2019 One Page Dungeon Contest: Part 2 - Comments on the Winning Entries

In Part 1 of my thoughts about the 2019 One Page Dungeon Contest, I talked about a series of tweets I sent out immediately after I finished judging this year's entries. The tweets summarized my "in the moment" thoughts on this year's entries in aggregate and made a few suggestions of things to do or not to do.

In this post, I'll be talking about my thoughts on my specific scoring process, how I scored the winning entries (in broad terms - I'm not going to provide my detailed scores) and also just some overall comments about each one. As there are quite a few winners and honorable mentions, I'll be breaking this up into at least two posts, with this one focusing on the Top 10 entries this year.

I would really love to hear your comments and feedback on my scoring process, as well as whether you agree or disagree with my scoring.  

MY SCORING PROCESS
As I mentioned in the last post, my scoring has evolved quite a bit over the past six contests that I've judged. The One Page Dungeon Contest is pretty unique in that it reflects the diversity and creativity of the hobby, as the organizers do not prescribe how the judges should judge the entries. Each judge is left to his or her own devices as to what constitutes a winning entry. I really like that approach, although to be completely honest, in the first year I judged the contest, I was extremely anxious that no parameters were provided. I was also very self-conscious about whether my picks would align with the other judges or whether I'd be coming out of left field. Over the years, those fears have subsided a bit.

For the first couple of years that I judged, I created an Evernote text document and as I read each adventure, I immediately put it into one of three categories: "DEFINITE," "MAYBE," and "NO." Under each, I then put bullet points about the pros and cons of each adventure. As you might suspect, the "MAYBE" category typically consisted of about 80% of the entries after my first round of scoring. The "NO" entries were ones with atrocious spelling or grammatical mistakes, or ones that looked like someone rushed something in at the last minute, without much thought to the structure of the adventure or how it would be used at the table. I would then go back and re-read every "DEFINITE" and "MAYBE" entry to revise the scoring to tighten it up. Sometimes a "DEFINITE" would be downgraded to a "MAYBE" but usually a few "MAYBE" entries would be elevated to a "DEFINITE." I kept going through this process until I had the required number of "DEFINITE" entries, and then I would send those off to the organizer.

I later began creating a scoring system similar to what I'd chatted with the other judges about when asking them how they judge the entries, or by reading their blogs and tweets on the subject. Now I use a Google Sheets spreadsheet and I have seven columns for the following categories of scores: Premise, Characters, Layout, Map, Spelling/Grammar, Usefulness, and Other. I rate each one of these on a scale of 1-10.

I also weight each category with a percentage, and then create a Weighted Score. I can tell you that "Layout" gets the highest weighting, where as "Other" gets the lowest - I use it to acknowledge little things that are just above and beyond the typical entry but aren't necessarily part of making it a good adventure. For example, really well-done illustrations can help, but technically they aren't necessary. I could put them as part of the Layout score, but that would end up penalizing an entry with no artwork but really good layout. So, it's like a small "bonus" but it won't push the score that much. I might also use it for a very creative and unexpected setting or for really good, evocative writing. It's really for anything that I particularly like about the adventure that doesn't fit into one of the other six categories.

Characters is a bit unique in that I use it as a way to score the inclusion of any NPCs/adversaries in an adventure, but to me this could also include any cleverly designed traps in an adventure without any NPCs. The idea is that just mentioning an NPC without providing any kind of name or personality or goal isn't necessarily all that helpful to a GM trying to run this at the table.

Next to my weighted score for each entry, I also put a column for the "Total Score," a raw number that sometimes I'll look at for tie-breakers and that kind of thing.

I also have a section for "Notes" which I use to remind myself of WHY I may have given a particular score to an adventure. This is where I will also note if I think that the entry is done by a kid (and a note to the organizers for future One Page Dungeon Contests: I think it would be a great idea for entrants to "check a box" or something when they enter to note if they are in a certain age bracket, so that perhaps the child entries could be judged separately from the adult ones). I also make notes to myself in this section if I think an entry was created by a foreign-language writer, which could explain a low score in Spelling/Grammar.

Once all of this is done, I go back through the adventures a second-time and make sure that I'm happy with the scores I've assigned, and then I sort them and rank from by Weighted Score from highest to lowest. At this point, I then go back through the top entries one final time to make sure that the scores align with my overall thoughts, and I also scroll through the entries that didn't quite make it to see if there's any reason I should or shouldn't adjust those scores a final time.

One last thing to note: I've found that the scoring has gotten more and more difficult every year that I've been doing this, and it's primarily because the quality of the entries has increased so much that there is almost no time any more when I look at an entry and immediately think, "Well, this one isn't going to get a good score!" That used to happen somewhat frequently at the beginning and it was almost all primarily due to either really bad spelling and grammar mistakes, or due to using a font that was so difficult to read or too small to read (being shrunk to fit on one page). All of those things seldom happen any more, so when you see my comments below, while they may seem nit-picky, that's part of the point - I'm starting to really have to focus on some nitty-gritty details in order to differentiate the scores. So, please don't take my comments below as criticisms. They're meant to be constructive, but clearly all of the entries I'll be talking about were great in one way or another because they achieved a top score.

