THE SCENARIO JURY AT FASTAVAL
Each year at Fastaval a jury is assembled to decide which of the scenarios premiering are nominated and win the Otto awards. For many participants it can be difficult to see through the process of reading, evaluating, and shortlisting the scenarios, and how much work and effort the judges put into being fair and balanced to both the scenarios and the writers. In the following, you will meet this year's jury and read about the judging- and evaluation process at Fastaval.
Scenario Jury at Fastaval 2025
Head of the jury
Anna Sigrid Pii Aunkilde
Sigrid got caught up by the special Fastaval feel in 2003, and she has been a participant ever since. She has had all sorts of both practical and scenario related organiser roles, but for her no Fastaval is complete without experiencing the magic of the game rooms.
Sigrid loves the quirky point of view, the unusual approach or the surprising structure, which will make players experience a known story in new ways.
Sigrid’s first role playing character was as a shepherd girl at a local monthly LARP. It was her first introduction to how stories form and grow where role players meet. It was also the last time she created a character who preferred to sit alone on a rock and gaze at the horizon.
Thilde Holgersen
Thilde first set foot at Fastaval in 1998 and it was love at first sight. For the next many years she was playing in all time slots, intermingling all-con events if ever there was a break. Later on, John TV gobbled up 6 years’ worth of time slots.
Today she splits her time at Fastaval between games, her Fasta-family and (somewhat) proper sleep.
With an education in dramaturgy and script writing, Thilde has a predilection for the Well Made Play and characters with many aspects. She loves meta, magical realism, humour, resentment and the theatrical darkness.
Thilde’s first role playing character was a swan maiden (Dragonbane), mostly due to their extreme claustrophobia, which Thilde (in 6th grade) found was exactly what was missing in a good dungeon crawl (one of many good reasons that they are normally not a playable race).
Elias Helfer
Elias’ first Fastaval was in 2006. The year before he had applied to become a member of the Info, but had been told he had to be a participant first. Since then, he has held a number of different organiser roles, such as activity coordinator, international coordinator and translator, and he has written a handful of scenarios. He has even designed a board game once.
Elias likes scenarios that allow the players to tell a good and engaging story. He is most at ease in the more fabulous tales, but he has had fantastic experiences with some of the scenarios with strong emotions at their core.
Elias’ first role playing character was a Neutral Good Elven Cleric. Today, he probably prefers characters with a bit more nuance…
Paul Sinding
Paul is relatively new to Fastaval and participated for the first time in 2021, when he co-wrote his first scenario. Since then his contributions has included being the chef at the scenario designers weekend, as well as been a main organiser for two years. When he doesn’t organise Fastaval, Paul is also involved with a lot of LARPs and roleplaying associations.
When he doesn’t organise Fastaval, Paul is also involved with a lot of LARPs and roleplaying associations.
Paul loves scenarios where the great story is intertwined with elegant mechanics, no matter if it is then dark fantasy, kitchen sink realism or pure comedy.
Paul's first role playing character was the dwarven warrior Azrak, and he was absolutely not just a wannabe Gimli with the impulse control of a 10 yr old. He was created for a game of Dragonbane in the youth club, leading to a lasting love of D100 systems and fantasy dwarves of all kinds.
Louise Floor Frellsen
Louise’s first Fastaval was in 2005, and the year after she co-wrote her first scenario. Since then, she has written Fastaval scenarios as often as she was allowed, if not occupied by another scenario related organiser role.
Louise has a preference for fantasy and sci-fi, especially when the subject is personal stakes and human relations. She enjoys immersive role playing, where she can be swallowed up by the story so that she forgets about trying to shape it.
Louise’s first role playing character was the D&D-ranger Tira. Along the way, she picked up the dog Taran, the camel Amaala, the lizard Scyrt, the owl Skyflight and the bat Patch.
Simon Steen Hansen
Simon was at Fastaval for the first time in 2001, where he exclusively played the LARPs. But soon he developed a taste for all that Fastaval has to offer. He has had different organiser roles, among other as activity planner and main organiser, and he has written a large handful of scenarios.
Currently he is in two Warhammer Fantasy campaigns and an Ars Magica campaign. Simon loves the big, epic scenarios, which allow the players to shape the story. And he believes it should be fun to be a game master.
Simon's first role playing character was a D&D elf by the name of Tin-fist, because the paint had chipped off the hand of the figure. At the first opportunity, he let Tin-fist be tempted into ruin by a cursed sword.
Evaluation process
BEFORE FASTAVAL
The chief judge is appointed by their predecessor, and they go on to select a jury of five co-judges for a total of six. The chief judge alone decides who should join the jury that year.
They will seek to assemble a balanced jury with many different perspectives on role-playing and also with varying levels of experience. Writers, game masters, and players with different preferences should be represented.
The jury typically meets up a few times before the scenarios are submitted, to agree on their process and to discuss and clarify the different Otto categories. But the real work starts after the scenario deadline. All the scenarios are read thoroughly by the jury and they typically include around 1500 pages of written material. Every scenario is analyzed and discussed on the jury’s internal forum and these written discussions form the basis of the feedback that writers receive after Fastaval.
Shortly before Fastaval, the jury meets up for a long working weekend. Here they examine all the scenarios and the written discussions again and they lay down a shortlist of potential nominees in the different categories. They might even have a tentative idea about possible winners, but nothing is final before Fastaval. Even though the judges primarily examine the submitted material, it is still very important to them to get a sense of what happens when the scenario is played. There can also be elements of a scenario that are hard to visualize based on the text alone but might emerge in playing the game.
DURING FASTAVAL
A significant part of being a Fastaval judge is to talk to both writers, game masters, and participants about the scenarios when they have been played. It is also the jury’s job to collect and read all the feedback forms that are handed in by participants during Fastaval. The conversations and especially the feedback forms are important tools for the jury to understand how the written scenarios work in practice.
Saturday at Fastaval the jury retreats from early in the morning for the final deliberation on nominees and winners. At this point the basis for discussion is both the submitted scenario, feedback from conversations with writers, players and game masters, and the feedback forms handed in.
In total five nominees are selected in each award category. Saturday evening the lists of nominees are posted in several public places at Fastaval as well as on the webpage. At the same time as the nominee reveal, the judges also publish a list with their view on each of this years scenarios. This allows the participants at Fastaval to get insight into all of the games they did not have the chance to play during Fastaval, and hopefully it will inspire some to read or play more of the games after the convention.
Sunday the jury prepares for the Otto award show. They make diplomas for each nominee and write the award presentation for the show. After the Otto-award show, the jury is available for writers and participants who might have questions about the awards.
SHORTLISTING AND THE AWARD CATEGORIES
Each Otto category has a written definition (read them here) which is finalized by the jury before the scenarios are turned in. These are the only criteria the jury relies on when selecting scenarios to be shortlisted for nominations and the winners. In short, the award for e.g. best characters goes to the scenario that excels within the criteria for that award.
Even so, it takes many, long discussions to agree upon which scenario that is. Especially since it is also very important to the judges that each scenario is analyzed on its own premises. An action-based scenario is always evaluated on how well it performs as an action game within its internal framework and rules - not whether or not it might e.g. be good drama or comedy.
The judges have four principles when shortlisting the nominees and choosing the final winners:
- Consensus
- Discussion
- No veto
- No bargaining
Consensus and discussion means that the entire jury has to agree, and agreement can only be reached through open and informed debate. No Otto is awarded based on a vote, as only sound arguments count in the selection process.
No veto means that it is not allowed for a jury member to block the nomination of a scenario if they lack solid arguments, even if they might have another favorite for the spot.
No bargaining means that the judges are not allowed to ‘strike deals’ or ‘owe’ each other anything. For instance, if a jury member loves a scenario and it is not shortlisted in a category (like Best Roles), the scenario cannot be “compensated” in another category (like Best Storytelling). Every category is approached as a clean slate, where the best arguments prevail.
Two of the Awards are a bit different from the rest. These are the Jury’s Special Award and the Participants Award. For the Special Award, the jury can nominate as many or as few scenarios as they want. A scenario can be singled out for an overall idea or a particularly strong element. With this award, the judges typically have more freedom to follow their hearts and reward scenarios that might not fit into the other categories.
The Participants award is solely based on a vote by the participants, to celebrate a scenario that has given many people a memorable experience. During Fastaval the participants may vote for those scenarios they have played or GM’ed. The scenario having received most votes is the winner of this award. If two scenarios are tied for the vote they both get the award.
AFTER FASTAVAL
When Fastaval is over, the jury begins the task of composing thorough feedback for all the Fastaval writers. This feedback is mailed to the writers a few months after Fastaval is over, so that it is available to the writers should they consider writing for Fastaval again.
