Iron ChIF: Season One Episode 1 (lpsmith vs. Afterward, using Inform 7)

The first episode of Season One will feature Challenger Lucian P. Smith (@lpsmith), author of The Edifice. The chosen platform is Inform 7, and the defending Iron Chef will be Ryan Veeder (@Afterward).

The event will start at noon UTC on Friday, February 20th and last until noon UTC on Tuesday, March 3rd.

The actual development period will be from noon Sunday, February 22nd through noon Friday, February 27th. Dishes will be released at the end of the development period, for audience play over the following weekend. Audience voting will take place between noon Sunday, March 1st and noon Tuesday, March 3rd.

The panel of judges will be

  • IFComp and Spring Thing winner Chandler Groover (@CMG)
  • Five-time XYZZY Award winner and Rosebush associate editor Victor Gijsbers (@VictorGijsbers)
  • Uniquely exuberant #5 IFDB reviewer J. J. McC (@jjmcc)
  • Record-holding player and two-time ParserComp winner Brian Rushton (@mathbrush)
  • Co-winner of two XYZZY Awards and three IFDB Awards N. Cormier (@Encorm)

and the role of technical advisor will be fulfilled by the incomparable Zed Lopez (@Zed).

27 Likes

6 posts were merged into an existing topic: Iron ChIF: Season One Episode 1 (Audience Commentary)

FAQ for Iron ChIF Season One Episode 1 (Feb 22 2026)

Following are Frequently Asked Questions for Iron ChIF, the intfiction.org version of Iron Chef.


Q: What is Iron Chef?

Iron Chef was a television show originally created in Japan in the early 1990s. (See its Wikipedia article.) It gained a certain level of popularity in other countries.

On the TV show as presented, two chefs are given a previously-unannounced “challenge ingredient” and have one hour to create five dishes using it. The dishes are served to a panel of judges, who score each dish and decide which chef is the winner.


Q: What is Iron ChIF?

Iron ChIF is an adaptation of the show to the the format of an intfiction.org forum game. It is similar in structure to the real television show, but not the same.


Q: After which version of the original show is Iron ChIF modeled?

Although there were several attempts to create “local” versions of the show, we feel that the original Japanese version is the best, and that’s the model for Iron ChIF.


Q: What are the most important differences between the TV show and Iron ChIF?

The main differences are:

  1. Number of dishes – Where the chefs on the TV show prepare five different dishes for tasting, the chefs for the forum game produce only one “dish,” a short game that integrates the challenge ingredient.

  2. Nature of challenge ingredient – The TV show is based on cooking skills, so the challenge ingredient is always a food item. Iron ChIF is rooted in writing, programming and high-level craft, so the challenge ingredient is based on concepts. (See “What is the format of a challenge ingredient?”)

  3. Winner selection – On the TV show, judges’ scoring of the dishes results in a point value for each chef which is used to determine the winner, with a special bonus round of additional cooking in the event of a tie. For the forum game, the audience choosees the winner, with the judges’ choice of winner being used as a tiebreaker if necessary.


Q: Why are you doing this?

There are several reasons:

  • Fun: Iron Chef was a very fun show. Lots of people thought the pilot episode was fun. Everyone likes fun.

  • Education: New arrivals to the forum frequently ask for advice about which development system is the best, but this is a question best answered by personal experience. It is hoped that showing various systems in use, with under-the-hood peeks of examples in each system, will expose more people to the pros and cons of each platform.

  • Advancing the Art: Although coding is obviously a major portion of the effort in creating IF, there is a level of craft that goes beyond both coding and writing. The judges will be providing expert commentary to help participants hone their craft, and the audience will be able to benefit from these lessons.


Q: Is Iron Chef (the TV show) real?

The common wisdom is that it is not “real” in the sense that the events and timeline which are presented are what actually occurred in real life. Some consider it to be a total fabrication on the order of professional wrestling.

The show is certainly edited to make it as high-energy as possible.


Q: Is Iron ChIF (the forum game) real?

Yes! Competing chefs have agreed to strict limits on the time that they will have to work with the challenge ingredient: 120 hours (5 days) from the start of the development period until the time that their dishes must be turned over for judging.

This “show” is “broadcast” live, with no editing.


Q: When will the next episode be?

The next episode will be Season One Episode 1, and it will be conducted from Friday February 20 to Tuesday March 03 in 2026, right on this very thread.


Q: What are the main roles in the show, and who will fulfill them?

