incognito
First Post
Round 2, set 1
Quickbeam vs Nifft
Quickbeam and Nifft have submitted similar adventures – which is to be expected as several of the ingredients (Mistaken flag of truce) point to an adventure where our heroes, the PCs, must set to rights a misunderstanding.
First pass: Quickbeam’s web of deceit is more devious, and has more imaginative resolution – the White flag with the magic mouth, triggered to speak when the armor was present is a very tidy wrap up. I like tidy! I also like the Gnomes vs. the dwarves angle, and how the Blind Dire Ape is a central figure in the story. BUt why not have the Ape's tearing out of his own eye's distort the predictions? Quickbeam’s use of Dwarven stone work is an unusual stretch of the ingredient – I liked it for its creativity – but I can’t help but feeling that it was too much of a stretch.
I liked Nifft’s timeline approach better – the PCs can be inserted into his proposed adventure at various times using Nifft’s various hooks. His mistaken flag of truce is quite a bit more believable than Quickbeam’s – even if it is less ingenious. Dwarven stone work is incorporated into the story, in a good, if straightforward manner. I also like the scenery of the island, although it has nothing to do with the ingredient s, it IS pretty (and the 2 tribes are “survivor”- esque)!
I’m not so sure that either sorcerer is very lucky. One is stranded on an island with magical loot of questionable value, with the possibility to two tribes hunting for him, and no wilderness survival skills. The other is a walking a fine line -> creatively interpreting divinations from a temporal oracle, who could reveal him at any time.
Both rods of the python were plot devices, pure and simple – neither added much directly (ie WHY a rod of the python – IronDM hopefuls should always ask themselves that question). If I had to pick, I’d pick Nifft’s because at least his stays a rod – Quickbeams is a staff for a brief moment
A quick mention of the good use of NPCs - particularly Niffts. Not only are their motivations clear as a result of back story, but also because Nifft spells out explicitly how they will react to individuals. good job Nifft!
I didn’t like either stories viscous circle – I was looking for a CLEAR: “chain of events in which the response to one difficulty creates a new problem that aggravates the original difficulty” Nifft's got a conflict that becomes more thorny as the result of both sides losing magic items. Not especially viscious. Quickbeam’s got the sorcerer’s liberally interpreted visions, which if the party overcomes obstacles he’s set in their way, causes him to craft increasingly desperate interpretations to preserve his original lie. I guess I like Quickbeam’s a bit better...but not much.
I don’t like a semi-powerful dwarven sorcerer without a great in-story reason, because of the racial CHA penalty. And a flock of dwarven druids, although druids have a decent amount of stone affecting spells, is somewhat of a reach. Also, it feels like Quickbeam could've gone higher level with this one, and gotten away with it.
I HATE Quickbeam’s conclusion paragraph: “Any use of comprehend languages will reveal that much of Kragen’s statements have been lies, for the runic dwarven stonework holds the true prophecies.” Don’t have it be this easy Quickbeam! That's a L1 spell! After all that set up – have the party figure it out – or have the ape give an odd divination to the party directly (a Dwarf, or a Druid/Ranger – the DM can make the fit!) . And his encounters section seems unneeded (all 11 words of it). I’m not really fond of Nifft’s conclusions either, though. I suspect in all likelihood the party will be fire balled to death before they find the Sorcerer (flying/invisible), or just team up with one side or the other and take out the opposing tribe (survivor style – and probably earn a nice chunk of XP too )
So, what are left with? Well...I was left with my first pass impression: Quickbeam’s plot is more cleverly devious –and is more likely to run true to intent, and so I award the round to him. Funny, because for a full 4 hours, I had sided with Nifft. Oh, and length – guys, seriously. Do what you have to do to get it down, but get it down. My eyes glazed over on both entries. If one had been 500 words shorter, it was so close, they shorter entry would’ve won.
Please post exposition
Quickbeam vs Nifft
Quickbeam and Nifft have submitted similar adventures – which is to be expected as several of the ingredients (Mistaken flag of truce) point to an adventure where our heroes, the PCs, must set to rights a misunderstanding.
First pass: Quickbeam’s web of deceit is more devious, and has more imaginative resolution – the White flag with the magic mouth, triggered to speak when the armor was present is a very tidy wrap up. I like tidy! I also like the Gnomes vs. the dwarves angle, and how the Blind Dire Ape is a central figure in the story. BUt why not have the Ape's tearing out of his own eye's distort the predictions? Quickbeam’s use of Dwarven stone work is an unusual stretch of the ingredient – I liked it for its creativity – but I can’t help but feeling that it was too much of a stretch.
I liked Nifft’s timeline approach better – the PCs can be inserted into his proposed adventure at various times using Nifft’s various hooks. His mistaken flag of truce is quite a bit more believable than Quickbeam’s – even if it is less ingenious. Dwarven stone work is incorporated into the story, in a good, if straightforward manner. I also like the scenery of the island, although it has nothing to do with the ingredient s, it IS pretty (and the 2 tribes are “survivor”- esque)!
I’m not so sure that either sorcerer is very lucky. One is stranded on an island with magical loot of questionable value, with the possibility to two tribes hunting for him, and no wilderness survival skills. The other is a walking a fine line -> creatively interpreting divinations from a temporal oracle, who could reveal him at any time.
Both rods of the python were plot devices, pure and simple – neither added much directly (ie WHY a rod of the python – IronDM hopefuls should always ask themselves that question). If I had to pick, I’d pick Nifft’s because at least his stays a rod – Quickbeams is a staff for a brief moment
A quick mention of the good use of NPCs - particularly Niffts. Not only are their motivations clear as a result of back story, but also because Nifft spells out explicitly how they will react to individuals. good job Nifft!
I didn’t like either stories viscous circle – I was looking for a CLEAR: “chain of events in which the response to one difficulty creates a new problem that aggravates the original difficulty” Nifft's got a conflict that becomes more thorny as the result of both sides losing magic items. Not especially viscious. Quickbeam’s got the sorcerer’s liberally interpreted visions, which if the party overcomes obstacles he’s set in their way, causes him to craft increasingly desperate interpretations to preserve his original lie. I guess I like Quickbeam’s a bit better...but not much.
I don’t like a semi-powerful dwarven sorcerer without a great in-story reason, because of the racial CHA penalty. And a flock of dwarven druids, although druids have a decent amount of stone affecting spells, is somewhat of a reach. Also, it feels like Quickbeam could've gone higher level with this one, and gotten away with it.
I HATE Quickbeam’s conclusion paragraph: “Any use of comprehend languages will reveal that much of Kragen’s statements have been lies, for the runic dwarven stonework holds the true prophecies.” Don’t have it be this easy Quickbeam! That's a L1 spell! After all that set up – have the party figure it out – or have the ape give an odd divination to the party directly (a Dwarf, or a Druid/Ranger – the DM can make the fit!) . And his encounters section seems unneeded (all 11 words of it). I’m not really fond of Nifft’s conclusions either, though. I suspect in all likelihood the party will be fire balled to death before they find the Sorcerer (flying/invisible), or just team up with one side or the other and take out the opposing tribe (survivor style – and probably earn a nice chunk of XP too
)So, what are left with? Well...I was left with my first pass impression: Quickbeam’s plot is more cleverly devious –and is more likely to run true to intent, and so I award the round to him. Funny, because for a full 4 hours, I had sided with Nifft. Oh, and length – guys, seriously. Do what you have to do to get it down, but get it down. My eyes glazed over on both entries. If one had been 500 words shorter, it was so close, they shorter entry would’ve won.
Please post exposition
Last edited:
