Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wicht" data-source="post: 215149" data-attributes="member: 221">Bear with me while I try something <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=";)" />The only fault I have with Nemm's contest is the judging system.  Not that I think he does a bad job.  Quite the contrary.  I am quite satisfied with his decisions.  But, admittedly, I am the sort that likes some sort of score to go by.  Something Numerical, you understand, to sink my teeth into.  So I am going to try out a numerical style of judging.  I am going to judge mmadsen's and Angelsboi's first entrys (as Angelsboi challenged mmadsen in his entry I will run them against each other.) I will be as harsh as possible, even though I know this is not a real contest.  I just want opinions as to how the system seems to work.Each entry will be graded according to five things on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the highest and 0 being the lowest.  This will thus give a final score of 0-50.  High score wins.  In cases of ties previous rounds may be added on. The five grades are:Use of ingredients  If a single ingredient is not used the writer loses two points.  If the ingredient is not used all that well, 1 point may be lost.Originality/Creativity How original is the idea and how well are classical elements introduced in new ways.Believability/Usability Very Important!  How easily could a DM drop this into an existing campaign.  And how well does the plot hold together.Presentation How good were the typing skills.  How well were things explained.  How well were things arranged.Judges choice  How well did the judge like the entry overall.I am open incedentally to other suggested criteria.  This is just what suggested itself to me.Now.  On with the judging!MMadsens' first entry, unnamed, has some obvious weaknesses but some suprising strengths as well.  As far as Use of Ingredients I do not quite see Holy Ground in there anywhere (though perhaps the lair is meant to be holy ground) thus losing the entry 2 points.  The use of the key and the use of the elemental also seem a bit arbitrary losing 1 point for each.  Overall, the ingredients garner mmadsen only 6 points.The presentation could also use a little work.  No real hook is offered and the whole story-line could use a bit more background.  Presentation also only garners 6 points for mmadsen.The archtypical, evil army attacking humanity is hardly new, but mmadsen does take the idea and add some unique twist to it.  The humans as chum and the sea creatures attacking with 'tame' ghouls is well described and is a creative use of old elements.  For Creativity I am going to give 7 points.Where the entry really shines is in its adaptability to private campaigns and the fact that the whole holds up together pretty well.  I could see this being dropped without problem into almost any world and any shore.  The only real lack of credibility IMO is the lair of the Kuo-Toa.  If they retreat back to the same lair each night then how do they manage to travel further afield each day?  This is not an insurmountable problem but it needs addressed.  Overall I really like the concept.  Thus for both Believability and Judges Choice I award 8 points.  This gives mmadsen a total of 35 out of a possible 50.Angelsboi's (also unnamed) is an entry I should have liked better.  It harkens a bit to Lovecraft and the like, of which I am very fond.  But I found there were too many distractions in it that made me like it less.  While each ingredient was used in the plot, I found myself wondering whether or not they were really integral to the plot or just thrown in to get them out of the way.  The Kuo-toans for instance, did not really seem necessary and I had to wonder whether a different villain might not have suited the plot better.  Likewise the bones, the ghoul and the elemental (especially the elemental) just seemed thrown in there.  Overall Use of Ingredients only garners Angelsboi 6 points.As far as originality, there was little original about the plot.  An evil agent is trying to summon forth infernal forces and must sacrifice a lovely girl to do it.  While this is a staple of fantasy, there seemed little novel in the presentation here to really call attention to itself.  Likewise, the use of a doppleganger to explain the alteration of the priest into a villain, seemed a bit contrived.  Overall, for originality I only give the entry a 6. Where, in my opinion, the entry suffered the most however was the believability of the whole thing.  There seem to be too many devices in the plot to make it work (like the doppleganger father, the bloodline, etc.) and be readily accepted by jaded players.  While PCs don't have to know what is actually going on IMO at the time, its nice to be able to throw a cohesive story at them afterwards.  Likewise it does seem strange that the villagers trust the strangers in town only after something sinister happens.  Personally I think the elements could have been used better and maybe with a bit more background, an expansion of the existing details, some better plot hooks and a better motivation for the doppleganger, the whole thing would have seemed more believable to me.  Believability only garners the entry 6 points and Presentation brings only 5 points.      Though they are overused, I still like many of the elements in the story and thus for Judge's Choice I give 7.This gives Angel'sboi 30 points out of a possible 50.Mmadsen wins with 35.P.S. Actually I think it better to have a panel of judges rather than just 1, anyone else can feel free to try their hand at judging the same entries using the same method.  If two or three do it, the combined scores can be added together for a total.</blockquote>

Verification