Iron DM: format and philosophy

[lightful]

I’m certain that all of the participants, judges, friends, followers and lurkers of the Iron DM competition series have their own thoughts on some of the small or not-so-small matters involved in hosting and running an effective Iron DM tourney. I thought we should bring it all to the table in an all-suggestions-are-welcome kind of way so as to better a favorite exercise in creativity.

1. How often should an Iron DM competition be held ?

2. How many participants and judges should there be ?

3. How long should the entries be ?

4. What, exactly, are the judges judging in an entry ?

5. How much criticism of the judge is allowed ?

And any other questions anyone else raises !


Someone pointed out that holding an Iron DM competition too often would cheapen the title ? They are absolutely correct, in fact I’d say that the current rate of 1-per-season seems about right, but I do have a couple suggestions.

To this point Iron DM has always been a knock-out system (lose and go home), but it could easily be formatted as a series or even a league with the judges awarding points from a set of (say 5) to either of the competitors, with the highest point total after everyone has faced off winning. I think it could even add to the excitement – imagine seasong holding on to a shaky 2 point lead over nemmerle leading up to the last round. Seasong is set to face the always competitive Quickbeam, while nemmerle needs all of the points he can muster against Wulf Ratbane who hasn’t been up to his own standards lately, but could pull out a fantastic entry anytime.

There’s a lot of people who would like to take part in these competitions but the current format really doesn’t allow for that, a league would. Adding more competitors might require adding more judges – which may not be a bad thing regardless. The ceramic DM competition has a panel of 3, and I think that Iron DM could, possibly use the same (more on that later). Another thing which could be fun is a “themed” competition, one of the things I’d love to see is an Iron DM: Planescape ! Or a competition where the contestants themselves choose the ingredients !

Many people have thoughts on the length of the entries. My opinion is that it should be limited, but not overly so. The premise of the competition is to use a set of differing ingredients in an adventure, writing up a “brief” campaign setting instead makes the whole exercise moot. The larger the scope of the entry the easier it becomes to use wildly differing ingredients, to the point of not actually having any one ingredient come into contact with any other ! Think of the original Iron Chef – the goal is to create a dish, not a six-course meal.
Another matter discussed often is the use of ingredients in backstory so that the PC’s don’t actually ever interact with them.

This leads to my next question. To this point Iron DM has been very free-form, and I’d hate to over regulate but I think that some kind of standards ought to be set, especially if only one person continues to judge. Piratecat, moderating, said that it’s all about who’s adventure appealed more to the judge. I disagree, it should be about writing the better adventure while using the ingredients in a meaningful way. Backstory ingredients that the characters can’t interact with are useless. Equally bad are “interchangeable” ingredients, those which could just as easily be something else if that something was required. In this last competition, one of the ingredients was a diseased paladin – great call by the judge, inspiring ingredient. Neither competitor used it, they both had diseased EX-paladins (to be fair one was a truly great character) and the judge didn’t call them out on that. Personally, I find that kind of laxity wrong – if it’s Iron DM – let’s keep it IRON.

Judging this kind of thing isn’t necessarily easy, but it’s not so difficult either provided we can agree to some basic outlines. In this latest and the other Iron DM competitions I’ve found myself agreeing with the judges verdict most of the times – but a panel might help in certain cases, as would a clear definition of what is being judged. This would bring about a more level field, while still allowing a certain amount of whoring to the judge.

Just my 2 cents (it all depends on the exchange rate !)
Thanks for taking the time to read through this monstrous post and please, feel free to comment !

 

[anonystu]

I'll post just on one note now, then rather try to address all these great issues brought up immediately.

I agree strongly that the role of the Judge needs to be reconsidered: I think that no matter who's judging, Incognito, Rune, PirateCat, Gary Gygax, or aliens from outer space, I'm less interested in trying to figure out their quirks, and trying to appeal to them, then I am in just trying to write the best module possible.

I understand, that all judges (and especially those rascally aliens) will have quirks, and that objective judgement is nigh impossible, but I think the goal of the judge is not to mystify what they want to see, but rather, to be as personless as possible: they are just helping figure out what's the best written game for those ingredients.

