Iron DM: format and philosophy

[cool hand luke]

I really like seasongs seeding idea. Why? because, that gives you your best competitors later in the tourny. If this one would have been seeded, I would have been up against tough competition from round one, and there's NO WAY I would have gotten out of round one. Instead of people seeing 3 of my ideas, (1 BAD, 1 too over-reaching, 1 decent) they could have seen more of seasongs, Nems, rats, etc. much higher quality overall. Also, I got very little satisfaction knowing that my first round match was a win, because I saw how it just didn't stack up to the others.

Now, the day I beat one of the heavyweights, wow, what an accomplishment!

also, is there some patter to the schedule of this, (aside from the every season) is it agreed on the second tuesday after the equinox/solstice at 2 pm est the game will be announced, or is it just like, hey, you know what we haven't done lately.....

 

[Rune]

I suppose I'd better respond to some of this.

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

In general, I'm not disappointed with the 1/season schedule, but I could also support a 2/year schedule. No more, no less. One of the reasons that interest in the Iron DM Tournaments remains high is because there aren't too many games. People want to see a challenging game, and the rarity helps keep it challenging by making even entry a competitive process. Not only that, but one season is a bare minimum for holding on to the Championship title. If it changes every month, who's going to bother wanting to spend the enormous amount of time necessary to win it after a while?

2. How many participants and judges should there be ?

8 participants and 1 judge. It works smoothly, trust me. It is especially important that only 8 participants enter, because pacing is crucial in the tournament. If it drags on (I've seen it happen), people, even contestants, lose interest. Seriously.

As for a panal of judges, that has the potential to run more smoothly, but I doubt it would. It's simply not practical. Allow me to explain (although Nemm probably did it better). Judging is a huge time commitment. Three readings of each entry is a good minimum (which is why formatting is so appreciated). If you think scheduling so that two contestants could have a compatable time to do a match was sometimes difficult (had to wait a whole week to start match 3!), you have no idea how difficult it would be to do that and schedule time for three judges to read through each entry 3 times and come to a consensus. No way in hell. Not without totally screwing up the pacing.

Now, it is possible that a panal of judges could do this without consulting with each other, but they'd need to do a numeric scoring of the entries, to do this. Guess what? Numeric scoring actually increases the chance of a mediocre entry winning over a superior one. Forget it.

That said, the Rat Bastard DM's Club runs infrequent Iron DM Tournaments, and almost always trys new formats. Check them out, if you'd like. As a matter of fact, check out the site, anyway. It's a good resource.

3. How long should the entries be ?

I'll be honest, with as many times as a judge has to read the entries, it is inevitable that they'll appreciate shorter entries. However, allowing longer entries (allows for more discression on the part of the author. A good entry will shine through, no matter the length. So, the "don't bore me" rule is a good one. However, if I ever run a tournament again, I may well run one with a length-limit strictly enforced. Just an extra challenge. Iron DM is Iron for a reason, after all.

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

I guess I should tackle the issue of subjective judging. Contrary to popular belief, subjectivity is actually an extremely minor aspect to judging. When Seasong says that pleasing the judge means doing a good job, he's absolutely right. Here's where I guess I'll explain my criteria weighting (these are estimates, I didn't use a numeric scoring procedure):

Out of 12 points:
Was it functional? 3
Was it inspirational? 2
If I want to improve things, how easily could I? 1
How well did the ingredients work together? 2
How well did the ingredients expand upon my expectations? 2
How well did the ingredients actually fit the scenario? 2

Notice, that thismeans that creativity and structure are about equal to ingredient use. But the truth is they all blend together, which is one reason that numeric scoring is sub-optimal.

5. How much criticism of the judge is allowed ?

I won't comment on this one, except to say that I never did it. Further, I never even offered exposition of a losing entry, unless specifically asked to by the judge. The truth is, I would have been bitter if I had responded to one or two judgements, and I didn't need to be. I trusted the judges going into the tournaments, and I did so for a reason.

I might not have agreed that the better entry had won, but I also had to remember that, in those situations, the judge was the only one qualified to judge and, consequently, all decisions were correct.

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 is no way the judge would be able to maintain enough interest among viewers and contestants (as the interest among viewers helps to maintain interest among contestants) with a necessarily long-running league format. It's a nice idea in theory, but logistically not possible. Trust me on that.

