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 2015 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: 6709013" data-attributes="member: 67"><p><strong>Judgement for Round 1, Match 1: MortalPlague vs. Wicht</strong></p><p></p><p>So...first things first. Both contestants went way over the word limit. And both did it the same way. Both entries included descriptions alongside their ingredients which are <em>specifically called out in the rules</em> as counting against the limit. And have been for several years, I might add. </p><p></p><p>Here's the thing: to my mind, there are really only three reasons you might include these descriptions in an entry. </p><p></p><p><strong>1.</strong> To further detail your ingredients. </p><p></p><p><strong>2.</strong> To explicitly call out your ingredients so the judge doesn't miss them. </p><p></p><p><strong>3.</strong> To explicitly call out your ingredients so casual readers don't miss them. </p><p></p><p>In the first case, these words serve the same function as the rest of the exposition. Especially with such a low word-limit, not counting these words against that limit very much defeats its purpose. </p><p></p><p>In the second and third cases, it shouldn't be necessary. I will be reading each entry thoroughly multiple times and casual readers are much more likely to be paying attention to the adventures than the ingredients that compose them. But, if it actually <em>is</em> necessary, it absolutely should be counting against the word limit, anyway. </p><p></p><p>So, for future contestants, let me emphasize: you are welcome to include descriptions alongside your ingredients if you want to, but only at the cost of your overall word-count. I am likely to be a lot less lenient about this in the future. </p><p></p><p>This time, for both entries, I simply cut off the top. I didn't read either section and I have no idea what details they intended to convey. </p><p></p><p>Okay, so let's get to the first match, shall we? We'll start with the ingredients. </p><p></p><p>Both entries used <strong>Riots</strong> at least reasonably well. Wicht's piece, "A Run of Luck" (henceforth, "Luck") builds to a chaotic climax (as Wicht is often wont to do) that culminates in a riotous riot that promises to be exciting. MortalPlague's "Taking Fate" ("Fate") is a little more spread out through the build-up of the adventure, and this is where it trumps as an ingredient. The ingredient, you see, is plural and "Fate" does a better job of making the initial riots feel separate--a series of small fires threatening to erupt into a single, massive blaze. In addition, providing the riots as possible cover for escape is a great way to tie the PCs in with the ingredient. </p><p></p><p><strong>Happy Chance</strong> is an ingredient I expected to see used well. With so many possible interpretations, and a thematic element (and clear synergy with another such ingredient), I didn't know how it would be possible to miss with this one. Now I know. </p><p></p><p>"Luck" includes a character who, as a demigod, embodies the theme. Or should. But we never get a sense of Chance's motivations, even if we do know his goals. Why does he want to lose at the end? Why change the trophy to gold? If it's just to cause chaos, why? Further, happiness doesn't seem fundamental to the character and, in fact, doesn't even seem relevant until he gets his happy ending. And, thematically, the ingredient doesn't even seem well-represented. A happy chance is a serendipitous <em>unforeseen</em> occurrence. All of Chance's actions and advancement are the result of preplanned machinations--even his leaving with Luckbringer is a result of her premeditated manipulation. </p><p></p><p>Yet all of that is still better than "Fate," which only includes the ingredient as the name of the casino and an example of Harrot's speaking-style. Two separate incarnations and neither in any way important to the adventure. </p><p></p><p>Both entries use <strong>Civilized Orcs</strong> in much the same way. In fact, almost identically. Yet, one entry pulled it off a little better, I think. With an ingredient like this, one has to ask both "Why does it matter that these orcs are civilized?" and, "Why does it matter that these civilized people are orcs?" Both entries did a reasonable job of answering the first question: because it adds to the craziness when everything falls apart. But the second question is only really answered satisfyingly in one of the two. "Fate" dedicates quite a few words to showing us that the civilization is flawed from the outset--and is also all-encompassing throughout the entire casino staff. When things start going wrong, that's simply a larger scope than one orc with a great-axe, as fun as that may be. </p><p></p><p>"Fate" struggles