Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rune" data-source="post: 5620203" data-attributes="member: 67">Round 1, Match 2: Pour vs. steeldragonsFirst of all, before I even read the entries, I saw that steeldragons bent/broke two rules.  First, he edited his post.  Four minutes may not seem like much, but some judges might disqualify an entry for that.  When I judged in 2003, I would have.  My philosophy has changed somewhat in the past 8 years, but...we'll get to that.  In addition, the the word count is slightly higher than the limit.  How do I feel about that?  We'll get to that, too...In an Iron DM tournament, the contestants are challenged in a variety of ways.  The primary challenge is to use all of the ingredients and use them well.  What does that mean?  Ideally, each ingredient is not just integral to the adventure, but also to the PCs' interaction with it.There are some good uses of ingredients in both of these entries...but, unfortunately, more poor uses than good.Ideal Location:  steeldragons' ideal location fit the ingredient, but seemed somewhat uninspired.  Okay, it was thought ideal by the lady in waiting, and was really ideal for raising undead...but why?  Pour's is even worse.  Pour's ideal location (such as it is) does not indicate in any way why, or what it is ideal for.  And what does it have to do with the PCs?  I mean, come on.  The mountain could have been played up as a location of an ideal (love).  Pour was all set up for it.  But I just didn't see it, and, frankly, I find the missed opportunity especially disappointing.  It was there!  It was right there...Witch's Garden: This time, Pour's use of the ingredient is passable.  Both versions are significant locations in the adventure and work.  steeldragon's use of the ingredient is one of his best.  Sure, sure, there's the whole viscous plant thing, but the really nice one is the necromancer-witch's garden where undead are grown.  Now that is good imagery.Our Lady in Waiting:  And then he goes and pulls out this?  First of all, how is the lady in waiting our lady in waiting?  And, second, how does this play into the adventure as anything but background?  Lady-in-waiting has at least three distinct definitions, and this is all we get?  In contrast, Pour's uses are fantastic!  Very evocative and help to establish a theme for the entire adventure.  And he didn't even use any of the aforementioned definitions; he made his own, and it worked.Skeletal Construct:  ...That being the case, I can't figure out why, in an adventure filled with interesting constructs, the only skeletal construct is a(n admittedly interesting) minor encounter that the PCs could easily bypass.  Curses!  So what does steeldragons have to offer?  What's this?  Is it a homage to the Dread Gazebo!  Brilliant.  An exciting way to split the party for a significant combat?  Excellent!  This is by far the most memorable part of steeldragons' entire adventure.Misfortune:  It is quite unfortunate that this ingredient was so poorly handled in both entries.  steeldragons' entry, at least, featured it as an important part of the adventure as the answer to the riddle and a minor recurrence of theme with the pixies, but with the riddle, it would have been much better to have emphasized misfortune while the party fights to solve the riddle.  And the pixies?  Well, they're just incidental.  But, at least the PCs get to interact with these things.  Pour's Misfortunes are all things that happen to other people—and mostly off-screen!  Curses!Riddle:  I like Pour's riddle.  It has a lot of potential.  But, it has absolutely nothing to do with the PCs.  It had so much potential.  I mean, remember that whole “location of the ideal (love)” thing that you were set up to capitalize on?  It could have tied in with the riddle so beautifully!  But, it didn't.  Instead, we have a riddle that is nothing but background.  On the other hand, steeldragons' riddle is less thematically intertwined, and yet, at least, significant to the PCs!As far as ingredient usage goes, I think it is clear that, even though it was not stellar in his entry, steeldragons trumps....Which is a shame, because I really like Pour's adventure more.  steeldragons adventure is linear and has a hook that many a party won't even look twice at.  It builds to an awesome set-piece battle and has some interesting scenes leading to it, but lacks the character-development and intrigue needed to support a DM whose PCs try something different.  Pour's does.  Man-oh-man, but does it.  It is a solid adventure with enough underpinnings to be run more than once and have different games each time.  And it has great imagery, too!Man, I hate this.  Do I award the entry that uses the ingredients best, or the one that I think would play the best?So, what kind of judge am I?[spoiler]I personally feel that an adventure is only too long if it bores me.  Similarly, I have come to wonder if it might not be better to allow editing up to the deadline.  What's the harm, really?  Wouldn't I rather have a polished adventure to read?But, that's not what I feel I got with steeldragons' entry.  If it was, I might not have this problem—better ingredients + solid adventure should win every time.  But, steeldragons' adventure felt as if it could have used a little touching up, particularly in the area of character development and hooks.  A good, solid hook can nearly write the rest of the adventure.  So, I come back to my problem...do I side with the better ingredients, or the more solid adventure?And the answer is, I side with the established rules.  These rules exist to add layers of depth to the challenge of Iron DM.  Following them displays a certain discipline that should not be discounted.  steeldragons, your entry was a smidge too long and you edited your post.  And, I'm sorry to say, it cost you the tie.  You have potential as a contestant; you certainly have good ideas.  Hopefully, we'll see you enter the next tournament.  This time, however, Pour advances to round two.[/spoiler]</blockquote>

Verification