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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="carpedavid" data-source="post: 2299063" data-attributes="member: 6971">Round 1, Match 1: El-remmen vs. TinnerI think it's a good omen that we begin this iteration of Iron DM with a match that's tough to judge. On one hand, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2295696&postcount=99" target="_blank">Tinner</a>, a newcomer to Iron DM (from what I can tell), provides us with a surprisingly flavorful, though fairly straightforward, site-based adventure. On the other hand, <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2295700&postcount=100" target="_blank">el-remmen</a>, the founder of Iron DM, has generated a more mundane, but open-ended, situational adventure. So which is better? Hell if I know – let's work through this together.We'll begin, as is traditional, with a comparison of the ingredients. There are two questions we need to ask. One, how well is the ingredient integrated into the adventure? In other words, is interacting with it necessary for the progress of the story, or is its existence superfluous?Two, how well does the use of the ingredient emphasize its essential qualities? In other words, why is the adamantine keyring made from adamantine, and not from darkwood, or mithril, or ectoplasm, or silver, or cold iron? Memo to the other contestants: if you're not nervous yet, you should be.Both contestants use the keyring in a concrete way. Each contains keys, and the characters need to use the keys in order to progress through the adventure. In each case, the keys have specific and obvious markings that indicate which door each should open. So far, nothing special.In el-remmen's case, the keyring acts as a subtle clue that something nefarious is afoot, for who keeps bringing it back when the previous party disappears? Additionally, the PCs acquire it either by volunteering to escort the refuse or presumably by sneaking it off the townspeople once they get to the Mountain of Black Glass. Beyond opening doors, the keyring has no additional use in the adventure.In Tinner's case, the keyring is acquired after the party enters the alchemist's lab, but they must first defeat his spellstitched skeleton. Once they acquire it, its utility is pretty obvious, although it does have some uses other than opening doors, such as "disarming" the otyugh under the outhouse.So far, the use is about equal, but what about that pesky super-indestructible substance the keyrings are made out of? Here, Tinner clearly takes the advantage, for his keys need to be strong enough to withstand the daily abuses of an alchemist's workshop. El-remmen's could really have been made from any substance that can withstand the test of time, from stone to mithril.Next is lavender. Here, the advantage shifts back to el-remmen. Tinner uses this ingredient in multiple locations, but none is particularly integral to the adventure. He does attempt to make the ecology of the otyugh make sense, by suggesting that the lavender blooms attract birds on which the otyugh can feed, but this use isn't particularly interactive. Conversely, the lavender-colored key and potion are interactive, but neither really needs to be lavender. Either could be indigo, or green, or purple, or yellow, and it wouldn't make a bit of difference.El-remmen's use of the lavender oil, however, actually has an in-game effect. The bonus to the Fortitude save is a restrained and appropriate use of the effect, and lavender is one of the few oils that would actually be strong enough to mask the scent of an otyugh's pit. I should point out that Tinner uses the lavender to mask the scent of the otyugh, too, but his doesn't have an in-game effect.Let's discuss the otyugh next, since I just mentioned it. Here, both contestants left me wanting. Tinner's otyugh is almost completely superfluous. It's not essential to the advancement of the plot at all, which is unfortunate, since it's one of the cleverest uses of the creature that I've seen. He provides a reason for its existence in the "ecology" of the site, a reason for it to stay put, and a reason for it to play nice and not eat the people that regularly have to travel through the area.El-remmen's use, on the other hand, is almost the polar opposite. It's completely integrated into the adventure, and will, without a doubt, have to be dealt with in some manner in order to proceed, but its place in the ecology of the Mountain of Black Glass mystifies me. It's a guardian, yes, but who would place a guardian that can only be pacified by regular infusions of refuse on the order of that generated by a town full of people? I'm going to call this one a draw.Let's move to the glass mountain. El-remmen provides us with an obsidian