Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="trix" data-source="post: 341303" data-attributes="member: 5337">Well, now that I've read some of the submissions, and read some of the entries, I've started to think that:1) Some settings were a bit dodgy.  Either the writing style wasnt as good as it could be, or the author didnt cover enough as far as meta plot/other aspects of setting design.2) I think those that made it to second round are the best written settings, not the best _settings_.  That is, you might have 11 reasonable settings that are phenomonly well written, instead of a mindshatteringly brilliant setting that was scratched out by some GM genius that couldnt compose two normal sentences.Truely, some of the settings i've read are phenomenal as far as far as deep potential goes... , but if WotC judges ended up with the best written entry, then they've probably thrown away the best "setting"... since they might have unknowingly turned it into an english prose competition.I truely hope that they've got the best 1 page setting instead of the best written 1 page setting, but i'm starting to doubt it by sheer weight of brilliance (not brilliant writing style).To get their minds around fairly well written settings (instead of exceptionally well written settings), they were probably too limited for time.Anyway,My Comments.(How about keeping the settings thread and deleting trivial non-posted setting comentary from the thread?)-Tim</blockquote>