Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
IRON DM 2014 Tournament
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rune" data-source="post: 6491631" data-attributes="member: 67"><p><strong>Round 1, Match 2 Judgement: Wicht vs. Imhotepthewise</strong></p><p></p><p>Okay. Let's start the tournament off with a couple of tough ingredients and see what happens. </p><p></p><p>One of these entries was a whole lot more polished than the other, but was it a better adventure? And which made better use of those aforementioned ingredients?</p><p></p><p>We'll start there. First, the <strong>Dwarven Tragedian</strong>. Wicht's character in <em>The Misadventures of the Blood Soaked Banner</em> is certainly interesting, a foolish actor of tragedies setting himself up to play one out in real life. The premise this presents is central to the adventure and quite intriguing. We will revisit it later. </p><p></p><p>Imhotepthewise stretches the definition a little further in <em>Get Out Of Here And Take Your Village With You</em>. Therein, the dwarf, Dunstan, is someone who continually plays out his own tragic outcomes, again, because of foolishness. This is not a bad interpretation. What is bad is that most of that stuff happens within a wall of backstory. The one that matters, though, really matters; it creates the movement of the adventure <em>and</em> the antagonists that move it. It's just too bad that there isn't really any way for the players to find that out (short of Heglat monologuing). </p><p></p><p>How about the <strong>Chicken Dance</strong>? <em>Get Out</em> stretches the ingredient a little thin, but the role it plays in the adventure is both entertaining and potentially pivotal--a wild card in an already chaotic situation. Not only that, it represents an interesting decision-point for the players. Just how are they going to react to this new development? How will they even interpret it?</p><p></p><p><em>Misadventures</em> went for the <em>Baba Yaga</em> connection, going all out to let the allusion fill in details of his witch for us, even going so far as to name her Baba Iszri. This is cleverly efficient. The actual chicken dance fits the character, fits the ingredient, and is quite flavorful. It's use in the adventure has some problems, however. It is presented as the sole means of moving the adventure to its final conflict. But what group of players is going to think to memorize the moves of some dancing chickens? And if they don't, does it get resolved with a die roll? If so, what's the point of including it?</p><p></p><p>Since one of the definitions of "fey" is "fated to die," I was somewhat surprised not to see that tied in with the strong themes of tragedy in either entry. Oh well. </p><p></p><p>Instead, <em>Misadventures</em>' use of <strong>Inscrutable Fey</strong> is inscrutable to me. The nymph has a motive and it isn't hard to figure out what it is. Clearly, Baba Iszri understands it, since she uses it to make a deal. Now, if Baba had been presented as a hag, she actually <em>would</em> fit pretty well. Opportunity missed. </p><p></p><p><em>Get Out</em> presents a character that manages to have pathos, while completely neglecting to explore his motivations. And, somehow, that works. </p><p></p><p>Neither entry used the <strong>Anarchist's Castle</strong> particularly well. In <em>Get Out</em>, it fits in well enough, but Red really didn't need to be an anarchist for the adventure to play out exactly the same way. He could have had any number of other motivations and still acted the same way. </p><p></p><p>In <em>Misadventures</em>, the castle seemed like it could have been interesting, but there wasn't anything <em>close</em> to enough information to run it! Add to that the problem that Baba may as well not been an anarchist for all it mattered to the adventure (and, indeed, could have better served as the inscrutable fey, if only she wasn't). </p><p></p><p>But, <strong>Magic Moth</strong> was also used poorly in both entries. Both entries make me wonder, "Why moths?" The only answer I can come up with is, "Why not?" Ugh. </p><p></p><p>And then there were <strong>Devious Machinations</strong>. I'm discussing this ingredient last because of how central it is for each entry. First, though, I want to define "devious." It has come to have connotations of wickedness and, perhaps, devilry. What it actually means, however, is a circuitous or indirect course (of, for example, actions). </p><p></p><p><em>Get Out</em> presents a supremely convoluted scheme from the primary antagonist, Heglat, which is further complicated by Hogmin's also