A lot of people have volunteered to help make this effort a success! Each of them will participate in one of the following roles:

Iron Chefs

A fixed cast of Iron Chefs, each of whom is a distinctive expert for their chosen development system, has agreed to defend against challenges using that system. At present, the Iron Chefs are:

  • Iron Chef Inform 7: Ryan Veeder (Afterward)
  • Iron Chef Twine: SV Linwood (svlin)
  • Iron Chef Dialog: Daniel Stelzer (Draconis)
  • Iron Chef TADS: TBD
  • Iron Chef ZIL: Max Fog (SomeOne2)
  • Iron Chef Inform 6: Garry Francis (Warrigal)
  • Iron Chef Adventuron: Dee Cooke (dee_cooke)

Challengers

Before the pilot episode, sixteen confirmed challengers covering five different systems stepped up to contend with the Iron Chefs. They are (in alphabetical order by handle):

  • Mike Tarbert (BadParser)
  • Caleb Wilson (caleb)
  • Ellric (Ellric)
  • FLACRabbit (FLACRabbit)
  • John Ziegler (johnnywz00)
  • JJ McC (jjmcc)
  • Onno Brouwer (Lancelot)
  • Lucian Smith (lpsmith)
  • Sarah Willson (malacostraca)
  • Nils Fagerberg (nilsf)
  • Norbez Jones (Norbez)
  • Pacian (Pacian) [who challenged Draconis in the pilot episode and won the judges’ verdict]
  • Phil Riley (rileypb)
  • Roger (Roger)
  • Vyner Vanderhumeken (Vyner_Vanderhumeken)
  • Zed Lopez (Zed)

Judges

A pool of fifteen judges, selected from among prominent authors, reviewers and critics, have volunteered to scrutinize each dish and to entertain the audience while the chefs work. Listed alphabetically by handle, the judges revealed so far are:

  • Talented new author Amanda Walker (AmandaB)
  • Prolific author and IFComp winner Chandler Groover (CMG)
  • Rosebush editor and #3 IFDB reviewer Mike Russo (DeusIrae)
  • Choice author and noted critic Emery Joyce (EJoyce)
  • Uniquely exuberant #6 IFDB reviewer J. J. McC (jjmcc)
  • Record-holding player and two-time ParserComp winner Brian Rushton (mathbrush)
  • Game enthusiast and #5 IFDB reviewer Rovarsson (rovarsson)
  • Creative juggernaut and noted critic Wade Clarke (severedhand)
  • Five-time XYZZY Award winner and Rosebush associate editor Victor Gijsbers (VictorGijsbers)

Six other judges have agreed in private to participate in future episodes, but their identities have not yet been disclosed.

Technical Advisors

To ensure that judges and audience get the most insight into what the competing chefs are doing, additional experts for the various platforms have volunteered to provide answers to questions about technical details of the system in use. At present, they are:

  • Adventuron: Christopher Merriner (ChristopherMerriner), author of Custard & Mustard’s Big Adventure
  • Dialog: improvmonster (improvmonster), author of Frankenfingers
  • Inform 6: Fredrik Ramsberg (fredrik), co-creator of the PunyInform library
  • Inform 7: Zed Lopez (Zed), the original Mad Scientist
  • TADS: John Ziegler (johnnywz00), author of How Prince Quisborne the Feckless Shook His Title
  • Twine: Greyelf (Greyelf), community Twine expert
  • ZIL: Tara McGrew (vaporware), creator of ZILF

Audience

That’s you! Unlike the real TV show, in Iron ChIF the audience members play an active part in the show. (See “How does an episode work?” and “How can I participate as an audience member?”)


Q: How does an episode work?

Here are the steps of the typical show:

  1. Challenger intro and opening interview - The selected challenger is welcomed, and a short biography of the highlights of the challenger’s IF career is presented, followed by a pre-match interview consisting of between 6 and 10 questions. Season One Episode 1’s challenger will be Lucian P. Smith (lpsmith).

  2. Challenger’s opponent selection - The selected challenger makes a formal challenge to one of the Iron Chefs. In doing so, the challenger is also selecting the development system that will be used for the match. Audience members who have joined the official Tasters group can send in suggestions for the episode’s challenge ingredient during the week before the event. (See the question “I’d like to suggest a challenge ingredient! May I?”)

  3. Introduction of judges - The judges for the episode are introduced. Each episode features a panel of five judges drawn from forum participants. Season One Episode 1’s panel will consist of: Chandler Groover (CMG), Victor Gijsbers (VictorGijsbers), N. Cormier (Encorm), Brian Rushton (mathbrush), and J. J. McC (jjmcc).