with <strong>Fickle Fate</strong>. Simply put, the statue is merely a MacGuffin. And it's innate fickleness isn't even seen throughout the adventure--it is the PCs who are bringing it about. "Luck" uses this ingredient somewhat better. As a character, Luckbringer embodies a Fate (weaver of destiny) that does indeed switch (apparent) loyalties. In so doing, she also stretches the ingredient into a theme, as much of the game becomes about dealing with the flip. This is the kind of complication that makes an adventure memorable. </p><p></p><p>I never really got a feel for just how clueless the <strong>Clueless Investigator</strong> in "Fate" really was. In fact, he is set up as an obstacle better avoided than befuddled. Also, the only investigation that he does is interrogation (and intimidation?). "Luck" gives us more, even while giving us less to work with. First, it is important to the adventure that he is an investigator, right from the start. Second, he is both completely clueless about the truth of what's going down and is also without clues (evidence) when he makes his poorly-thought-out accusation. And, just to add a little deliciousness, he's actually correct about the cheating--he's just wrong about who's doing it!</p><p></p><p>"Fate" does a good job of making the <strong>Wondrous Conversion</strong> relevant to the PCs and tying it into the whole. Without it, the adventure can still happen, but it becomes <em>a lot</em> harder. In contrast, "Luck" seems only to give us a casino name, a MacGuffin, and a miracle-fountain. That fountain is subtly very important to the adventure, though. It ensures that, by the time the climax rolls around, (nearly?) everyone involved is (possibly very) drunk. Which can only contribute to the chaos. We'll call this one a wash. </p><p></p><p>Slight edge to "Luck" with the ingredients. </p><p></p><p>How about the adventures? First, let me say, I've seen better from both contestants. In a way, I'm glad that the first two contestants are such accomplished competitors, so the other contestants can get a sense for just what they're in for during this first round. The challenge level has intentionally been <em>significantly</em> ramped up. 24 hours to fine-tune an adventure down to 750 words is not easy. </p><p></p><p>And, with two <em>very</em> similar entries, one might expect to have a hard time distinguishing the two. </p><p></p><p>Let me start by saying that both adventures look fun. That's an important place to start. And this is one of those pairs of entries we get from time to time that looks like it could be easily combined into an even more fun adventure. </p><p></p><p>But that's a byproduct. In IRON DM, one contestant advances and one does not. </p><p></p><p>"Fate" seems to have more going on during most of the adventure than "Luck" does, especially where the PCs are concerned. Indeed, almost everything that the PCs in "Luck" (those not participating in the tournament) can get into seems to come at the expense of the climax, if we even have enough details to make it happen. Take, for instance, the Triplets. That begs for an encounter earlier on, but doing so will likely remove them from the scene for the climax (or start the riot too soon). The investigator also would be great if his snooping crossed the PCs early on, but doing so has great potential to change his conclusions and his method of revealing them. There's a lot to work with, here, but it seems under-detailed and a bit jumbled. </p><p></p><p>"Fate" is much tighter and, frankly, inclusive for all of the PCs all of the way through. But it just lacks the same level of stakes that "Luck" has. Right from the very weak hook (who hired the PCs and gave them the ring? And why? And for what reward?) straight through the escape afterword, the nature of the tool they are given makes getting caught very unlikely. With no clear motivation and no real sense of risk, I'm left to wonder, why should the PCs--or the players--bother?</p><p></p><p>[sblock]MortalPlague, I thought I was giving you the win, right up till I got to that last paragraph. But, having articulated those two flaws, I now have to reconsider, because, combined, they are a pretty huge stumbling block. Now I need to ask other questions. Is the structural superiority of your piece enough to outweigh the potential awesomeness of Wicht's? Are the one's shortcomings easier to fix than the others? </p><p></p><p>In the end, I think they stack up well against each other, which brings us back to the ingredients. And Wicht has the edge there. I'm going to reread your entry one more time to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I suspect it'll look like this: if you had used Happy Chance in any way that fit the ingredient and was important to the