I'll do one.
Actually, forget I said that. I didn't read all the restrictions (were they edited in later or did I just space them?). I thought we might be able to write a scenario that we wanted to write for other players. I don't really see the point of putting all those arbitrary restrictions on stuff. It all seems a bit needless. I had fewer restrictions put on some of the stuff I did for FFG.
Honestly, I'd suggest you rethink that, because your two main goals, contradict each other to a degree: do you want to encourage people to write a scenario or do you want to have convention scenarios?
Why put a minimum content on? Lots of people don't have time to do very long scenarios. Also, I know from experience working up to wordcount can take a while. Now, I can toss off 20,000 words no problem, but for people not used to that, 5,000 words can be a lot. Similarly, why stop people at 13,000 words?
Why restrict it to a convention scenario. For a start, WFRP3 isn't all that convention friendly, and istm there are things you have to do for a convention scenario in regards to set up and hooks, which don't usually apply to campaign play and I would suggest that campaign play scenarios would be much more desirable to the average fan.
Why 2 columns, I mean really?
I wouldn't disagree with you about the columns, minimum word length or convention-focussed stipulations, which I too think are a bit arbitrary.
I do think a maximum word length stipulation is a good idea, because it does prevent people from just writing up their campaign notes and giving you a great long messy article to read. I also think a good short scenario tends to see more use than a lengthy one (easier to drop into campaigns and conventions and so on). An upper limit of 13,000 words strikes me as a decent limit in that regard.
Because it's a competition I do think it is a good idea to tell people what sort of thing impresses you in a scenario - then you can judge according to such criteria, but the more formal restrictions you put on it the fewer people will join and the more may drop out or send in something half-baked.
So I would say Emrikol would be best placed saying "I want people to adopt these strict rules (deadline, wordcount and so on), and have these informal guidelines (playable in 4 hours, could make for a good convention game, clearly formatted and so on) in mind when doing their scenarios".
This way people wouldn't be put off by stipulations they didn't care for - but they have fair warning about why they might not place highly if they eschew a number of the guidelines.
I found that a very helpful approach when I ran similar competitions, especially when it came to judging between two scenarios of very similar quality - I could just say "well they are more or less as good as each other, but contestant A stuck to the brief more so he gets to win" in such instances.
However, I do think such an approach may be undermined by Emrikol's decision to have a commitee of judges, which I think is a mistake. 1 judge (him) would be better, he could appoint people to help provide him with second opinions of course, but really there should be a single judge who makes his criteria for judging clear.
I agree with the post above. Personally, I am not fussed about winning anything, I just fancy writing a scenario that others might get some fun out of too.
Guidelines for criteria etc are useful, and I can see that it may be easier if there was one judge who perhaps just got feedback from others.
Or perhaps you could split the competition into two categories and have submissions of one sheet scenarios such as the ones suggested by doc_cthulhu in another thread?
I'll be the dissenter (as usual,) and say that I like the idea of using the contest to build a library of convention scenario content. I actually bought a box set specifically to take to conventions, but I'm not a big fan of FFG's short scenarios, and I seldom end up having time to write a quick story to bring with me, so it hasn't gotten used. I'd definitely run stuff at the cons I attend if I had a handful of appropriate scenarios to use.
On the other hand, I LOVE one-pagers as well, so I suppose I could also enthusiastically get behind that, too.
Whatever--hats off to getting a contest started in any form!
Come visit my WFRP/RPG blog, Stuff for Nonsense. I'm updating it again, I promise!
Good questions about this stuff. Trust me we thought long and hard about the formatting and when we chose to sponsor this. We chose the "convention-playable" theme and formatting for several deliberate reasons.
* Convention-playable scenario. WFRP3 has only one full-length convention scenario (journey to bfp). There are ENDLESS wfrp2 scenarios written with every theme imaginable. We don't need "just another scenario." Our goal is to grow this hobby through an expanded convention presence for WFRP3. As convention scenarios translate easily over to home play, it is more win-win for both avenues.
* WFRP3 is very convention friendly, but it has considerations. Other game systems, including boardgames, pull this off every day of the week and they have more losable parts than this game. How is the author going to help out the GM in this regards? Innovation is king.
* Formatting: Each round of convention play needs to fit in about 3-4 hours. Multi round scenarios should be thought of that way as well. In relation, this is also useful for home play.
* Length/word count: Authors need to be concise and useful at the same time. A developed scenario is the goal, not a one-sheet.
* Two column: It is much easier to prep/read-on-spot/GM a 2 column scenario when you are at a convention.
* Adventure Synopsis: Neither sandbox, nor railroad should be the goal, but a scenario lacking even the most rudimentary overview for a GM is a major pet peeve of most GMs.
Lastly, we felt that the scenario contest should be revived. Our decision was that once we have at least 10 writers who will step up, we will sponsor it. We don't expect that this format is for everyone, and there's no hard feelings if you choose not to participate because of formatting concerns, but we'd rather have you on board.
Good deal :)
Monkeylite brings up a good issue about WFRP3 and convention play. Pre-generated characters will need a stat-block for sure, but it's up to the author to on whether to produce it as a character sheet: "Rules Light", "Components Reduced," or "Full Components Required." In convention play, I've done all three. Full components seemed more "risky" for possibly losing something.
Another consideration is whether it is for experienced players or if it is a "noob's welcome" scenario. Time to teach this game runs about 15-20 minutes if the GM is pretty savvy for a group up to 5 players. 6+ players tends to have more trouble in the time allotment because players aren't experienced in assessing dice, so that slows it down quite a bit.
Yeah, I genuinely wouldn't want to bring my stuff to a convention, if I didn't know who was gonna turn up and start messing with it.
I had one kid bend my reckless cleave card the first session I ran 2 years ago. Since then, I keep the cards to an minimum. They get a hand-out of the Basic action sheet (the official one) and a card-album sheet with the 2-5 remaining cards (taped in). I didn't even use talents. I just stuck them in as skill specializations instead. That was another layer that they didn't have to bother with ;)
The other guy that ran WFRP3 at our last convention had the whole dang mess sitting on the table in card sheets (including all of the basic action cards). Everybody said how pretty it was, but while watching the new players, they were completely lost under the stacks of cards..best to minimize that for protection of the GMs stuff as well as to reduce the learning curve for newbies.
I've found it best to go rules light now and just stick to the main stuff. The players get it faster and we get to the action faster.
I'd be happy to judge.
If you do get underway Jay, i'd love to have you on the Reckless Dice Podcast and you can promote the contest and tell everyone a bti of what you are going for. Let me know your thoughts.
Dave Allen said:
You've been watching too much 'Come Dine with Me.'
Ok, I have.
There is never enough Come Dine with Me.
" I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes "
Oh, also, I'm in! :-)
" I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes "