Fall '03 Iron DM Tournament -- Wulf Ratbane is Iron DM!

Note: I'll say in advance, I've tried not to specifically call out each and every use of the ingredients, every clue, nor every possible twist of the plot. I'd rather this entry leave a few "Ah hahs!" for the readers than spoil it by making everything too obvious, even if it costs me the round.


BRIGHT LIGHTS CAST THE DARKEST SHADOWS
A d20 Modern “Shadow Chasers” Adventure


Ingredients:
Vampiric Bard:Our initial hook, our “villain,” a modern day bard who’s been young and pretty just a little too long
Falling Stars: the on-stage collapse of many young stars leads the PCs to some deductions
Olfactory Clue: one of many clues that lead the players deeper into the adventure
Oubliette: circumstantial evidence is good enough for most PCs, but the law will be most interested in this solid piece of evidence
Chaos Beast: the true nature of our villain
Hysteria: A nervous affection, occurring almost exclusively in women, in which the emotional and reflex excitability is exaggerated, and the will power correspondingly diminished, so that the patient loses control over the emotions and often falls into paroxism or fits.

BACKGROUND
Hollywood, mid to late 1920’s


“I think we finally have one!” announces your supervisor at Department 7. “You’re familiar with the files on Greta von Carstein? That’s right, beautiful immigrant, reclusive star of stage and silent movies—and suspected vampire. It’s all anecdotal of course; probably just Hollywood rumors sprung from petty jealousy. Lots of starlets out there think she’s been just a little too young and pretty for just a little too long. It’s a shame we don’t have any photographic evidence to back up any of the gossip.

Well, we’re going to need you out in Hollywood. A young singer there, Dora Danvers—yes, I can see you’ve heard of her, too, quite a beauty—has, as she puts it, irrefutable proof. I know, I know, it’s tough chasing shadows all the time; so little turns up positive. But I have a feeling about this one. I spoke with her on the phone, the poor girl was nearly out of her mind with fear. She wouldn’t give me any specifics unless I promised to send a team out to protect her. Head out to Hollywood, see what you can find out. And keep a close eye on her.”

NOTE: If the players are not part of Department 7, but are naturally inquisitive, they may already be aware of the suspicions surrounding Greta. In recent weeks the Hollywood columns of the paper have been hinting at a growing feud between Dora Danvers and Greta von Carstein. Inquisitive players may take it upon themselves to schedule an interview with Dora or Greta. The Scenes below can be shuffled around to suit the order that the players tackle them.

CHARACTERS
Dora Danvers: A beautiful young blonde singer with aspirations of film stardom. Her career has recently been taking off, bringing her to the world’s attention. Some of this attention is unwanted.

Greta von Carstein: A slightly older, slightly less beautiful actress of stage and (more recently) silent film. In her day, she was the most talented and popular actress in Hollywood, but in recent years it seems folks have had enough of her. Now, she mostly finds work in horror movies, most likely because of her dark and mysterious teutonic beauty.

Adele Dubois, Bette Brown, Clara Sturrow, etc.: A bevy of beautiful and talented young women running the gamut of talent and physical description: actresses, singers, movie stars, dancers, redheads, brunettes, waifs and bombshells. Occasionally referred to below at (starlet A), (starlet B), etc.

Stan “The Fan” Zigler: Really more a stalker than a reporter, Stan has nevertheless managed to parlay his enthusiasm into a job as a Hollywood reporter. He’s the prototype paparazzi, always around when the PCs need him, and if they ask the right questions, Stan is sure to have the answer to set them on the right track.

SCENE ONE
Dora’s Finest Performance


The PCs arrive in Hollywood just hours before Dora is scheduled for a night-club performance. Tracking her down in advance of the show is impossible; those close to Dora seem to have no idea where she is—she generally keeps to herself in preparation for a show—but they assure the PCs that she’ll find time to speak with them immediately following the show. The PCs are given tickets to the show.

