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: 2318962" data-attributes="member: 6971">Round 2, Match 1: Evilhalfling vs. TinnerWell, folks, it's round two, and that means that the gloves have come off. In the first round, I tried to give each contestant the benefit of the doubt. Here, the judging gets a bit harsher. We start out our first match of this round with a pair of entries from <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2314438&postcount=234" target="_blank">Evilhalfling</a> and <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=2313998&postcount=233" target="_blank">Tinner</a>. If you haven't read them, go do so and come back.Before we begin, let me say that, in reading these two adventures, it seems as though one DM has yet to figure out how to properly motivate a gaming group, while the other has a keen sense of what makes gaming groups (or at least ones similar to his) tick. I'm tempted to start with a discussion of the design and playability of the entries, but I think that might make the winner too obvious. Instead, let's begin with a comparison of ingredient use.The first item in the list is the Abyssal Greater Basilisk. Tinner seizes on the "Abyssal" quality of the creature by tying it into a divinely-inspired vision. Additionally, its nefarious presence gradually taints the surrounding environs, which gives a sense of urgency to the proceedings. As presented, it's the boss creature of the adventure, and certainly presents an adequate challenge for a 10th level party.On the other hand, he doesn't really pay any attention to the signature quality of the Basilisk - the petrifying gaze. He doesn't even mention it once in the description of the encounter with the creature. Come on - give me something to work with. Even a toss-away one-line description of small, furry, woodland statues would have sufficed. But no, we get nothing.Evilhalfling, by contrast, gives us plenty of statuary to look at. He puts great emphasis on the petrifying gaze of the creature, which gives it a reason to be a Basilisk, and not, say, a gray render. However, the "Abyssal" quality of the creature is completely lost. As used, it could simply have been a regular Basilisk (though a powerful one).What bothers me about this ingredient use, though, is its seemingly random placement. While the petrified creatures are ominous, to be sure, the basilisk's function here is really little more than to serve a placeholder between the two beholders. By comparison to the creatures around it, it's just not as frightening as it should be. Therefore, I think this ingredient use is wash.Since I've just mentioned the beholders, let's look at the Eyes of Doom ingredient. Here, Evilhalfling gets creative, and I'm mostly impressed with the results. Even without the modification to the eyestalk, beholders certainly fit the concept of an eye of doom. I also like the idea of two intelligent monsters holing up in the middle of a palace and then sending a bunch of charmed creatures after one another. The complete lack of respect for the feelings of the humans who happen to inhabit the palace strikes me as very beholder-like.However, there are some things that bother me. First, EH states that the two beholders charm the other creatures and send them against each other. But then, later in the entry, he claims that one of the beholders lacks the "charm monster" eyestalk. Which is it? Second, he seems to misunderstand the nature of the beholder's anti-magic. They emit a cone from their central eye that they can turn on and off at will. In fact, they have to turn it off if they want to use their eye-beams on anyone in the area of the cone. This does not prevent, as EH suggests, someone from being able to use divination spells on them. It does not function like spell resistance. Something that does not fall in that area of the cone simply isn't affected. Third, though the two Eyes of Doom are set up to be bitter enemies, which could be the setup to an adventure in and of itself, they end up simply being another creature to kill. In one case, the beholder will attack the party on sight, and in the other, it will attack if the party doesn't do exactly what it wants. It seems to me like potential wasted.So does Tinner do any better? He uses the Eyes of Doom literally by giving the pixie leader a pair. Since the pixies aren't really intended to take on the PCs directly, this use could be nearly superfluous. Tinner redeems himself, though, by tying the glasses in thematically. Their doom-seeing nature becomes an obstacle for the party to overcome before they can enlist the pixies' help.It's an interesting take on the ingredient, but one that, again, I have some trouble with. Pixies aren't stupid; while their leader might be deceived by the glasses, the rest would have no idea what he was ranting about. A simple Heal check is as easily performed by any of the fey tricksters as by a PC. So why wait for the PCs to come in and point out that their leader is seeing things? It's important to remember that people only turn to outsiders to solve their problems when they're incapable of or unwilling to do so by themselves. There's no indication that either is the case here, so I'm left to wonder what's going on.I think I may know, actually. Tinner mentions initially that the arrival of the "fell beastie" is what has the pixies in a tizzy. So why then, in the ingredient summary, does he point to the glasses as the cause of the unrest? My guess - they got tacked on near the end.Talking about the fairies brings me to the Far Shot ingredient. Tinner's pixies are natural masters of the bow, and with a feat that extends their range, they're a great ally to have against a monster that can turn you to stone by looking at you. Additionally, Tinner mentions their use of long-range tactics when he discusses the possibility of the PCs and the pixies fighting. It's a great use of the ingredient.EH uses the Far Shot ingredient in the form of the One Mile Strikers. From their position in the towers and surrounding buildings, it does make more sense for them to have Far Shot than Point-Blank Shot, but that's the extent of the rational I can come up with. It's not a horrible use of the ingredient, just a lackluster one.Next is Wind Walk, and here, he does give us a horrible use of an ingredient. Apparently, any attempt to use "travel magic" within the Sultan's palace results in the user ending up in the Courtyard of Wind Walk. Why? What does that have to do with wind? I suppose walking ties into "travel" thematically - sort of, if you tilt your head and squint. Honestly, this is on par with Dremmen's first round entry where he uses an ingredient as the name of a boat.Lest you think I'm here only to pick on Evilhalfling, let me inform you that Tinner's use of the ingredient isn't all that compelling, either. In his entry, the druid, Ayiana, uses the spell to follow the PCs at a distance. He does point out that the cloudy form the druid takes on while under the effects of the