-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
IRON DM revival!
- Thread starter incognito
- Start date
incognito
First Post
Gentleman: Gods it's early.
I have read both entries once, and I am now RE-reading them. In this case, with the scenarios being SO different, I do not want to assign positives or negative attributes to these adventures, without carefully considering what aspects are MOST important to me and to the IRON DM competition.
I can say this: Becasue of nature of IRON DM, one of the top ranking considerations will always be good use of the ingredients. Followed closely by the playability of he scenario. Originality is important, but not a crucial as a well woven, integrateable adventure.
***Special Thanks to Psion and Tuerny for the early notificaion of the alternate swap - saves me a bunch of posts and feverent emails Monday morning.
Talk to you all soon!
I have read both entries once, and I am now RE-reading them. In this case, with the scenarios being SO different, I do not want to assign positives or negative attributes to these adventures, without carefully considering what aspects are MOST important to me and to the IRON DM competition.
I can say this: Becasue of nature of IRON DM, one of the top ranking considerations will always be good use of the ingredients. Followed closely by the playability of he scenario. Originality is important, but not a crucial as a well woven, integrateable adventure.
***Special Thanks to Psion and Tuerny for the early notificaion of the alternate swap - saves me a bunch of posts and feverent emails Monday morning.
Talk to you all soon!
incognito
First Post
More Brass Tacks.
For those us you reading who take a passing interest, but do not have unlimited time to do ingredient research, here’s the definition of CONFLICT OF INTEREST, so when I comment on it, down the line, we are all one the same page:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Refers to a situation when someone has a competing professional or personal obligations, or personal or financial interests that would make it difficult to fulfill their duties fairly.
Now the Judging (in order of appearance): Wulf!
Wulf never fails to amaze me, when it comes to creating a unique, engaging, colorful scenario. Point in case: not only does Wulf provide a Conundrum (how to help the Myconiods, and the Dryad co-exist without causing “problems” to nearby denizens), but also gives a solution that should NOT be immediately obvious to the players – even savvy ones. One very minor nitpick. Wulf goes the extra mile with a description of the tree in the opening of his scenario, but there is a conspicuous lack of the mushrooms by the tree!
This scenario is an easy drag and drop random encounter, with little plot hook needed. The Dryad does what she does, and the players are drawn in accordingly. Use of the underground lake/sinkhole is masterful, and the bone hand carved pipes are just the right amount of grisly. Buuuuut (and there’s always a but)…Drayds don’t have any ranks in perform, although it can be used untrained, and come to think of it – where aret he personality changes I expected to be detailed in this dizzy dryad. She is supposed to be filled with bliss, rage, lust, and stupor – but her MO is to charm the PCs - typical dryad.
And while I really like the concept of the awakened dove acting as a clue to the solution of awakening the tree – why do I have images of a dwarven fighter/rogue smashing the dove to the ground with an axe, quipping “There’s your ferkin’ peace, ya little white pigeon!” No points off for that imagery in my head – this particular ingredient was better used in this scenario, of the two.
I do think Wulf missed the concept of conflict of interest. Only with a liberal interpretation of a party “performing their duties fairly” could we see any party feeling badly for simply killing the - what was it? “dangerous flesh-eating witch…”
But I have more criticism in me – so let’s turn to Wicht’s entry:
Pure and simply, this adventure is fun. We have rules, teams, the French judge(dove), we have prizes (who doesn’t like prizes!), we have complications. I especially like option 5) if we have the dragon strong enough so that the two teams HAVE to cooperate. DM rat bastardlyness there is at it’s best! The hooks are more than adequate to snare an obtuse/contrary party. Of course, with a pair of high level druids running around, this does require more thought than just a casual drop into your world – the Human druid being at least L9 and all.