Dora’s performance that night belies none of the nervous tension the players might expect. Indeed, she turns in her finest performance ever. (“Betta’ than Greta!” shouts Stan from a nearby table. “What a headline!”)

As Dora stands to accept the waves of adulation from the crowd, she smiles, perfectly at ease (or so a Sense Motive check would indicate). Her smile turns to a grin, and suddenly the stage begins to pile up with roses thrown from the crowd. Her grin cracks into a toothy smile, her smile turns to a giggle, the giggle to a laugh, and in moments, as the roses continue to litter the stage, Dora is laughing uncontrollably and suddenly collapses twitching and screaming on the stage in a full-blown fit of hysteria.

Several stagehands and a burly bodyguard rush from the wings, throw a robe over Dora, and hustle her off the stage.

The PCs may hear an off-hand comment from Stan. “Here we go again...” If pressed for commentary, Stan will say, “Another star falls to the stage after her performance? Same damn thing happened last week. I think these starlets are trying to outdo each other.” Stan can’t recall the actress who pulled the same stunt; he wasn’t at that show.

SCENE TWO
Dora’s Dressing Room

The PCs may seek out Dora at her dressing room. They’ll be confronted by a huge bodyguard outside her door. “Dora’s sleepin’,” he’ll advise. “Blow.”

Diplomacy or (more unlikely) Intimidate may loosen the bodyguard’s lips just a bit. He’s just checked in on her not 2 minutes ago—she’s fine. As he’s speaking, however, the PCs hear a loud crash from inside the dressing room.

Rushing in, the bodyguard and the PCs can quickly sum up the situation:
a) there’s on overpowering smell of perfume in the air—a shattered bottle of pricey French perfume has fallen to the floor and shattered (the perfume is called Etoile if anyone cares to Search or Spot)

b) there’s a pile of movie scripts strewn across the floor, as if dropped while someone was running (Investigation or Tracking)

c) on the table above the perfume, there is a single key on a featureless metal key fob. (The PCs may or may not take this key; it will not change the unfolding of later scenes.)

d) No Dora! She’s gone—and pulled a disappearing act worthy of Harry Houdini himself. There’s only one door in or out of the dressing room. There’s a small window, open slightly to let in the cool night air (Spot); there’s a heating vent in the floor (Search).

SCENE THREE
Investigative Research


The players have a few clues in their hands now.

Scripts: First, the scripts. Hollywood scripts are always marked CONFIDENTIAL and usually each and every page is marked to indicate to whom it is issued. These scripts are no exception. One script (for The Next Big Thing) belongs to Dora Danvers, but other scripts are assigned to Adele Dubois, Bette Brown, Clara Sturrow, etc. PCs with the proper Knowledge (or a Wisdom check) should realize that these scripts probably shouldn’t all be in the same place, and definitely not out of the hands of their owners.

Actresses: The PCs may follow this lead to speak to these other actresses. Sometimes, it seems scheduling an appointment with these ladies is impossible; the PCs will have to grease the right palms but eventually these ladies might find time for a quick conversation. They’ll be effusively happy if the PCs return the scripts to them (I didn’t even know it was gone! What was that bitch doing with my script!) Otherwise, once the PCs finally track each of these ladies down, they chat amiably, although as briefly as possible.

The interviews with these starlets may drop a couple more clues, if the PCs ask the right questions or Spot the right things:

One or more of the starlets also fell on stage recently.

All of the starlets wear Etoile perfume (an olfactory clue!).

On any visit after Scene Two, the PCs may notice that one starlet has a receipt sitting on her desk for Jolly’s Locksmiths. (She may try to subtly cover the receipt with her script as it is returned... but Sleight of Hand is not her forte and she may be Spotted...)

Finally, the PCs may try to make some connection between all of these starlets. It will require either some Research, or perhaps seeking out Stan. Eventually, they’ll discover that at one time or another, each of these starlets has done work with Greta von Carstein (in some cases, years ago). Digging a little deeper (a more difficult DC) they’ll find that since doing work with Greta von Carstein, they’ve never been spotted with Greta von Carstein, or each other. Stan may be of some help here; he keeps a close eye on social events, and although he won’t think to offer up this info, he may realize, “Yeah, yeah, you’re right. That’s odd...” and confirm it for the players.