THIS YEAR'S ENTRIES: THE TOP 10
With that out of the way, here are my thoughts on this year's entries.

Firstly, the highest potential "Raw Score" that any entry can receive is 70 (7 categories; 10 points possible in each). My highest scoring entry for 2019 had a "Raw Score" of 57. My lowest (overall, not just in the Top 10) had an 11.

From a Weighted Score standpoint, the highest potential total score could be a 10. The scores for my Top 10 entries ranged from 7.25 (#10) to 8.25 (#1), with many entries tied in-between. You can see that only one point separated my #1 entry from the #10. That's how close the top entries were.

• Ed Nicholson: "Plumbing the Depths." 
• This was one of my "Top 10" entries, although it was not at the top for me.
• I liked a lot about this entry, particularly the very succinct but creative set-up, which by its very nature also included a time element to prevent groups from taking too long while exploring, and some really fun and creative traps. 
• There were no spelling or grammatical errors that I caught, and the layout and map were all well above average. 
• I also liked that it provided some level guidance ("for low level adventurers")
• Where I would have liked to see a bit more detail are just a few notes on both the Mushroom Men ("fights as a 2 HD monster" or the equivalent is sufficient) and a bit more on Gon the Wizard (it mentions that he can "easily defeat" the party unless they use the ring on him; I'd like to see one or two lines to explain a rough level/tactics/etc.). 
• It gets difficult because I personally am not looking for full stats, especially because a lot of these adventurers could be used with systems other than a standard class-and-level game like D&D or its derivatives. So, it's a fine line - I don't want full stats, but a one-line guideline is usually enough to provide some extra usefulness at the table. 
• The goal for me is helping the GM run this quickly at the table without having to do a ton of prep. 
• JD Thornton: "The Buried Pyramid of the Undergod."
• This is another entry that made my "Top 10" in terms of weighted score, but was not at the top of my rankings. 
• Again, I caught no spelling or grammatical mistakes, and I really liked the premise
• I think the layout is pretty decent, but I put in my notes that it's way too dense with text, and still feel that way after looking at it again
•  I loved the map and thought the use of different color fonts was a great way to quickly differentiate NPCs/Monsters from Treasure/Items, etc. However, while I liked the approach, and it could be mainly because I'm looking at it on a monitor screen instead of printed out, but the red and black didn't always stand out from each other as much as they could have. The green worked well, though. 
• As with the above entry, I would have liked to see just a quick line of "dog-men are equivalent to..." so that a young or inexperienced GM might know whether to stat them as kobolds or gnolls or whatever. Providing some level guidelines would have helped with this, too. 
• Skerples: "The Roving Wheel." 
• This entry just barely did not make my Top 10, but it was still a high-scoring entry. The judges were asked to send over our Top 20 scoring entries, and this one was definitely in that group. 
• I absolutely loved the creative premise of this entry, and the layout was good and made use of the page to fit the theme. It did make it a bit harder to read on my monitor, as I couldn't pick it up and turn it around to read like I could if I had printed it out, but I didn't count that against the entry since that was my choice not to print it out. 
• This is a very good example of an entry that got a perfect "10" score in the "Other" category for its creativity in both concept and writing style. 
• I also loved the evocative descriptions for the monsters. 
• Where I thought this could have been slightly improved was a bit more detail on the monster stats (again - not looking for specific stats but just guidelines on how to use them), and that would have helped this entry also be more immediately useful at the table with limited prep. 
• Karl Stjernberg: "Salt & Stink." 
• Another entry that was in my Top 10. 
• I loved the quick set-up and description to let you know what you're getting into right off the bat, and also it mentions specifically for 1st level characters, so you know immediately if this will be of use your group. 
• All of the descriptions are well-written and make great use of just a few short words to evoke an image - it's one of the hallmarks of a One Page Dungeon entry, in my mind, to say more with less. 
• For the most part, many creatures in here are pretty standard fare so no stats are necessary, but a few notes for things like "undead duck pirates" and "lamprey-folk" would have helped. 
• I loved that the huge oyster was plotting a mutiny and that "spitting out valuable pearls is hard work..." 
• The undead whale setting was creative and different from the standard abandoned temple/tower/dungeon. 
• Clarabelle Chong: "A Pinch of Salt."
• This was ranked #5 overall, but I ranked it as #1 in my scoring. 
• I loved so much about this adventure, including the creativity of the presentation (the old style newspaper format was so different than any other entry), the premise/set-up, the use of "advertisements" in the newspaper to provide adventuring clues and prompts... all of this was very well-done. 
• The hand-drawn map was well-done and fit the aesthetic of the art used in the newspaper
• There are so many ideas in here that beg for hours or even multiple sessions of on-going gaming, which I really liked. 