Fine use of the Dryad, and the mushrooms, and somewhat importantly, we see a better use of the conflict of interest ingredient. The druid has the conflict of interest: He can gain personally by making the potion, however this would disrupt the life and happiness of his paramour, the dryad, by nature a woodland resident – and possibly disrupt the natural cycle of the mushrooms. I make the argument it is seen as a druids duty to nurture and protect the (Deepglade) woods.
But we do have a few story blahs: Why do we need those elven villages? Or the Treants/Unicorns for that matter. What do they add to the plot? They play no role in the adventure, except for a brief nod at the end to throw an elf after party. Call me grumpy (and you would be too if you were up at 5AM walking a dog), but I can’t see the losers being too psyched about that elf party. And man! As if pipes weren’t smoky enough! Now you have one that creates an annoying obscuring mist? What a lame prize (but decent use of the ingredient – although it’s no bone carved pipe with bits of marrow hanging on…). Finally, the Ogre’s – what’s up with that?! Did the Druids approach the Ogres and let them know that they’re part of a contest in which they are likely to be killed by an adventuring party? Ogres are usually Chaotic evil for the love of glub! Also, seems like the Druids could also just SCRY the two teams, I’m not convinced that the dove/ranger is really needed (although he does have a good spot check, and can mediate disputes).
In the end, the choice was hand-wringing, but clear.. Wulf’s story and set up were better, more brilliant...BUT…it’s just simply too likely to run amok, have the point missed entirely, or get by passed (Run, Forest! Run!). It takes a very special party to resolve this encounter as intended, too special, in this judge’s opinion. What’s the point in beautifully crafted scenarios if no one understands them? [sarcasm]Sigh: When I was a kid, we role played every scenario, even the orc in a 10’ corridor scenario. [/sarcasm].
So, respectfully, I award this round to: Wicht!
For those us you reading who take a passing interest, but do not have unlimited time to do ingredient research, here’s the definition of CONFLICT OF INTEREST, so when I comment on it, down the line, we are all one the same page:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST - Refers to a situation when someone has a competing professional or personal obligations, or personal or financial interests that would make it difficult to fulfill their duties fairly.
Now the Judging (in order of appearance): Wulf!
Wulf never fails to amaze me, when it comes to creating a unique, engaging, colorful scenario. Point in case: not only does Wulf provide a Conundrum (how to help the Myconiods, and the Dryad co-exist without causing “problems” to nearby denizens), but also gives a solution that should NOT be immediately obvious to the players – even savvy ones. One very minor nitpick. Wulf goes the extra mile with a description of the tree in the opening of his scenario, but there is a conspicuous lack of the mushrooms by the tree!
This scenario is an easy drag and drop random encounter, with little plot hook needed. The Dryad does what she does, and the players are drawn in accordingly. Use of the underground lake/sinkhole is masterful, and the bone hand carved pipes are just the right amount of grisly. Buuuuut (and there’s always a but)…Drayds don’t have any ranks in perform, although it can be used untrained, and come to think of it – where aret he personality changes I expected to be detailed in this dizzy dryad. She is supposed to be filled with bliss, rage, lust, and stupor – but her MO is to charm the PCs - typical dryad.
And while I really like the concept of the awakened dove acting as a clue to the solution of awakening the tree – why do I have images of a dwarven fighter/rogue smashing the dove to the ground with an axe, quipping “There’s your ferkin’ peace, ya little white pigeon!” No points off for that imagery in my head – this particular ingredient was better used in this scenario, of the two.
I do think Wulf missed the concept of conflict of interest. Only with a liberal interpretation of a party “performing their duties fairly” could we see any party feeling badly for simply killing the - what was it? “dangerous flesh-eating witch…”
But I have more criticism in me – so let’s turn to Wicht’s entry:
Pure and simply, this adventure is fun. We have rules, teams, the French judge(dove), we have prizes (who doesn’t like prizes!), we have complications. I especially like option 5) if we have the dragon strong enough so that the two teams HAVE to cooperate. DM rat bastardlyness there is at it’s best! The hooks are more than adequate to snare an obtuse/contrary party. Of course, with a pair of high level druids running around, this does require more thought than just a casual drop into your world – the Human druid being at least L9 and all.
