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: 6714250" data-attributes="member: 67">Judgement for Round 1, Match 3: Gradine vs. WikWell, both of these entries promise memorable experiences. One is much tighter than the other, but doesn't deliver as satisfying an endgame. We'll get back to that. First, the ingredients:"Tearin' It Up" (let's shorten this one to "Tearin'") gives us a Tear that is an interesting interpretation, but, ultimately, doesn't really matter to the adventure presented. "Redemptions" also presents the ingredient in a way that seems only to be scenery, but later makes it a potential complication to infiltration. Well done. The Underground Passage in "Redemptions" isn't bad. It provides an important segment of the adventure. It's there, and it's important to the PCs. The one in "Tearin'" is better.  Not only is the interpretation clever, it gives us lots of opportunities to have isolated encounters. Good deal. I like the Hopeless Quest in both entries. In "Redemptions," it provides a new (moral) dimension to the adventure for the players to explore. In "Tearin'," it is the adventure, itself, which is a great direction to take a zombie apocalypse game, I think. There is one major change that would make it better, I think, but I'll get to that when I start talking about the adventures' structures. Unfortunately, both entries struggle a bit with Grave News. In the case of "Tearin'," the interpretation is good and it works as a hook, but lacks relevance after that initial hook. And, even there, it isn't exactly irreplaceable. In contrast, "Redemptions" has a very promising take on the ingredient, but there is nowhere near enough detail to easily run it. Both entries used Traveling Entertainer as a central character. I very much like the idea of a bard who is compelled not to settle down. And a singer who gets drunk and raises the dead on tour seems crazy fun. Plus, echoes of Robert Johnson (and Tommy Johnson, who shared no relation, except for a legend) help sell the character.I like the Charming Devil presented in "Tearin'," but I don't get enough of a feel for how charming he is. Some examples--especially of how to work the charm on the PCs--would have gone a long way, here. "Redemptions" has a devil whose charm matters--it moves the adventure, in fact. So, we have a slight edge on ingredients for "Redemptions."I think this one will be decided by the strength of the adventures. As I said before, one is much tighter than the other. And I blame background for this. In "Redemptions," we're halfway through the write-up before the PCs are even mentioned. Or relevant. Especially given the extremely limited word-count, this is a really big problem--because all of the details we need to really take advantage of the scenario's significant potential are instead left out to make room for exposition that we simply don't need (or, at least, don't need so much of). Here's a tip: if the PCs can't find it out through investigation, you probably don't need to include it. And if they can find it out through investigation, that's a better way to present it than mere exposition. Let's just cover a few details that would dramatically improve the adventure if they were present:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The gravestones: if we had some examples of what kinds of actions shifted the dates and how, we could set up a really intriguing puzzle. Without any details, it's hard to do anything with it. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The townsfolk: with so many people enthralled, we have a lot of encounter potential. But no details to help with that. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The redemption: this is my favorite part of the adventure and the one that has the most potential to elevate the whole to a truly memorable experience. But we aren't given any clue how the PCs might pull it off.</li> </ul>So much potential, crowded out by superfluous background. In contrast, "Tearin'" gives us a piece in which it is difficult to tell where the background ends and the adventure begins. This is because it is presented in such a way that PC connections and involvement are implied throughout. This is an efficient and evocative approach. On top of this rests a solid adventure. It looks like a lot of fun right up to the finale, but the ending falls flat, I'm afraid. If only Shells wasn't willing to sacrifice herself at the end. Suddenly, the scope of the PC's dilemma would become so much greater. And this is where the hopeless quest would take on a new dimension, by the way--because now there's no option the PC's can take that doesn't eat at their humanity. [sblock]But I think that would be much easier to fix than filling in the gaps in "Redemptions." In this case, the tight adventure we get in "Tearin'" is superior to the other's marginally better ingredient usage and vast potential. Wik, I'm impressed with your ideas. I just think you spent too much effort (and too many words!) detailing the wrong things. Shift your priorities toward giving the DM the tools to make good use of your great ideas and you'll go far in future tournaments. This time, however, Gradine advances to Round 2.[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification