Adventure Summary Incentives

[B4cchus]

I also think the simplified version (the flat 1 point rewards) are the best way to go.

The main reason I suggested post count vs. time served is that the pace of different adventures varies a lot (more than the quantity vs. quality equation in post counts in my opinion). But that is moot anyway.

As far as rewarding judges goes: a: that is a whole diffrent discussion. Let's focus on the summaries in this thread and b: well, my point a prevents me from further points on this subject.

I also like your tables 'Nock

 

[Rae ArdGaoth]

Weird, 12 hour delayed, double post...

 

[SuddenDawn]

I agree with small simple rewards, perhaps as just a single DM point per summary; however, I want to raise an issue.

With DM credits it is very easy to award. A person DMs an adventure over a certain period of time to conclusion.

With summary rewards, who judges that an effort is sufficient? To some extent a subjective assesment of the summary will come into play. If, for example, it is not sufficiently detailed or is error ridden.

 

[Boddynock]

A good point. I would have said that it isn't really an issue ... but having spent some time vetting character approvals, I see that attention to detail isn't everybody's strong point.

Hmm, it looks like this is going to make more work for the judges, after all. Presumably a judge will have to award the credit - which means that a judge will have to check it. Sigh. Maybe I will raise that issue of judges' awards in another thread after all.

 

[Wik]

Yeah, I like the small rewards method for summary. But I'd add one more point - for including that information (whatever has been "added" to LEW from the adventure) into the Wiki.

And I'd also add that DMs get automatic "shotgun" rules on the adding information - a Player shouldn't be able to add info unless the GM obviously doesn't wanna do it.

 

[Boddynock]

So, picking up Wik's points, is this what we're looking at?

[b]Summary rewards (may be to different individuals)            DM Credits[/b]
For summarizing the adventure                                1
For summarizing fully detailed NPCs                          1
For summarizing fully detailed locations & institutions      1
For adding the full summary to the Wiki                      1

[b]Notes:[/b]
[list]
[*]Each credit is awarded once only.
[*]Credits can be awarded by any of the LEW judges.
[*]It is the DM’s prerogative to summarize his or her own adventure.
[*]If the DM hasn’t summarized the adventure within one calendar month of its
completion, anyone may add a summary.
[*]Please add a post to the end of a thread indicating your intention to summarize
that thread. (This helps reduce unnecessary duplication of effort.)
[*]Any such "notice of intention" is valid for one calendar month, after which
someone else may post their intention to summarize the thread.
[/list]

 

[Rystil Arden]

I might add one more clause to that for significant fully-detailed historical information / legends, but I guess that's okay. I probably still wouldn't summarise ATfL at that point, but it should be fine for most adventures.

 

[Rae ArdGaoth]

Yes, I like Boddynock's final formulation. I hesitate to add a fifth point for "significant fully-detailed historical information / legends". It's my proposal (technically) so I can't vote, but I endorse it.

 

[Boddynock]

Are we ready to vote, then?

One thing about adding it to the Wiki. I suggest that the credit be awarded for adding the original summary as it stands at the time that the adventure is summarized. I think that, if someone comes along and summarizes the NPCs later, then somebody else adds the NPC summary to the Wiki (are you with me so far? ), that later addition to the Wiki doesn't attract a reward.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Are we ready to vote, then?

One thing about adding it to the Wiki. I suggest that the credit be awarded for adding the original summary as it stands at the time that the adventure is summarized. I think that, if someone comes along and summarizes the NPCs later, then somebody else adds the NPC summary to the Wiki (are you with me so far? ), that later addition to the Wiki doesn't attract a reward.

Here's something that isn't made clear--you award points for having at least one NPC, not per NPC. Will the summariser get credit for that if they summarise a game with, say, 50 NPCs, but they only actually include NPC details for the most important two or three and leave out the rest? If not, how is that different than someone who summarises a game that legitimately only has two or three NPCs in it?

Also, how do we define 'significant'. One might consider the disparity between the organisations described in LPNN ("There's a moblike criminal organisation that exists, but that's about it" and ATfL (pages and pages and pages of organisation info). 1 point for both? Just ATfL?

Also, I'm still in favour of credit for major/significant historical / legend info.