adventure, it would have been the better usage and you would be the victor. </p><p></p><p>...But, having checked one last time, I have to conclude that, by the barest of margins, Wicht has defeated the current IRON DM to advance to round 2. [/sblock]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rune, post: 6709013, member: 67"] [b]Judgement for Round 1, Match 1: MortalPlague vs. Wicht[/b] So...first things first. Both contestants went way over the word limit. And both did it the same way. Both entries included descriptions alongside their ingredients which are [i]specifically called out in the rules[/i] as counting against the limit. And have been for several years, I might add. Here's the thing: to my mind, there are really only three reasons you might include these descriptions in an entry. [b]1.[/b] To further detail your ingredients. [b]2.[/b] To explicitly call out your ingredients so the judge doesn't miss them. [b]3.[/b] To explicitly call out your ingredients so casual readers don't miss them. In the first case, these words serve the same function as the rest of the exposition. Especially with such a low word-limit, not counting these words against that limit very much defeats its purpose. In the second and third cases, it shouldn't be necessary. I will be reading each entry thoroughly multiple times and casual readers are much more likely to be paying attention to the adventures than the ingredients that compose them. But, if it actually [i]is[/i] necessary, it absolutely should be counting against the word limit, anyway. So, for future contestants, let me emphasize: you are welcome to include descriptions alongside your ingredients if you want to, but only at the cost of your overall word-count. I am likely to be a lot less lenient about this in the future. This time, for both entries, I simply cut off the top. I didn't read either section and I have no idea what details they intended to convey. Okay, so let's get to the first match, shall we? We'll start with the ingredients. Both entries used [b]Riots[/b] at least reasonably well. Wicht's piece, "A Run of Luck" (henceforth, "Luck") builds to a chaotic climax (as Wicht is often wont to do) that culminates in a riotous riot that promises to be exciting. MortalPlague's "Taking Fate" ("Fate") is a little more spread out through the build-up of the adventure, and this is where it trumps as an ingredient. The ingredient, you see, is plural and "Fate" does a better job of making the initial riots feel separate--a series of small fires threatening to erupt into a single, massive blaze. In addition, providing the riots as possible cover for escape is a great way to tie the PCs in with the ingredient. [b]Happy Chance[/b] is an ingredient I expected to see used well. With so many possible interpretations, and a thematic element (and clear synergy with another such ingredient), I didn't know how it would be possible to miss with this one. Now I know. "Luck" includes a character who, as a demigod, embodies the theme. Or should. But we never get a sense of Chance's motivations, even if we do know his goals. Why does he want to lose at the end? Why change the trophy to gold? If it's just to cause chaos, why? Further, happiness doesn't seem fundamental to the character and, in fact, doesn't even seem relevant until he gets his happy ending. And, thematically, the ingredient doesn't even seem well-represented. A happy chance is a serendipitous [i]unforeseen[/i] occurrence. All of Chance's actions and advancement are the result of preplanned machinations--even his leaving with Luckbringer is a result of her premeditated manipulation. Yet all of that is still better than "Fate," which only includes the ingredient as the name of the casino and an example of Harrot's speaking-style. Two separate incarnations and neither in any way important to the adventure. Both entries use [b]Civilized Orcs[/b] in much the same way. In fact, almost identically. Yet, one entry pulled it off a little better, I think. With an ingredient like this, one has to ask both "Why does it matter that these orcs are civilized?" and, "Why does it matter that these civilized people are orcs?" Both entries did a reasonable job of answering the first question: because it adds to the craziness when everything falls apart. But the second question is only really answered satisfyingly in one of the two. "Fate" dedicates quite a few words to showing us that the civilization is flawed from the outset--and is also all-encompassing throughout the entire casino staff. When things start going wrong, that's simply a larger scope than one orc with a great-axe, as fun as that may be. "Fate" struggles with [b]Fickle Fate[/b]. Simply put, the statue is merely a MacGuffin. And it's innate fickleness isn't