cleverly used in “Cake” in a relevant way that makes a lot of sense. It also is given strength by its relationship to another ingredient; I’ll mention that again in due course. It is, however, only one little piece of the larger puzzle. </p><p></p><p>In “Twisted,” the two <strong>Ancient Culture</strong>s are much less directly relevant. One in particular, though, looms over the entire adventure as its legacies (the products of the curse, the ongoing effects of the curse, and the mind flayer) are present throughout. This one tilts toward “Twisted.”</p><p></p><p>“Twisted” gives us a <strong>Royal Mint</strong> that is that is part location and part Macguffin. It’s connections to both the Burning Rain and Ancient Cultures ingredients help it out, but it is fundamentally replaceable. It would provide just as much motivation for Tel’daar if it was a foundry, wouldn’t it?</p><p></p><p>“Cake” has a much more ingredient-focused use for the ingredient. The mint part works, but in what way is it royal? And why does it matter? Answer: it isn’t and it doesn’t. I do like the green dragon with the minty-fresh breath, though. Not that that’s relevant. </p><p></p><p>I think I’m going to call this one a draw. </p><p></p><p>I very much like the role that the <strong>Incremental Malison</strong> plays in “Cake.” It is more than relevant; it is crucial. But, while it is time-released (and that’s very important), it isn’t really incremental (at least, not in the way it manifests in the adventure). </p><p></p><p>In contrast, “Twisted” does have a malison that is incremental and the incremental nature of it does matter to the adventure. Furthermore, the ingredient serves both as the lynchpin for the mechanism of the adventure and the core of the ingredient-weave that supports it. Excellent. </p><p></p><p>Not so much, the <strong>Hungry Hippogriff</strong>. The hunger is only evidenced by the ability of Hephaestus to swallow a PC whole. The fact that the author mixes up the hippogriff with a griffon when describing the beast’s original form illustrates exactly how little it needs to be a hippogriff in the first place. Worst of all, the entire scene can be excised from the adventure without changing a thing. Even the manifestation of Fernii’s mark won’t have a meaningful or lasting effect!</p><p></p><p>Speaking of Fernii, she is another manifestation of the ingredient. The hunger works much better for her, but making her house the crest of a hippogriff is as weak as it gets. Two weak implementations of an ingredient are even worse than one. </p><p></p><p>In contrast, “Cake” has a hippogriff that needs to be some sort of domesticated beast of burden to place it at the scene of the crime. It needs a degree of intelligence and a means of infiltration to get into the carriage. And it needs to be hungry (or, at least, gluttonous) to set everything in motion. This is about as perfect an ingredient-usage as you will find in IRON DM. </p><p></p><p><strong>Burning Rain</strong> can’t measure up to that, but it’s still pretty good in “Cake.” The fact that it is the necessary complement to the Ancient Culture ingredient strengthens both. It seemed at first odd to me that the rain was made the chemical base and the sourdough starter acidic, but it all makes sense when I consider that the gray ooze that its stats are based on deals acid damage (in D&D, anyway). Also, the scenario in which the rain must be collected, as with so many scenarios in this adventure, looks like a lot of fun to play through. </p><p></p><p>“Twisted” doesn’t even mention the <strong>Burning Rain</strong> explicitly (or, if it does, it is buried in the dense text). It is pretty easy to infer that it is the means by which the explosion of <em>Dhogec Ghuukac</em> will cause the destruction of Sylbaran. As such, it is a pretty significant portion of the adventure’s climax. This is a natural consequence of the destruction of the mint’s location by the means described, so it is pretty much necessary in this form. This puts it ahead of the version in “Cake,” despite that entry’s solid usage. </p><p></p><p><strong>Reckoning:</strong></p><p></p><p>So, that’s 4 to 2 in favor of “Twisted,” with one draw. </p><p></p><p>Is that level of dominance in ingredients-usage enough to counterbalance the issues that hinder the actual adventure? Put another way, does “Cake” provide an adventure that is better than twice as good as the one in “Twisted?” That’s what it would take to overcome the ingredients-deficit. </p><p></p><p><em>Am I more than twice as likely to want to run “Cake” than “Twisted?”</em> </p><p></p><p>I don’t think so. </p><p></p><p><em>Am I more than twice as likely to enjoy it as a player?