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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 5633279" data-attributes="member: 221">Round 2, Match 2 Judgment (Sorry for the delay)Reading both entries, I find myself thinking similar thoughts concerning both. They are both very ambitious, with a great deal of potential, but both also have some significant flaws that are holding them back from achieving their potential. Likewise, both of them use the ingredients in what I find to be a less than stellar manner. Reading through “Days of the Dragon,” the following were some of my initial thoughts:. 1) Why not call Dragonsport, “Dragon's Port.” The other makes me keep reading Dragon Sport. 2) Very ambitious, almost too much so – the setting could almost be used for a mini-campaign. 3) At 9th-10th level a 16th level opponent on a Wyvern is a ridiculously tough encounter. 4) I find the use of Livingstone too cliché. 5) The backstory is very detailed and does succeed in making me want to know more.“Dragonchess” was an interesting read in that it forced me to recall the old AD&D mannerisms, some of which it captures well. Initial thoughts were as follows: 1) The fact that Teraxus is a Blue Dragon could be spelled out a little clearer at the beginning. 2) Why is this single Basilisk so important? So its a pet, but couldn't both sides find another such creature? Why is stealing it from the dragon enough to warrant the empire's respect? 3) Eight years for the lizard-basilisk hybrids to mature? How long is this adventure expected to go on? The ambitious scope of this adventure makes me again think campaign, not adventure. I am again going to grade on a point system. The first score, “Follows the Rules,” is worth 6 points. “Days of the Dragon,” being on time and under wordcount, earns the full 6. “Dragonchess,” being late, but under wordcount earns only 3. Moving on to Ingredients, worth a total of 12 points, 2 for each ingredient:Witchlord: Both adventures do contain a witchlord and I'll give both the full 2 points for the use thereof. Breeding Ground: I was not too keen on either use of Breeding Ground. The location is there, in each adventure, but both feel a bit like filler to me. I awarded 1 point each for this ingredient. Disreputable Dragon: Again both adventures have a dragon, though I was not too sure either was truly disreputable. Misunderstood in the first maybe, and feared possibly in the second, but I was just not sold on the use. Again 1 point each.Lost: “Days of the Dragon” has the possibility of the characters becoming lost, though the use was weak, I thought. The lost expedition was a nice try, but as the adventure more or less begins by letting the PCs know where to go to find them, they don't stay lost for long. Only 1 point there. The lost pet of Dragonchess is a little better use and I'll give the full 2 points to the adventure for this. Wounded Pet: The wounded pet of “Days” was cliched but I don't mind cliché if done well. And as a hook, it works fairly well. A full 2 points there. The wounded pet of “Dragonchess I thought was weaker. Especially if the adventure is truly supposed to last over eight years. Its likely when the basilisk is found, it is no longer wounded. 1 point for the pet, but just not sold on the centrality of the wounds to the story-line as regards the PCs.Institutionalization: The crazed cleric in the insane asylum is a nice try, but the institution itself seems less than important. 1 point to “Days.” I initially balked at Dragonchess's use of the ingredient. What if the players decide to tackle events in a way other than ruling the city? But the incorporation of the PCs into the institute that is the city is, once I wrap my brain around it, integral to what the adventure tries to do. So 1 point there too. Both adventure end up with 8 out of a possible 12 points for ingredient use.We now move on to useability. Here, to be blunt, I think that “Days of the Dragon” has an advantage. There are some problems, like an overpowered boss but overall the ideas are sound and would make for a memorable set of gaming sessions. I give “Days” 4/6 for useability. The problems with “Dragonchess” is that the events of the adventure are not clearly mapped out. In fact, the “adventure” reads more like a campaign setting description than a true adventure. I think I understand where the adventure is meant to go, but it needs some work to get there. I give it 3/6 for useability and am tempted to only give it 2. I like the theme but not necessarily the execution.Moving on to my last criteria, “Style,” once more “Days” has an advantage. Firstly it is written as an adventure, though a slightly ambitious one. I'm not sold on the length of Part 2, and think the adventure would be better served by more time spent presenting parts 3 and 4. I also think that the background should have been condensed more to allow for more adventure description. Still, overall I give 4/6 for style to Days. “Dragonchess” again suffers from the fact it is not presented so much as an adventure, but seems more like a sandbox setting. I also don't buy into some of the ingredients. Why is the Basilisks so special? Why would the Blue dragon just hand his city over to the PCs (I understand the reason given, just not completely buying it)? Finally, the length of the adventure is just a little too ambitious for my tastes. The assumption that over eight years will naturally pass before the PCs get control of the situation seems too presumptious. I give “Dragonchess” 3/6 for style. In the final analysis, “Days of the Dragon,” is the clear winner in my estimation. “Day's of the Dragon” Followed Rules: 6/6Ingredient Use: 8/12Useability:  4/6Style 4/6Total: 22/30“Dragonchess”Followed Rules: 3/6Ingredient Use: 8/12Useability: 3/6Style: 3/6Total: 17/30</blockquote>

Verification