  4. Announcement of challenge ingredient - The challenge ingredient for the episode is announced. Following the successful formula used in the pilot episode, the Iron Chef and challenger are presented with three choices for the challenge ingredient on the day before the development period, and each chef has the opportunity to veto one of them. The remaining choice is the ingredient used. Note that this allows the competing chefs an additional partial day to think about the challenge ingredient before the development period begins, but chefs are honor-bound to not begin coding until the development period officially starts.

  5. Overview of platform - The episode’s technical advisor provides an overview of the platform to be used, as an introduction to its unique strengths.

  6. Development period - The two competing chefs have 120 hours (5 days) to create their “dishes.” During this period, each chef posts at least daily to provide “WIP bits,” i.e. peeks into their development process. (See the question “What is a WIP Bit?”) Judges react to these in a wide-ranging conversation, and may call on the technical advisor for the platform in use to provide additional context about its features or to explain the function of any code that is shared. When the development period ends, the chefs release their finalized dishes for play by the judges and the audience.

  7. “Post-game” interviews" - Short interviews (3 to 5 questions) with both challenger and defending Iron Chef are conducted, to discuss how the match went and how they feel about their dishes. One chef’s interview is posted each day. During this two-day period, audience discussion of the two dishes is encouraged, and judges submit their numeric scores for each dish. (See the question “How are dishes judged?”)

  8. Announcement of Judges’ Scoring - 48 hours (2 days) after the dishes have been released, the judges’ scores are posted. Although the judges post their choice of the winner, the winner is not yet determined at this point.

  9. Audience voting - The audience has another 48 hours (2 days) in which to cast votes in favor of one dish or the other. During this period, the judges post their in-depth written evaluations of the two dishes as they finish them, explaining the reasoning behind their scoring and offering other observations and constructive criticism.

  10. Declaration of winner - When the period for audience voting ends, the vote is closed. If the audience vote is not a tie, the winner is declared immediately based on the audience choice. If the audience vote is a tie, the judges’ verdict (worst case 3-2) acts as tiebreaker.

  11. Wrap-up and news – The winner is congratulated, judges make closing remarks, and brief announcements are made about what to expect next from the show.


Q: What happens if there is an emergency affecting one of the participants?

For chefs:

  • If there has been no contact from a chef for 36 consecutive hours, an announcement will be made to prepare the audience for a possible cancellation.
  • Should there be no contact from that chef within the next 12 hours, i.e. at 48 consecutive hours of no contact, the match will be canceled.

For judges:

  • If there has been no contact from a judge for 36 consecutive hours, an alternate judge will be selected from the pool of those not participating in the episode.
  • Should there be no contact from that judge within the next 12 hours, i.e. at 48 consecutive hours of no contact, the alternate judge will be announced and will fill the role for the remainder of that episode.

For the technical advisor:

  • An announcement will be made to notify the audience, but the show will continue without technical advisor input.

Q: How are challengers being selected?

An open invitation to sign up as a challenger was included in the original post suggesting the event. Sixteen brave individuals signed up and confirmed their acceptance of the ground rules for challengers, which were:

  1. No use of AI allowed – Use of generative AI by competing chefs is strictly forbidden.

  2. Daily posting requirement – Challengers must agree to post something from their development materials at least once every day (i.e. 24-hour period) during the five-day development period. Almost anything relevant to the production process qualifies here: code snippets, screenshots, sketches, references, short dev log entries, etc. It will be up to each chef to decide which materials to share.

  3. Challenger selection vote – The premier challenger (for the pilot episode) will be decided by audience vote. Those not selected will be eligible to participate as challengers in future episodes.

To decide which challenger became the Premier Challenger, an anonymous vote was held with voters allowed to choose up to five candidates. The winner, Pacian, was the Premier Challenger for the pilot episode. Season One challengers are being selected from the highest-voted challengers for each platform.

Note that two platforms, Inform 6 and Adventuron, have not yet received any challengers. Anyone interested in being a challenger for one of those platforms should send a PM to @otistdog.


Q: What is the format of a challenge ingredient?

A challenge ingredient generally takes the form of one story element that has one defined behavior.

A “story element” generally means an object or NPC. A “behavior” is something that the object does within the game, which may or may not be under the player’s control.

As examples, these were the challenge ingredient candidates for the pilot episode:

  • a device that emits one or more mysterious messages in a non-human language
  • a person who is awake only one day per year and does not age between those days
  • an experimental time camera that allows one to take Polaroid-style pictures of the past

Q: How can I participate as an audience member?

There are several ways that you can participate:

  1. You can sign up as an official Taster. Doing so lets you use the official Taster flair icon to show your support, and gives you the chance to submit challenge ingredient suggestions.

  2. You can contribute to the audience discussion thread which will be started at the same time as the main “broadcast” thread. This thread will be set up to allow anyone to make comments about the ongoing action without interrupting the broadcast, but it’s important! The audience commentary thread will be actively monitored so that we can answer questions, make clarifications, etc.

  3. You can play the games and rate them on IFDB. Like any author, the chefs are making these games so that others can enjoy them. Enjoy the fruits of their labor of love!

  4. Importantly, you can cast a vote for the winner. Although the panel of judges will be subjecting both chefs’ dishes to rigorous scrutiny, it’s the audience vote that determines the winner of each Iron ChIF battle. The judges’ verdict determines the winner only if the audience vote results in a tie.


Q: I'd like to suggest a challenge ingredient! May I?

If you’re an official Taster and you’re using the special group flair (a fork icon), you can submit suggestions for challenge ingredients starting one week before the start of the episode. Suggestions will be accepted up until the point that the challenger formally issues a challenge to the defending Iron Chef. See the question “What is the format of a challenge ingredient?” for guidance about the form your suggested ingredient should take.

To join the Tasters group, go to the official Tasters group page. Just click the “Join” button at top right, and you’ll immediately be able to use the distinctive Taster flair via your account preferences. (The specific control is a few items below selection of your avatar image.)


Q: What are the chefs supposed to do with the challenge ingredient?

As part of the format of the show, it is required that the story element defined by the challenge ingredient be incorporated into the game that is produced. The competing chefs are given wide latitude in their interpretation of the challenge ingredient, but the central challenge is to make it an integral and substantially significant part of the produced dish, and one of the categories for judging is dedicated to this aspect.

Chefs with more inventive interpretations are likely to do better, but the contest is ultimately one of high-level craft and audience appeal.


Q: What if a chef doesn't like the challenge ingredient?

They’re called “challenge ingredients” for a reason! Some of the most famous episodes of the TV show involve challenge ingredients that are very difficult to work with.

In order to ensure the best possible results for the audience, however, for Season One the competing chefs will be allowed to choose the challenge ingredient to be used from a group of three options. (See next question.)


Q: What?? Chefs get to choose the challenge ingredient? What kind of nonsense is that?

The person choosing the challenge ingredients has absolutely no relevant experience when it comes to making complete games on a tight deadline. In order to ensure that the competing chefs are not given something completely unworkable, a process was developed to allow the competing chefs to winnow out one of three possible challenge ingredient candidates.

The feedback from competing chefs in the pilot indicated that this approach was beneficial, so it has been adopted as the standard format for Season One. If the two competing chefs both wish it, they can elect to hold a “no warning” challenge in which neither has an influence on the choice of ingredient and they learn it only at the start of the development period.


Q: Are chefs allowed to use pre-developed code?

Yes. Chefs are allowed to use code from extensions (both their own and those available to the public), segments from their own previous projects, or even suitable public source code from another author. The intent is to make it possible for the chefs to make better dishes within the tight time constraint, and not to force them to reproduce basics during the contest.

Chefs are forbidden to create any new code for their dish until the start of the development period, even if they know the challenge ingredient slightly in advance.


Q: Are chefs allowed to obtain beta testing for their dishes?

That question is being decided over the course of Season One.

For the pilot episode, beta testing was not allowed because (oh, so ironically) it never came up during planning discussions. For Season One Episode 1, judges have approved a liberal beta testing policy that allows the competing chefs to recruit and make use of as many beta testers as desired. These testers can be consulted at any point during the development period, as often as desired.

For transparency’s sake, chefs must name all beta testers consulted via in-game credits.

This policy is provisional and at present has been approved for Season One Episode 1 only. Different rules may apply to future episodes.


Q: How are dishes judged?

Judges provide a numeric score for each of the two dishes produced in an episode. There are five (5) categories for numeric scoring, with a range of 1-10 per category for a total of 5-50 points per dish.

Categories are defined via a list of questions to be considered when determining the score. Scoring is explicitly based on each judge’s interpretation of the relevant questions, and is specifically to be given in terms of relative score between the two dishes as opposed to an absolute score according to some externally-defined ideal. This means that scores between dishes that are prepared in different episodes (with different judging panels) are only loosely comparable.