fairly devious scheme. These lead to the village conflict, a scenario that just looks like it would be an insanely chaotic and incredibly fun mess to play. </p><p></p><p><em>Misadventures</em> runs on the only slightly less devious machinations of Baba Iszri. Further, I can't help but but see some devious machinations in the overall design of the adventure; it <em>seems</em> fairly linear, but there are <em>so many</em> moving parts (the dwarf, the partner, the girlfriend, the witch) that it's really hard to see it all playing out the same way every time. </p><p></p><p>So, we're pretty close on ingredients. Now, let's get to the adventures, themselves. One huge problem with <em>Get Out</em> was the vast amount of background information, very little of it information that the PCs will find out. This is, frankly (and, perhaps, appropriately), tragic, because there's a pretty good adventure (and a great scenario) buried in there. Added to that is the looseness of the rules (whichever rules they may be). Normally this wouldn't be too much of an issue, but one is left wondering just how to play these creatures with unspecified extra abilities, especially in the final expected encounter, as the PCs assault the redoubt. </p><p></p><p>I'm also a little disappointed that the piece goes to great lengths to set up a truly tragic situation, only to lead to a situation that probably seems not at all tragic to the PCs, <em>because they probably won't find out what makes it so</em>! That, to me, is a tragedy. </p><p></p><p>[sblock]In contrast, <em>Misadventures</em> does a far better job of incorporating the PCs into the tragedy as it unfolds and even presents a reasonable chance for it to all end in tears. And, while that's thematically satisfying, it also represents the starkest difference between the two entries: Wicht's incorporates the PCs right from the start, while Imhotepthewise presents an adventure that is half over before the PCs get involved. </p><p></p><p>Imhotep, you've got good ideas and a clear vision of story. But "Show, don't tell" applies just as much to adventure-writing as it does to other mediums. If you don't front-load the story, you can give the PCs a chance to discover it on their own. Even better, you give them the opportunity to write their own story around it. </p><p></p><p>I expect to see you compete again, and do well. You're just too creative to do poorly, once you've honed your style. Until then, though...</p><p></p><p><strong>Wicht</strong> advances to Round 2. [/sblock]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rune, post: 6491631, member: 67"] [b]Round 1, Match 2 Judgement: Wicht vs. Imhotepthewise[/b] Okay. Let's start the tournament off with a couple of tough ingredients and see what happens. One of these entries was a whole lot more polished than the other, but was it a better adventure? And which made better use of those aforementioned ingredients? We'll start there. First, the [b]Dwarven Tragedian[/b]. Wicht's character in [i]The Misadventures of the Blood Soaked Banner[/i] is certainly interesting, a foolish actor of tragedies setting himself up to play one out in real life. The premise this presents is central to the adventure and quite intriguing. We will revisit it later. Imhotepthewise stretches the definition a little further in [i]Get Out Of Here And Take Your Village With You[/i]. Therein, the dwarf, Dunstan, is someone who continually plays out his own tragic outcomes, again, because of foolishness. This is not a bad interpretation. What is bad is that most of that stuff happens within a wall of backstory. The one that matters, though, really matters; it creates the movement of the adventure [i]and[/i] the antagonists that move it. It's just too bad that there isn't really any way for the players to find that out (short of Heglat monologuing). How about the [b]Chicken Dance[/b]? [i]Get Out[/i] stretches the ingredient a little thin, but the role it plays in the adventure is both entertaining and potentially pivotal--a wild card in an already chaotic situation. Not only that, it represents an interesting decision-point for the players. Just how are they going to react to this new development? How will they even interpret it? [i]Misadventures[/i] went for the [i]Baba Yaga[/i] connection, going all out to let the allusion fill in details of his witch for us, even going so far as to name her Baba Iszri. This is cleverly efficient. The actual chicken dance fits the character, fits the ingredient, and is quite flavorful. It's use in the adventure has some problems, however. It is presented as the sole means