I feel that there are other reasons too: lots of people know each other on these boards: knowing a person, if they choose not to make it explicit, or try to uphold to an objective standard. Making it such that the judge's preferences are both held as something that is good, and held secret, means that people with prior history with the judge, or those with Community Supporter access and who can search the archives have an advantage, and privileging of Community Supporters in a contest by letting them figure out what types of games the judge runs, or what systems they do or don't play is kind of contrary to the spirit of the board (where CS'ers aren't supposed to get anything more than a funny (or not funny, in my case ) board title.

Why is the judge even known in these events? Why not create an IRONDM_Fall03 account, and be the mystery judge that noone knows, but can reveal their identity at the end to all the curious masses? It's even a great role to sit into: the mysterious judge from onafar, sending thunderbolts of judgement down.

I also note that a lot of these issues go away if you just add more judges: it lessens any quirks that any one judge may display.



(Full Disclaimer: I just competed in an iron DM judged by Rune (ongoing), where Rune holds the view that teasing out the judge's preferences is part of the game. I disagree, but still feel he's doing a fine job, and don't feel cheated just because other people know Rune better: I feel the best writer won, and that wasn't me. That said, I'd like to see a system going towards something which is clearer, tighter, and puts less stress on judges and players.)

 

[cool hand luke]

1. How often should an Iron DM competition be held ?

I really like the once a quarter format, but I think at the end of the year there should be the Iron DM championship invitational, seeding the last 8 winners against each other


2. How many participants and judges should there be ?
I'd like to see the field expanded. I had no clue what it was, and just lucked into competing because I jumped in early, where others with an Iron dm history were omitted.
I think we should have an 16 person field, and 2-3 judges. The first 2 rounds will have only one judge per competition, but you don't know who the judge is until he pronounces his verdict. the last 2 rounds will be communually judged.

3. How long should the entries be ?
shorter than mine. actually however long you can make it and not bore the DM. Concise, tight entries should have a natural advantage.

4. What, exactly, are the judges judging in an entry ?

I'd say whichever entry looks more fun to dm/play.

5. How much criticism of the judge is allowed ?
I say none. You can explain what you didn't get across, make clarifications, but no griping.

 

[seasong]

Firstly, let me just say that the most telling aspect of IronDM is that it is successful. Most of the suggestions I'm reading here sound like "add a committee" and "add formal rules", which while very democratic and right-thinking, tends to result in failure for many creative endeavors. Keep in mind: the arbitrary, quirky, judgemental and vile nature of IronDM draws in 8 highly talented contestants and 3 alternates within hours. Since there's not much else to the games, suggesting that we change those exact elementals makes me feel all Reactionary n stuff.

1. How often should an Iron DM competition be held ?

I'm rooting for every 6 months. Every season is appealing, but it can really wear you down, and 90 days is not much when 30 of them were taken up by the last IronDM.

2. How many participants and judges should there be ?

Eight participants, one judge. This is not purely for tradition: we tried more participants over at the Rat Bastard forum and it took too long to play, and for more judges, I think CeramicDM already 0wnz0rz that format - no reason to have the two contests be redundant.

Fewer, and no one gets to participate other than the hardcore.

3. How long should the entries be ?

Ideally, under a 1,000 words. BUT, I'm a bigger fan of "don't bore the judge" as a measure. It's much, much easier to adjudicate, and rewards good writers with more wiggle room, which is part of the fun.

4. What, exactly, are the judges judging in an entry ?

Ideally, that the entry be a good scenario. What constitutes a good scenario depends on style, which the judge may or may not have preferences for.

5. How much criticism of the judge is allowed ?

Absolutely none. Criticism of a judgement is allowed so long as it is possessed of good sportsmanship and doesn't detract from the game and doesn't exceed common sense. If you want a more exact definition, go elsewhere - writing up rules and bylaws and definitions of competitor behavior is the first step into the realm of Suck.

If you aren't sure whether your criticism of a judgement is over the top, just keep your mouth shut - the game isn't important enough to get in a fight over.

To this point Iron DM has always been a knock-out system (lose and go home), but it could easily be formatted as a series or even a league with the judges awarding points from a set of (say 5) to either of the competitors, with the highest point total after everyone has faced off winning.

