GITP Scenario Design Contest - A Matter of Life and Death

[Frozen_Feet]

Giant in the Playground scenario design contest:
A Matter of Life and Death

http://www.vinylrecords.ch/I/IR/Iron_Maiden/Matter/matter-life-death-10.jpg

Welcome to the (in my recollection, first) scenario design contest in these boards! For you D&D folks, "scenario" means the same as "adventure".

General rules are below:

Application for the contest will be open from 12th to 31st of January! Contestants should post their interest in this thread within that time.
The contest is also looking for judges! The application for judges will also be open from 12th of January, but will continue until 28th of February.
Upon 1st of February, each contestant will be given a random song from the Iron Maiden album A Matter of Life and Death. The creator of this thread will post knowledge of which song is assigned to which contestant during 1st of February. The contestants will then have until 1st of March to craft a scenario based on the song they were given.
At 1st of March, completed scenarios will be randomly distributed to judges. The judges then have until 1st of April time to playtest and rate the scenario they were given.
From 1st of March to 1st of April, there will also be a public vote, where members of these forums can vote for their favorite.
During 1st of April, the judges will post their reviews, and the result of the vote will be announced.



Information to contestants:


The theme for your scenario will primarily be dictated by the song you're given. However, to maintain some level of thematic unity, look at the album cover.
You scenario should aim to fill one 4 hour gaming session.
The text of your scenario, including sample characters, adaptation notes and such, should fit within the character limit of one forum post, that is 50 000 characters.
You are allowed a second post for housing any maps, pictures or other illustrations you may draw. (This is to conserve characters; links to image hosting sites can get quite long.) This second post should ideally contain no text (save perhaps for scenario name). All reference marks should be in the pictures themselves.
You will post your work on the forums, in a thread which will be opened when the contest proper begins.
Plagiarism is banned. So is using images you didn't draw yourself, with the exception of tile-based map-making programs (should you desire to use them). In blunter words: draw your own art, dammit!
A contestant can double as a judge; however, you will get someone else's work to test and rate.
Your scenario may be for any RPG system; however, you may want to read the rating criteria (below)



Rating criteria (for the judges to use):

Each scenario will be given a score from 1 to 5 in the following fields, with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best:

Ease of Use: This basically grades mechanics of a scenario, and how easy it was for the judge to use them. Remember: you won't know what games the judge will have available, so you might want to keep an eye on adaptability.
Plot: the judge's impression the storyline of your scenario (should there be any) and writing quality of any NPCs you include.
Freedom: This grades how much influence the players can have on the overall course of your scenario.
Graphics: The quality of any illustrations (character pictures, maps, graphs) you include, as well as formatting of your text.
Entertainment value: This measures three things, really: the clarity of your scenario's goals, the players' interest in them, and how much material the judge has to come up during play to cover gaps in your material.
Economy of time: How well the material you provided filled the 4 hour slot.
Heavy Metal: Does it feel like the scenario was based on an Iron Maiden song?
Overall score: the weighed average of the ratings (see below).

As I will serve as one of the judges, here is how I will decide the score for various fields:

Ease of Use: the less I have to learn new rules not contained in your text, the better. If I can grab an assortment of random 5 people and play the game with only the material you provided, that's a 5. If I have to buy and learn GURPS, that's a 1.
Plot: If even one character you include makes me want to play them and feel like they can carry 4 hours of gaming, you get a good score. If I feel the scenario would be better if I replaced the characters with random models, or if it feels like a lame imitation of Saving Private Ryan, you get a low score.
Freedom: if I run your scenario with two groups who come up with two completely different ways to approach your scenario, and it still stays within parameters you laid out, you get a high score. If the players missing one clue makes rest of your scenario unusable or irrelevant, you get low score.
Graphics: you get points for two things: for your graphics being useful, and for them being pretty. If your maps are an incomprehensible mess and your characters look like doodles of old Picasso, you get a low score.
Entertainment value: You get a high score if my players follow the most obvious path you set with enthusiastic grins on their faces. If my players ask "but seriously, what are we supposed to do?" after two hours of their characters not doing anything, you get a low score. You also get a low score if they make their characters have sex in a dark basement rather than involve them with your material.
Economy of time: If have to start pulling stuff out of my behind at the two hours mark, you get a low score. Likewise, if at four hours it feels like we're barely halfway through and I have to end the session in a cliffhanger or anti-climax, you get a low score.
Heavy Metal: If my players start singing Trooper in the midst of the session, you get a high score. If they ask me "so which Shoujo anime you based this on?", I will murder your unborn children.