The five categories and their questions are:

  1. Writing

    • How effective and engaging is the prose?
    • Does the dish have a distinctive narrative voice?
    • How well does the output prose flow in response to the player’s commands?
    • How well are mood and atmosphere conveyed?
    • Do stylistic choices cohere into an overall style?
    • Is the story compelling?
    • Does the story have satisfying dynamics?
    • Is the story thematically coherent?
    • Are any narrative tropes used well?
    • Are any twists effective?
    • Are characters distinct and/or well-drawn?
    • Do the characters change over time (in personality or behaviour) if the dish demands it?
    • If the PC is a specific character, are default responses in-character?
    • Do any NPCs feel like people and not obstacles?
    • Does the world convince on its own terms? Examples: Does an inhabited world feel inhabited? An abandoned world feel abandoned? Can the player imagine the world beyond the map?
    • Is the PC appropriately integrated into the setting?
    • Is there any backstory or lore that is revealed naturally?
    • Does the setting change or develop over time?
  2. Playability

    • Is the central play experience interesting and satisfying?
    • Do gameplay mechanics work properly? Are they easy to understand? Are they engaging?
    • Is the implementation solid? Are any bugs or oversights negatively affecting the dish?
    • Is the player’s relationship to the PC clear to the player?
    • How novel are any puzzles? Are they appropriately clued? Are they unified with the gameworld?
    • Are the map and any navigation coherent?
    • Did the first taste of interaction make me crave more?
    • When I interact with this piece, am I playing, i.e. engaging in a fun and curious manner with the work, no matter if it’s easy or difficult or scary or comedic?
  3. Design

    • Do the design choices add up to a coherent and effective overall design?
    • Is there a harmony between whole and parts or does the dish feel lopsided?
    • Do the writing and programming work together to cause the fiction’s ideas and feelings to be sustained in the player’s mind?
    • Has the chef worked with their chosen platform to best effect?
    • Is the player’s relationship to the PC presented consistently?
    • Are any mechanical tropes used well?
    • Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?
  4. Inventiveness

    • To what extent has the chef responded to the overall challenge in a fresh, surprising or original way?
    • Were game mechanics inventive?
    • Was the use of the platform clever, inventive or novel?
    • Has the author shown originality within the scope given to them?
  5. Challenge Ingredient

    • How has the challenge ingredient been used? Well? Harmoniously? Sufficiently? Or just incidentally?
    • Is the whole dish suffused with the challenge ingredient concept?

Note that many questions are recognized to be applicable to only some dishes, i.e. several questions under “Writing” about characters would be less applicable in a dish that has no NPCs (though the PC also counts as a character). Whether or not this results in a lower score is highly judge-dependent; in general, the judges are prepared to judge each dish on its own merits, so a well-executed dish without NPCs but with a well-constructed PC should do fine for those questions. Likewise, a “puzzleless” story-oriented game would not necessarily suffer under “Playability” due to a lack of puzzles. However, chefs are advised that, all other things being equal, a better-balanced and coherent smaller dish is likely to do better than a more ambitious but unevenly-developed dish.

Also note, and importantly: Judges are allowed to choose a winner in contradiction to their numeric scoring. The main purpose of the numeric scoring is to provide feedback about the chefs’ relative accomplishments across the five dimensions that the working group decided were most important for this contest; the working group intentionally left room for “X factor” elements not covered by the category rubric to be decisive.


Q: Is any other feedback provided by the judges?

In addition to the numeric scoring, judges provide a written evaluation that generally (but not always) is in the range of 500-1000 words in length. The contents of written evaluations are the domain of each individual judge.


Q: How and when will I get to play the games made by the competing chefs?

The two dishes will be posted to the episode thread (as ZIP files) shortly after the end of the development period, and will be available for immediate play by the audience. Audience voting will begin 48 hours after the end of the development period, following the posting of the judges’ numeric scores.

After the match, the games will also be submitted to the IF Archive and listings created on IFDB. Authors may choose to make their games available in other places; if this is done then the associated IFDB page(s) will be updated to include appropriate links.


Q: What is a WIP Bit?

A “WIP Bit” is the nickname for an item posted by a competing chef during the development period. WIP Bits are analogous to the brief shots of the chefs at work on the TV show. They are the basis for quite a bit of the banter between the judges, who speculate about what is being made and ask questions about the ingredients and techniques in use.

Both Iron Chefs and challengers post these during the development period to illustrate some aspect of their development process. A WIP Bit can be just about anything that the competing chef chooses to release: short dev log entries, design notes, code snippets, screenshots, sketches, references to inspirational materials, citations from documentation, etc.

Judges react to these and may ask clarifying questions to be answered by the technical advisor for the episode.


Q: Who was 'Fukui-san,' and is there someone like that for Iron ChIF?

“Fukui-san” was Kenji Fukui, the primary announcer for the TV show during the matches themselves. There is no direct equivalent for the forum game, but the role will be partially fulfilled by the master of ceremonies (outside of matches) and technical advisors (during matches).

The person who most often said “Fukui-san?” on the TV show was Shinichiro Ohta, another announcer who would interrupt Kenji Fukui with information from the floor of the kitchen arena.