even seen throughout the adventure--it is the PCs who are bringing it about. "Luck" uses this ingredient somewhat better. As a character, Luckbringer embodies a Fate (weaver of destiny) that does indeed switch (apparent) loyalties. In so doing, she also stretches the ingredient into a theme, as much of the game becomes about dealing with the flip. This is the kind of complication that makes an adventure memorable. I never really got a feel for just how clueless the [b]Clueless Investigator[/b] in "Fate" really was. In fact, he is set up as an obstacle better avoided than befuddled. Also, the only investigation that he does is interrogation (and intimidation?). "Luck" gives us more, even while giving us less to work with. First, it is important to the adventure that he is an investigator, right from the start. Second, he is both completely clueless about the truth of what's going down and is also without clues (evidence) when he makes his poorly-thought-out accusation. And, just to add a little deliciousness, he's actually correct about the cheating--he's just wrong about who's doing it! "Fate" does a good job of making the [b]Wondrous Conversion[/b] relevant to the PCs and tying it into the whole. Without it, the adventure can still happen, but it becomes [i]a lot[/i] harder. In contrast, "Luck" seems only to give us a casino name, a MacGuffin, and a miracle-fountain. That fountain is subtly very important to the adventure, though. It ensures that, by the time the climax rolls around, (nearly?) everyone involved is (possibly very) drunk. Which can only contribute to the chaos. We'll call this one a wash. Slight edge to "Luck" with the ingredients. How about the adventures? First, let me say, I've seen better from both contestants. In a way, I'm glad that the first two contestants are such accomplished competitors, so the other contestants can get a sense for just what they're in for during this first round. The challenge level has intentionally been [i]significantly[/i] ramped up. 24 hours to fine-tune an adventure down to 750 words is not easy. And, with two [i]very[/i] similar entries, one might expect to have a hard time distinguishing the two. Let me start by saying that both adventures look fun. That's an important place to start. And this is one of those pairs of entries we get from time to time that looks like it could be easily combined into an even more fun adventure. But that's a byproduct. In IRON DM, one contestant advances and one does not. "Fate" seems to have more going on during most of the adventure than "Luck" does, especially where the PCs are concerned. Indeed, almost everything that the PCs in "Luck" (those not participating in the tournament) can get into seems to come at the expense of the climax, if we even have enough details to make it happen. Take, for instance, the Triplets. That begs for an encounter earlier on, but doing so will likely remove them from the scene for the climax (or start the riot too soon). The investigator also would be great if his snooping crossed the PCs early on, but doing so has great potential to change his conclusions and his method of revealing them. There's a lot to work with, here, but it seems under-detailed and a bit jumbled. "Fate" is much tighter and, frankly, inclusive for all of the PCs all of the way through. But it just lacks the same level of stakes that "Luck" has. Right from the very weak hook (who hired the PCs and gave them the ring? And why? And for what reward?) straight through the escape afterword, the nature of the tool they are given makes getting caught very unlikely. With no clear motivation and no real sense of risk, I'm left to wonder, why should the PCs--or the players--bother? [sblock]MortalPlague, I thought I was giving you the win, right up till I got to that last paragraph. But, having articulated those two flaws, I now have to reconsider, because, combined, they are a pretty huge stumbling block. Now I need to ask other questions. Is the structural superiority of your piece enough to outweigh the potential awesomeness of Wicht's? Are the one's shortcomings easier to fix than the others? In the end, I think they stack up well against each other, which brings us back to the ingredients. And Wicht has the edge there. I'm going to reread your entry one more time to make sure I didn't miss anything, but I suspect it'll look like this: if you had used Happy Chance in any way that fit the ingredient and was important to the adventure, it would have been the better usage and you would be the victor. ...But, having checked one last time, I have to conclude that, by the barest of margins, Wicht has defeated the current IRON DM to advance to round 2. [/sblock] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
IRON DM 2015 Tournament
Top