Gradine
🏳️⚧️ (she/her) 🇵🇸
Judgment for Round 2 Match 1: @FitzTheRuke vs @Whizbang Dustyboots
Rules and Readability
Both Whose Turn Is It, Anyway? (hereafter referred to as "Whose") and Traitor's Ruin ("Traitor") were turned in on time. Both entries are well within the word count, and otherwise follow all required rules. Both entries are perfectly readable, and other than a spare typo here or there I did not have see anything to separate the two entries in this regard.
Adventure Flow & Potential
This is my subjective "what did I generally like/dislike about the adventures" section of the judgment. These could not be more different entries; one a one-shot farce featuring real celebrities as PCs, the other a dark adventure that could easily lead to Player vs. Player combat. There is great potential in both adventures for a memorable session. On balance, I would give the slight nod to "Traitor" as a more well-defined, more usable adventure than "Whose", but not by a considerable margin. Both entries, however, have a few key missing details that would've helped as a DM to have.
The Ingredients
There is, at least, the slightest gap between the two entries so far, but as always, this will undoubtedly come down to ingredients.
Ruined Monastery
Unsurprisingly, both entries end up taking place mostly (or entirely) in a ruined monastery. In the case of "Whose", I never really get a sense of why it needed to happen in a ruined monastery, other than ruined monasteries being great places for adventures. In "Traitor", there is a story behind the Monastery and why and how it fell to ruin, and that becomes relevant the more the PCs learn about what's going on.
Silent Chime
Both entries have something resembling a "silent" chime, and while "Traitor's" interpretation is a little bit more clever, it's also mostly there for tone setting, and it has a slightly stronger relevance in "Whose", but no indication that the PCs have any way to interact with it. I call this one a wash.
Face Blindness
I was originally inclined to write this one off for "Whose", where it serves as more a funny background element, but the more the entry called back to it, the more I realize how essential it is to the overall tone of the piece, especially once it starts throwing the NPCs off as well. It's actually pretty good, overall. Still, face blindness plays such a central role and one of the biggest challenges facing the players in "Traitor", that it's ultimately hard to top.
Fighting Words
I am not particularly impressed with either entry on this one, though it is admittedly a fairly difficult ingredient to work with. In "Traitor" it appears to be the phrase the players speak aloud to enter the dungeon in the first place. That's fine. In "Whose", the ingredient mostly boils down to be Chris Rock's catchphrase (a sentence I would never have thought I'd end up writing in an Iron DM judgement). It's not even particularly relevant to the goings on, and seems to exist solely to satisfy the ingredient.
Extradimensional Arachnid
Both entries make this character/creature central to their respective plots. In "Traitor", I don't really get a sense of what this character is actually about. This feels like a huge miss because this is essentially the central antagonist of the adventure. As a DM, I want to know more about her! As it is, I'm not even really sure what it is about her that makes her extradimensional. "Whose", meanwhile, this ingredient is used expertly. They can't not be a spider, because the webs are critical to the plot. They can't not be extradimensional, because that's what allows the real world shenanigans to unfold. And both of these tie into both the PC's and villain's motivations for finding them. Excellent.
The Hanged Elf
The most consistent piece of advice for Iron DM contestants is to consider every word as part of the ingredient. Here, both entries get "Hanged" quite well tied in with their respective Arachnids. This is good. What about Elf? This one is weaker in both entries. The monk in "Traitor" could be just about any species without making much of a fuss, which is a huge missed opportunity considering how easily it would have been to relate the Arachnid in any way to the Drow. This is true in "Whose" as well, where the single-minded pursuit of knowledge and strange intermingling of magic and immortality lend a slightly Elfier quality to the character. So that's two words down. What about "The"? The ingredient was not "Hanged Elf"; it was "The Hanged Elf". How do both entries tackle that? Well, in "Traitor", he's, well, the traitor. So that's not bad. In "Whose", they're ultimately a pretty unique entity, so that's good too. In the end, I give "Whose" the nod here; the Elf is a bit Elfier and they are pretty essential to the adventure's conclusion. In "Traitor", he's an optional encounter with a fairly uninteresting (if useful) reward.
Reality Show
In "Whose", the Reality Show is the framing device. This makes it pretty solidly relevant throughout. In "Traitor", there's a competition, and it seems like it's probably being held for the Arachnid's amusement (if I'm reading between the lines correctly), but that's a far cry from a reality show.
In Conclusion
This is an incredibly difficult match to judge; quite possibly the hardest I've had to weigh in on as a judge. The ingredients are as closely matched as they can be (I attempted a point-based scale, and ended with an exact draw). Both adventures have hits and misses, and while "Traitor" is overall the tighter adventure, the lack of information around its central antagonist is maddening. Is it enough to tip the scales in favor of "Whose"?
Rules and Readability
Both Whose Turn Is It, Anyway? (hereafter referred to as "Whose") and Traitor's Ruin ("Traitor") were turned in on time. Both entries are well within the word count, and otherwise follow all required rules. Both entries are perfectly readable, and other than a spare typo here or there I did not have see anything to separate the two entries in this regard.
