Search Posts
The universe would implode. that would almost make the universe imploding worth it. hell if we are going to make the universe implode we might as well make it an undead pirate ninja monkey, duelwielding a nunchuk peglog and flaming poo covered shuriken.
The universe would implode.
Nice quote there Clark. In my circle of friends we call it being a "Talker" or being a "Doer." Most people talk about stuff, very few do it. At the end of the day, you want to be a Doer. Plus it's a great way to give your friends hell for flaking out on something. :)
more ninjas to kill said pirates.
Aye. Thank you for the input, it was extremely enlightening and useful when evaluating the entries. I like the idea of having a professional cartographer on the judging panel next year.
I was mildly put off by the assumption that PCs are going to storm the place. But a lot of that could have been fixed by changing the text to say, "If the PCs decide to attack during the performance..." and the such. This was the deal breaker for me. I agree with Clark that the lair is not actually a lair at all, but instead a final encounter. The whole place assumes to PCs charge in there in the middle of the performance. As a PC, that's pretty much the last thing I would do under those circumstances. Instead I'd wait until the show was over and ambush her, knock her out, and drag her off in front of a city magistrate. I'm sure there is someone within the city that can cast detect lie and set the record straight via interrogation. The fact that detect lie exists in this universe pretty much removes any need for haste by the players. So assuming the PCs are smart enough not to go in there in the middle of the performance, there is nothing in the description to address who is in the lair in general, what's going on, where is Sharina when she's not on stage, etc. I highly doubt Sharina would be on stage if the party were to sneak in at 3am when the place is closed. Speaking of which, would she even be there at 3am? This lair reminds me of something an old GM of mine would have written that required the PCs to act in a certain manner. When we didn't do as he planned, he had no idea what to do. This lair doesn't work unless a specific set of circumstances is met, as a result it's not a lair, but an encounter. The other thing that bugged me is the assumption that every important person in the region would 1) be at the show and 2) would be low enough level to be enthralled by Sharina, let alone believe her stories. Most campaign settings have some NPCs with PC levels who would resist the powers of a 6th level bard. Just way too many things about this stick out as unlikely, improbable, and downright contrived. I think overall Neil's work as been solid, and I salute him for attempting to make a lair for Sharina, but the result isn't even a lair, it's a forced encounter that the PCs may not even follow. As a result, I can't support him this round. 
Smurfs are smurfing awesome, like quite a few other things from Belgium such as beer, chocolate, and waffles. Did I mention beer?
I can appreciate that there are several perspective on this as an issue. That's why in many respects it is an interesting trend. I agree with Clark that individuals generate a level of personal investment in a person and that person's work over time. It's hard not to vote for your favorite from a previous round in the same way it is hard not to cheer for a favorite sporting team, win or lose. While I certainly agree with Jason that the quality of adventure proposal should be an overarching concern, part of the reason I think it may be a disservice to some of the contestants is that I'm coming at this issues from how someone would be eliminated in a sporting event contest. For instance, take tennis, just because Player A were to defeat Player B in Round 1, who is arguably better than Player C, doesn't mean if Player A loses to Player C in Round 2, Player A should still advance to round 3 despite being beaten. Either way, it's not sort of thing that can't be taken out of a subjective contest with voting, as there is no way to verify an individuals reasons for voting from round to round. So even if the rules were to require someone to look at the contestants solely based on their submission for that round, there is no way enforce that mechanism. Clearly personal biases and favoritism will play a role in the ultimate result. I just feel for any contestant who loses a round to another contestant whose submission that round was admittedly weaker. I'm not suggesting that the rules should be changed or that the contest is somehow less fair, as there is really nothing that can be done to prevent that particular scenario.
As an avid observer of the entries in this contest, I must say I'm noticing an interesting trend this round. Quite a few of the people voting have admitted to voting for a designer whose work they liked in previous rounds, but whose lair they were unimpressed by, or at least stated they like other lairs better. At a certain point, this causes the round to cease being about which of the Round 4 submissions were most worthy of advancement and more about a popularity contest or a desire to see a specific adventure proposal. Perhaps this is a result of the fact that the playing field has narrowed and the number of votes are more limited, I'm not entirely sure. Nor am I sure that is really keeping with the idea of having rounds at all, as it certainly does a disservice to those contestants who did superior work this round. Anyway, food for thought. |