Q: Who came up with the name Iron ChIF?

That honor goes to @caleb, who proposed it on the original thread.


Q: Who came up with the concept art, flair icons, and other graphical assets?

That honor goes to @FLACRabbit, who developed all of them.

7 Likes

Things have been very quiet at Iron ChIF headquarters, but not forgotten! The crew for Season One Episode 1 has been working behind the scenes, and almost everything is lined up and ready with plenty of time to spare.

For those who haven’t scrutinized the updated FAQ above, the rules are basically the same as the pilot, except that competing chefs are allowed to use beta testers. That’s a provisional rule for this episode, and we’re trying a very open model this time to see how it works out.

I’ll be posting updates at least weekly as we count down the days until the next episode, featuring Ryan Veeder (Afterward) vs. Lucian P. Smith (lpsmith). Clear your calendars and get ready for another thrilling match at Keyboard Stadium!

17 Likes

Two weeks to until the start of Season One!

After Episode 1, we’ll be looking to hold additional matches by the end of the year, featuring the top-voted challengers for TADS (assuming that a replacement Iron Chef can be found), Twine and ZIL.

If you think you might like to be a challenger for a system that has not yet had one (Inform 6 or Adventuron), then let me know by PM. Iron Chefs are ready to meet your challenge and defend their title!

10 Likes

Just about a week to go now. Things are getting serious.

Our competing chefs have confirmed that they are ready.

Our superb panel of judges has just completed a short warm-up exercise.

Our expert technical advisor is hammering out an overview of Inform 7 for the benefit of those new to the language.

Iron ChIF Season One Episode 1 will begin at noon UTC on Friday February 20.

12 Likes

[Season One Episode 1 of Iron ChIF will begin in about twelve hours. Please stand by.]

14 Likes

(A note for members of the audience: As with the pilot episode, a separate thread has been started for audience discussion of the ongoing show. Everyone is encouraged to make use of it! Audience comments posted to this thread will be moved there.)

1 Like

2 Likes

In 2025, a forum member’s fantasy became reality in a form never seen before: a giant virtual coding arena, the Keyboard Stadium.

The motivation for spending his free time to create Keyboard Stadium was to encounter new, original works of interactive fiction which could be called true artistic creations.

To realize this dream, he first secretly started selecting the top experts of the various IF development platforms, and he named these experts the “Iron Chefs,” the invincible wielders of coding skills:

  • Iron Chef Dialog is Daniel Stelzer (Draconis),
  • Iron Chef Twine is SV Linwood (svlin),
  • Iron Chef Inform 6 is Garry Francis (Warrigal),
  • Iron Chef Adventuron is Dee Cooke (dee_cooke),
  • Iron Chef ZIL is Max Fog (SomeOne2),
  • and Ryan Veeder (Afterward) is Iron Chef Inform 7!

The Keyboard Stadium is the arena where Iron Chefs await the challenges of brave and ambitious authors from around the world. Both the Iron Chef and challenger have five days to tackle the theme ingredient of the match, using all their experience, skills and creativity
 there to prepare artistic “dishes” never tasted before.

And if ever a challenger wins over the Iron Chef, he or she will gain the people’s ovation and fame forever!

Every battle, reputations are on the line in Keyboard Stadium, where master crafters pit their artistic creations against each other.

What inspiration will this episode’s challenger bring, and how will the Iron Chef fight back? The heat will be on!

12 Likes

If memory serves me right, as the turn of the century drew near, the introduction of Inform 6 – a free authoring system as capable as the commercially-offered TADS – produced a flowering of amateur and hobbyist works of interactive fiction. Many of these were of a quality comparable to store-bought products of the preceding decade.

As the internet became available to homes worldwide, fans of interactive fiction began to gather in two newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction and rec.arts.int-fiction. Serious authors tended toward the latter, which they nicknamed “raif” as a shorthand. Today’s challenger is one of many who flocked to that newsgroup and began to learn about the tools and techniques for producing IF, helping to establish the enduring community that lives on here in this forum today.

Lucian P. Smith (@lpsmith) is a venerable wise sage of the IF community, first descending to the masses in 1997 to dispense the glorious The Edifice to the 3rd Annual Interactive Fiction Competition. The game won the comp, and also gathered that year’s XYZZY Awards for Best Puzzles and Best Puzzle, the latter for the game’s ‘language puzzle’, now objectively calculated to be the greatest parser puzzle of all time. Realizing the awesome power of his abilities, and being unwilling to shame the community, he retreated, creating a couple instances of speed IF in the following year. Even that was too great a burden, so he then retreated even further into his ivory tower, emerging only to dispense his wisdom as a Reviewer Judge, or to participate in the collaborative projects, An Escape to Remember, House of Dream of Moon, and Cragne Manor. Finally realizing that retreat was boring and dumb, he escaped his ivory tower only to find himself newly trapped in the glaring lights of Keyboard Stadium, with nary a co-author in sight! Will his old-school sensibilities combined with his faltering grasp of Inform 7’s syntax and foibles allow him to prevail? Probably not, but let’s clap anyway. He’s old [1][2][3], and will probably appreciate it[4].