Rules for judges:


You may also participate as a contestant. However, your work will be given to someone else to rate.
When given a scenario, you are supposed to play it at least once.
After playing, you write a review. It should include four parts: your initial impression of the scenario before playing, playtest session report, your thoughts after the play, and scoring.
When giving the overall score, you simply average your ratings on the different categories. However, if you feel like it, you can weight the results in favor of some area or areas, by either picking two areas and counting their averages twice, or picking one area and counting it four times.

To give an example: if you rated a scenario 4,4,4,3,1,2,3,4, the ordinary average would be 25/7=3.57. But if you feel the area you rated 1 is especially detrimental, you can count it four times, ending with 28/10=2.8. Or, if the first two areas were so exemplary the rest hardly matters, you would end up with 33/9=3.666.

You will post your review in a voting thread once the contest approaches its end.


Both players and judges will be allowed to give their opinion in the public vote as well. Rules are subject to discussion and change until 1st of February. All days end at 00:00 GMT+-0.

[smasher0404]

Posting Interest in Competing, as a guy who has never gotten to DM before, this feels like a good place to get critiques on adventure building before leaping right in.

[Frozen_Feet]

That is certainly one benefit. Welcome aboard. :smallsmile:

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Okay. First things first.

This is an interesting idea, and I quite like it.

Now on to the negative things.

I feel that if you want a CONTEST rather than an EXERCISE, you really need to work on your rules. These seem haphazardly created and prone to inherent imbalance at almost every level.


Upon 1st of February, each contestant will be given a random song from the Iron Maiden album A Matter of Life and Death. The creator of this thread will post knowledge of which song is assigned to which contestant during 1st of February. The contestants will then have until 1st of March to craft a scenario based on the song they were given.

First concern. This could potentially mean unequal footing. One of the nice things about previous contests is that everyone starts with a completely level playing field. A shifting playing field is potentially interesting, but inherently imbalanced.


At 1st of March, completed scenarios will be randomly distributed to judges. The judges then have until 1st of April time to playtest and rate the scenario they were given.

Serious concern here. First, only one judge per scenario means that a scenario A: might not even get properly judged, and B: that the results will be completely skewed based on the judge's enjoyment of the only scenario he/she gets to experience. Finally, this is asking a judge to arrange a multi-player scenario in a month's time, possibly with a system he or she doesn't even play/enjoy/know.


The theme for your scenario will primarily be dictated by the song you're given. However, to maintain some level of thematic unity, look at the album cover.

This is definitely odd, given that you've already given them their inspiration from the song name.


You scenario should aim to fill one 4 hour gaming session.

Session length varies tremendously based on system, GM/Player familiarity with said system, GM familiarity with the scenario, and the GM & Players themselves. And by "varies tremendously" I mean I've known groups to take 3-4+ times as long as others to run through the same material.


Each scenario will be given a score from 1 to 5 in the following fields, with 1 being the worst and 5 being the best.

Hard to judge from best-to-worst when you only read one scenario. Perhaps some scale would be good:

1: Poor. Bad concept and/or sloppy implementation which severely detracted from the gaming experience.
2: Below average. Concept and/or implementation wasn't terrible, but failed to measure up to even an expected "average" adventure.
3: Met expectations. Function and/or enjoyable, but nothing to write home about.
4: Exceeded expectations. Above average concept and execution resulting in a superior gaming experience.
5: Masterful. Set a new bar for the reviewer, and/or resulting in an incredibly fun and memorable gaming session.


Ease of Use: This basically grades mechanics of a scenario, and how easy it was for the judge to use them. Remember: you won't know what games the judge will have available, so you might want to keep an eye on adaptability.

