NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 1171854" data-attributes="member: 259">Judgment for Wicht vs. Nifft First, it's good to see that the contestants took radically different approaches to this set of ingredients. I was worried after the first round that my ingredients were too specific, and that they were predetermining the kinds of stories people would tell with them. That said, some overall comments, followed by comments on ingredient usage, followed by a judgment. Organization and railroading: The two entries were organized in very different ways. Wicht's entry was very straightforward and linear, and was therefore easy for me to follow. Unfortunately, it was a little TOO linear: in each scene in the adventure, there was really only one way forward. Combats are set up to be unwinnable, so fighting is not an option. Because it's a fairy-tale atmosphere, this is more acceptable than usual: fairy-tales often have quests that must be completed in a very specific manner. Still, the railroading has to count against the entry.  Nifft's entry was on the other end of the spectrum: rather than being an adventure, it comes across as more of a collection of related tools that can be used for a wide variety of different stories. There are no scenes described (except for backstory scenes, which don't really count), and only one real location. It came across as scattered when I read it. Speaking of scattered, I like the idea of an epigram, but I couldn't figure out what relationship the epigram had to the adventure. Finally, Nifft, it's Barghest, not Baraghest. Argh! But at least there was no railroading. Spectacle: Neither adventure really shone in terms of spectacle for me, although both had some decent images in it. Wicht's dreary cursed town recalls nothing so much as the town in The Last Unicorn; whether the homage was deliberate or not, I enjoyed it. And his field of poppies was straight out of the Wizard of Oz. Nifft, meanwhile, conjures a pretty cool image with the skeletal sphinx overseeing a valley full of slaves and black poppies. Characters and Pathos: Wicht definitely won in this category. The trapped paladin who goes every night to his failed tests and his sadistic butler are great characters, very evocative. Nifft's adventure really only has one character in it - the wizard barghest - and that character doesn't have much in the way of interesting motivation. An evil wizard who wants power? Who woulda thunk? There's the potential for interesting characters in the slave clerics, but none of them were developed. Atmospherewise, Wicht really takes it too: whereas Nifft's entry is more or less like every other evil overlord with slaves in its mood, Wicht crafts a great dark fairy-tale mood. I'm a sucker for dark fairy tales, so this worked for me. On to specific ingredients: Skeletal Sphinx: Nifft's skeletal sphinx, as an iron golem, was an interesting twist on the idea. And certainly a skeletal figure is a great symbol of a death god. But why a sphinx? I don't know of any connection between sphinxes and death; this seemed arbitrary to me. Wicht's was almost the other way around: his riddling sphinx made sense, but its skeletal nature was unnecessary. Except, of course, that it was the servant of a bunch of demons and in a twisted sadistic test meant to evoke fear and terror. Wicht's was stronger. (The riddle, however, was pretty weak: it needs more misdirection to be even the slightest bit tough). Poppy Field: Both of you played with the nature of poppies here. As much as I like Wizard of Oz, Wicht's was a little too straightforward for my tastes: surely everyone who read the ingredient thought immediately of the danger of crossing a field of poppies without falling asleep. And it also raised a niggling mathematical question: even if that paladin eats his butler's food every night, and even if that paladin has terrible saves, he should get a 20 on both saves one night in 400. There should've been some other mechanic to take care of the sleep effects. Nifft's poppies, on the other hand, were a cool demon-poppy with a unique effect. While I wish there had been more that would actually happen in the fields, that's more of a general fault with the adventure (no described possible scenes) than a specific fault with this ingredient; I therefore liked Nifft's use of this ingredient better. Barghest: Neither of you really impressed me with your use of the barghest. Both of them were barghests simply because they were demons, and could just as easily have been some other type of demon. (Even though you both mentioned their consuming the souls of their victims, another demon could have put forward a different but equal threat). However, I liked Wicht's character better; even though he could've been, for example, an efreet butler, he was still a cool butler. Goes to Wicht. Nightmare: A reasonable use by both of you, inasmuch as they were steeds to demons. Wicht's were great as transports through the mirror; hopping on a demon horse to enter a demon realm is going to be a very difficult surrender of control for any PC. Nifft's, as the steed of the barghest-wizard, was straightforward. He did, however, mention the nightmares people were having about the rising death-god, letting the ingredient do double-duty. Good show, but the difficult moment Wicht's nightmares present to the PC makes his a stronger use. Cracked Mirror: Nifft's cracked mirror as an artifact of the god was at the center of the story. I would've liked to have seen some ideas for scenes involving the mirror (how will people react to its reassembling? When will the PCs get a chance to interfere with the reassembling process? What cool underground dangers interfere with the collection of its pieces? And so forth) Wicht's, on the other hand, acted as a portal between worlds, and had the added emotional impact of having been a trap by which the unthinkingly righteous paladin doomed his people. PCs are bound to think of trying to repair the crack in his mirror, and a less railroading adventure would have made this a real possibility. I'm going to give a tie on this ingredient: both were well-integrated in their adventures but also had serious problems. Oppression: Good oppression in both. As I said before, I loved the feel of Wicht's town. Nifft's slaves add another dimension to the oppression by being semi-willing participants. I found Nifft's oppression, because of its complicated nature, to be his strongest ingredient, stronger than Wicht's by a hair. Overall, Wicht's adventure is so railroading that, despite its cohesive nature and lovely mood, it suffers badly. However, a straightforward, almost ritualized fairy-tale adventure can work if it's done rarely and done well, and Wicht's is certainly done well. Nifft's, while not railroading, uses a couple of ingredients arbitrarily, and doesn't give the DM enough stuff to work with to really pull off the adventure - it needs some fleshing out of some great basic ideas in order to be a great entry.  Because of the great mood, cool scenes, and superior use of ingredients, I'm awarding this round to Wicht, even though I know other judges, with more hatred of railroading than me, would decide differently. Congratulations, Wicht, and thanks for the entry, Nifft! I look forward to seeing you in future tournaments. Daniel</blockquote>

Verification