The only exception is Dora; she’s never done any work with Greta before; they seem to hate each other, growing worse since Dora’s fame has been increasing, and really coming to a head when Dora beat out Greta for the starring role in The Next Big Thing. This isn’t common knowledge, but poking around to Gather Information may turn it up. (None of the starlets above would offer this information... “I prefer to stay out of the politics around here...”)

SCENE FOUR:
Greta’s Guests

At some point, the PCs will probably want to visit Greta to ask her a few questions. Like the other starlets, it’s hard to track Greta down to arrange an interview—her “horror movie” schedule generally requires her to sleep during the day, it seems, so she’s only available briefly at night, usually just after sundown or just before sunrise.

She will definitely have a couple of (particularly hirsute) bodyguards pat the PCs down before any interview. They’ll turn up any guns, stakes, or mirrors the PCs are carrying, though you may allow them to sneak by with smaller items (see below).

During this interview—assuming the PCs don’t go vigilante and throw down on circumstantial evidence—the PCs may learn a few things.

If the PCs visit Greta at least a day after Scene Two, they’ll see that her trash can contains the packaging for a bottle of Etoile perfume; the brand new bottle sits on her dressing table.

It’s an odd dressing table—no mirror. No mirrors, in fact, anywhere in sight. Greta explains, in her thick Bavarian accent, “It’s part of my mystique, you see. Why quell the silly rumors?” “Makeup? You think a star as famous as me does her own makeup?” etc.

If the PCs get bold, shoving a cross or garlic into her face, or dousing her with holy water, etc., Greta will recoil in horror, baring her teeth—then, after a moment, begin chuckling. It is an amazingly convincing vampire moment, but, apparently, no more than that.

If push comes to shove, Greta has a genuine weakness for mirrors, but it’s fairly mundane. She simply can’t stand the sight of herself. “Stop that! I’m hideous! I was beautiful once... so old...” etc. She still looks beautiful by any standards but her own—she’s got a pretty bad case of body dismorphic disorder (and there’s a damn good reason for that, as the PCs will eventually realize...)

God forbid, if the PCs go vigilante on Greta in this scene, they’ll slaughter her (and her bodyguards, too, who will rush to help). She’ll be dead as a doornail—regular dead, like, not even remotely a vampire dead—when the police show up (just in time) to catch the PCs redhanded. The adventure may be over—see below.

SCENE FIVE
The Old Factory


If the PCs are going to get any hard evidence on Greta, it will be following the locksmith’s clue to the old factory.

It’s easy enough to track down Jolly’s Locksmith, though he’s not particularly forthcoming until some money crosses his palm. He won’t recall doing any work for (starlet A) though, yeah, maybe he did do some work recently for a famous star. More money crosses hands, and he’ll rat out (starlet B). Hard to forget a meeting like that: you gotta wonder what possible kind of emergency a beautiful star could have in the middle of the night at that rusty old factory outside of town. She asked him to change the locks and give him a new key; she definitely did not want a duplicate key made. He made one anyway—perhaps the PCs would like to make him an offer for it? That sale made, perhaps they’d like to know where the factory is located? There’s a lot of old factories outside Tinseltown, ya know. That’ll cost em, too...

The PCs can unlock a huge sliding door that opens into the factory. Inside they’ll find lots of broken machinery. Lots of rats, too. But probably the most striking feature is the huge tank that dominates the center of the room.

Catwalks lead up to the top of the rusty tank, which is sealed with a pressure-cap. The wheel-lock on the pressure cap is, strangely, not rusted tight—players may Spot this from a distance and certainly when they turn the wheel. It turns with ease.

