Iron Chef equivalent for designed encounters?

[Bucky]

We've had optimization contests for PCs and villains. As far as I know, these all covered a character across an entire career.

On the other hand, the vast majority of 'builds' that are actually played are single-encounter antagonists. They fight a party once, under specific circumstances. They may be copied later to save effort - indeed, most encounter builds are directly recycled or pulled out of a monster manual. But an encounter built around one or more purpose-designed characters can do far better than recycled ones in a new environment, which is why bosses tend to be purpose-built.

The criteria for a fun and memorable encounter are different from those for a well-optimized character. Being too powerful is bad, because it makes the challenge unfair. The GM can bend the rules a bit to make a build work, and it's not "cheese". The 'same game test' becomes a matter of being fair for a wide range of parties, neither being trivial nor overwhelming. And so forth.

Is there any interest in participating in or judging an encounter-building competition?

[Falontani]

Depends on timing, my available time, and how exactly it was set up. But I could see myself competing.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Yeah that sounds cool. A focus more on synergies between builds than a single build across its career; maybe even detail the specific environment the fight takes place in... yeah, very cool.

[Bucky]

How much "secret ingredient" would be necessary?

As I see it, the minimum reasonable prompt is a target CR ("10"), a context ("a random encounter in a dungeon") and a purpose ("attrition, to keep the PCs from having total control over the pace of exploration; the encounter periodically repeats if they linger in the area to long.").

Contests typically pick a mechanical ingredient on top of such things. However, the encounters wouldn't have any complete 20-level builds, so something like a prestige class would be very restrictive. Is some sort of additional ingredient required, beyond the minimum above?

[Falontani]

I'd say that is enough, or you could put further theme, like what plane, what the pc's quest objective is, or why the monsters are here

[Bucky]

Let's talk about grading criteria. Here's what I have so far:
Power: The encounter should be effective at its purpose. The encounter should be challenging without being unfair to a variety of parties.
Originality: The encounter should be a distinctive and novel experience from the players' perspective, even for experienced players.

The other two traditional categories, "Elegance" and "Use of Secret Ingredient(s)", aren't as clear. There is no "secret ingredient", nor are there a fixed number of level slots to fill for efficiency to be an issue, nor are minor deviations from RAW discouraged from the GM seat.

And there are a few dangling criteria:

The players should have a good idea of what they've gotten into early in the fight, so that they can make informed tactical decisions.
The encounter should be easy enough for a less-experienced GM to run. (probably part of Elegance)
The encounter should be a thematic fit for the situation.

Do y'all have any suggestions on how to turn this into a proper rubric?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

The players should have a good idea of what they've gotten into early in the fight, so that they can make informed tactical decisions.
The encounter should be a thematic fit for the situation.


Could probably roll these two into a single category called "Appropriateness" or some-such; how well does it fit thematically with the tone of the campaign, logically with the story of the campaign, and mechanically as a match for the PCs. Could probably add ease of use for the GM to this category as well with relatively few stretch marks.

[MalsvirT]

I just got here, but i'd be really interested in competing in something like this. Encounters are the ultimate meat of adventures i believe.
Some limitations could be "use a least one creature of this type" or "this encounter happens in an certain environment" or "use only monsters from this manual".
Would this be 3.5 only, or could it be open to Pathfinder material?

[Bucky]

Would this be 3.5 only, or could it be open to Pathfinder material?

Good question. It wouldn't be unreasonable for a GM to adapt Pathfinder material for a 3.5 campaign. On the other hand, it'd make judging harder on the judges. While I'd be inclined to allow it, I'd like feedback from judges before giving a definitive "yes".

Or were you suggesting that the competition switch between Pathfinder and 3.5 episodes?

[hmwd]

Or were you suggesting that the competition switch between Pathfinder and 3.5 episodes?

I would be in favour of seeing something like this alternate between Pathfinder and 3.5. I'm a lot more familiar with Pathfinder (I've never played 3.5) and I think some other people must be too.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

I would be in favour of seeing something like this alternate between Pathfinder and 3.5. I'm a lot more familiar with Pathfinder (I've never played 3.5) and I think some other people must be too.

As someone with practically zero experience with Pathfinder, that sounds cool to me. Learn a bit about the system, and even if I prove utterly incompetent with it I still get an opportunity to build every other round.

[Melayl]

While I'm not sure I'd have time (or skill) to compete, this sounds incredibly entertaining.

I would like to see it alternate between 3.5 and pathfinder as well. And CR's from low to high.

It would be even cooler if someone took the winners (and other entries) and formed adventure paths out of them...

[Silva Stormrage]

I would also be interested in such a contest, one thing I would note is that power might be hard to determine without a baseline. For some groups a well built BFC caster will spell instant death while another expects that as a common threat. It might be nice to have a set of PC characters to use as a baseline for power reasons so everyone is working off the same set of PCs.

As well as how much DM fiat is allowed for certain mechanics/encounter design.