Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
-bump for 3rd judgement-
[IRON DM] Winter '04 Tournament (IRON DM ANNOUNCED!)
- Thread starter el-remmen
- Start date
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
nemmerle said:
No offense to my opponent, but that was the worst judgement I have ever seen.
Wulf
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Macbeth said:
I'm not pissed off (and I also don't have any hard feelings-- good luck, dave!) but I don't think the judging was "technically proficient" in that round.
Ingredient by ingredient I think I had the better entry, and in terms of complete ingredient cohesion I think I had the better entry. The judge simply did not review the ingredients with the critical eye that other of his judgements have shown.
I could bemoan a lack of consistency on other counts. The judge has shown a preference for dictionary.com in the past; the first entry for "pilgrimage" that appears makes no requirements for length of journey (carpedavid also took heat for that).
The judge used a creature ("Broken Ones") that do not appear in the current version of the game, nor in any commonly accessible 1st edition source (for the record, they are apparently from Ravenloft, though I had to dig to find it). Both contestants were called for not knowing that this was a "real" creature.
I should not use my exposition to call out flaws in the opposing entry, but several of his ingredients were MacGuffins or "roped into" the adventure very loosely. The wig use is a complete macguffin; there is no explanation for the involvement of the wisps (as the judging frequently goes, "They could have been anything..."); the exultation was weak. On the other hand I feel like (for once!) every ingredient in my entry was working together to paint a cohesive picture. The entire tale had internal consistency and logic.
End of exposition...
Good luck to all in the finals!
Wulf
Noskov
Explorer
Macbeth said:
I was pissed, but I'm fine now. Most of my gripes were more out of frustration on my part and misunderstanding. I had my one point that I will not rehash, but that I still think is true, however, I'm not sure my reaction would have been any different if I were just disqualified, so I guess I'll just have to say that I was mosly just venting on a source of frustration for a lot of other problems that had nothing directly to do with this tournament.
I do (if allowed) plan on competing in the next tournament (and making sure my schedule is open). I learned a lot from this one and, even if I fail in the next, it will answer some more questions I have about how it all works. I plan on doing this until I am satisfied with an entry. Whether that takes one more try or 100, I'll be back....hopefully.
No offense to Wulf, but I was kinda pulling for Carpe (he's a local boy). Two Ohioans in the Finals....nice....and I still can't find more people for my group.
Last edited:
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
nemmerle said:
And that's bewildering to me.
Pissed does not describe me; I am bewildered.
Wulf
carpedavid
First Post
While I'm absolutely delighted to have won, my delight is tempered by Wulf's assertion that the quality of the judgment was poor. I'd like to take this opportunity to respond to some specific criticism that Wulf leveled at my entry, and I will write up some more general comments later.
First, the wig as a MacGuffin: If we define a MacGuffin as a "thing whose existence provides motivation, but whose essential qualities are irrelevant," then I would respectfully disagree. My admittedly mundane wig of disguise had very specific powers that provided very specific benefits to this very specific NPC. The inability to use these powers provided the motivation for Anais to embark on her plan, and the return of these benefits could mark a resolution for the adventure.
If, on the other hand, you mean "thing whose existence provides motivation, but the PCs don't interact with other than to retrieve/return/destroy," then, yes I guess it could be considered a MacGuffin. In that case, though, then your wig would be, too - a very creative MacGuffin, but a MacGuffin nonetheless.
With respect to the will o' wisps: In my entry, the will o' wisps provided both motivation for the adventure (having already led both townspeople and brigands to their deaths), and a significant obstacle for the PCs. Since they are aberrations in 3.5 and not undead, I didn't think it necessary to provide a reason for the will o' wisps to be tied to that specific area, other than to say that they were recruited by Anais. Also, I did not feel, as you seem to, that they "could have been anything." Their specific powers tied into the plot and mood in a way that a tarrasque's wouldn't.
