Yorker Hills (Squeen)
Twin Falls (Squeen)
I am reviewing these in the order they were submitted. For my review criteria, please check out this post. All reviews will (probably) contain *SPOILERS*; you have been warned! Because these are short (two page) adventures, it is my intention to keep the reviews brief.
Two entries received from the same author, although no author's name appears on either submission (I checked with Gibson who told me they were both penned by Squeen).
Likewise, neither lists a system of use. Or a level range. In fact, both seem to simply be excerpts from some campaign manual.
I'm disqualifying both for multiple rules transgressions (including too few encounter areas). Sorry...maybe next time just focus on doing ONE site correctly?
Not to be argumentative, but hard disagree on rules transgression "call it 8-24" is vastly different than MUST BE 8-24. Lazy review.
ReplyDeleteI'll own that.
DeleteI've got near 40 reviews to get through, and I'm a busy guy...I don't get paid to read and analyze these things. What's more, I don't particularly want to drag this out...the submission deadline was in December; do we want these reviews to go through March? So any EXCUSE I can come up with to disqualify an entry is one I'm going to seize on.
Your entries give me MORE than one excuse. So...thanks?
You can't say an adventure is compatible with a TSR-era system (one of the rule stipulations) if you don't name a system for it.
This looks like you just cut a couple scenarios from an existing publication, rather than creating something specific for the contest. Fine. But you can't even bother to throw a level range on it? Hell...you couldn't even be bothered to change the page numbers? Or put your NAME on your entries?
My review was lazy. So were your submissions.
I gave that information to Commodore with the submissions. Felt less ugly than adding a cover page to what otherwise fit nicely in a compact two-pages spread. Truthfully, you personally might have liked to see that info (you prerogative as a judge), but it wasn't actually stated as required by the rules. Read them again. I did.
Deletehttps://coldlightrpgpress.weebly.com/home/just-threemoredays
Yes, these are excerpts from my campaign book---again, why is that illegal? I guarantee I spent more time (proportionally) sprucing them up than you did on executing your task. If you didn't want to do the job, why sign up? Why piss on fellow hobbyists over minor technicalities? I know I'm not the only one you played "gotcha" with to avoid effort. Being a stickler in a friendly contest doesn't make you look like a hard-ass, just a plain old run-of-the-mill ass.
I knew your measure from posts from Prince's blog. Can't say in too surprised by any of this.
Chow.
Just to be clear: there is nothing "illegal" about excerpting your own campaign book, and that did not figure into my review (or lack thereof).
DeleteLikewise, it wasn't the lack of cover page (a stylistic choice) but, rather, the lack of INFORMATION. Many of the submissions lack a cover page (ugly or not) and still manage to include basic info like the system and level range for which the adventure is designed.
I've already explained why my judging criteria is what it is...unlike the contestants there are no parameters given for judges. Some judges may care more about style or substance...I'm not one of those. You do have four other judges looking at your work; perhaps they will rate your adventure higher.
Here are some other notes on these "adventure sites:"
- both are too small, more on the scale of "lairs" than adventure sites designed to provide "an evening's adventure."
- Yorker's Hill has ZERO treasure. That's a big no-no.
- Twin Falls has TOO MUCH treasure. Also a big no-no.
- can't tell what system Yorker Hills is for, which makes it unable to run given the hyenas have an "overbear-grapple" attack that is unexplained. Also, hit dice for the hyenas vary amongst each other for no reasons given.
- can't tell what system Twin Falls is for, but this is not how giants/ettins work in TSR-era systems in which both appear. Also, what does the note "50% resist magic" under the stirge entry mean?
- TSR-era D&D already includes rules for grappling...so why bother to write/design a grappling system? How is this in aid of the objective of the exercise?
Both adventures show a lack of understanding of D&D, and seem more interested in form over function, in addition to a lack of understanding of the aims and objectives of the contest. If they were not already disqualified, I would give them both low ratings.
Now that's more like it!
ReplyDeleteThe grappling rules are straight from the 1e DMG, just summarized for clarity. I think the original presentation has long been a barrier to their adoption.
The treasure in Yorker Hills is the map that tells you where you should have gone if you are looking for something. It's a bit odd, but the site is an "empty room" in the sense you discover you need to keep searching. Perhaps not as useful to others as I might have hoped. Folks did like the Ring of Chivalry (original magic-item, cursed).
A few other folks have pointed out the Twin Falls treasure was too much. I've taken that to heart. My defense is that it was straight out of the DMG random table (with minor tweaks), except for a Storm Giant, not a Hill Giant. My players are above 7th level. None of that loot would titillate them all that much (probably sold for XP). High values gems are a requirement for portable level-advancing loot in AD&D's GP=XP model.
The 50% magic resistance (giants, eels, stirges) is an after-effect of living in vicinity of the item in the Lake. In fact, it's the mechanism that allowed the ettin to split into two separate giants (or at least to my imagining).
While this is AD&D (my preferred system), I grew up playing OD&D (0e) in the 70's. The rules (as they existed in the LLB) where very flexible when it came to content creation. I can see you prefer everything to be straight out of the books, without variation---whereas I see the 1e MM to be stats for the average creature & diversity infinite to keep the game fresh. Likewise BtB magic-items are a bit stale (to me) after seeing them 40 years. Even in the late 70's my (excellent) DM's game was filled with original content.
I accept your low ratings, without umbrage. Truthfully, I expected them when I decided to publish my entries "as is" to the community. I was mostly just curious how it would be received. What do people want? Thanks to your revised review, I now know that for you (and whatever portion of the fan-base you represent).