Adaptability in this will basically deny any system-specific material and reduce this to a story-path event. No scenario designer can design for any given system without effectively tossing mechanics aside completely. I would really recommend either making this a no-mechanic scenario contest or making it game specific (perhaps by requiring judge familiarity with a specific game). Otherwise this gets impossible FAST.


Freedom: This grades how much influence the players can have on the overall course of your scenario.

Greater freedom equates to either more words of more ambiguity. 50,000 isn't actually a lot for something this complex, so I'm concerned that participants will be hard pressed to produce a quality product that allows for player freedom. Not necessarily a point against your rules, but a definite concern.


[quote]Graphics: The quality of any illustrations (character pictures, maps, graphs) you include, as well as formatting of your text.

This encourages people bad with graphic design and/or illustration to simply not include any. I'd really take this out of the rating system entirely, or rate it FAR less than the others and judge it merely on "usability," as then visual presentation isn't really important, as even an ugly-but-usable graphic will at least score an average number of points.


Entertainment value: *snip*...and how much material the judge has to come up during play to cover gaps in your material.

50,000 words plus emphasis on player freedom basically necessitates that judges will either score the creator low on player freedom, or have to deduct points for having to come up with stuff on the fly.


Economy of time: How well the material you provided filled the 4 hour slot.

See previous comments about time frames for different groups.


Ease of Use: the less I have to learn new rules not contained in your text, the better. If I can grab an assortment of random 5 people and play the game with only the material you provided, that's a 5. If I have to buy and learn GURPS, that's a 1.

Here's a good example of why this doesn't work then. What if it IS a really easy GURPS adventure, and just requires the player to know the system? What if it's a FATE Accelerated game and the GM just refuses to learn and/or hates FATE?


Heavy Metal: If my players start singing Trooper in the midst of the session, you get a high score. If they ask me "so which Shoujo anime you based this on?", I will murder your unborn children.

What if I don't know Iron Maiden? What if the NAME of the song inspires me, but the rest is something entirely different? Is either of those bad and/or deserving of a low score?


To give an example: if you rated a scenario 4,4,4,3,1,2,3,4, the ordinary average would be 25/7=3.57. But if you feel the area you rated 1 is especially detrimental, you can count it four times, ending with 28/10=2.8. Or, if the first two areas were so exemplary the rest hardly matters, you would end up with 33/9=3.666.

...um, what? :smallconfused:

You're suggest a system where a 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 1 game could score between a 2.9 (with the 1 weighted as a full 4) or a 3.63. That's a difference of about .7, or 18% of the total possible value. That seems like a crazy level of variance, especially since it's a single judge reviewing a single scenario in a vacuum of review (with no other scenarios to judge against and possibly only passing knowledge of the system).

Further, your default weights things like graphics equally with things like plot and entertainment value. That seems inappropriate for a scenario contest, where the fun and adventure of the scenario seem the most important.

I'd honestly suggest something more like this as a grading rubric (leaving aside the system bit for now, as I have issues with that):

Ease of Implementation -- X out of 10
Ease of Implementation judges how easy the scenario was to run once the system is known on a rudimentary level. An "average" score is a scenario that is usable, but may require multiple references to rulebooks to cover scenario-specific interactions and may require a moderate amount of ad-libbing. A "high" score is a scenario that is effectively self-contained outside of standard system rules, and works to provide the GM with the appropriate rules, references, and plot points whenever possible. A "low" score requires constant rules reference for things that *should* be included in the scenario, or requires constant GM intervention to resolve plot holes and/or missing information.

..and so forth. I'm not going to write the whole thing out unless you're interested, but the general idea is that you give a framework with weighted point values by default (with Plot, Ease of Implementation, and other crucial things worth significantly more than, say, "graphics"), and then a brief description of what the "poor," "average," and "amazing" entry look like.

[Grimsage Matt]

I'm thinking of a D20 modern. Or at least converting some of the tech for 3.5 would be.... intresting.

I don't know Iron Maiden, but I have a few ideas. And would using Orcus as the main villian (not a boss though) be too much of a cliche?