One of the advantages of the current system is that it is FAST, and judgement is SHARP. It may hurt, but it only stings for a second, and then you know.

I think it could even add to the excitement – imagine seasong holding on to a shaky 2 point lead over nemmerle leading up to the last round.

I would not personally want to spend the whole game unsure of what my chances were. I don't mind the uncertainty over a 24 hour period, every few days or so, but what you are suggesting would take longer than the current IronDMs, and would have that uncertainty the whole time. As you said, "Wulf could have a brilliant moment at any time". And while that makes things easier on the losers in the short run, the losers will still be there, except that they will have wasted a whole competition instead of just the first round or two.

There’s a lot of people who would like to take part in these competitions but the current format really doesn’t allow for that, a league would. Adding more competitors might require adding more judges – which may not be a bad thing regardless. The ceramic DM competition has a panel of 3, and I think that Iron DM could, possibly use the same (more on that later). Another thing which could be fun is a “themed” competition, one of the things I’d love to see is an Iron DM: Planescape ! Or a competition where the contestants themselves choose the ingredients !

Honestly, I'm okay with not allowing that. I'm planning to bow out of the next one, so that will open a slot for someone else - I would have bowed out of this one, but I had a title to defend from the last one.

As for multiple judges, I think CeramicDM already fills that need. We don't need to make IronDM just like CeramicDM - their differences appeal to different people.

A note on contestants choosing the ingredients: Perhaps a JadeDM?

The larger the scope of the entry the easier it becomes to use wildly differing ingredients, to the point of not actually having any one ingredient come into contact with any other !

I respectfully disagree. My tightest, smallest-scope entries have made the best use of ingredients; my larger entries made better scenarios, on the other hand, but lacked the strength of ingredient use. By way of example, my Norse Epic only used a single ingredient well, and it was as broad an entry as I've written.

This leads to my next question. To this point Iron DM has been very free-form, and I’d hate to over regulate but I think that some kind of standards ought to be set, especially if only one person continues to judge.

I have already stated my opinion on regulating IronDM, but allow me to expand upon it: Don't.

IronDM does not need to be a committee-driven, soft-shoed democracy of love and peace and objective judgements. It is popular because nemmerle was an utter bastard who ripped submissions apart, handed down heartless decisions, and forced the authors to work for credit. And we love it, because when we do good work, we get praise, and there is no sweeter feeling than well-earned praise, even if you lose the contest.

If anything, I thought that Rune was too lavish in his praise, too considerate of the author's feelings, and too soft-shoed in his approach to criticism. Because he didn't utterly slam me on my use of ingredients in my final entry (which deserved it), I didn't feel like he'd really complimented my on my use of the horn of Valhalla.

As for standards being set, they've BEEN set. Nemmerlesque is an EN word for a reason . Incognito did a fine job of it; Rune did a good job until near the end, where I started to feel the "too much praise" syndrome.

...it should be about writing the better adventure while using the ingredients in a meaningful way. Backstory ingredients that the characters can’t interact with are useless. Equally bad are “interchangeable” ingredients, those which could just as easily be something else if that something was required.

I agree. And when I eventually judge one of these, I'll have competitors weeping over these exact things . But these are all part of pleasing the judge. The ideal judge is pleased by these things, as well as clever and original ideas, solid balance of the scenario, good hooks, etc.

...but a panel might help in certain cases, as would a clear definition of what is being judged. This would bring about a more level field, while still allowing a certain amount of whoring to the judge.

Two notes on this. Firstly, having a checklist of points tends to inspire more disagreement with the judge, rather than less. It is much easier to moan about getting 2 points instead of 3 for the "appropriateness of your diseased paladin" than it is when the judge says, "the disease paladin did not seem appropriate to me".

Secondly, for a panel, play CeramicDM. It exists because that niche was not satisfied by IronDM, and because it exists, there's no reason for IronDM to come in and try to steal that niche.

Originally posted by anonystu
I agree strongly that the role of the Judge needs to be reconsidered: I think that no matter who's judging, Incognito, Rune, PirateCat, Gary Gygax, or aliens from outer space, I'm less interested in trying to figure out their quirks, and trying to appeal to them, then I am in just trying to write the best module possible.