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).

I've already made my objections to these points, so I won't repeat myself.

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 !

A themed competition has been done and probably will be done again at the Rat Bastard boards.

As for a tournament in which the contestants pick their own ingredients...

I absolutely couldn't compete in it, because, frankly, I don't think there's any challenge to it. What's the point of even having ingredients, if you get to pick them yourself?

. 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 !

I'm afraid I have to disagree vehemently with you on this point. The longer the adventure, the harder it is to get the ingredients to play off of each other, which is a crucial aspect of the game. Having a scope that is much too large for a single adventure can be a problem, but that is why I think Seasong's 2nd round entry is so beautiful. He succees where all other contestants have fallen, he made a campaign actually work in a single adventure.

Think of the original Iron Chef – the goal is to create a dish, not a six-course meal.

What? Chefs frequently (always) have multiple-course meals on Iron Chef. The only limiting factors they have are that all must use the main ingredient as a central feature, and the 1-hour time limit.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: A good adventure is also the seed of a good campaign.

Now, I know many a published module is designed with a different philosophy, but I'm not especially enamored with the way most modules are designed. I'm looking for more.

Another matter discussed often is the use of ingredients in backstory so that the PC’s don’t actually ever interact with them.

I actually don't have a problem with it, as long as PCs directly interact with the consequences of those ingredients' presence.

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.

Seasong's exactly right on this point. It is about pleasing the judge, which means, it is about writing the best entry. That's what pleases the judge!

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.

"Interchangeable" ingredients, as you call it, is a bit of a misnomer. I prefer "ambiguous." Truth is, these ingredients are actually harder to use well. They're traps. But they're more evocative. What really makes a list difficult, however, is a set of ingredients that looks too simple. That's when you have be very careful.

I am always looking for creative interpretations of the ingredients. The fact that contestants don't know where I'll draw the line makes it a gamble to do it, and if it's done well, I'll reward the gamble. Believe me, it makes things tougher. Case in point, in Seasong's final entry, he thought he could get away with a stretch of "fairy tale land" that actually seems pretty minor. But I drew the line, and he lost that gamble.

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.

In this tournament, I played my cards pretty closely, not explicitly telling the players everything about my preferences (as I didn't want everyone to start thinking my preferences mattered that much) because the meta-game involved makes the tournament that much tougher.

But the truth is, I linked to past tournaments in my first post, I have a link to one of my story hours in my sig, and anyone who wanted to do the homework didn't have to do very much.

They still needed to do some inferring, but it was all right there. If contestants did not do any homework, I can't feel bad about them not figuring out where I set my priorities.

I really think I've been more or less in line with past judges on the point of priorities, except that I think I rewarded creativity slightly more than judges in the past. That's not much of a difference.

Well, that was lengthy. I'll leave it at this.

 

[Rune]

I really like seasongs seeding idea. Why? because, that gives you your best competitors later in the tourny. If this one would have been seeded, I would have been up against tough competition from round one, and there's NO WAY I would have gotten out of round one. Instead of people seeing 3 of my ideas, (1 BAD, 1 too over-reaching, 1 decent) they could have seen more of seasongs, Nems, rats, etc. much higher quality overall. Also, I got very little satisfaction knowing that my first round match was a win, because I saw how it just didn't stack up to the others.

First of all, don't sell yourself short, cool hand luke. It is true that you need to work on refinement before you'll ever have a real shot at the championship, but trust me when I say this--you've got what it takes.

Second, about seeding. That's actually more or less what happened in the first round of this game, although it wasn't specifically planned that way. Seasong, Wulf, Nemmerle, and Greybar all had significant Iron DM backgrounds when coming into the tournament.

In my first tournament, both contestants (Radiating Gnome and myself) who actually made it to round 3 were new players and had surprising upsets. In Radiating gnome's case, he actually won round one with a weak entry (although that wasn't the surprisng upset). In my case, I was up against Wicht in the second round! I was sweating bullets, let me assure you. I managed to put together my best entry, ever, and just barely beat him. I doubt I could do it again (and, I actually lost to him in a rematch the next tournament).

What's my point? I guess it's that seeding isn't necessary in the first round; nor would it significantly change the outcome of the tournament.

