Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
When we ran the Rat Bastard Iron DM tournament, it was sixteen players, double-elimination, themed. All entries were set in a single campaign world (created especially for the competition), and the entries ranged from first level adventures for the first matchup to epic-level adventures for the final matchup.
After several months, I won that tournament. I loved playing in it, and I think it really played to my DMing strengths (creating weird campaign background material, building intrigue from session to session, etc.)
I'd never play in another one like it.
It was just too exhausting. First, double-elimination means that people end up writing far, far more adventures than single-elimination -- I think I wrote six full entries over the course of the game, maybe more. Second, the theme means far more stuff to keep track of. Third, because of the double-elimination, people were pretty willing to cheese out of a round; I know I did, writing one entry that was laughably bad because I couldn't think of anything. Finally, the exhaustion meant that several of our strongest competitors, including Nemmerle and Seasong, forfeited due to exhaustion (or dissatisfaction with the format) -- in some ways, I feel like I won the tournament by default.
So although it sounds like a good idea to have themes, sixteen players, and double elimination, take it from someone who's played in such a tournament: it doesn't work so well.
There was also a tournament in which the judge awarded points to people for different aspects of their entries, in an effort to make it more objective. Again, sounds like a good idea, right? Unfortunately, it led to some pretty wonky decisions: in a few cases, even the judge admitted that one entry was superior to the other, but the inferior entry technically received more points and so it won. I myself won a round like that; my dissatisfaction with the "objectivity" was surely nothing compared to the dissatisfaction of the person who lost that way.
Criticizing the judges? If I run one of these things, criticism will be absolutely forbidden in the contest thread. Unless you see the judge taking bribes from one of the contestants (and I'll definitely encourage bribes -- may as well get something for my effort), it is in my opinion extremely bad form to criticize either the judge or the judgement. Take your lumps like an adult, I say: when you enter the tournament, you agree to abide by the judge's decision, and if you don't like that, don't enter.
As for a panel of judges, that sounds interesting; but if Ceramic DM is doing that, there's no reason for Iron DM to do it as well, I think. I've not really followed Ceramic DM.
The once-a-season thing sounds good, except that I'm raring to run one myself, and I don't want to deny Nem the Iron DM's right to judge the next one. If I run one, I'll probably do it in the Rat Bastard public forum, where there'll definitely be a Rat Bastardry theme: if you want to win, you'll need to awe me with unexpected twists in the adventure, in addition to including all the other hallmarks of a good entry. I'll probably run it in late August/early September, unless folks don't like the idea.
Daniel
After several months, I won that tournament. I loved playing in it, and I think it really played to my DMing strengths (creating weird campaign background material, building intrigue from session to session, etc.)
I'd never play in another one like it.
It was just too exhausting. First, double-elimination means that people end up writing far, far more adventures than single-elimination -- I think I wrote six full entries over the course of the game, maybe more. Second, the theme means far more stuff to keep track of. Third, because of the double-elimination, people were pretty willing to cheese out of a round; I know I did, writing one entry that was laughably bad because I couldn't think of anything. Finally, the exhaustion meant that several of our strongest competitors, including Nemmerle and Seasong, forfeited due to exhaustion (or dissatisfaction with the format) -- in some ways, I feel like I won the tournament by default.
So although it sounds like a good idea to have themes, sixteen players, and double elimination, take it from someone who's played in such a tournament: it doesn't work so well.
There was also a tournament in which the judge awarded points to people for different aspects of their entries, in an effort to make it more objective. Again, sounds like a good idea, right? Unfortunately, it led to some pretty wonky decisions: in a few cases, even the judge admitted that one entry was superior to the other, but the inferior entry technically received more points and so it won. I myself won a round like that; my dissatisfaction with the "objectivity" was surely nothing compared to the dissatisfaction of the person who lost that way.
Criticizing the judges? If I run one of these things, criticism will be absolutely forbidden in the contest thread. Unless you see the judge taking bribes from one of the contestants (and I'll definitely encourage bribes -- may as well get something for my effort), it is in my opinion extremely bad form to criticize either the judge or the judgement. Take your lumps like an adult, I say: when you enter the tournament, you agree to abide by the judge's decision, and if you don't like that, don't enter.
As for a panel of judges, that sounds interesting; but if Ceramic DM is doing that, there's no reason for Iron DM to do it as well, I think. I've not really followed Ceramic DM.
The once-a-season thing sounds good, except that I'm raring to run one myself, and I don't want to deny Nem the Iron DM's right to judge the next one. If I run one, I'll probably do it in the Rat Bastard public forum, where there'll definitely be a Rat Bastardry theme: if you want to win, you'll need to awe me with unexpected twists in the adventure, in addition to including all the other hallmarks of a good entry. I'll probably run it in late August/early September, unless folks don't like the idea.
Daniel
).
