Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Berandor" data-source="post: 98759" data-attributes="member: 225">Reply to reply <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> :Actually I shouldn't have included &quot;rankings&quot;, and I will delete them soon.I liked the setup, as I said.However, in the situation described therein, with the setup ending with &quot;...and the ogre lifts his head to strike&quot;, I fear my players would wait the surprise round to see what happens.Even if not, what if the Ogre won initiative? He wouldn't hit his mistress, and the scam was up.Rank no.6 seems harsh, but I think it was all very close - I even likes the Dwarven Druid encounter (down by the sea) but due to my giving ranks, it landed at 8.That said, while I look at the technical side of the entry (competition rules, D&amp;D rules, clarity of the entry), I do not rate the technical side higher than the content side, but mostly equal.I noticed that &quot;Culinary delights&quot; didn't list the wizard's skills, and I thought the description of the inn WAS rather vague.However, I relished in this encounter so much, it really hit my nerves, and these flaws didn't flaw my reading (or imagining playing) experience a lot.As you said, this is also a test for future adventures. IMO an adventure with a compelling plot can be forgiven of some (not too many, ot too big) technical errors, while a technically sound adventure with a not-so-decent plot is still boring.NOTE: The above paragraph is phrased as it is on purpose, so as to drive home a point about hidden criticism. It seems as if I remarked on &quot;Scum&quot; as being a boring adventure, but I didn't.The same seemed to be true in TrizzlWizzl's response, where I got the impression of hidden stabs against my judgement due to the choice of words.I think it was not in TW's intent to do so, but I wanted to remark on it nonetheless.NOTE 2: F-I-V-E...HUNDRED! 500! I am the greatest! (Uhm... don't take this seriously)Berandor</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Berandor, post: 98759, member: 225"] Reply to reply :) : Actually I shouldn't have included "rankings", and I will delete them soon. I liked the setup, as I said. However, in the situation described therein, with the setup ending with "...and the ogre lifts his head to strike", I fear my players would wait the surprise round to see what happens. Even if not, what if the Ogre won initiative? He wouldn't hit his mistress, and the scam was up. Rank no.6 seems harsh, but I think it was all very close - I even likes the Dwarven Druid encounter (down by the sea) but due to my giving ranks, it landed at 8. That said, while I look at the technical side of the entry (competition rules, D&D rules, clarity of the entry), I do not rate the technical side higher than the content side, but mostly equal. I noticed that "Culinary delights" didn't list the wizard's skills, and I thought the description of the inn WAS rather vague. However, I relished in this encounter so much, it really hit my nerves, and these flaws didn't flaw my reading (or imagining playing) experience a lot. As you said, this is also a test for future adventures. IMO an adventure with a compelling plot can be forgiven of some (not too many, ot too big) technical errors, while a technically sound adventure with a not-so-decent plot is still boring. NOTE: The above paragraph is phrased as it is on purpose, so as to drive home a point about hidden criticism. It seems as if I remarked on "Scum" as being a boring adventure, but I didn't. The same seemed to be true in TrizzlWizzl's response, where I got the impression of hidden stabs against my judgement due to the choice of words. I think it was not in TW's intent to do so, but I wanted to remark on it nonetheless. NOTE 2: F-I-V-E...HUNDRED! 500! I am the greatest! (Uhm... don't take this seriously) Berandor [/QUOTE]

Verification