UberGruber

This may be blindingly obvious to you already, in which case just pretend I never mentioned it, but presumably what you actually mean is that the sections of your story will have to average (mean) 300 words. That would allow you to run on longer in some if you could do others more briefly and it may be that each section is not equal (even roughly equal) in its need for words.

I'm relatively new to the game and while I take your point, I think the nature of the game is such that almost certainly balance between factions (never mind masters . . . ) is going to be impossible to achieve. Malifaux, although requiring fewer models, has probably more options available to the player than 40K does and though perhaps the units do not have more special rules, there are more unique special rules. My own feeling is that it's just impossible to balance such systems to every players' satisfaction, or even to provide broad balance between factions. What Malifaux does do is allow you to play to your strengths by tailoring your crew to the mission and selecting appropriate schemes, which mitigates imbalance to a degree that other games don't tend to allow (certainly 40K does not). But it's an imperfect 'solution', I agree. I do think though, and I have a fairly long and broad experience of wargaming, that if you want a game where there is as much variation between units as Mailfaux offers, you have to accept that more imbalance than is usual goes hand in hand with that.

I do agree it probably could do with trimming, but I think a lot of that can be done by changing longer phrases like: 'The chair grating against a wooden floor' to 'The chair screeches' rather than too much wholesale cutting. to me it seems that chosenone likes his descriptions and so they should be preserved as much as possible as that's part of his style As I I like seeing description in action, but with the disclaimer that a) I wouldn't have written the original in the same way at all, I think and so the change of phrasing may be more to do with inflicting my style upon the story than actually improving anything per se, I'd do this: Like this: Creedy’s curious finger tips a silent carrion crows onto its side. There is nothing for a long deadly moment as the rocking of the fallen crow slows and two men await an answer while the third sinks deeper into the inviting promises of a polished stone. The chair screeches across the floor and in a blur the doctor pounces, screaming in elation and unholy defiance -- a demon unleashed from the pit. He strikes with viperous speed, slamming Creedy's bald head down onto the board so the fat man's eye socket is impaled by the black king, driven full-length to its base. Which I think keeps most of the good imagery like pouncing/pounces and the viper-speed. I'm not right happy with the last sentence insomuch as I think it a little clumsy in its description.

By somewhat bizarre coincidence, my Baby Kade's Teddy is painted up as a panda and I have a non-Malifaux story started with a character called Pandaros (which sadly doesn't really have anything to do with pandas but the name at least references them).

Thanks very much, Panda. I'd just like to say that although our tastes seem to differ with regard to what makes the sort of story we like (Gatsby for me will always be a book not to be tossed aside lightly . . .), I always enjoy reading your opinions on the stories because the focus you have is often radically different from mine. I may disagree, but it would be a dull world where we all had the same taste in stories. Stick's a girl. So Old Joe is stroking her cheek. I've always thought of the Viktoria's as being kind of bland myself (I quite often play with them as masters though, which is a bit odd as female 'melee combat masters' are a modern trope I find rather desperately hard to buy into for various reasons), so I gave them a slightly flirty manner to give them some character. In truth I really only used them so I could set up Old Joe's (probably anachronistic, but I think I got away with it . . . ) rather disparaging comment at the end, and to reference some of the in-game abilities and they were the cards I had handiest.

I agree with all Panda's suggestions except for the removal of the Malifaux setting. That I think should stay as it gives the competition 'binding'. If the setting restriction is removed, the game would lose a lot of it's appeal for me.

I really liked the descriptions in this. As they were generally superb I'm going to point out the bits I thought were weaker than general ( by the way though I think grammar is a tool rather than something to be adhered to as a sacred text, I'd think about sticking 'have' before 'food left' in the captain's one though as really it needs a 'have' to make logical sense, though I notice there's a tendency to shy from past perfect for some reason in some modern writing). jostling clatter of hard candy against his teeth echoes out along side the wet slapping of his tongue and cheeks. (I felt the bolded parts seemed a bit much when the whole thing is considered. I wonder if you shouldn't perhaps drop 'jostling' and 'out alongside') He’s regal and casual at the same time (I'm generally loathe to suggest too many wording changes but I wonder why here you did not simply say ' He’s both regal and casual') drowned white insect (why 'drowned?'. Do insects bloat when they drown? Would 'bloated white insect; be worse?) The sound of a chair grating against a wooden floor muddles with the blur of McMourning pouncing to his feet. (I don't quite see a sound muddling with a visual. Perhaps 'The chair grates against the wooden floor and in a blur Mcmourning is pouncing to his feet' - interesting use of 'pouncing' by the way, I liked it a lot) frothy rabid and maniac frenzy (I think the frothing is well enough implied by rabid that to add it explicitly is perhaps too tautological. As an aside I would end the previous paragraph with the doctor resuming his staring at the emerald so that the action turning out to be imagining has been clued in for the denser reader such as myself. That way when you return to the story's reality it doesn't feel like you conned the reader so much).