Fine use of the Dryad, and the mushrooms, and somewhat importantly, we see a better use of the conflict of interest ingredient. The druid has the conflict of interest: He can gain personally by making the potion, however this would disrupt the life and happiness of his paramour, the dryad, by nature a woodland resident – and possibly disrupt the natural cycle of the mushrooms. I make the argument it is seen as a druids duty to nurture and protect the (Deepglade) woods.
But we do have a few story blahs: Why do we need those elven villages? Or the Treants/Unicorns for that matter. What do they add to the plot? They play no role in the adventure, except for a brief nod at the end to throw an elf after party. Call me grumpy (and you would be too if you were up at 5AM walking a dog), but I can’t see the losers being too psyched about that elf party. And man! As if pipes weren’t smoky enough! Now you have one that creates an annoying obscuring mist? What a lame prize (but decent use of the ingredient – although it’s no bone carved pipe with bits of marrow hanging on…). Finally, the Ogre’s – what’s up with that?! Did the Druids approach the Ogres and let them know that they’re part of a contest in which they are likely to be killed by an adventuring party? Ogres are usually Chaotic evil for the love of glub! Also, seems like the Druids could also just SCRY the two teams, I’m not convinced that the dove/ranger is really needed (although he does have a good spot check, and can mediate disputes).
In the end, the choice was hand-wringing, but clear.. Wulf’s story and set up were better, more brilliant...BUT…it’s just simply too likely to run amok, have the point missed entirely, or get by passed (Run, Forest! Run!). It takes a very special party to resolve this encounter as intended, too special, in this judge’s opinion. What’s the point in beautifully crafted scenarios if no one understands them? [sarcasm]Sigh: When I was a kid, we role played every scenario, even the orc in a 10’ corridor scenario. [/sarcasm].
So, respectfully, I award this round to: Wicht!
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Ok, I'll admit it: That was unexpected... 
Congrats to Wicht! I will see you all again in the next competition... Perhaps I should spend more time with a dictionary and less time with my shiny new Monster Manual II...
Wulf
Congrats to Wicht! I will see you all again in the next competition... Perhaps I should spend more time with a dictionary and less time with my shiny new Monster Manual II...
Wulf
incognito
First Post
Hey Wulf,
Not for nothin' kid - I think you have amazing skills, and the set up ABSOLUTELY did not dissapoint, just the expected excecution from the players.
If you want, as seasong did, feel free to post exposition. The readers of this thread are interested in what you have to say.
Not for nothin' kid - I think you have amazing skills, and the set up ABSOLUTELY did not dissapoint, just the expected excecution from the players.
If you want, as seasong did, feel free to post exposition. The readers of this thread are interested in what you have to say.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
It occurred to me as I was posting my entry to comb your analysis of the earlier rounds for hints into what you were looking for, but that seems like cheatin' to me.
So I'll let the adventure stand on its merits and chalk it up to a difference in DMing style between myself and the judge. If you find the adventure too open ended and morally ambiguous, then that just tells me I did it right.
Wulf
So I'll let the adventure stand on its merits and chalk it up to a difference in DMing style between myself and the judge. If you find the adventure too open ended and morally ambiguous, then that just tells me I did it right.
Wulf
Wicht
Hero
Wulf Ratbane said:Ok, I'll admit it: That was unexpected...
Oh great, now I feel like a heel for winning
Just kidding
edit: I really am just kidding. I know how you feel. I really enjoy Iron DM but the arbitrary nature of the judging does beg for something more concrete, something you can point to and say - there is where they did better than me.
Wulf Ratbane said:
Thank you and I look forward to it.
Personally I thought your idea was great and the hooks were good but found the ending too closed. In most parties I have ever DMed, that single desired outcome would never have happened. Most players would ask questions only after the evil flesh eating witch was dead.
As to notes about my idea. The druids are in my mind levels 10 to 15 and are fairly powerful. They are not however movers and shakers outside of their little domain. They have no interest about the world beyond their woods. The note about the elves, unicorns, etc was just to give the forest the sort of flavor I was looking for. It is a fairy wonderland thanks to the cooperation of the two druids. This cooperation has been hinged for many years on this contest, thus it is an important event for the whole region. The conflict of interest in my mind was whether the druids would let their personal desires come before their duty to protect the forest. As to the ogres having the maps, the druids planted it on the ogres in such a way as to not let the ogres know what the maps were. The ogres can't read and therefore do not understand the maps, but they look pretty and so they keep them.
Someone might think it farfetched that the dryad would prefer mushroom casseroles to potions of longevity, but perhaps the mushrooms act similar to chocolate only more so
The dove could perhaps be fleshed out a little better. If I was running the contest I would make him the major npc. He is the Jiminy Cricket of the contest. The druids can watch the contestants via magic, but the dove allows on the spot rules questions to be answered and can caution the players before they do something foolish.
In the same vein of fleshing out the idea, I would really build up the beginning of the contest. I would make it a major event, with unicorns, fairies, elves, treants and all present to see the teams off. The elvish party at the end was just a tack on, but the winning team would be the toast of the region for a whole year. and might thus be in line for other propositions from those who knew about them.
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Wicht said:
Again, a difference in DMing style. I don't think it's right to (1) underestimate the average player or (2) encourage or compensate for "unthinking" behavior. For example, I was particularly off-put by Wicht's suggestion in his opening paragraphs that the DM explicitly warn the players not to try to fight their way through his adventure.
Perhaps it is my long years, but the reward in D&D is no longer getting from point A to point B, but rather the things the PCs (and their players) learn along the journey.
So the "average player" kills the dryad, searches the area, and quickly discovers the mushrooms and the innocent nature of the dryad. What the player takes home from that experience is the "treasure" I provide as the DM.
Wicht-- no need to feel like a heel... You're a respected competitor, I just really thought I had you on that one. My disappointment is heightened by your reputation.
Wulf
Wicht
Hero
Wulf Ratbane said:
What I meant by that suggestion was that the Druids, in explaining the rules of the contest, would make it clear that killing an animal during the contest would result in a loss (that blurp would probably be edited out if I rewrote it and added in under the rules thus clarifying what was meant). I certainly did not mean a metagame warning which I would personally find repugnant as well.
Wulf Ratbane said:
If that is your goal I can relate - you are setting up a moral quandry with the expectation of failure. However, the idea would then be better served by making it the introduction to a longer adventure in which the adventurers try to rectify their mistake. Any ideas in that direction?
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Wicht said:
Not at all. I admit to setting up a moral quandry, but I don't expect that most PCs would fail-- we differ on that assessment, so let's get that out of the way first and foremost.
My adventures don't typically run A --> B. They present situation A, and whether the PCs end up at B, C, D, or E isn't important, it's how and why they ended up at B, C, D, or E. The scenario A as presented stands on its own; the "home" DM can figure out what further scenarios may be presented at B, C, D, or E with ease. (Far easier than tying together the original 6 ingredients, at any rate...)
Not within the 3-4 paragraph attention span of incognito, no. (Hey, he said it, not me!)
You are proceeding along the assumption that there is something "wrong" with the scenario if it stands alone. You see B, C, D, and E as just more branches along a flowchart that leads inexorably to Z-- with Z being the denouement, the "moment of success" of the hypothetical "longer adventure." My opinion is that there need not necessarily be any "success;" learn from the experience and move on to the next.
Again, this is totally a matter of style. I readily accept that there are folks out there who prefer a light-hearted march from A --> B through a faerie wonderland, as opposed to a dark, morally ambiguous scenario that stands a good chance of leaving the PCs feeling like the bad guys. Neither style is better than the other; but my own personal preference lulled me into a false sense of security about my entry.
Wulf
