Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Gradine" data-source="post: 9188768" data-attributes="member: 57112">Judgment for Round 1 Match 4: [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] vs [USER=60965]@Iron Sky[/USER] Rules and ReadabilityBoth Jazz, Tuxedos, and Inevitable Nuclear Annihilation (hereafter referred to as "Jazz") and StarRanger Issue #4: StarRanger and the Three-Sided Coin! ("Issue #4") were turned in on time. There are some minor rules issues I would like to address, however, with regards to both entries. Issue #4 comes in at technically 752 words, 2 over the threshold. Three of those words, however, are related to the sub-title ("A Modern-ish Adventure"), which have always been a bit of a gray area in terms of whether they count or not. I'm inclined to let it slide, and I've certainly been on the receiving end of such friendly rulings in the past. As it is, the subtitle doesn't communicate anything that we can't pickup from, honestly, the first paragraph of the adventure.A bit more egregious is the posting of "Jazz". What appears to have happened is that the entry was posted without the ingredient list, caught immediately and erased, and re-posted in a new post with the ingredient list attached. This leaves us with an entry that technically wasn't edited (which we explicitly call out as against the rules) but still goes against the spirit of the rule. Again, I'm inclined to not penalize this too harshly; a missing ingredient list is something I called out in my judgment for Match #1 as barely worth weighing in on the final judgment, and I'm sure that this wasn't done out of any malicious intent. But let this be a lesson going forward: erasing an entry fast enough to dodge the "last edited by" tagline and re-posting your entry in a new post will be treated exactly as if the original entry were edited, which is something we judges definitely frown upon.Both entries were perfectly readable. I could give a few quibbles to both; the headings of "Jazz" are a bit awkward, but they don't feel out of place with the tone of the adventure, and with "Issue #4"s panel drawing table, I'm not sure if I'm meant to roll a single d6 and draw each panel according to the whole role, or roll 3d6 per panel to mix and match shape, shot, and size. I'd personally be inclined to go with the latter, with I'd guess is the intention, but a little extra clarification would've helped here.Adventure Flow & PotentialThis is my subjective "what did I generally like/dislike about the adventures" section of the judgment. In the Match #1 I judged, both entries were dark, somber, and tragic. Here, both entries are goofy genre jaunts, full of meta-commentary. A very fun switch! Both entries are choc-a-bloc with setup. "Jazz" doesn't hit the "During the Game" heading until 81% of the way through the document. In "Issue #4", the PCs don't get sucked into the comic book until nearly the halfway point of the word count. In both cases, however, the setup is highly flavorful and remains relevant throughout the course of the adventure. Both adventures take a similar approach as well: provide a setting full of genre conventions, provide the major players, the goals, the obstacles, and the allies (and in the case of "Jazz", the PCs themselves), and turn the party loose on the scenario. In both cases I can see these being not only incredibly wild and frantic to play, but also imminently replayable, even with the pre-established PCs in the case of "Jazz".I've gotta say, I'm a huge fan of both of these adventures, and I hope that this shows through, because I'm going to be a bit more critical about the ingredient use as a result.The IngredientsThis is a match that is definitely going to come down to the ingredients. Let's begin.Star RangerAmusingly, this ingredient put both contestants in the mindframe of comic books, though I can't say that this is too surprising. In "Jazz", the use here is rather disappointment; one of the PCs, "Tank", is a fan of the comics, but this fact never seems relevant again throughout the adventure. It definitely makes sense, given the rest we are told about this character, but I don't feel that it adds anything to the adventure that isn't already there, and what's worse, I don't even get the sense of what the comic book even entails in the first place. Not to be too harsh, but this is exactly the kind of ingredient usage we as judges don't want to see; an ingredient used as a proper noun for a replaceable and largely irrelevant concept. "Issue #4" makes its StarRanger a much more relevant comic book hero (and now, supervillain) that helps set the stage for the sci-fi comic book shenanigans that follow. This is a much stronger ingredient use in general.Purple CrayonThis is a better