Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="seasong" data-source="post: 998741" data-attributes="member: 5137">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.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.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.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.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.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.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 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.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?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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. 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.I agree. And when I eventually judge one of these, I'll have competitors weeping over these exact things <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />. 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.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.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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). 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.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.</blockquote>

Verification