The wheel creaks as the pressure-cap is unlocked. A horrible smell starts to waft from the opening before the cap is even opened—the unmistakable smell of death. Throwing aside the cap, the players can peer down into this makeshift oubliette. There are bodies inside—several. One for each of the starlets. The PCs would have to lower themselves down to do a forensic search, but all of them have broken bones, no doubt sustained as each of these stars fell into the tank.

Most recently dead is poor Dora Danvers. Her neck is broken, twisted nearly all the way around. She’s the only corpse that seems to have been killed in such a capricious way. The other bodies are in various states of decay, though it’s clear that the oldest of them has been dead for years, at least.

This, despite the fact that the PCs have talked to these starlets within the last couple of days.

NOW the PCs are probably ready to dispense some vigilante justice.

SCENE SIX
The Horrible Truth


The PCs will have to rush to confront Greta. She’s growing suspicious, so she’ll soon check on the oubliette at the old factory to make sure all is well. If the PCs delay even a day, Greta will cut her losses and move on (for a while...)

The truth of the matter is this: Greta von Carstein has been infected by the touch of a Chaos Beast. While most folks would simply dissolve into a puddle of goo, such was Greta’s charisma and force of personality that she’s actually been able to control it and hold herself together for years. She has not, at least yet, become a full-fledged chaos beast herself. (Perhaps, even, she has benefitted from additional charisma or shapeshifting powers—but more on that in a moment...)

Greta’s weakness is an insatiable need for praise and adulation; it is like a salve to her ego and a terribly low self esteem that goes deep into her psyche. Like a doppleganger, she has used her shifting ability to assume the identity of other stars, adding to her repertoire any star who was deemed more talented or more beautiful. Like the true bards of old, she is multitalented; she’s really very, very good at acting, singing, dancing, you name it. But inexplicably, though her talents are indisputable and her beauty essentially eternal thanks to her shapeshifting ability, her fame has waned. Fickle generations have moved on, but Greta will not go quietly. Feeling her fame slipping away, indeed, has made Greta more and more hysterical each time she receives the adulation she craves.

Usually very calm and precise, Dora was something of an accident. The two argued and Greta lost control; for the briefest moment, perhaps, Dora caught a glimpse of Greta’s true nature. So... she had to go. In retrospect, with Department 7 now poking around, that was a miscalculation. But Greta is confident in her ability to deflect any suspicion.

She may even choose, in this final confrontation, to let the PCs “kill” her. She’s done her share of death scenes in her time, and can alter her metabolism to the point where it is indistinguishable from death. Depending on how the PCs have played their cards up to this point, it’s completely up to the DM whether to leave them feeling they’ve killed a beautiful woman, or to give them the satisfaction of a big fight against a full-fledged chaos beast:

The PCs will have a hard time tracking Greta down, but she is scheduled to sing at a night-club and there’s no way she’s going to miss that; it is her weakness; she is compelled. Either by confronting Greta, or waiting until the inevitable accolades at the end of the show, Greta is finally going to lose it. Her body shifts and morphs, thorns, fangs, and claws sprout at random, and she tears first into her unfortunate jazz trio and then into the audience. Mass hysteria ensues, and the heroes of Department 7 are there in time to save the day.

SCENE SEVEN:
Finale?

The DM may throw one final twist at the players, which may lead them to a greater evil:

Was Greta, in fact, a vampire? Or, perhaps, on her way to becoming one?

A package recently delivered to her dressing room may hold a further clue. It is a beautiful bouquet of tulips, along with a package wrapped in brown paper and tied with strings. There is a note with the card:

“It was good to see you again the other night. Found this in my desk after all these years—thought you might like to have it back. Pardon the tulips, but you know I can’t abide roses. Love, Max.”

Inside the package, marked CONFIDENTIAL on each page with Greta’s name, is the script for NOSFERATU.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wulf writes:
I think the simple combination of Destiny + Aboleth (and again, the nature of my writing at the moment) paired them up for a naturally cthulhuesque feel.