The second round, however, I did specifically determine who would go against whom, although I based it mostly upon smack-talk up to that point, and possible 3rd round combinations.

Now, the day I beat one of the heavyweights, wow, what an accomplishment!

That's the right attitude for Iron DM. I'd also like to suggest that doing a league format would weaken the tendency for this attitude to prevail.

also, is there some patter to the schedule of this, (aside from the every season) is it agreed on the second tuesday after the equinox/solstice at 2 pm est the game will be announced, or is it just like, hey, you know what we haven't done lately.....

In this case, we had already determined that we wanted a quarterly game, but other than that, it was more or less the second one. I asked Nemm about it, he said he was too busy to run it and I said, I'd do it. He said, "Okay."

Now, I won't even try to pretend to be humble and say that it was all luck that the spots filled up so quickly. I've played in enough of these things to have a pretty good feel for what works, and what kind of pacing is needed.

I knew I had a decent reputation as a player, so I figured a few heavy-hitters would be willing to trust me. I posted my intention to run the game a day before I accepted entries to make sure more people had a chance to see it, but I knew there would be a side-effect; the spots would fill up more rappidly. In this case, the 8 primary spots filled up in slightly more than half an hour!.

But that was just the beginning. I knew that I had to keep the pace quick and scheduled as many of the first-round matches for the first day for that reason. I was able to cut back a bit for the later matches.

That said, I'd like to see a system going towards something which is clearer, tighter, and puts less stress on judges and players.)

Less stress? But this is Iron DM! It's supposed to be stressful. It should be obvious why it should be stressful on the players, but perhaps I should say something about the judges.

The more stress they have, the better; it helps people to have faith in the judge, if the judge is willing to (knowingly) take on the weighty responsibilities of judgement.

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.

Pie, if Nemmerle wants to defend his title, he's going to have to play. That means you may well get your chance to run the next one (especially as I think someone else has plans to run a RBDM one at some point--with a panel of judges, no less).

 

[Rune]

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.

Ah, I forgot to address this point.

I require familiarity with a judge before I'm willing to invest what might end up being a massive amount of creative energy and time in entering a contest. I have to think I can trust a judge. This, by the way, goes a long way toward answering other questions as well.

If you don't think you can trust the judge to begin with (if, for instance, you think s/he's too subjective, and not interested in your type of adventure), don't play! There are plenty of other folk who'd be happy to jump in and give it a shot. You wouldn't play in a campaign with a DM you didn't trust, would you?

 

[seasong]

Re: Re: Iron DM: format and philosophy

Further, I never even offered exposition of a losing entry, unless specifically asked to by the judge.

And sometimes not even then, if I recall correctly .

 

[el-remmen]

Expostition? Bah!

I don't remember who started that (Incognito?) - but it has never really interested me all that much. I do a little of it - but I don't have time to sit down and deconstruct my own thinking and creative process.

As a judge, it really doesn't interest me because an entry stands on its own and no amount of exposition really matters - though I can see how others may find it helpful.

I'm kind of jonesing to judge an IRON DM contest - but at the same time I want to defend my title - so maybe we can just go ahead and declare Pielorinho as the judge for the Fall Classic.

Anyway, I don't want to compete against him because I know he'd beat me without breaking a sweat.

I can always volunteer to help judge the experimental one in the RBDM public forum whenever that happens.

P.S. Anyone heard from Wicht? He is a perfect example of someone I have rooted for even while I was judging and still had to rule against him, because liking someone means respecting them enough to be fair.

 

[seasong]

Expostition? Bah!

I don't remember who started that (Incognito?) - but it has never really interested me all that much. I do a little of it - but I don't have time to sit down and deconstruct my own thinking and creative process.

I think I explained some stuff about my first entry (the Orcs of Uggrahd), long ago, and incognito liked it enough that he started asking for exposition from everyone. And I've gotten enough private thank yous for showing how I went through the ingredients that I think it's a reasonably cool thing to do, both for the other competitors and for watchers.

As a judge, it really doesn't interest me because an entry stands on its own and no amount of exposition really matters - though I can see how others may find it helpful.

