[Information] 2014 Outplay Feedback

[Atalla Wanderer]

A quote from my Round 2 Feedback, since I doubt anyone is paying attention and I intend to be heard, come hell or high water.

Originally Posted by Atalla Wanderer

HA! I've been had! I get told I didn't get any rules wrong (lacking clarification in the Intimidation isn't wrong, and I specified that Mizu was trying to calm Pwr with voice and body language, not the actual words) and get a 7 / 10, yet posted above is Thorsten's rules section, by the same judge, saying a mistake was made and he walks away with a 9 / 10? It isn't Thorsten's fault, but I feel like I was shafted. I would ask for judging transparency, but I know who is who, and I believe it won't do any good. However, I find my call for more judges to be more ardent than before - no matter how good I write, play, and put my heart into it, there are certain obstacles that can't be overcome, as they aren't dependant on skill.

[Thorsten]

I feel like I need to defend myself a bit here, and I worry that it might come off as me lashing out at you, Atalla. It is not, I am simply trying to explain my thoughts on the matter:

I think that my -1 reduction is a result of one fault based on a common misconception (and I agree with the judge's verdict after googling and reading up on the rule again. I was not aware that it worked like that, because its always been used against me by various DM's as I used it against Kaelis) in what was a rather rules intensive round for me. Each post included a string of contingency actions that had to be written out very precisely, or result in something going awry, and apparently my understanding was off for one bit of one of those posts (and then the whole Quick Runner's Shirt thing, which Squeak was kind enough to point out).

I agree that based on the wording of your feedback, you got hit a bit hard in the rules department of the round. But at least some of your scoring probably comes from your continued attempt to use social skills that specifically state they cannot be used against creatures that cannot understand you - even after being explicitly told that (note that the diplomacy skill doesn't say "it does not work against creatures that can't understand you" but rather "you cannot use it against creatures that can't understand you" - you do not even get the opportunity to try). Stating that you went for soothing words rather than content is what got you the high success score, I think - but you are still doing something that go against the rules and hoping that the dm's won't mind bending the written word a bit. Speaking as a former judge of this competition, I can say that its something I would have deducted points for.

That said, I liked the description and action. It was very Mizu. Dharn would likely just have whacked Pwr over the head and slung him over his shoulder, had he been in the same situation

[Raylorne]

Originally Posted by Squeak

It would be nice to have more judges, at least in the later rounds (when it gets easier). That being said, as a former judge of the Iron DM competition, I know how difficult and time consuming it can be for judges.

I would also suggest that the judging be more 'on a curve'. I stopped counting when I got to 30 scores of ten between round one and two. In my opinion, 10's should only be granted when there is one or more POTM quality posts (winners) included. I know it is hard to mark down and be forced about how you justify your scores -- but I wish the scoring was lower/tougher.

I'd be fine with 'input' not being given after the first round, after which time the player should have a better grasp on the character. I know it would be easier on the judges as well (which could make it easier to get more judges).

Also, I am not crazy about the judging criteria remaining static for all rounds. It seems like rules should be a priority in the combat round, with writing and character being more important in the social and adventure round. And success should be more important than all of these.

I also agree, I feel I scored too highly in round two. At least numerically. With a solid grasp of common I feel that Ragnar had the edge over Goragh in that round, and my own ability to string a few sentances together didn't hurt.

[Squeak]

Thinking about it, a as is being done in the semi-finalsvote along with a bunch of comments, might be a better way to move forward rather than the detailed number criteria. It would allow the judges to give feedback, but won't make them provide a number grade for everything. If nothing else, it would help avoid complaints about scores that come from players that don't advance.

Judges could continue to use their scoring system if they want, but wouldn't share.

As a player, all I want to know is what I did right and what I did wrong, so I can fix things as I move forward. I don't really need a scale...