In addition, as it was an "experiment" in showing the DM how to handle Destiny, I felt that doing so with an gaming cliches would help. It's more than just the word "ftagn," that's actually the whole verse-- I just snipped Cthulhu's name out of it. The city on the back of the "leviathan" is cliche. I tried to make the descriptions of the former heroes cliches as well. The whole point was to make it easy for the DM to see examples and easy for the players to "connect" with the feel of an epic destiny.

I'm not going to put words in Daniel's mouth, and I am definitely NOT saying this is what happened in mythago's case, but there is a big difference between "lifting" a concept as a paean to a classic that all gamers should recognize, and lifting a concept from a source that few will recognize. I don't think there was any danger in my entry that folks would not realize I was deliberately calling on Cthulhu for the underpinnings of the fluff.
I guess that I take "cthulhuesque" to mean something a little less direct that what you had. ;)

I appreciate what you tried to do with your entry. You were outside the box and that's where Iron DM entries try to be. I do wonder why you decided to rely so heavily on cliche, though? Your broad meta-concept was already innovative enough within the context of the tournament: present a long-term adventure framework rather than an immediate adventure set in the short-term. Saying that you wanted to make things easy for the DM by relying on cliches sounds a bit odd to me. If someone published an adventure based on your idea, I don't think people would be lauding it for its reliance on cliche? While the concept of the adventure is a good one, it's certainly not such a mind-bender that cliche is needed so that readers can figure out what's going on? Maybe that's just my own facility with the concept you described, however.

I wonder why you chose to describe your own instance of lifting with quotation marks and didn't do the same with mythago? Both of you apparently did the same thing. If mythago is to be believed, he did it unconsciously. Using quotation marks the way you did is usually meant to signify that the word isn't being used in its regular sense. If mythago did what he did unintentionally, then shouldn't his "lifting" be in quotes, since using the word in that way suggests an intentional use of the material? Regardless of whether the source material is well-known or obscure, you both did the same thing in a sense. It raises a red-flag in my eyes when you describe your version as a "paean to a classic" while mythago is somehow doing something reprehensible.

Even if mythago did, in fact, use the novel as template for his entry, you did exactly the same thing for yours. Trying to highlight and differentiate between what are ultimately cosmetic differences between both "paeans" seems a bit disingenuous.

Having said all that, I don't want you to get the impression that I'm somehow down on you or your entry. Speaking from experience, I know the time pressure involved in the tournament. Overall, I do believe that your use of ingredients, once the matter of both entries relying heavily on other material is balanced and disregarded, was better than mythago's. My initial point was the seeming penalizing of mythago for his reliance on outside material which didn't seem to apply to your entry as well.

Which brings me to Pie's response:
Dave, believe me, I thought about exactly what you're saying. I know that my first reaction was hostility toward what I (erroneously) thought was borderline plagiarism on Mythago's part, whereas I had no visceral reaction at all to Wulf's lifting of tropes.

My best guess as to why this is true is that, as Wulf stated, he was playing with one of the most common tropes in gamer lore, whereas Mythago's looked similar to a relatively obscure work. Wulf's wholesale appropriation of the "ftagn" line made it clear he wasn't trying to hide what he was doing. And there were enough cool and unique extras in his adventure -- the reverse destiny sleight-of-hand, the waves crashing over the battlefield, the little fetish-doll speaking bits of gibberish at odd times -- that even without the difference between the source material's availability, I liked his entry more.
I would suggest that your bias might have crept in here, which is somewhat inevitable in a tournament such as this with a single judge. I imagine that you were more comfortable with the Cthulhu similarities because of your comfort with the source material. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I wonder if you would have reacted with calm if the Cthulhu story wasn't so well-known? What if, like the other novel, the Cthulhu thing was as relativley obscure? Would your reaction had been the same?

This is impossible to answer in a way, but it highlights the problem that I see. After all, we often criticize movies for being "a rip-off of X", where X is some extremely well-known movie (like: "Equilibirium is a total Matrix rip-off."). In this case, Wulf's adventure simply referenced a very well-known story, while Mythago's didn't. Does that mean that Wulf should somehow avoid the same criticism that Mythago does? I don't think that just because you reference something well-loved that you are insulated from charges of "making a paean". ;)

In the end, maybe this could inform any further judging by Pie? :)
 


Dave Turner said:
I do wonder why you decided to rely so heavily on cliche, though? Maybe that's just my own facility with the concept you described, however.