</em></p><p></p><p>Possibly. That goes back to the DM’s skill and level of preparation. “Cake” requires a lot less of the latter, but I think a DM who lacks the skill to run “Twisted” smoothly and to full effect is also going to get a little hung up on the limitations that are byproducts of “Cake’s” linearity. </p><p></p><p>Ultimately, I think [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION]’s “The Twisted Court” ekes this one out by virtue of its pretty strong set of mostly well-interwoven ingredients. </p><p></p><p>Frankly, that decision surprises me. By the time I had begun wrapping up this last section, I still didn’t think it would swing that way. But the numbers really clarified the comparison I had to make. If [MENTION=50987]CleverNickName[/MENTION]’s “The Cake of Kings” had done slightly better with the ingredients – even one more (or fewer) draw – I think that would have been enough to make the difference. </p><p></p><p>CleverNickName, you’ve definitely got the chops! For future tournaments, a little more work on integrating those ingredients across the scope of the entire adventure might see you become a dominant presence. Further, if you can find a way to make as tight an adventure without leaning so heavily on the linearity, I’m pretty sure there’s a championship in your future. Had you done so this time, I think you’d be advancing. </p><p></p><p>However, by a decision of 2 to 1, the current IRON DM, Gradine, advances to defend the championship against former IRON DM, MortalPlague!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rune, post: 7511194, member: 67"] [b]Judgement for Round 2, Match 2: Gradine vs. CleverNickName[/b] The two adventures in this match are vastly different in tone, style, and presentation. One is tightly constructed, fairly polished, and slyly humorous. The other is...not. But it has other strengths: namely, an underlying complexity that results in a rich scenario and detailed NPCs with developed motivations. It also appears to have used more ingredients well-integrated, but a deeper analysis may yet reveal otherwise. We’ll get to that. [b]Gradine’s “The Twisted Court” (“Twisted”) is dense.[/b] It is peppered with little errors that would likely have been removed with one more editing/proofreading pass. These are things like consistently using “excoriated” instead of “exiled” or “excommunicated,” (which would make more sense in context) or labeling something a hippogriff and then describing the features of a griffon (we will definitely get back to that one). These errors exasperate the lack of focus that is the risk inherent in using a sand-boxy presentation of NPCs, motivations, locations, and associated dangers instead of a more explicitly presented adventure. The adventure elements are present, but get buried among what is otherwise indistinguishable from background information. And the names! I know this is the setting (a setting I like, by the way), but there are an awful lot of D-names and apostrophes, which, given the previously mentioned issues, just make reading the piece harder. Incorporating some bullet-points would probably have done wonders for the presentation of this adventure. [b]Meanwhile, CleverNickName’s “The Cake of Kings” (“Cake”) is fun to read.[/b] The piece doesn’t take itself too seriously. Tonally, it reminded me very much of an episode of Adventure Time (at some points, a particularly dark episode, but still...). This might make insertion into an ongoing campaign a little difficult, since the silliness is baked into the very names, but ultimately seems easily adjustable without destroying the spirit or structure of the adventure. ...The structure of which is very tight, well-paced, and entertaining. What I’m not sure about is whether or not it is actually [i]better[/i] than the adventure we get in “Twisted.” In “Cake,” what we have is a pretty noticeably linear structure that doesn’t care so much what methods the PCs use (this is especially evident in the very well-done “Resolution” section), but does care very much about where they go next. So much so that, at key points, NPCs show up to lead them there. I find it difficult to believe that most groups will fail to notice that. Does it mar the adventure? Well, yes, potentially. If the players then feel the limitation. On the other hand, the linearity also is a major contributor to the tight pacing of the piece. The twist involving Bucky’s poisoning/curse (brilliantly set up at the very outset of the adventure) is a prime example of this. I am left with the following questions: [i]First, would the adventure be fun? And second, can I think of a better way to provide the adventure experience?