[Editor’s note: All claims in the preceding paragraph were 100% vetted and approved by lpsmith, who provided many particulars. Their veracity should not be doubted.]

Smith’s debut release took first place in a field of 34, outpacing Babel, Glowgrass, She’s Got a Thing for Spring, A Bear’s Night Out, Sunset Over Savannah and many other notable games from that cohort. Was it a lucky break – a mere fluke – or does it signify deep skill and untapped potential? The answer to that question begins today, as he boldly enters Keyboard Stadium to challenge Afterward, the defending Iron Chef for Inform 7.

Stay tuned for lpsmith’s pre-match interview, in which he’ll discuss his entry into the IF scene, his experiences as an author and player, and more!


  1. Hey! Watch it! -LS ↩

  2. But.. you wrote this yourself! -LS ↩

  3. FINE keep it. -LS ↩

  4. Damn straight I will. ↩

19 Likes

We now turn the camera to this episode’s challenger, LUCIAN P. SMITH, to learn more about his career in interactive fiction



Q: Your introduction to interactive fiction was a little unusual in that you got it secondhand, via stories from friends at middle school. What was it about this medium that attracted you even before you could experience it firsthand?

LPS: Two things: puzzles and humor. I’ve always liked puzzles of various sorts, and the idea of solving things by going into a simulated environment and just typing things was an inherently compelling idea to me, and of course, being untethered to reality let it become even more wondrous in my mind! And of course the main reason my friends were telling me stories about the games in the first place was to share the funny stories they had found, both those deliberately placed (“You see a fork in the road. >GET FORK”) and the unintentional goofiness that ensues when a game lets users type literally anything and then tries its best to cope.


Q: Your reintroduction to the IF scene after the commercial era was Graham Nelson’s Curses. How did you happen across it? What stands out about your experience with it?

LPS: I was in my first year of grad school, and my fiancĂ©e was in a different state finishing college, so I had a lot of time to myself. At one point (if I’m remembering correctly) I searched the nascent internet for ‘text adventure games’ on a whim, remembering the games I had played back in junior high/high school, and found it.

I don’t remember particular room descriptions or anything, but I do remember having just a sense of awe that here was a new game in this old style that I had watched die years ago. And not only that, it was good! And huge! There was no way (of course) for me to directly get a page count or something like that for the game when I started it, but there are ways that games can convey their size to you even early on: giving you a variety of goals, both long- and short-term, letting you mess with objects that obviously have a use, but equally clearly they are not useful yet, even just depth of implementation or complexity of early puzzles. All those sorts of things combined to tell me that Curses was going to be ginormous, but also solid. It was astonishing.


Q: Your first released work was really more along the lines of “interactive non-fiction”: a tool for helping voters in the 1996 IFComp. You kept up annual releases of this tool for many years. The IFDB entry for the collection is tagged easter egg – care to comment?

LPS: It was a great first game exercise! Limited scope, clear goals, simple design. In the end, it was probably a bit overengineered–there were all sorts of ways to cull games by type or operating system (the main way games were distinguished as ‘playable/interesting to me’ in those days), but all you really needed was a way to randomly sort a list. And, realizing that, I also gave people the Big Red Button Which, If You Push It, Will Do Everything You Really Need To Do Automatically, so that ‘>PUSH BUTTON. QUIT.’ was a valid ‘walkthrough’ for the game. Then the next year I put all the new games in but left the previous year’s games in as a sort of easter egg (the probable reason for the tag? I guess?). One year I put in fake games from the far-distant future of 2006, both ones I had made up and ones from an r*if post I had enjoyed. I’m still overly fond of the idea of Andrew Plotkin, Jr. entering a terrible game in AGT in an act of defiance against his dad.

From there, I kept things up for several years, but eventually it became more of a hindrance than a help–comp organizers had to get the final list of games all ready (and that list always changes up to the last possible moment), then send that list to me, then I had to code up all the games and deal with all the weirdness of the odd systems that were entered that year, or game names that broke the parser (like a game with ‘and’ in the title or the like). Nowadays, the personal shuffle list on the web site is overall much more functional than CompXX ever was, but I do like to think it owes at least a bit to my little room of games and bins and levers and a Big Red Button Which



Q: You’ve said that you “discovered Curses, the newsgroups, Inform [6], and the comp, in that order.” As a newcomer to the scene, you won the 3rd IFComp in 1997 with The Edifice. What do you think was the secret of its success?