A question... where do you see the perspective change?

I think much depends on whether Diego is merely a toy and his perspective simply that of Derek at play or whether he is in fact given life by the act of Derek's play and whilst subject (unknowingly) to the course of Derek's game, he has an actual independence of mind. Or basically, does Derek's play make Diego real? If so then he can be broadly as he is, perhaps more so. If not then his perspective should probably become more child-like. I wondered perhaps if rather than force Ambriel through the spearmen he might leap her over the ranks, knight-like. But then as Derek doesn't know chess, perhaps not (though I think the knight's move is one easily recognised by non players, even if they don't get it right). After finishing, I wondered about 'chaos' but it does make sense that a child's attempt at chess (or rather a child merely playing war with the pieces) would resemble chaos. If Diego is independent of thought though, might this chaos not be an unwelcome change from the battles he usually fights where things are more ordered? You do address that later but the start makes it seem like chaos is what he revels in . . . but then when things get chaotic, he has to raise his game. Perhaps war or battle might be better than chaos at the start? I didn't mind the switches being separated by two lines, rather than being more clearly delineated, though I did a bit of a double take at the first switch back to Diego for some reason. But there'd certainly be no harm in separating them in some more visual manner. As it stands I felt his dad was a bit tacked on in order to link in the hangover theme. Remove his dad entirely and the story would still work (Derek plays soldiers with his dad's chess set thereby temporarily creating a new reality over which he is god. When he sees his toys, he loses interest in the world and it collapses - though in that case it would be interesting to know what happens to Diego . . . unless, as I assume currently, his consciousness is simply wiped forever from the universe or he metamorphs unknowing into Devon like Moorcock's Eternal Warrior). That, as it stands, is, I think, the main weakness. Dad isn't really necessary. The only way I can see of integrating him better would be along the lines that Panda describes, which he could advise on much better than me.

I think Edonil may have that under consideration, it may not be set in stone as a rule (and you could always edit it to have WIP in the title, which certainly does allow you to edit until the deadline, and then nobody would ever know, it'd be like the perfect crime). Not that I'm saying you should edit it, just that I think the possibility is still open. I'm always a little chary of suggesting rewordings as everyone has their own style and sometimes that can be undermined by different phrasing. I, for instance, like to use long, rolling sentences laden with adjectives and adverbs and a healthy dose of underused or obscure words (squamous being one of my favourites, along with gelid and slantendicular), because the writers I like best (O'Brian, MacDonald Fraser, Tolkien, Anderson, Chandler) were never afraid to run on longer than might be considered strictly fashionable in certain circles, nor to use the word best suited and reader ignorance be damned. So it's sometimes hard to finger what is definitely 'off' and what is maybe just personal preference when it comes to punctuation or phrasing . . . but that said, I do think it worth mentioning where something seems odd because the author than then make up their own mind.

This was a nice little twist on the idea. I'll add more in a bit but can I suggest perhaps instead of Gojan, you use 'Maróczy' as the Hungarian's name. Maróczy as you'll recall being a Hungarian grandmaster for whom the Maróczy Bind is named. Unless of course Gojan happens to be Hungarian for 'rook', in which case you're well ahead of me. . .

Hmm... I don't think woman beating and drinking are exclusive to the ill-educated or unintelligent. I'd also regard Malifaux as a setting where a (presumably ornate) table like that is going to be rare enough to be notable as worth something, and the very act of him tipping it over is surely sufficient to drag his attention to it. But I think the fact we both agree there's something rather amiss with the wording here is probably more important than our particular slants on how it might be mended. My feeling is that either would work, omission or change of emphasis.

I agree with this to an extent but I'm inclined to dispute any notion that depth and quality are inextricably linked or that a strong theme a good story makes, or indeed that the best stories must have strong themes. But I see my carers advancing with threats of more medication so I shall simply say that I personally didn't find the story lacking because it had no deep theme (or rather that the main theme was not the hangover). I would, however raise two issues of what might be called consistency. 1) He was masquerading as an 'earthside governor' and yet he was in his own clothes. His shirt is described as 'threadbare' when he finds it and it early established that his home is damp and run-down so we may fairly assume that he cuts no great sartorial elegance. So how did he get passed off as a visiting dignitary? The servant who speaks to him seems well experienced in his trade and would surely have smelt a rat. I think he need to hav ebeen provided with appropriate clothes, and that finding them rather than his normal ones would add to his confusion. 2) You say he 'shrugged on his pistols'. Two things; would a governor wear a gunbelt? I could see a shoulder holster maybe but a gunbelt not so much. Also pistols, plural. So has he one six-shooter left when the men are knocking, has Colette left him only two pawns? Or has he only one gun? I liked the story concept well enough and it's generally well written too. But I confess I found this: When they find you, they'll think it's just some drunken idiots prank a bit weak to be honest. Presumably at some point after Jacob has been caught or killed, it will be discovered that the papers are missing. Very well. Now assuming he is dead then he can't be questioned. But why then assume a mere drunken prank and not deliberate theft? Also where are the papers if not on Jacob's body? With his accomplice, the red-haired lady, presumably. So I don't see how it works as a device to allay suspicion. It's even worse if Jacob's alive because then why would he not confess everything and give a full account? Even if he doesn't know Collette's name, he can presumably give as good a description as anyone and can say how they met and confirm she has and stole the papers. I really feel this needs tightening up as it's crucial to the plot that he's being set up both as decoy and for his past misdeeds. While I like your style a lot, there's a couple of phrases that struck me as a bit off (in a pretty minor way). 1) Pictures lined the walls, bearing proud, regal profiles and preposterous families all bunched together with sour expressions -- I presume only the families are bunched together with sour expressions, but I wonder if 'Pictures lined the walls: proud, regal profiles and preposterous families with sour expressions' might not convey the impression a bit better. Maybe not. I also wondered a bit about why he thought the families preposterous, but it's a good word, much underused and so I say keep it. 2) silken sheets spilled from his chest - I know exactly what you mean by this but for some reason 'spilled from' doesn't quite seem right to me . . . it's as if the sheets are being disgorged by his chest in a way. Clearly that is preposterous and so the intended meaning is obvious but I wonder if you couldn't find an alternative to 'spilled from' just to avoid the slightly bizarre image popping into those unfortunate enough to have brains that work like mine. 3) the 'mercenary practicality' I mentioned above. I did like this quite a lot (but though comparisons may be odious, I found your recent battle report rather better). Perhaps think about better establishing Jacob as the sort of ne'er do well young rake who might well con his way into a rich man's house by pretending to be a friend or relative or suchlike, so that the assumption would more likely be that it was merely a drunken lark (and so the papers would not be missed). But what then to do about his potentially wagging tongue? You need some means for Colette to ensure his silence, I think.

I think the problem here is really 'mercenary' (with connotations of having monetary gain as a prime motivator - therefore making it likely he would notice the table's value - because a decorative table would necessarily be valuable not merely aesthetically but in cash terms) and also 'ponder', which tends to imply careful thought. I think being mercenary, he'd take in the value (in practical, cash terms) of the table even as the door opens. I have to go to work so more later but this was something I'd also found a wee bit off on the first read so I thought I'd comment now.

I guessed you might have taken the background into consideration and made it a training exercise for that reason. It just felt a wee bit of a cheap twist, if you see what I mean (that sounds a bit harsher than I mean it to be, I think) though in fairness you do set it up by giving a failry large clue near the start and other ones in the battle sequence. It's well done in that respect, it just always seems like a bit of a let-down to discover it was all a dream/all a game/etc. Still brilliant though. I've had a quick read of your IQ entry, which I also like. But I'll comment on that tomorrow.

This is remarkably good, I've seldom enjoyed a 'storyfied' battle report as much, it read like a proper short story and yet gave a pretty clear account of the course of the game too, which can't be an easy thing to accomplish. The only aspect I rather disliked was it turning out to be a training exercise, but oitherwise this was splendid.

Personally I think it's fairly unlikely anyone would change their story wholesale before the deadline. But if they did, would it matter? Certainly there must be a deadline beyond which no additions or editing of format, spelling, phrasing, character or detail will be allowed. But up to that point, so long as one does not expect comments more than once from each judge or author, what harm?

I just don't quite see how submitting a WIP which is updated until the deadline, then posting a final version on the deadline is any different to simply allowing editing up to the deadline. But you're taking the trouble to organise this, which is no light task, so obviously you have the final say, that's only reasonable and I don't really want to add to the burden with badgering about stuff, so I'm sorry if I've doen so. You can take mine as 'done' as of now though.

I don't honestly think it's likely anyone will rig the vote, but it is a possibility. Given there's no prize it's probably not a problem, but it was something I though worth at least mentioning.

Slightly struggling to see the reasoning behind that to be honest. Given that scores have (as I understand) no impact on the judging, why not allow editing up until the deadline?