[/i] I do think the adventure would be fun, both to play through and to run. And, frankly, I’m not sure I can think of a better way to do it. [b]So, what does “Twisted” offer?[/b] Mostly it offers NPCs with motivations designed to run into each other. In some cases, this might cause the role of the NPC in the adventure to shift (for example, either Fernii or Tel’daar might start out as an ally or employer and end up as an antagonist or rival). Added to this, solving the original problem potentially leads to a much worse problem (for the town). This ratchets up the tension and stakes nicely, all while ensuring the interwoven conflicting motivations of the NPCs collide. This is, fundamentally, a richly rewarding structure. [i]So, would the adventure be fun?[/i] To run? Absolutely, if the DM has enough time to absorb the details and understand the implications of all the pieces. To play through? Yes, if the DM can handle it. In both cases, the answer depends on an outside factor: the DM’s skill and preparedness. This could be a problem. [i]Can I think of a better way to provide the adventure experience?[/i] Structurally, no; it’s great. But the presentation really gets in the way, here. Briefer, bullet-pointed NPC descriptions and some more explicitly illustrated results of colliding agendas would do a lot to improve the readability and shoulder some of the burden that now rests on the DM. Also, providing a much more explicit and direct hook for the players would be a significant asset. As things are presented, the players are sort of required to make their own hook out the pieces provided, which muddles the beginning unnecessarily. [b]Ingredients, then.[/b] The [b]Mindful Mind Flayer[/b] fulfills a similar role in both adventures. I must confess, I was a little disappointed not to see a mind flayer that had eaten too many brains and was, therefore, full. Never mind that, though. Both entries go for the awareness angle. “Cake” falls short, here. Xaxfas is described as vigilant, but doesn’t actually do anything when confronted that a mind flayer couldn’t be reasonably expected to do. For that matter, why does it matter that Xaxfas is a mind flayer? The adventure runs just as well if it is a human wizard, for instance. Iacthatkarlosh, in “Twisted,” is more than just vigilant; it is hyper-aware, both of its own motives and its environment. And this is important, because it allows both for the manipulation of NPCs and the curse itself. These things become tools. But, does it need to be a mind flayer? Maybe not, but it needs to be something like a mind flayer in order to avoid the mind-affecting effects of the curse. This also factors into the mind flayer’s connection to (one of) the ancient culture(s), since it was the Daelkyr who crafted the curses in the first place (presumably in such a way as to not affect themselves). Clearly, “Twisted” earns this one. The [b]Con Artist[/b] presents us with an unusual situation. “Twisted” gives us an NPC who actually attempts to gain and exploit the confidence of others in Tel’daar, but the importance of that con to the adventure is pretty minimal. He really doesn’t need the pretext to carry on exactly as he is. In “Cake,” Tarn is described as a having a con artist background, but is an assassin in the context of the adventure. Except, the lie he tells upon being captured does play upon what the chef wants to belief (just like a good con) and impacts the course of the adventure in a direct and fundamental way. This one has to go to “Cake.” [b]Ancient Culture[/b] is very cleverly used in “Cake” in a relevant way that makes a lot of sense. It also is given strength by its relationship to another ingredient; I’ll mention that again in due course. It is, however, only one little piece of the larger puzzle. In “Twisted,” the two [B]Ancient Culture[/b]s are much less directly relevant. One in particular, though, looms over the entire adventure as its legacies (the products of the curse, the ongoing effects of the curse, and the mind flayer) are present throughout. This one tilts toward “Twisted.” “Twisted” gives us a [b]Royal Mint[/b] that is that is part location and part Macguffin. It’s connections to both the Burning Rain and Ancient Cultures ingredients help it out, but it is fundamentally replaceable. It would provide just as much motivation for Tel’daar if it was a foundry, wouldn’t it? “Cake” has a much more ingredient-focused use for the ingredient. The mint part works, but in what way is it royal? And why does it matter? Answer: it isn’t and it doesn’t. I do like the green dragon with the minty-fresh breath, though. Not that that’s relevant. I think I’m going to call this one a draw. I very much like the role that the [b]Incremental