[Bade]

Originally Posted by Squeak

Thinking about it, a as is being done in the semi-finalsvote along with a bunch of comments, might be a better way to move forward rather than the detailed number criteria. It would allow the judges to give feedback, but won't make them provide a number grade for everything. If nothing else, it would help avoid complaints about scores that come from players that don't advance.

Judges could continue to use their scoring system if they want, but wouldn't share.

As a player, all I want to know is what I did right and what I did wrong, so I can fix things as I move forward. I don't really need a scale...

I could get behind this. While I stand by all of my conclusions (as in I believe I selected the correct people to advance), I was maybe a bit all over the place on my actual point values. I was way harsher in the zero round than I was in 1 or 2 (admittedly two was really good, so there wasn't as much to criticize).

[DukeofTuring]

+1
Judging all of the players each round on a standardized, quantified rubric seems like an decent idea that's been taken too far

---

Also, I don't think that everyone making their feedback for each round public is a good thing, particularly when it's all a bunch of qualitative judgements tied down to a numeric scale that's. The whole number grade or no number grade thing aside, though, I'd feel a lot more comfortable were I a judge if I could offer feedback to players knowing that it would always be received privately.

[Raylorne]

I'd disagree about the public feedback. I'd say it's a fairly valuable resource to be able to read the feedback provided to others (Should they wish to share) in that you can see where they went wrong/right with their round. If only to provide the player with an idea how to better improve their own writing through other's "errors"

In that vein, I'd like to see all feedback be withheld until the end of the competition for the very reason I stated above. It's not really fair if I'm able to read other people's feedback and alter my tactics slightly to better appease what the judges are looking for. Additionally if not for the round by round feedback I doubt Ragnar would have made it as far as he did. While none of my feedback stated anything that I didn't already suspect about my rounds, it certainly altered how I approached each round. I believe round two I even strayed away from the character I'd created, and started leaning towards the character the judges wanted to see. It's hard not to try and apply the feedback as it comes, and that could skew results.

[Yuul]

Originally Posted by Squeak

I would also suggest that the judging be more 'on a curve'. I stopped counting when I got to 30 scores of ten between round one and two. In my opinion, 10's should only be granted when there is one or more POTM quality posts (winners) included. I know it is hard to mark down and be forced about how you justify your scores -- but I wish the scoring was lower/tougher.

Seconded.

[Atalla Wanderer]

Here's a novel idea - permanently retire all Outplay winners.

Right now I see Thorsten - whom I've played with outside of Outplay, and love playing with, and value as a friend - and I have no hope of winning.

Except I do get my hopes up, so it just ends up in a lot of pain. Sorry for getting my hopes up - I'll try to be more realistic next time.

There's no room for new blood if the same people keep winning. If the winner from each year would be retired to a hall of fame - something they've earned - then the whole tournament would be a lot more appealing.

[Atalla Wanderer]

I had a thought the other day that there should exist a phase where the judges can ask rules questions of the round 0 participants. Every year I've seen at least a couple peopje lose point when a judge didn't understand something. No one here is a complete expert at every single mechanic in every single game system - or at the least, the odds are low. So players with particularly complicated builds should have at least a small window to explain why they made the choices they did.

Complicared or simple, good or evil - none of that should have an impact of how you are seen as a player.

[Yuul]

Originally Posted by Atalla Wanderer

Here's a novel idea - permanently retire all Outplay winners.

Right now I see Thorsten - whom I've played with outside of Outplay, and love playing with, and value as a friend - and I have no hope of winning.

Except I do get my hopes up, so it just ends up in a lot of pain. Sorry for getting my hopes up - I'll try to be more realistic next time.

There's no room for new blood if the same people keep winning. If the winner from each year would be retired to a hall of fame - something they've earned - then the whole tournament would be a lot more appealing.

Seconded. Or at least something similar. Maybe the previous year's winner doesn't participate in the regular rounds but is some sort of champion at the top of the bracket? I don't know.

Perhaps give them judging positions?