I am sure your facility is precisely the reason.

I don't expect anyone to publish adventures based on Iron DM entries-- rather, Iron DM entries should serve as instructions on how to create adventures. Sure, the best entries could be lifted, printed, and played, but that's not the point, as far as I am concerned.

A cliche the easiest way to get the DM and the players (and the judge) to connect with the theme. They have to "get it" immediately. Using a cliche lets me know that I can choose not to describe a lot of the tiny details, and have no worries that the entry is going to fly over the head of the reader.

I wonder why you chose to describe your own instance of lifting with quotation marks and didn't do the same with mythago?

Because I don't like denoting the same word with quotes, twice? Feel free to reverse the order of presentation, put quotes around mythago's "lift," and no quotes around mine.

It raises a red-flag in my eyes when you describe your version as a "paean to a classic" while mythago is somehow doing something reprehensible.

No one is suggesting that mythago did anything reprehensible. So far, you are the only person who has said that.

As to your point, the presentation as "paean" really only works if the author can be confident that the reader is so familiar with the source material that it could not possibly be construed as anything but. It is safe to say that the cthulhu mythos is widely accessible to the readers of ENworld. There were no fears on my part that anyone would read it and think that I was attempting to pass it off as my own.

Trying to highlight and differentiate between what are ultimately cosmetic differences between both "paeans" seems a bit disingenuous.

No, the difference is clear. Trying to paint the difference as cosmetic is disingenuous. There's a big difference between a CLEAR reference to an existing source and an OBSCURE reference to an existing source.

I wonder if you would have reacted with calm if the Cthulhu story wasn't so well-known? What if, like the other novel, the Cthulhu thing was as relativley obscure? Would your reaction had been the same?

I hope not, for the reasons I have outlined above.

At any rate, it's a purely hypothetical and ultimately pointless line of inquiry. As I said in my previous reply, had I not been pushed towards the Cthulhu mythos, I would have used an equally accessible myth. There was no incentive for me to use an obscure reference; the point was to make the reader connect immediately.

In this case, Wulf's adventure simply referenced a very well-known story, while Mythago's didn't. Does that mean that Wulf should somehow avoid the same criticism that Mythago does?

Hypothetically speaking? It sure does.


Wulf
 



Berandor said:
"...blood will flow like sand."
I get that it rhymes, and all, but: How exactly does sand flow?
Sand flows Quite well (hourglass?).
But the real reference is to the sheer numbers of grains of sand in the world. Sand is a common symbol of numerical exuberance.
 
Last edited:

A quick note: I don't want to go further into the discussion of my different responses to Mythago's vs. Wulf's posts. Since Mythago hasn't read the novel I thought his adventure was based on, my concerns were unfounded, and I owe him my apologies for suggesting otherwise. (I am interested, however, whether other folks familiar with that novel had the same thought -- Nem?)

Judging is, ultimately, arbitrary, and I give a lot of credit to my gut when it comes to reading these stories and figuring out which one will win. For example, I already am pretty sure how I'll judge the current round, although I still have the difficult job of analyzing my reactions to the two entries and posting detailed feedback on them. If you, Dave, would treat borrowing from a canonical source the same as borrowing from a relatively obscure source, then that's how you can run your tournament; for me, I treat them differently. (Contestants should not rely on that, however -- remember that I dinged Wicht for his reference to The Wizard of Oz. I'm capricious like that).

And that's my last word on that subject.
Daniel
 

No apology necessary. As for discussion of my entry, please take it entirely in the spirit of "mythago explains what the heck was going through her head when she wrote that"--it's absolutely not meant to be any reflection on your judging. FWIW, I agree that Wulf's entry was better than mine.
 


Remove ads

Top