What's today? The second? Oh, good.
Between October 1st and December 31st,
Ben Gibson ran his second
"Adventure Site Contest" (ASCII). Welp, the submission period is past and for the judges (including me) it's time to get down to the judging. Here were the basic criteria for the contest:
1) a small adventure site, pluggable as a hex or side crawl and appropriate for an evening's play.
2) no more than three pages in length (not counting maps and/or cover page); suggested range of encounters from 5 to 25.
3) system must be TSR-era D&D edition (or "a very close retroclone") OR an "old-school sci-fi" game "like Traveller or Stars Without Number."
29 contest entries were received in total; all appear to meet the basic requirements although five of them exceed the recommended encounter range. While this may seem like a minor detail, the point of the ASC is to make a small adventure, suitable for "a satisfying night's D&D session." 30+ encounters is, for me, a couple sessions in length...maybe one "all-nighter" (6+ hours) for a dedicated group that can buckle down (or a hand-wavy DM that skimps over material). But this will be a minor consideration in my judging standards.
Here's the breakdown of adventures:
12 AD&D adventures (including one Oriental Adventures themed)
1 OSRIC/1E adjacent
2 OD&D
2 Swords & Wizardry/OD&D adjacent
1 for Seven Voyages of Zylarthen (nominally OD&D adjacent)
4 B/X
2 OSE/BX adjacent
1 Labyrinth Lord w/AEC (B/X-AD&D adjacent)
1 ACKS (nominally BECMI adjacent)
1 Stars Without Number
1 for "Classic D&D" (not a system) that I'll probably judge harshly
1 adventure that lists no system which I'll probably disqualify out-of-hand
I will review all the entries here on Ye Old Blog, but only the top eight make the book, and so I will only be recommending that number to Ben. Contestants should be happy to know that my judgments carry no more weight than any other judge, so just because I dislike what you've written does NOT mean you can't win. Bear that in mind if/when my review of your adventure seems...mm..."harsh."
Here are my personal judging criteria:
#1 Adherence To and Use Of indicated system for indicated level range
When a Dungeon Master sits down to run a game of [insert edition] D&D with an adventure module, they need to be able to count on that module working with the system. Yes, there are plenty of DMs that offer Frankenstein, hodge-podge games kit-bashed from multiple sources: that ain't my problem. Does the product match the advertised package? Are you competent at designing for the indicated system? I'm a stickler for this because it is FRUSTRATING to pick up an adventure and find that you have to "fix" problems that a laissez-faire designer has allowed to run roughshod.
A good chunk of this will be looking at treasure ranges offered for PCs of the indicated level range. Gaming takes time...is the adventure worth the time of players interested in playing hard and advancing their characters?
#2 Challenge Over Milquetoast
Assuming the design is competent and the treasure range is good for the system/levels indicated, how challenging is the adventure? Generally, I'm going to favor dangerous environments over pushovers...though if you go too far (say a dungeon full of poisonous critters for a party of low-level characters with no access to neutralize poison) you're going to get dinged. However, all other things being equal, I like adventures that push players and force them to sweat a bit (and cooperate with each other). The chance of absolute disaster (i.e. the infamous "TPK") should always be on the table for the over-ambitious, un-cooperative, and dreadfully stupid player group. Without risk there's no thrill.
On the other hand, risk is no good without reward. Fortune should favor the bold...if the treasure looks weak compared to the danger involved, I'm going to be unhappy.
#3 Creative Theming and Cohesion of Design
I'm listing my criteria in order of importance, and "originality" and "flavor" comes in a distant #3 to design and challenge. D&D is an experiential game...we want to give the players an experience they'll remember. An edge-of-your-seat fight with a goblin horde that forces them to use every resource in their bag can be surprisingly effective even if it's "just goblins." That being said, there is a place for creativity and theming, and an adventure site that links these together is good for verisimilitude which serves to HEIGHTEN the players' experience. If there are disparate creatures in the dungeon, they should have a reason for being together; there should be an interactive quality to encounter design. Does that matter as much as GOOD design and pressing challenges? No. But it does matter.
This bit also takes into account map readability and usability of format (things that can, generally, be adjusted easily).
SO...that's how I'm going to be judging these adventures. I'd like to get through one per day...which would allow me to finish all the reviews by the end of the month...but I'm not sure my time's going to allow me to keep up with that grind (we'll see).
I would prefer to review them in sections based on category of system (for example, do a review of ALL the 1E adventures then ALL the B/X adventures, etc.), but I think it's probably more fair to judge them in the order they were received? I mean, John Nash got his adventure in almost from the jump (October 4th)...he's been waiting a loooong time for his reviews. Does he even remember he entered a contest? A lot has happened since October 4th!
Still, the vast majority of adventures weren't submitted till mid-December, with two-thirds of them coming in after Christmas! Tell you what: I will review the pre-December submissions in the order they were received, and THEN I'll do everyone else by category (in the order received). That would give us the following order:
- Sausages of the Devil Swine (John Nash)
- The Lair of the Lamia (J. Blasso-Gieseke)
- The Caverns of Despair (Kurt)
- The Cleft in the Crag (J. Allen)
After that we'll go AD&D (and 1E adjacent), B/X (and Basic adjacent), OD&D (etc.), and finally the Stars Without Number entry ("Galactic Funtime"), which was the very last entry received and which I confess I'm not too keen to review anyway. Blog posts should...hopefully...start tomorrow.
One last thing. All my reviews will be without playtesting. As I've written (many times) before, it is extremely difficult (if not impossible) to tell just how good...or bad...an adventure is without playing it. Adventures are designed to be played...D&D is a game that is meant to be played. I will do my best to give analysis based on my past experience, but NONE of these reviews will be based on actual experience of play. As such, folks should take my musings and critiques with a very LARGE grain of salt. Things I think bad might be wonderful in play; things I think look great might be terribly clunky. Only actual play of an adventure will provide a real idea of how well it's been designed.
All right, that's enough. Will try to have the first post up tomorrow.