ingredient in for "Jazz"; the color-blind superspy with the pack of crayons; presumably each one a different tool (this would've been nice to call out in the text) with the purple crayon as the mini-nuke. This is something out of Get Smart. Or Spy vs Spy. Very fun, and hampered only by the fact I'm not sure why the crayon in question has to be purple. This is what makes ingredients with a color-based adjective so difficult; I get why they need to be crayons, but what makes the purple one special? This is a similar issue to the one found in "Issue #4", where the crayon object makes perfect sense but the color purple seems less necessary. There's a bit where coloring green things purple turns them evil, but none of my color theory lessons are helping me come to an answer as to why that would be how it works. It might be nod to the whole "Green Lantern vs Yellow" concept from the DC comics, but it would've helped if the colors had had more relevance to the StarRanger canon prior to crayon's appearance.Ancient SatelliteSolidly used in both adventures. "Issue #4" gives the genre trappings of the sci-fi precursors and their relics being an important aspect of comic itself but also the plight of the Wallbreakers. In "Jazz", the "ancient" Soviet satellite that also happens to be from the future is the sort of oxymoronic element that spy spoofs are often full of. In both cases they are highly relevant to their respective adventures as well as highly demonstrative of their respective genres. Well done.Triple-Sided CoinOnce again, both entries use this ingredient well in terms of the genre trappings of their respective adventures. The problem comes, in "Jazz", that the Triple-Sided Coin is basically a MacGuffin. In "Issue #4" it's place in the story is pretty relevant; it's something that the super-villain has and can use, but that the PCs can also potentially get their hands on. It has a purpose and role to play and that makes it an inherently stronger ingredient.Wooden Artifact"Issue #4" combines this ingredient with the Triple-Sided Coin above. I'm usually a fan of combining ingredients, and while I thought that the coin itself was a great ingredient, I'm less sold on this. again, the thing about an ingredient is that the whole ingredient should be relevant and important. In this case, while I get why the coin has to be a coin, and why the coin has to be three-sided, I don't get much of any reason why it must be wooden. In "Jazz", we have the fungus-riddled, hybrid radiowave actual body(?) of Vladimir Lenin. This is hilarious and, once again, perfectly representative of the genre. What it's not, unfortunately, is really a Wooden Artifact. It looks like both... a fully wooden statue, but it's not actually either.Sleeping TrainAnd here is where I fall off the train* quite a bit on "Issue #4". The train seems to be come out of nowhere, is already sentient for reasons... was originally hibernating but is awakened just in time to be relevant for the players... so it's no longer a sleeping train. Don't get me wrong; it's an actually fun wrinkle to the adventure, but it not only doesn't meet the brief, but it also could removed entirely without any real impact on the adventure.Meanwhile, the entirety of "Jazz" more or less takes place on a train, perfect for the soviet-era spy trappings, and one of the PCs has a frankly unnerving* amount of sleeping gas that will almost certainly be used on some or all of the train's passengers/the PCs, because that's how things go in spy spoofs. It's not the strongest use, necessarily, but it gets the job done and that gives an edge of the ingredient for "Issue #4".In ConclusionSo the last match I judged ended up being less close than my initial readings might've suggested, and in this case it was the opposite; the match ended up much closer than I had imagined it being. Both entries are incredibly fun adventures that, all told, do a pretty good job incorporating the ingredients.[SPOILER="The Judgment"]But in the end, StarRanger Issue #4: StarRanger and the Three-Sided Coin! has the better overall ingredient usage, if not by the greatest of margins, and thus, [USER=60965]@Iron Sky[/USER] moves on to the next round![USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER], you've shown yourself to be an excellent writer, and have created a really fun and clever scenario here. Making sure that more of your ingredients are more central and relevant over the course of the adventure (as opposed to mere background elements) will help push you to the next level. I'm excited to see what you'll bring back to us in future years! But congratulations are in order for [USER=60965]@Iron Sky[/USER]! I'll see you in the second round![/SPOILER]Time for Round 2!</blockquote>

Verification