By contrast, while you deftly tie the creation of the will o' wisp into your narrative, it doesn't seem to be a credible threat as part of the adventure. You mention that it has led some to their deaths, but the brigands frequently bathe and give offerings in the area, and the one person that the will o' wisp would most want to kill (Geldulf) avoids it with ease. If it poses no threat to the brigands that the PCs are supposed to defeat, how is it supposed to pose a threat to the PCs?
I do agree that my use of exultation was weak. Yours, in this case, was not only more creative, but also much closer to something the PCs could actually interact with.
Looking over the rest of the list, though, our use of the brigands on a pilgrimage was nearly identical (giving thanks after a bout of looting and pillaging), while I think I had the edge on the use of the broken ones and the quarry. In each case, you definitely created very vivid descriptions, but I think I came up with more usable interpretations. So while your prose-fu was clearly superior to mine, and you produced a compelling story, I think that I simply produced a more playable and compelling adventure.
Frankly, I'm hurt by your assertion that I only won because Nemmerle was slacking. I thought that his critique of both of our entries was insightful and fair, and I could have seen him awarding it either way. If I had lost, would I have been disappointed? Yes. Might I have disagreed with the judgment? Maybe. Would I have blamed my loss on the judge, questioning the legitimacy of the contest? No.
Prior to this, I was very respectful of, and quite intimidated by you. Now I am neither, and that's a shame.
I'll have more general comments on my entry tomorrow - it's bed time.
First, the wig as a MacGuffin: If we define a MacGuffin as a "thing whose existence provides motivation, but whose essential qualities are irrelevant," then I would respectfully disagree. My admittedly mundane wig of disguise had very specific powers that provided very specific benefits to this very specific NPC. The inability to use these powers provided the motivation for Anais to embark on her plan, and the return of these benefits could mark a resolution for the adventure.
If, on the other hand, you mean "thing whose existence provides motivation, but the PCs don't interact with other than to retrieve/return/destroy," then, yes I guess it could be considered a MacGuffin. In that case, though, then your wig would be, too - a very creative MacGuffin, but a MacGuffin nonetheless.
With respect to the will o' wisps: In my entry, the will o' wisps provided both motivation for the adventure (having already led both townspeople and brigands to their deaths), and a significant obstacle for the PCs. Since they are aberrations in 3.5 and not undead, I didn't think it necessary to provide a reason for the will o' wisps to be tied to that specific area, other than to say that they were recruited by Anais. Also, I did not feel, as you seem to, that they "could have been anything." Their specific powers tied into the plot and mood in a way that a tarrasque's wouldn't.
By contrast, while you deftly tie the creation of the will o' wisp into your narrative, it doesn't seem to be a credible threat as part of the adventure. You mention that it has led some to their deaths, but the brigands frequently bathe and give offerings in the area, and the one person that the will o' wisp would most want to kill (Geldulf) avoids it with ease. If it poses no threat to the brigands that the PCs are supposed to defeat, how is it supposed to pose a threat to the PCs?
I do agree that my use of exultation was weak. Yours, in this case, was not only more creative, but also much closer to something the PCs could actually interact with.
Looking over the rest of the list, though, our use of the brigands on a pilgrimage was nearly identical (giving thanks after a bout of looting and pillaging), while I think I had the edge on the use of the broken ones and the quarry. In each case, you definitely created very vivid descriptions, but I think I came up with more usable interpretations. So while your prose-fu was clearly superior to mine, and you produced a compelling story, I think that I simply produced a more playable and compelling adventure.
Frankly, I'm hurt by your assertion that I only won because Nemmerle was slacking. I thought that his critique of both of our entries was insightful and fair, and I could have seen him awarding it either way. If I had lost, would I have been disappointed? Yes. Might I have disagreed with the judgment? Maybe. Would I have blamed my loss on the judge, questioning the legitimacy of the contest? No.
Prior to this, I was very respectful of, and quite intimidated by you. Now I am neither, and that's a shame.
I'll have more general comments on my entry tomorrow - it's bed time.