Adventure Flow & Potential
This is my subjective "what did I generally like/dislike about the adventures" section of the judgment. These could not be more different entries; one a one-shot farce featuring real celebrities as PCs, the other a dark adventure that could easily lead to Player vs. Player combat. There is great potential in both adventures for a memorable session. On balance, I would give the slight nod to "Traitor" as a more well-defined, more usable adventure than "Whose", but not by a considerable margin. Both entries, however, have a few key missing details that would've helped as a DM to have.
The Ingredients
There is, at least, the slightest gap between the two entries so far, but as always, this will undoubtedly come down to ingredients.
Ruined Monastery
Unsurprisingly, both entries end up taking place mostly (or entirely) in a ruined monastery. In the case of "Whose", I never really get a sense of why it needed to happen in a ruined monastery, other than ruined monasteries being great places for adventures. In "Traitor", there is a story behind the Monastery and why and how it fell to ruin, and that becomes relevant the more the PCs learn about what's going on.
Silent Chime
Both entries have something resembling a "silent" chime, and while "Traitor's" interpretation is a little bit more clever, it's also mostly there for tone setting, and it has a slightly stronger relevance in "Whose", but no indication that the PCs have any way to interact with it. I call this one a wash.
Face Blindness
I was originally inclined to write this one off for "Whose", where it serves as more a funny background element, but the more the entry called back to it, the more I realize how essential it is to the overall tone of the piece, especially once it starts throwing the NPCs off as well. It's actually pretty good, overall. Still, face blindness plays such a central role and one of the biggest challenges facing the players in "Traitor", that it's ultimately hard to top.
Fighting Words
I am not particularly impressed with either entry on this one, though it is admittedly a fairly difficult ingredient to work with. In "Traitor" it appears to be the phrase the players speak aloud to enter the dungeon in the first place. That's fine. In "Whose", the ingredient mostly boils down to be Chris Rock's catchphrase (a sentence I would never have thought I'd end up writing in an Iron DM judgement). It's not even particularly relevant to the goings on, and seems to exist solely to satisfy the ingredient.
Extradimensional Arachnid
Both entries make this character/creature central to their respective plots. In "Traitor", I don't really get a sense of what this character is actually about. This feels like a huge miss because this is essentially the central antagonist of the adventure. As a DM, I want to know more about her! As it is, I'm not even really sure what it is about her that makes her extradimensional. "Whose", meanwhile, this ingredient is used expertly. They can't not be a spider, because the webs are critical to the plot. They can't not be extradimensional, because that's what allows the real world shenanigans to unfold. And both of these tie into both the PC's and villain's motivations for finding them. Excellent.
The Hanged Elf
The most consistent piece of advice for Iron DM contestants is to consider every word as part of the ingredient. Here, both entries get "Hanged" quite well tied in with their respective Arachnids. This is good. What about Elf? This one is weaker in both entries. The monk in "Traitor" could be just about any species without making much of a fuss, which is a huge missed opportunity considering how easily it would have been to relate the Arachnid in any way to the Drow. This is true in "Whose" as well, where the single-minded pursuit of knowledge and strange intermingling of magic and immortality lend a slightly Elfier quality to the character. So that's two words down. What about "The"? The ingredient was not "Hanged Elf"; it was "The Hanged Elf". How do both entries tackle that? Well, in "Traitor", he's, well, the traitor. So that's not bad. In "Whose", they're ultimately a pretty unique entity, so that's good too. In the end, I give "Whose" the nod here; the Elf is a bit Elfier and they are pretty essential to the adventure's conclusion. In "Traitor", he's an optional encounter with a fairly uninteresting (if useful) reward.
Reality Show
In "Whose", the Reality Show is the framing device. This makes it pretty solidly relevant throughout. In "Traitor", there's a competition, and it seems like it's probably being held for the Arachnid's amusement (if I'm reading between the lines correctly), but that's a far cry from a reality show.
In Conclusion
This is an incredibly difficult match to judge; quite possibly the hardest I've had to weigh in on as a judge. The ingredients are as closely matched as they can be (I attempted a point-based scale, and ended with an exact draw). Both adventures have hits and misses, and while "Traitor" is overall the tighter adventure, the lack of information around its central antagonist is maddening. Is it enough to tip the scales in favor of "Whose"?
Ultimately, I find that it is not quite enough. While "Whose Turn Is It Anyway?" is an extremely fun and clever adventure, its soggy and somewhat directionless middle is just slightly more troublesome than the enigmatic antagonist of "Traitor's Ruin". It comes down to being an easier problem to solve. And so, I have to recommend "Traitor's Ruin" for the winning adventure for the match, and to advance Whizbang Dustyboots to the final match.
And as this has so far been a split decision, this makes this the deciding vote! Congratulations to @Whizbang Dustyboots for advancing to the Finals match.
Fitz, you're the defending champ, so you know what it takes to win this. In all honesty, as much as I have often enjoyed your adventures conceptually, this was one of your strongest adventures in terms of a Iron DM submission. Continuing to work on making those ingredients essential to not just the adventure but to the PCs experience within and you will likely return to this stage again.
And as this has so far been a split decision, this makes this the deciding vote! Congratulations to @Whizbang Dustyboots for advancing to the Finals match.
Fitz, you're the defending champ, so you know what it takes to win this. In all honesty, as much as I have often enjoyed your adventures conceptually, this was one of your strongest adventures in terms of a Iron DM submission. Continuing to work on making those ingredients essential to not just the adventure but to the PCs experience within and you will likely return to this stage again.