Are you interested in writing the best module possible, or the module that will appeal to your players the most? The perfect module can not exist without a target audience. Some judges are more "generic" than others, but ultimately, how many of us have generic players?

Like I said in the IronDM thread, this is a hired hack (for free ). I'm writing for the judge's players, rather than my own, but the techniques involved in figuring out either are much the same.

And the mystery? Unless your players are terribly obvious (mine aren't - they have subtle and deep tastes), this is part of the skill.

Originally posted by anonystu
Making it such that the judge's preferences are both held as something that is good, and held secret, means that people with prior history with the judge, or those with Community Supporter access and who can search the archives have an advantage, and privileging of Community Supporters in a contest by letting them figure out what types of games the judge runs, or what systems they do or don't play is kind of contrary to the spirit of the board

This I agree with. I think that judge's should be more open about their tastes - in Rune's case, however, he WAS. He talked a lot about being mysterious, but all his stuff was right there in the old IronDMs, which he linked in the very first post.

Everything he likes, including the reasons he lost in past IronDMs, were right there for the taking, no CS account needed, no prior experience needed.

 

[seasong]

Re: Re: Iron DM: format and philosophy

I really like the once a quarter format, but I think at the end of the year there should be the Iron DM championship invitational, seeding the last 8 winners against each other

I would like to see something like this, eventually, but IronDM is still pretty young. We've got a record of who's won in the past, and when there are enough winners, we could probably just send out some e-mail invites or something.

I'd like to see the field expanded. I had no clue what it was, and just lucked into competing because I jumped in early, where others with an Iron dm history were omitted.

Here's the problem: Even with 16 people, there will be people ommitted, and while that's only one more round, it's eight more judgements, in a game that normally only has 7 judgements total. That is more than doubling the time it takes to run one of these, and after just the one, I'm exhausted of any desire to play more.

 

[lightful]

I may have been misunderstood.
I have a highly developed disrespect for any form of democracy, and I’m certainly not advocating anything of the sort. Far from, I’d prefer an iron-fisted (no pun intended) totalitarian regime !

Seasong repeatedly points me in the direction of Ceramic DM if I want a panel of judges. As I once remarked to alish20, it’s not really my cup of tea. What I would like is an Iron DM tourney that is just a tad less subjective. If that’s a lone opinion, then so be it.

I don’t mind stinging criticism, in fact I eat it up, and I don’t mind losing…what I do mind is being passed over for no readily apperent reason. You may recall that when I lost to Wulf Ratbane I was somewhat disappointed…what followed was an eruption of praise for Wulf’s adventure which clearly showed, despite my misgivings, that his was a better scenario (although I still believe that I used the ingredients better).

In short, the jadeDM pun has been noted, but it’s far from accurate. I merely had certain thoughts on the matter and wanted to see if anyone had similar issues. That’s all.

Finally, I don’t see this as a hired hack kind of deal. It’s a creative exercise in the use of ingredients.

 

[WinnipegDragon]

Why not just do a three judge panel. All judges get one vote, end of story?

 

[el-remmen]

First of all let me say that judging and Iron DM tourney is exhausting. . .

I don't know about the judges that followed me - but I read each entry AT LEAST three times, I make lists of how ingredients are used and how well that meshes with the adventure idea a whole. That means that a longer adventure that tries to use its scope to slip in ingredients in an arbitrary way is going to get ripped apart - and not to toot my own horn (and this is not something one necessarily wants to brag about), but I think of the folks that have judged here and on other boards I was the least compromising and most likely to unapologetically take you to task. I'll never forget telling two people in a second round that I wish I could eliminate them both.

And heck, on Nutkinland when I ran it I made two players totally redo their entries with new ingredients.

Anyway, I don't know where this "pander to the judge" idea came from - because to be honest, even though I like grim n' gritty low magic adventures, campaigns and settings - I will not hesitate to eliminate one if it is not up to snuff- even if the competitor's has tarrasques and demi-gods and flying ships dragging the sun out of its place in the realm of the dead, or some such thing.

