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: 5640250" data-attributes="member: 67">Round 2, Match 2: BriarMonkey vs. PourAt this point in the tournament, I would hope to see two good entries of proportional quality in a match.  Unfortunately for this match, such is not the case.  One of these two entries clearly saw more polish than the other and is in an entirely different class.  The other has some good ideas and is a solid adventure, but—especially in the use of ingredients—falls far short of the Iron DM ideal.That said, we'll start with the structure and style of the adventures.BriarMonkey's adventure has five hooks, each diverse, and each leading to a different starting point for the PCs.  This is a great approach, and one I'd like to see in many a game—particularly in ones with plots as convoluted as this one.  Speaking of which, the plot provides lots of opportunity for exploration, intrigue, and...well, shenanigans.  There are a lot of elements, factions, and motivations to juggle here, but the end result could be quite memorable.  This is a good adventure.Pour's single hook is very specific—and, frankly, very rare.  It requires that a solo player has gotten to epic levels, dies (not so hard with 4thcore, even at epic, I imagine), be none too virtuous at the time of death, probably be in a vaguely Hindu-inspired setting...you get the picture.  This is not an adventure that can be placed into a campaign—it almost has to be planned around.  But, if you've got all that; the hook is automatic.  So...the structure of this adventure is also unconventional.  At epic levels, that's probably a very good thing.  The stakes are high, the tension is high, but the actual combat-potential is pretty low.  It introduces its own mechanic to drive the adventure and determine success.  In a way, it's more like an extended skill-challenge than a serious of encounters.  At epic levels, that may be a good thing, also—especially given the probability that a dead epic PC just came out of a very tough battle.  This is a creative adventure.  I like it, even though—let's be honest—I'll probably never run it.  Maybe I can steal ideas from it.  Come to think of it, I see no particular reason the PC would actually have to be epic, or even paragon for the adventure to work...Okay, so far, I like them both.  But writing an Iron DM entry does not mean just writing a good adventure; it means using the ingredients—and doing so well.  Here is where one entry outclasses the other in this match.Swingset:In Pour's scenario, the use of the swingset is both symbolic and transitional.  The PC interacts with it to move from one hell to the next, but more importantly, the ingredient sets a specific atmosphere—a tension drawn from the juxtaposition of how out of place such an easy means of locomotion is and how perilous the circumstances truly are.  Without this ingredient, the adventure would be just as playable, but the tone would change, and that's a big deal.On the other hand, BriarMonkey provides us with the weakest form of tack-on ingredient—an incidental set-piece that might not even see interaction with the  PCs.  It is so insignificant, that I didn't even notice that the ingredient had been used until the third reading.Four and Twenty Blackbirds:Here, again, Pour's use of the ingredient is more symbolic than anything else.  Like the swingset, the absence of this ingredient would likely not affect the play of the game very much.  Unlike the swingset, it probably wouldn't change anything else, either.BriarMonkey's Four and Twenty Blackbirds at least have the potential to make some difference to the game (or at least, the Pie does—what kind pie it is remains irrelevant.  That's the problem; the actual ingredient is irrelevant to both entries, so the question becomes, which is better implemented?At least, in Pour's case, the ingredient actually makes sense in the context of the adventure.  The birds are messenger/observers.  In the case of BriarMonkey's scenario, there have to be dozens of better ways to hide the prayer beads than baking them in a pie?  What happens if someone wants to eat the pie?  What happens if events take too long to transpire, and the pie goes bad?  What happens if an orc wanders by and steals the pie?  Here's a thought—just bury the beads in the ground.  Classic.Rakshasa Prince:BriarMonkey's Prince is a good villain, with interesting schemes (and the potential to build upon them), but the fact that it is a prince is only mildly relevant.  The game would work if it were any power-player.  The fact that it is a Rakshasa is negligible.  It could be anything, really, and the game would not suffer for it.  One way to get around this is through good character-development—the Rakshasa Prince's Rakshasa-ness is not important to the plot, but is important to the character—but we don't have such development, here.In contrast, Pour's Rakshasa Prince is critical.  It is very important that he is a Prince for the plot.  It is quite relevant that he is a Rakshasa, given the scenario, and it is important to his character that he be both.  Well done.Field of Stars:BriarMonkey's Field of Stars boils down to a McGuffin—and it isn't even really a field of stars.  There are many possible ways to interpret an ingredient as vague as this, (perhaps a field where many meteorites have fallen, or a contest in which entertainers are systematically eliminated from consideration), but this use is just weak.  It's a shiny dress.Pour's Field of Stars is much more than that; it is the setting for the whole adventure.  And what an evocative setting it is!Consequences:This is one those thematic ingredients that I love so much, one with real possibilities for significant impact in a game.Pour's adventure is all about consequences—meaningful consequences of actions the PC has taken in the past and in the course of this scenario.  It is a driving force of the game.  It is the game.  He has a mechanic built around it that serves as the spine of the adventure.  I say again, well, done!But wait!  What's this?  BriarMonkey's use of the ingredient is more subtle, but, even more fundamental to the play of his adventure!  We are given a group of playing pieces, a handful of hooks (to determine a starting place) and a directive:  Go.  Interact.  Stir things up!  Outstanding!  BriarMonkey wins this category over Pour's very good thematic use of the ingredient.Strand of Prayer Beads:Alas, it seems that BriarMonkey spent all of his time on one ingredient.  In his scenario this ingredient serves as just another McGuffin.  It helps twist the plot up, a bit, but that's about it.  It could have been anything, really.In Pour's scenario, the Prayer Beads are significant.  Not only are they symbolic (as prayer beads ought to be), they are inherently tied to the driving mechanic behind the adventure.  They are essential.[spoiler]I'm placing this portion of the judgment in spoiler tags, but, frankly, there is no surprise, here.  Pour's Expiation uses almost every single ingredient better than its competitor, BriarMonkey's Consequences of Court.  The one ingredient that BriarMonkey uses exceedingly well—really, based the entire adventure on—is matched by a good use by Pour, as well.  BriarMonkey's adventure looks like a lot of fun to play, and, really, is better designed as an adventure, but suffers too much from having too little time devoted to the ingredients.  Pour's adventure might be impossible to implement in most campaigns, but, taken within its own context, looks fun and is far superior as an Iron DM entry.My vote is for Pour's Expiation.  One last note for BriarMonkey.  Man, you have some chops.  If you just set aside a little more time to work on your ingredients, you will be producing some strong entries.  Seriously.[/spoiler]</blockquote>

Verification