This is exactly why I wait until AFTER judgement to post anything expository - the last thing I want to do in a competition is to influence the judgement with anything NOT in the entry itself. And honestly, I don't write exposition for the judge. I write it for me (I'm self-analytical oriented) and anyone else who likes to peek into my Muse's study.

 

[Burne]

Something mentioned above but not really touched upon is the low number of people who get to be involved in IronDM. I would recommend a few things.

* Enshrine the 1 per season match in stone.

* If you participated in last seasons match, you may not participate in the next. This gives more oppertunity for others to shine.

* The inclusion of the previous Champion should be examined. I would much rather see 8 new contestents each season.
- Either, have 8 contestents and a showdown with the reigning champion (thus adding 1 additional judgement to each game)
- Or, exclude the reigning champion and have an end of year Tournement of Champions (4 contestents, 3 judgements).

Because there are alternatives, in the form of CeramicDM, I have no problem with forced exclusion of those who have already had a chance to shine to give those new to the game a chance to go though a little forced growth.

Love
Burne

 

[Rune]

Expostition? Bah!

As a judge, it really doesn't interest me because an entry stands on its own and no amount of exposition really matters - though I can see how others may find it helpful.

Exposition isn't a tool for the judge; it's a tool for future contestants.

Something mentioned above but not really touched upon is the low number of people who get to be involved in IronDM. I would recommend a few things.

No, I touched upon it. It's a good thing. It helps to maintain a higher standard of quality.

* Enshrine the 1 per season match in stone.

We haven't yet determined that a 2 per year schedule wouldn't be better.

* If you participated in last seasons match, you may not participate in the next. This gives more oppertunity for others to shine.

This would support a drop in quality. If the best (at the time) players happen to all get in one game, then what's left for the next game? Could be good, but a lot of less able folk who otherwise might not feel confident enough to play may feel confident enough to enter. You may feel that that's a good thing, but it's called the IRON DM for a reason. It's supposed to be challenging as hell. I'm not saying that this idea would necessarily result in a lower-quality champion, but it would increase the chances of it. Especially if you also include the following:

* The inclusion of the previous Champion should be examined. I would much rather see 8 new contestents each season.

What?

You have absolutely know idea how excruciatingly draining it is to go through 3 rounds (let alone four, but that's a different topic). If you take away the right of the champion to defend his/her title, you've taken away a significant motivation for even entering into the tournament. And here's the important part:

You would take away the chance for contestants to prove they are the best by actually defeating someone who has proven that they were the best!

- Either, have 8 contestents and a showdown with the reigning champion (thus adding 1 additional judgement to each game)

It's been done, and trust me, it would be a terrible idea to go back to doing it. It raises all sorts of issues that are better left alone. It's a tremendous advantage for the reigning champion, so much so, that it's hard for people watching not to question if the champion won by virtue of being the champion, or by virtue of being fresh, while the competitor was nearly creatively sapped and energetically lifeless. Bear in mind that I may be saying this out of bitterness, as I've lost in such a round. But it may be experience talking. And, remember, even the mighty Wicht lost in such a round, as well.

- Or, exclude the reigning champion and have an end of year Tournement of Champions (4 contestents, 3 judgements).

I'm all for a tournament of champions (although I don't know whether Wicht or I would apply), but I think it should be an 8 contestant event. Which should make a yearly event possible, with the RBDM tournament champions also involved, unless there is overlap.

Because there are alternatives, in the form of CeramicDM, I have no problem with forced exclusion of those who have already had a chance to shine to give those new to the game a chance to go though a little forced growth.

Because there are alternatives, in the form of CeramicDM, I have no problem with forcing exclusion of those who don't apply in time and allowing the inclusion of those who have played in the past.

The competitive nature of entry helps to weed out the players who are less sure of themselves. This is a stressful game. It is supposed to be hard as hell, and there's no reason we should go easy on anybody.

I would also like to note that there are usually about 50% or so, new players in each tournament. I'd say that's very reasonable.

Besides, many folk want rematches, or to challenge themselves against proven heavyweights.

 

[seasong]

I would be strongly against a forced exclusion of anyone based on past tournaments. As Rune pointed out, there's usually a 50% turnover as is.

And part of the fun is the chance to go against the favorites. I know nemmerle (this was his first time, incidentally, to actually play) relished stomping me into the dirt in the final round .