And while, I can understand why people might be worried about favoritism between players and judges - I really don't see that ever happening - again to use my own experience - when LordNightShade (who is a close friend of mine and who I founded the RBDM with) lost in the first round to [I don't remember who] he emailed me and ICQed me grousing about my judgement against him - My reply? Read my reasons, they still stand. Honestly, if someone started up an IRON DM round and I felt they would not be a fair judge I would take the risk of saying something about it - but so far the folks who have started up I have no problem with at all.

------------------------------------

To get to some of the points brought up by Lightful (and others) veryu briefly:

I think changing the single-elimination single judge backbone of IRON DM would dilute it AND make it take way too long to resolve. Personally, I think any IRON DM tourney that takes longer than two weeks is a mistake. The more judges and more participants you have the more time it will take and the harder it will be to make arrangements for time and such - just a quick look thru this most recent thread alone will show you that scheduling can be a huge pain in the ass.

As for how frequently. . .more than 4 times a year is too much for reasons others have already said.

As for entry length: Anything over 3000 words is pushing it ( and I know I have done that) - but I don't want to set a hard and fast limit because a good adventure is a good adventure regardless of length - and as Seasong said, the longer it is the more chance of inconsistancy, tangential thinking and the boredom of too much detail become a danger. I've never had to say, "Dude. Your entry was too long and too uninspired. i did not even read it a second time." But I would.

How many participants? More than 8 is a bad idea for reasons I touched on above.

Criticism of the Judges: Personally, grousing and bad sportsmanship is so unflattering that in a way what it does to your reputation is its own punishment. I don't argue with my DM about ad hoc calls in a game, and I wouldn't do it here either.

Standards for judgement? This would only cause MORE disagreement not more as soon as we pretend we can be objective about grading things the more people are going to cry FOUL when they feel that a judge has strayed from that -and who is going to be the ultimate judge? Who will judge the judge? I think the idea undermines the role of the judge. Just accept that this person is going to judge it by whatever standard they have and based on their own experiences as a GM and as a player and be done with it.

More responses as they come to me. . .

 

[seasong]

Seasong repeatedly points me in the direction of Ceramic DM if I want a panel of judges. As I once remarked to alish20, it’s not really my cup of tea. What I would like is an Iron DM tourney that is just a tad less subjective. If that’s a lone opinion, then so be it.

The thing is, IronDM is not subjective. There are plenty of comments about the "whims of the judge" and whatnot, but nemmerle and incognito and Rune have all put a lot of effort and thought into each round, and explaining why one entry is better or worse than the other. If there is disagreement from the contestants, that's natural and to be expected, but there has to be One Final Word, and that is the judge.

And in cases where there isn't a clear winner, personal preferences take up the slack. You'll notice that I didn't lose the third round to personal preference - I lost to a better scenario.

In short, the jadeDM pun has been noted, but it’s far from accurate. I merely had certain thoughts on the matter and wanted to see if anyone had similar issues. That’s all.

Pun not intended - since metals and clays were covered, I was trying to think of a semiprecious stone that didn't sound stupid, like AgateDM or OpalDM. Maybe I should have gone with GraniteDM. Regardless, I'm just disagreeing with you here, not dissing you, and I apologize for the accidental pun.

Finally, I don’t see this as a hired hack kind of deal. It’s a creative exercise in the use of ingredients.

The two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a non-creative use of the ingredients fails as a hired hack - if I wasn't exercising my creativity, I wouldn't be playing in this contest, because I'd've lost the first round.

But when I say "a hired hack", what I mean is that the audience is important. I never ever ever write an adventure for my players without working to their preferences (their preferences aren't always what they think - sometimes doing awful things to their characters achieves higher enjoyment for them). For IronDM, the judge is the "player".

 

[seasong]

I'll never forget telling two people in a second round that I wish I could eliminate them both.

Will you marry me?

Anyway, I don't know where this "pander to the judge"

Mostly it comes from the jokes, I think. And I've probably contributed with my talk about whoring and hired hacking . The thing is, "pandering to the judge" MEANS "writing a damned fine scenario", because that's what the judge wants to see. If I didn't trust the judge to have those high standards, I wouldn't play.

Everything else nemmerle said is a more succinct and elegant version of what I was trying to say.