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="Wik" data-source="post: 4961269" data-attributes="member: 40177">True enough, and I mostly agree.  I think, in a hypothetical situation where two contestants submitted entries, and entry #1 was 3.5E, and #2 was 4e, that any of the current IRON DM judges' system preference wouldn't really come into play.  They are approaching things fairly, of that I have no doubt.I have to disagree, though, with your last statement, about how we're all talking about the "same core ideas".  A different edition of preference can and will influence "core" ideas of D&D.  See, and here's where I agree with Brent's original point, there is the fact that some of the ingredients listed so far show a system preference, in terms of names and the like.  To use an example (and I'm only using it because it's one I noticed, being involved and all), the "rogue hydra".I saw that, and instantly thought "How does a hydra go 'rogue'?  Aren't they 'rogue' and untamed by nature?".  Brent thought the same thing, so we played with the terms.  I think my "rogue" part of the entry was pretty weak - the only "rogue" part about it was how it was heading toward the main town on a warpath.  But that was as close as I could get.Turns out, when the judge thought of the ingredients, he was thinking along the lines of "rogue as a character class" hydra.  Which, in any edition but 3E, isn't really a common way of thinking (you can't make a solo monster like a hydra into a rogue in 4e without some serious tweaking).  So, that ingredient as intended had an obvious system bias - your own system of preference would influence how you viewed it.To take the example a bit further, let's say I was perfect with my "rogue" hydra description.  Let's say it was a trained hydra, and then it escaped from a circus or something, thus "going rogue".  That's a valid use of the ingredient.  But let's say my opponent thinks "rogue as a character class", because he's still thinking 3E, and makes a rogue as a character class hydra.  We both submit an ingredient, and we both use it well.  If the entries are close, and the judge goes through ingredient by ingredient, who wins in this contest?  We both used different interpretations of the same ingredient, but the winner is going to be the guy whose entry appeals most to the judge's edition of preference, because the judge will look at the rogue hydra he was thinking of when creating it, and look at the other hydra and say "well, it isn't really rogue".For what it's worth, I'm not complaining about the judging system.  It will have its holes, obviously, and problems like this arise in much larger competitions than this one.  I just think it's an issue that should be considered by the judges, who may not realize that their own edition preferences can influence how they view an ingredient.  Another example:  If the judge puts forward "blue dragon" as an ingredient, thinking of older edition blues, he has to be prepared for the 4e player to submit an ocean adventure as opposed to the 3e player's desert adventure... they're both equally "right".  His preference for how blues are "supposed" to be should not influence the choices the contestants make in their entry... just the entry's value and adherence to the ingredients given.My two cents.  Hope it makes my point, without sounding like I'm complaining or anything like that.  Just trying to point out that sometimes edition of preference can influence "core" ideas of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification