(+) Help Develop an IRON DM Spin-Off!

[Rune]

We need a scoring system that both makes it so that a consistent winner each week is likely to win the whole thing, but that also gives someone who falls behind a chance to catch up so they are not discouraged. I do think there needs to be some kind of public scoring round up each week.

So, each challenge would look something like:

0 = No significant presence.​

1 = Present, but minimally significant.​

2 = Present and significant.​

3 = Present and exceptionally implemented.​

Ingredients used.

For each ingredient:​

Creativity (0-3)​

Internal Relevance (0-3)​

Potential Relevance to PCs (0-3)​

Interconnectivity (0-3)​

​

Structural Analysis.

Creativity (0-3)​

Function (0-3)​

Style (0-3)​

​

For the adventure challenge, I would add the following to the Structural Analysis:

Cohesion (0-3)​

Playability (0-3)​

​

These numbers are tight enough that a few low numbers shouldn’t knock anyone out, but consistently higher numbers should always matter.

Factor in the potential 1 point per 1 unique spectator vote that an entry could get, and things could get a little swingier (depending on the number of votes).

Perhaps a vote-ratio converted to a certain number of additional points would be better. Maybe a total of 5ish points per contestant, divided up according to the ratio.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

So, each challenge would look something like:

0 = No significant presence.​

1 = Present, but minimally significant.​

2 = Present and significant.​

3 = Present and exceptionally implemented.​

Ingredients used.

For each ingredient:​

Creativity (0-3)​

Internal Relevance (0-3)​

Potential Relevance to PCs (0-3)​

Interconnectivity (0-3)​

​

Structural Analysis.

Creativity (0-3)​

Function (0-3)​

Style (0-3)​

​

For the adventure challenge, I would add the following to the Structural Analysis:

Cohesion (0-3)​

Playability (0-3)​

​

These numbers are tight enough that a few low numbers shouldn’t knock anyone out, but consistently higher numbers should always matter.

Factor in the potential 1 point per 1 unique spectator vote that an entry could get, and things could get a little swingier (depending on the number of votes).

Perhaps a vote-ratio converted to a certain number of additional points would be better. Maybe a total of 5ish points per contestant, divided up according to the ratio.

Would your score be the total of 3 judgements or the average of 3 judgements?

 

[Rune]

Another important consideration:

The judges will almost certainly be scoring the previous week’s entries while the next is ongoing, so a public ranking will not be available at the start of each week. Mid-week might be a reasonable target, though. If the field isn’t too large.

 

[Rune]

Would your score be the total of 3 judgements or the average of 3 judgements?

My preference would be average. Rounded up. The rounding would favor high outliers over low outliers, but I’m okay with that.

 

[Rune]

My preference would be average. Rounded up. The rounding would favor high outliers over low outliers, but I’m okay with that.

The averaging, by the way, would keep the swinginess down in two ways:

First, by reducing the impact of outlier scores, but also by keeping the overall total lower (to about a third), which means low scorers can remain competitively within reach of the higher scorers over the long run.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

The averaging, by the way, would keep the swinginess down in two ways:

First, by reducing the impact of outlier scores, but also by keeping the overall total lower (to about a third), which means low scorers can remain competitively within reach of the higher scorers over the long run.

Agreed.

 

[Iron Sky]

Just skimmed the linked thread I didn't see before plus this one.

So far it sounds good. Having just judged, I'd be much more inclined to be a contestant than judge.

A random idea I had: what if you had a contest where you had one entry then kept on adding ingredients each round?

As an arbitrary example:
Round 1 is 3 ingredients and 4 hours.
Round 2 adds 3 more ingredients and 12 hours.
Round 3 adds 2 more ingredients and 24 hours.

The entry would keep the core adventure structure/theme/plot but would incorporate the new ingredients. Each round could have a theme too if that was desired: "Round 2: Monster!"

Not attached, just a thought.

 

[Fenris-77]

I think the proposed format sounds like a lot of fun. I don't think specifying specific games is a good idea, but indexing a specific genre might be ok. Perhaps there could be a list of genres and each contestant gets to use each one once. If there one or two more choices than rounds no one's getting pigeon holed but the contest would still challenge contestants to write in more than just their favourite genre. IDK...

 

[Rune]

Seing as how this discussion has tapered off and seeing as how we probably have enough for a panel of judges to work with, I’m going to go ahead and push this developement into the next phase.

Obviously, if anyone has anything further to add, you are welcome to continue doing so in this thread.

But, if we really want to see this thing happen in the spring, we’re going to need to start manifesting that reality.

To that end, if anyone thinks they might be available and interested in being a judge, send me a private message and I’ll be sure to contact you in, say, February or so, which will hopefully give the judges time to work out the final details.

Alternatively, if someone else wants to pick up the organizational torch, they can contact me and I can provide them with a list of those interested in judging.

No commitments are necessary at this time! If you think you might be interested, just send me a message!

Spoiler: Shout outs

@Gradine, @el-remmen, @Wicht, @CleverNickName, @Neurotic, @FitzTheRuke, @humble minion, @Deuce Traveler, @Radiating Gnome, @Iron Sky
@Fenris-77

 

[Rune]

Seing as how this discussion has tapered off and seeing as how we probably have enough for a panel of judges to work with, I’m going to go ahead and push this developement into the next phase.

Obviously, if anyone has anything further to add, you are welcome to continue doing so in this thread.

But, if we really want to see this thing happen in the spring, we’re going to need to start manifesting that reality.

To that end, if anyone thinks they might be available and interested in being a judge, send me a private message and I’ll be sure to contact you in, say, February or so, which will hopefully give the judges time to work out the final details.

Alternatively, if someone else wants to pick up the organizational torch, they can contact me and I can provide them with a list of those interested in judging.

No commitments are necessary at this time! If you think you might be interested, just send me a message!

Spoiler: Shout outs

@Gradine, @el-remmen, @Wicht, @CleverNickName, @Neurotic, @FitzTheRuke, @humble minion, @Deuce Traveler, @Radiating Gnome, @Iron Sky
@Fenris-77

Well, the time has come to see if anyone is actually interested enough in this to help make it happen.

Any takers?