My emphasis. Based on that I think neither the item nor theme have to be taken literally. For instance, I toyed with the idea of 'hangover' involving being suspended by the legs above a deep pit. And most chess piece names can be or are (especially 'pawn', which Sliver Chocobo has used, for instance) used metaphorically.

I'd have thought stories would be open for editing until the closing date for submission, only then would votes (as opposed to the comments which I understand are not part of the scoring) be submitted. But that's just an assumption on my part.

I've a few comments/questions, just things to mull over during the experimental round and its judging. At the end of the day, they're not worth too much angst, I think, but they are possibly worth considering: A) I'm not sure about the 'public poll' for a couple of reasons. 1) it's abusable. With various shenanigans one could, if so inclined, rig the vote by either voting multiple times oneself (posting from a different computer and/or different IP address or account) or getting one's relatives, friends, minions, pet gerbils, etc to vote. Now it's pretty unlikely that anyone would be sad enough to do this to any great extent but the possibility exists nonetheless. 2) with, what, 14 stories to read, how many voters will have read them all? Or more than a few. As on most game sites, fan fiction tends to be read by relatively few members, and mostly by those who themselves post stories. So will public voting not perhaps reflect more which stories threads were opened rather than which were enjoyed most. If there were going to be hundreds of public votes, that wouldn't matter. But if there are only a few dozen votes, that will skew things in a way that may be undesired. And the fewer the votes the worse such possible skewing will be. The concept of the public poll is just fine. In fact it's great in principle. But can every voter be encouraged to read (or at least begin reading) every story that's submitted in each round? How effective will that encouragement be? You could require that voters post a quick comment to establish their identity (though that would exclude guests of which there are a reasonable number). It may very well be though that with all authors and judges having effectively 20 votes each that the public poll will be insignificant to the result (340 votes in total from judges/participants, how many will be forthcoming from the public, I wonder). 'can' or 'must'? I presume, 'must' but I'm not certain. Will authors be allowed to vote for their own stories? My own view on the latter question is that it's fairest either to insist authors give the maximum vote to their own story or that they not be allowed to score it at all.

Thanks. My point though is that unless you errata/FAQ it you run the risk of more new folk having the same issue as me because as it stands it reads as if you can (and as I recall the errate and/or FAQ instruct you to ignore all prior forum posts). I'm not trying to be difficult about this and I do appreciate the clarification tremendously (as I'd have actually assumed that you could flip it based on both the rules manual and the rules as they are now), I just wanted to try and explain how I find the rules at the moment would allow the Cheat.

I really liked the premise of this and making the victim a Death Marshal gives it a nicely ironic twist. It's also short and to the point without any unecessary build up or backstory, which I like for shorter short stories like these -- it's like a single scene from a film but complete enough of itself to tell a story. I aslso liked that you made both characters fairly sympathetic -- not in fact how I'd have imagined either a Death Marshal or a Shinigami would likely be, but you manage to make them both plausible. A nice straighforward use of imagination without overcomplication. I've a couple of suggestions, if I may make so bold, and one request. The request is to consider separating every paragraph with an empty line (like I'm doing here). I find it much harder to read online if paragraphs don't have an empty line as a break between them. I am old and feeble and my eyes aren't what they used to be (and frankly never were). Have pity. My suggestion would be to sharpen up the dialogue a wee bit. I like the effect you're going for but there were some places where I thought the Shinigami sounded a bit, well, out of character. Examples: I gather souls and stuff (it's 'stuff' that seems wrong somehow to me) Why does everyone want to see the scythe, it nothing special, well ok it is, but that not the point (I think it might be better to have her less chatty and more menacing. She can be superficially pleasant, certainly, that can add to her menace. But it might be an idea to imagine the dialogue between them as if it were a film you were watching. Imagine who you'd have playing the Shinigami. . . can you see her saying that line? Again, I applaud the effect you're going for, I think maybe it could use just a little work on the wording). You've got some great descriptions in here like: He only then noticed how black her eyes were and that before her mouth that seemed small and cute, was an endless maw of teeth and darkness and: so dark it devoured the light around it these two are some of the really great ones you have. they're evocativ and it's easy to imagine what's being described. they have power. Others though,could use a little work, perhaps. like: the glare of sun was bearing down on him like a hungry dog because I struggle to see quite how the hot sun is like a hungry dog. It lacks the power and clarity of the other two examples, I think. You sometimes use the wrong homophone (you use 'hoarse' when I think you meant 'horse') and there's some fairly minor typos (eg 'plan' when you meant 'plain). I think it's a solid story and with enough twist on the characters to give it uniqueness. As I say, I'd maybe think about tweaking some of the description and dialogue but I liked it well enough. Thanks for posting it up.