spell could conceivably be confused for mist or fog in the natural setting of his adventure, so at least he's using consistent imagery. However, he gives no instruction on how to interact with the druid while she's in this form - or for that matter, how the PCs are supposed to react if they see a mysterious cloud following them around all day. Against a stronger use of the ingredient, Tinner would have lost this one, but here he manages to succeed.This leaves us with two ingredients: Broken Mirror and Xenophobia, and the difference in use couldn't be more different. First we have the Broken Mirror. Here, Evilhalfling hides the ingredient in the backstory. Sure, the PCs might see the remnants of the mirror as they're killing beholders, but any interaction with it - heck, any action it's involved in during the entire story, happens before the PCs ever arrive on the scene. There's no ability to prevent the mirror from being broken to repair it later, and there's nothing to gain by discovering it.Tinner, on the other hand, places his scenario in an environment known as the Broken Mirror. Not only are the broken "shards" of lake an extremely creative idea, they provide a way to scale and manage the adventure. Kudos to Tinner.Last is Xenophobia, which the dictionary handily defines as the "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign." Tinner makes his main NPC, the druid, xenophobic because she's never interacted with the outside world (Though I wonder, how is it that she had never met another humanoid other than her mentor? Is he also her father? Did he find her floating in a reed boat? A one line explanation would have cleared that mystery up.). It's an interesting twist, and one that likely going to cause the PCs some grief.In Evilhalfling's adventure, Xenophobia is the force that causes the beholders to fight. Huh? I read the entry three times, and I didn't pick up on that until I finally read the ingredient summary at the end. If you missed it, too, here it is: one beholder has scales, and the other doesn't. That's the source of the xenophobia. I suppose that I would be astounded to see a human walking around with scales, so he's not so far off in his intent - but the execution leaves something to be desired. At the end of the ingredient comparison, I think it's obvious that Tinner is ahead. Can he hold onto the lead as we head into the next phase of the judgment? Let's find out.Let's begin our examination of design and playability with Evilhalfling's Arabian-flavored adventure. He starts off his entry with a classic setup: an utter nobody finds a wish-granting djinni and asks to be Sultan. He elevates the setup by creating a djinni who gets very "creative" with his wish-granting methodology. At this point in reading through, I was set to be impressed. Then I got to the line where the djinni summons the party. One thing that seems to be apparent from both his first and second round entries is that EH has no objection to coercing the party into an adventure.I suspect that EH's gaming group is either extremely laid back, and need this kind of hand-holding, or extremely obstinate, and will only adventure if forced to. I know that if I were part of an adventuring group that suddenly got whisked away in the middle of some other adventure, and then was expected to risk my life as a glorified exterminator, I'd be upset. On top of that, EH never gives the party the option to refuse, politely or no.For the sake of argument, let's assume that the PCs do go along, and do happen to suffer a casualty. At that point, the suggestion from the djinni to use the wish as the means to bring that party member back is just insulting. Some might think that rat-bastardry, but it's not. It's just petty.On top of the clearing out of the palace, there's some suggestion of aligning with one of the two Emirs who are trying to take hold of the city for themselves, but consider how the PCs have just arrived - by djinni magic. If they're not native to this particular part of the world, why would they care? By 10-13th level, they're likely to have far more pressing issues back home.Tinner's adventure begins promisingly, too. He creates a vibrant environment in which to set his adventure, introduces the conflict, and then jumps right into the hooks. In both his first round entry and this one, Tinner exhibits an understanding of what motivates different types of adventuring groups. The hooks that he provides aren't spectacular in any way - in fact, they're pretty plain - but he manages to cover almost all of the bases, and none feel forced. He appeals to general curiosity, to overwhelming greed, to a sense of duty, and to a sense of destiny. When you're looking for hooks, appealing to at least one of the seven deadly sins seems to work more often than not.After the hooks, Tinner jumps into the encounters, and right away I noticed a potential problem. His first encounter, which is really more of an extended hook, involves a druid who wants to communicate, but doesn't want to meet face to face. Depending on which hook the group is following, this could be a great role-playing opportunity, or an exercise in frustration. If the PCs know of the druid's existence, then they should be able to interact with her via the animal messengers, and possibly even try to help her overcome her fear.If, instead, the PCs don't know of the druid's existence, then the group is unlikely to trust her until she shows herself. Animal messengers out of nowhere, especially ones that ask me to go deal with somebody else's problems, are going to seem incredibly fishy. I would have liked more guidance in this section for how to deal with a group that sees the big neon "plot point" sign, but wants to be realistically cautious.If the PCs do manage to make it to the Basilisk, then Tinner makes a suggestion that I consider a huge mistake. He suggests that, if the PCs have been successful in gaining allies for the fight against the Basilisk, then the DM should up the difficulty of the encounter. I think that this only penalizes the PCs for being successful. If the PCs want to spend the time prepping for battle, then they should have an easier time succeeding. In fact, the mark of a good DM would be to make it clear how much more difficult a time they would have had if they hadn't gathered their allies.Despite these potential problems, though, Tinner manages to create an adventure that feels like it would be fun to play. He creates a consistent and believable scenario, and then gives the PCs a reason to care. Evilhalfling, on the other hand, creates a forced scenario, where the PCs are thrust into a situation that they likely couldn't care less about. In Tinner's scenario, the focus in on the actions of the PCs, but in Evilhalfling's scenario, the focus is on the actions of the NPCs - the characters are just along for the ride. In the end, the winner is pretty clear: <spoiler: highlight to read>[spoiler]Tinner[/spoiler]</spoiler> goes on to the finals.</blockquote>

Verification