Malison[/b] plays in “Cake.” It is more than relevant; it is crucial. But, while it is time-released (and that’s very important), it isn’t really incremental (at least, not in the way it manifests in the adventure). In contrast, “Twisted” does have a malison that is incremental and the incremental nature of it does matter to the adventure. Furthermore, the ingredient serves both as the lynchpin for the mechanism of the adventure and the core of the ingredient-weave that supports it. Excellent. Not so much, the [b]Hungry Hippogriff[/b]. The hunger is only evidenced by the ability of Hephaestus to swallow a PC whole. The fact that the author mixes up the hippogriff with a griffon when describing the beast’s original form illustrates exactly how little it needs to be a hippogriff in the first place. Worst of all, the entire scene can be excised from the adventure without changing a thing. Even the manifestation of Fernii’s mark won’t have a meaningful or lasting effect! Speaking of Fernii, she is another manifestation of the ingredient. The hunger works much better for her, but making her house the crest of a hippogriff is as weak as it gets. Two weak implementations of an ingredient are even worse than one. In contrast, “Cake” has a hippogriff that needs to be some sort of domesticated beast of burden to place it at the scene of the crime. It needs a degree of intelligence and a means of infiltration to get into the carriage. And it needs to be hungry (or, at least, gluttonous) to set everything in motion. This is about as perfect an ingredient-usage as you will find in IRON DM. [b]Burning Rain[/b] can’t measure up to that, but it’s still pretty good in “Cake.” The fact that it is the necessary complement to the Ancient Culture ingredient strengthens both. It seemed at first odd to me that the rain was made the chemical base and the sourdough starter acidic, but it all makes sense when I consider that the gray ooze that its stats are based on deals acid damage (in D&D, anyway). Also, the scenario in which the rain must be collected, as with so many scenarios in this adventure, looks like a lot of fun to play through. “Twisted” doesn’t even mention the [b]Burning Rain[/b] explicitly (or, if it does, it is buried in the dense text). It is pretty easy to infer that it is the means by which the explosion of [i]Dhogec Ghuukac[/i] will cause the destruction of Sylbaran. As such, it is a pretty significant portion of the adventure’s climax. This is a natural consequence of the destruction of the mint’s location by the means described, so it is pretty much necessary in this form. This puts it ahead of the version in “Cake,” despite that entry’s solid usage. [b]Reckoning:[/b] So, that’s 4 to 2 in favor of “Twisted,” with one draw. Is that level of dominance in ingredients-usage enough to counterbalance the issues that hinder the actual adventure? Put another way, does “Cake” provide an adventure that is better than twice as good as the one in “Twisted?” That’s what it would take to overcome the ingredients-deficit. [i]Am I more than twice as likely to want to run “Cake” than “Twisted?”[/i] I don’t think so. [i]Am I more than twice as likely to enjoy it as a player?[/i] Possibly. That goes back to the DM’s skill and level of preparation. “Cake” requires a lot less of the latter, but I think a DM who lacks the skill to run “Twisted” smoothly and to full effect is also going to get a little hung up on the limitations that are byproducts of “Cake’s” linearity. Ultimately, I think [MENTION=57112]Gradine[/MENTION]’s “The Twisted Court” ekes this one out by virtue of its pretty strong set of mostly well-interwoven ingredients. Frankly, that decision surprises me. By the time I had begun wrapping up this last section, I still didn’t think it would swing that way. But the numbers really clarified the comparison I had to make. If [MENTION=50987]CleverNickName[/MENTION]’s “The Cake of Kings” had done slightly better with the ingredients – even one more (or fewer) draw – I think that would have been enough to make the difference. CleverNickName, you’ve definitely got the chops! For future tournaments, a little more work on integrating those ingredients across the scope of the entire adventure might see you become a dominant presence. Further, if you can find a way to make as tight an adventure without leaning so heavily on the linearity, I’m pretty sure there’s a championship in your future. Had you done so this time, I think you’d be advancing. However, by a decision of 2 to 1, the current IRON DM, Gradine, advances to defend the championship against former IRON DM, MortalPlague! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
2018 IRON DM Tournament
Top