Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wulf Ratbane" data-source="post: 1381808" data-attributes="member: 94">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</blockquote>

Verification