While these review posts have been rolling out on the daily, I actually wrapped up reading, reviewing, and writing them back on January 13th...I didn't want to overwhelm everyone with multiple posts at once.
Welp, it's been a few days (I'm writing this post on January 17th), and I've had a moment to reflect on the contest and the various entries and compile some thoughts on the whole exercise.
The original ASC only had 18 entries...this year's has 30. I was not a judge in the prior year, but reading through the Adventure Sites I compilation, I can examine the top eight and compare their quality to my (personal) top 8-10 of this year's crop. Here are some things that (I think) are worth noting:
50% of the first ASC's top entries were written for AD&D, and all were "solid D&D"...the kind of entry I'd award four(+) stars. My only quibble with any of them, really, is that Lipply's Tavern needs to be set to a higher level than 2nd-4th based on the amount of danger AND the potential treasure take; but it's still a great adventure. Of the other four, one was S&W (also very good), two were for some form of Basic (though only one would get a 3* from me), and the last is a monstrosity that I would not have included, had it been my competition.
In comparison, less than half of the 30 entries for ASCII were for AD&D, and while four of those did crack my "top eight," only one of those would have rated as "solid" (4+) for me...the others were merely "playable" (3*). The other four in my top...two B/X and two OD&D...received better ratings generally.
Now, I want to choose my next words carefully: while there was definitely a lot of enthusiasm and creativity on display in ASC2...and I mean a LOT...I found myself somewhat disappointed by the overall results. The average number of stars awarded was 2.30 out of 5 possible and, just to be clear, THREE stars is what I deemed as the minimum for playable D&D. As in, an adventure that if you sat down at a table with the designated rulebook(s) you would be able to run the adventure for your table, without needing to cobble things "on the fly." If I removed the Stars Without Number entry (because it doesn't really fit with the overall treasure-seeking goals of old edition D&D), that number drops to 2.28. That's...not fantastic.
The best of the bunch (surprisingly to me) were the five OD&D/S&W entries: they scored a 2.80; three of the five were in the top 15, two of which had 4* ratings, and a fourth (The Two Spires) barely missing the cut. The fourteen AD&D/OSRIC entries ended up with 2.29, while the eight Basic entries clocked only a 2.00 average. If you were only to look at the best 18 (the same number as the submissions for the first ASC), the average is 2.94...but I'm sure that even the original contest had a few stinkers in it.
Would the ratings have been higher if we'd had some of last year's "best" writers return? Hard to say, but it's true no entries were submitted by Scott Marcley, Trent Smith, Grutzi, and GiantGoose. However, even past best nominees (DangerIsReal, Peter McDevitt, and Stooshie & Stramas) had a more difficult go of it, this time around.
One difference that really stood out was the extra pages that ASC2 entrants were afforded. Last year's submissions were allowed three pages total, including the map...this year, we received three pages of text PLUS maps (some entries had two or three pages of maps!). This led to bigger entries, many of which stretched well outside the parameters of "adventure site," instead being more "mini-module." And for many authors, this brought with it a compulsion to create elaborate backgrounds, rumors, plots, NPCs, etc. The focus of "adventure site" is (with the possible exception of Lipply's) clearly evident in the original ASC's final compilation. For ASC2? Not so much.
If I was going to advise Mr. Gibson of ways to improve the contest for ASC3, I'd tell him to tighten the parameters of the contest. I'd tell him to limit the contestants to an 8-15 encounter range...about all that can be done in "an evening's play," while still being larger than a simple "lair." I would limit the entries to ONE PAGE of maps, TWO PAGES of text, plus ONE PAGE of "appendix" to detail non-system monsters, treasures, or NPCs...four pages total unless authors wanted to attach a cover sheet. Lock it down, dial it in...I think that would help the designers set achievable objectives.
For the authors, I'd offer the following advice: pick a system, learn a system, write for the system. I don't care that "that's not how I run my game at home." You are not writing for your home table! If you want to be a game designer/author, then you have to kowtow to your audience. My home game has a bunch of odds and ends and houserules, too. But when I write an adventure for the public (for a contest like ASC or NAP, for example), I can't put in my "house rules." Characters need alignment. Magic-users need the read magic spell. Etc. Allow your audience (the judges, the customers) decide what THEY want to modify to fit their Frankenstein mash-up at home...don't you do it for them!
And if you don't already have a system that you know and love...why not? It's D&D, not rocket science. Learn B/X...it's the easiest and cheapest...and write for that, while you're learning the AD&D game. Or if you want something a little looser, check out S&W. I was impressed by the S&W adventures I saw in this contest, both how people used it and what it allowed.
Or don't, I guess. You don't have to take my advice (duh). Heck, I'm not even sure Ben would want me judging again (after downgrading his adventure), so you needn't worry (much) about me saying "mean things" about your hard-wrought efforts.
REGARDLESS (i.e. regardless of whether or not you place any value in my advice AND regardless of whether or not I'm passing judgment on adventures in the future): please remember that the proof of whether or not ANY adventure is "good"...or worth a damn at all...is in the playing of the adventure. You really don't know HOW an adventure will play until you sit down at the table with some friends (new or old) and give it a whirl. Everything else...treasure counts, "interesting" encounters, level ranges, etc...is just guesstimating. At best.
Anyway.
Fun little contest. Nice to see so many people doing awesome stuff. Lots of variety, different styles, nice maps, creative ideas. People playing these old D&D games are a pretty marvelous bunch...still. And that's great...that's hopeful. And all the enthusiasm...double the number of submissions as last year!...is also very cool. It would seem that a lot of folks have been hipped to Ben's contest, either through his web site, or the CAG server, or other people discussing it on-line. That's wonderful to see. Very positive.
Yeah.
All right, that's enough for now. I'm scheduling this to post February 3rd. Hope people found something useful in my reviews. For other reviews...focusing on different aspects of the same adventures, and many offering differing opinions from Yours Truly...you should check out the following links:
Cheers, folks!
: )
No comments:
Post a Comment