volcano, which is cooler than a stone volcano, and I'm assuming that the highly-polished obsidian is what is used for the mirrors in his scenario's two mysterious chambers. It's a solid use of an ingredient, but not an especially inspired one.Tinner's metaphoric glass mountain creates challenges and obstacles for the PCs as they navigate the alchemist's lab, from the glass caltrops, to the nauseating odor, to Glassmountain's spellstitched skeleton. It's also likely that the PCs will search through the remains for the potion that the mayor wants, exposing them to more dangerous effects. I think the advantage here goes to Tinner.Speaking of the mayor, we've got two distinctly different characters. Once is a good-hearted man who has to get passed-out drunk in order to save the innocent townspeople from his wrath and who is desperately seeking a cure for his affliction. The other is a cold-blooded, duplicitous agent of chaos who likes killing off townspeople. Tinner's use of the ingredient imposes a time-limit of sorts on the characters, while el-remmen's use establishes more of an open-ended threat to the PCs. I'm going to say that el-remmen's edges Tinner's out slightly, if only because he's potentially more interactive. After all, I can easily see the PCs squaring off against him once they figure out what's going on.This leaves us with temperance, and I think here, Tinner's use is superior. While the temperance (or intemperance) of Van Cleef isn't something the PCs are likely to interact with directly, it is something that can provide clues to what's going on. El-remmen's on the other hand, definitely feels tacked on at the end: "Oh crap, I didn't use temperance! I'll just put it here."So, is it obvious from that examination who won? I didn't think so. Let's examine the playability of each scenario.El-remmen provides us with some serviceable hooks. I like the hook involving the merchant the best, since it could set up some nice investigative work on the part of the PCs prior to embarking on the meat of the adventure.Tinner provides us with a couple of standard hooks, but also with some fairly inventive ones. The chase involving the transformed mayor through the forest is remarkably cinematic, and would certainly pique my interest as a player. The included option for a power-hungry, evil party is a nice touch, though the mayor would certainly need an escape plan after double-crossing the characters.The NPCs in both entries are detailed well enough for a creative DM to run them, though I think Tinner develops his mayor's personality better then el-remmen does. Van Cleef is a man in trouble who's trying to do the right thing. Lont, on the other hand, is someone who simply seeks to spread chaos. It might be my bias, but I find the humanizing element of Van Cleef easier to relate to, and therefore, more playable.With regard to the actual adventure, both entries rely heavily on the tendency of PCs to snoop around. This is truer of el-remmen's entry than Tinner's though. The main conflict of el-remmen's adventure is the Chamber of Opposition. I could see a group getting to the cave, narrowly defeating the molten otyugh, and then calling it a night. I couldn't see my group doing that, but nevertheless, if a party were to go that route, they'd miss out on the most interesting part of scenario.Tinner, on the other hand, has designed his adventure so that the PCs have to snoop in order to be successful. If they take the direct route, they miss out on the side encounter involving the otyugh, but that's really all. He gives the potential DM room to expand and scale the adventure (just add more keys), but keeps the thrust of the adventure squarely within sight.This leads to the issue of scope. Tinner's adventure is tightly focused, more so than I'm used to seeing in this contest. He focuses on the alchemist's lab, and everything outside of that is ultimately either part of the hook or part of the resolution. It's a site-based adventure; a vividly realized site, but still simply a site.El-remmen's on the other hand, is wide open, with plenty of room for a creative DM to improvise. He's delivered an immersive situation, with a chaotic antagonist, political strife, and evil clones running around. But yet, what has been detailed simply doesn't grab me the way Tinner's adventure does. It's too purposeless; there's no good reason for me to care about the inhabitants of the town other than the generic "adventurer's duty;" there's no pathos.I guess that's what tips my decision in favor of [spoiler]the newcomer - his adventure gives me a reason to care, and promises an entertaining journey. El-remmen promises a deep and sophisticated journey, but just can't quite convince me to take it. Tinner[/spoiler] advances to Round 2.</blockquote>

Verification