of moving the adventure to its final conflict. But what group of players is going to think to memorize the moves of some dancing chickens? And if they don't, does it get resolved with a die roll? If so, what's the point of including it? Since one of the definitions of "fey" is "fated to die," I was somewhat surprised not to see that tied in with the strong themes of tragedy in either entry. Oh well. Instead, [i]Misadventures[/i]' use of [b]Inscrutable Fey[/b] is inscrutable to me. The nymph has a motive and it isn't hard to figure out what it is. Clearly, Baba Iszri understands it, since she uses it to make a deal. Now, if Baba had been presented as a hag, she actually [i]would[/i] fit pretty well. Opportunity missed. [i]Get Out[/i] presents a character that manages to have pathos, while completely neglecting to explore his motivations. And, somehow, that works. Neither entry used the [b]Anarchist's Castle[/b] particularly well. In [i]Get Out[/i], it fits in well enough, but Red really didn't need to be an anarchist for the adventure to play out exactly the same way. He could have had any number of other motivations and still acted the same way. In [i]Misadventures[/i], the castle seemed like it could have been interesting, but there wasn't anything [i]close[/i] to enough information to run it! Add to that the problem that Baba may as well not been an anarchist for all it mattered to the adventure (and, indeed, could have better served as the inscrutable fey, if only she wasn't). But, [b]Magic Moth[/b] was also used poorly in both entries. Both entries make me wonder, "Why moths?" The only answer I can come up with is, "Why not?" Ugh. And then there were [b]Devious Machinations[/b]. I'm discussing this ingredient last because of how central it is for each entry. First, though, I want to define "devious." It has come to have connotations of wickedness and, perhaps, devilry. What it actually means, however, is a circuitous or indirect course (of, for example, actions). [i]Get Out[/i] presents a supremely convoluted scheme from the primary antagonist, Heglat, which is further complicated by Hogmin's also fairly devious scheme. These lead to the village conflict, a scenario that just looks like it would be an insanely chaotic and incredibly fun mess to play. [i]Misadventures[/i] runs on the only slightly less devious machinations of Baba Iszri. Further, I can't help but but see some devious machinations in the overall design of the adventure; it [i]seems[/i] fairly linear, but there are [i]so many[/i] moving parts (the dwarf, the partner, the girlfriend, the witch) that it's really hard to see it all playing out the same way every time. So, we're pretty close on ingredients. Now, let's get to the adventures, themselves. One huge problem with [i]Get Out[/i] was the vast amount of background information, very little of it information that the PCs will find out. This is, frankly (and, perhaps, appropriately), tragic, because there's a pretty good adventure (and a great scenario) buried in there. Added to that is the looseness of the rules (whichever rules they may be). Normally this wouldn't be too much of an issue, but one is left wondering just how to play these creatures with unspecified extra abilities, especially in the final expected encounter, as the PCs assault the redoubt. I'm also a little disappointed that the piece goes to great lengths to set up a truly tragic situation, only to lead to a situation that probably seems not at all tragic to the PCs, [i]because they probably won't find out what makes it so[/i]! That, to me, is a tragedy. [sblock]In contrast, [i]Misadventures[/i] does a far better job of incorporating the PCs into the tragedy as it unfolds and even presents a reasonable chance for it to all end in tears. And, while that's thematically satisfying, it also represents the starkest difference between the two entries: Wicht's incorporates the PCs right from the start, while Imhotepthewise presents an adventure that is half over before the PCs get involved. Imhotep, you've got good ideas and a clear vision of story. But "Show, don't tell" applies just as much to adventure-writing as it does to other mediums. If you don't front-load the story, you can give the PCs a chance to discover it on their own. Even better, you give them the opportunity to write their own story around it. I expect to see you compete again, and do well. You're just too creative to do poorly, once you've honed your style. Until then, though... [b]Wicht[/b] advances to Round 2. [/sblock] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
IRON DM 2014 Tournament
Top