• Where I feel this could improve a bit are some level guidelines and a bit more detail on the adversaries/NPCs. Also, while I did really like the layout, the section with the map at the bottom was a bit small. While I was able to blow it up to read on my monitor, if it were printed out I imagine it would be a bit more difficult to read given its size. Those are the only things that knocked the score down a little for me.
• Euan R and Garry C: "Zorpy's Tall Tale (for Kids!)"
• Looks like I wasn't alone in grading this as one of my top entries (like "The Roving Wheel," it just barely missed my Top 10), and I graded it as I would any adventure without giving special dispensation that it was from a child creator.  
• I loved the premise and thought the random tables were very unique.
• Everything included from a monster standpoint was pretty standard, so there was no need to have to include any stat guidelines. 
• I loved the creativity of including the stuffed animal toy as an NPC. 
• Using a story-telling technique to move the characters into different settings where they have different types of encounters, and then putting a time-limit on it, was a really clever idea. 
• As a judge who has to read hundreds of these entries, I also have to point out that it was not to have an entry that wasn't crammed with very small text! :)
• William Ross: "The Forgotten Temple."
• This is a very easy-to-use adventure with plenty of info for a GM to run at the table with little prep
• It's very clear and I really liked that the type was very easy-to-read
• A bit of notes on level guidelines would help, especially for newer GMs
• My only real negative comment is that it's all pretty standard. Again, remember that I'm having to go out of my way to nitpick things with judging since the entries are all really good, but in terms of presentation and the concept, it's rather plain. While the layout is clean and easy to read, it doesn't necessarily stand out from some of the other more creative layouts in the contest. 
• Anton L.C.: "Tomb of the Broken King."
• Here's an example of why I go back and re-read the entries a second and often a third time. I think the first time I read this was toward the end of the night after having read a lot of different entries that day, and my eyes were glazing over a bit. I originally scored this lower because my eyes were tired and nothing in the layout and black-and-white format really jumped out at me. 
• The presentation here is good, with a clean layout. 
• While I applaud the use of art, I'm not sure that it adds all that much to the adventure. Given the limited space, I think that perhaps the picture of the Stone Golem could have been eliminated, as well as the Burial Space (which was very fuzzy/hard to read on my monitor) and then that space could have been used to provide a bit more detail on running the Broken King and Broken Queen in combat (some basic stats, etc.). 
• I liked the rumors table, and also thought the Sword of Sins was clever and unique. 
• David Northcutt: "The Broken Sepulcher."
• I really liked the clean layout on this, which also provided room for some nice touches like the green circles to mark different areas and call them out to match the descriptions. It sounds simple, but it helps immediately figure out how everything goes together, and adds a splash of color to help things stand out. It's also not crowded and easy on the eyes.
• I really liked the actual drawings and presentation of the maps. They look really nice. 
• Overall this is a good, pretty easy-to-use adventure. 
• Again, if I had one nitpick, it's that it's just a bit standard in terms of the actual set-up and premise. Standard fantasy is absolutely fine and I don't necessarily penalize any entries that utilize that format, but when I'm judging, you're a little more likely to stand out if you have a non-standard premise that looks like it would be a fun one-night adventure. 
• I tend to think that most campaigns are of the "standard fantasy" variety, so if you have a chance to run a one-off adventure, sometimes it's nice to have something out of the ordinary. 
• Max White: "Feudal Attraction."
• This was one of my top-scoring entries. 
• This is a perfect example of what I was taking about in my previous post about "using the one-page format as a feature, not a bug." Max used the page border to list a bunch of potential NPC names to use in the adventure, but in such a way that it's not crowded. I loved that. 
• I really loved that, even with the limitation of a one-page format, the entry included a fun random table of NPC attitudes/personality and also included a very creative idea of tension rolls. These are all things that are immediately use and also could be used in other adventures as well. 
• For me, the main thing that was missing were some rough level guidelines. 
• I also wasn't thrilled with the choice of font, and while I understand why the NPC names in the border were made a lighter color so as not to take attention away from the main adventure, they were very hard to read. I would have preferred a different main font that was darker to begin with, allowing the names in the border to be made a bit darker without competing.

I'll continue with a look at the remaining winning entries and the honorable mentions in a future post. Remember to leave your comments and thoughts on my scoring, as well as what you thought about the above adventures. I'd also like to hear from anybody who has used these adventures at the table and what their experience was. 

Hanging: Home office (laptop)

Drinking: Pellegrino Sparkling Water with Angostura Bitters 

Listening: "Manteca" by Quincy Jones