LPS: I mean, hands down it’s the language puzzle. It’s basically all anyone talked about in their reviews, and in retrospect it’s by far the standout set piece of the game, both in content and context. I had zero idea that this would be the case when I entered the game, though–to me, it was just one puzzle among many. And interestingly, I had no idea before beta testing whether it was solvable at all, because I had no way to test it!

The content of the puzzle I’ve described before as ‘limited, complete scope’: limited in that there’s well-defined boundaries of what you can do (say combinations of ~20 words, and point at things), and complete, in that Stranger has some unique response for almost everything you try. The sheer volume of responses also meant that he was well characterized, and people ended up being kind of endeared to him.

The reviews on the newsgroup universally mentioned the language puzzle, to the point where I was genuinely shocked when The Edifice was nominated for the XYZZY for Best Puzzles. I didn’t realize anyone had even noticed any of the other puzzles in the game!

To answer the implied ‘how did you do so well as a newbie’ question
 I’m afraid I can’t say any more than to guess ‘luck and audacity’. It was pure luck that I happened to think of it, and pure audacity that I thought, “Oh, yeah, I got this,” when I started coding it.


Q: Speaking of the language puzzle, are you generally interested in linguistics? If not, what prompted you to try this?

LPS: Nope! The prompt for the game in general was the animated short ‘The Edifice’ from Why Man Creates by Saul Bass (1968)[1], combined with the general idea of the Civilization II Tech Tree. Not that ‘the invention of language’ is in either (though the latter has ‘Alphabet’); it was more the general idea of ‘You’re an early human. Why do you invent stuff? How can I let a player do that?’


Q: What favorite game(s) stand out as particularly inspirational to you as an author?

LPS: There’s a lot of games I’ve liked, but usually not in an ‘I should do something like that’ way. I would say that in general, my favorite games are the ones that know exactly what they’re doing, and then they Do That Thing, enthusiastically. Focus and competence, like you find in many of the standout games of my era like the Plotkin and Short games. But liking games everyone else likes is boring; I have to shout out a couple games that I still remember years later as having won me over with sheer chutzpah in the face of not-always-coherent coding: August, which I got to review as part of the 2001 SmoochieComp, and the bonkers Jacks or Better to Murder, Aces to Win from Comp99. August was written in a week and is buggy as anything, and you solve the mystery in Jacks by going south, but both just had a fire and flash that I remember fondly to this day.

Jumping forward a few decades to when I found myself able to play and rate IF Comp games again, I also have to say that there’s a special place in my heart for Ribald Bat Lady Plunder Quest, which was my absolute top favorite IF Comp game of 2023 by a wide margin, again for its absolute Commitment To The Bit, and its amazing protagonist. And this will probably surprise anyone who read my reviews that year, particularly if you are Robert Patten, but the other game that looms large in my memory is Beat Witch. I was so angry at that game by the end of it. Just furious. But I remember that world. I remember the tone, the protagonist, the magic, the villain, all so vividly. Absolutely the best game I ever hated.


Q: You’ve said that the reason that you moved to Inform 7 from Inform 6 through “inertia,” particularly because it was used in two IF Whispers games you contributed to (An Escape to Remember and House of Dream of Moon). Have any other development systems caught your eye? Are there any that you think you might try in the future?

LPS: Actually, the pilot episode of this very show alerted me to the existence of Dialog, and I was intrigued! The automapping and the word-highlighting in particular seemed compelling, and the weirdness of I7 when you can’t figure out exactly the right phrase has been wearing a little thin, especially when I’m not using it regularly.

Also, I got to attend a working demo of Ink at Narrascope 2024, and I was won over by its look and feel–if I ever want to do something in the Choice realm, I think I’d probably try that first. It just gave off a vibe of ‘oh, yeah, that’s how I think about choice-based games, too’.


Q: You were a contributor to Coke Is It!, two IF Whispers games, and Cragne Manor, all of which were built via the collaborative efforts of many authors. What can you tell us about your experiences as part of large author groups? Is there something about this format that you find particularly appealing?

LPS: Working in a group has been great for me personally because it’s been a good level of responsibility: I’m not responsible for the whole thing, so I’m not overwhelmed, but people are counting on me for my part, which means I’m more motivated. I’ve also delighted in Inform 7’s ability to let me muck about with parts of the game I know nothing about: for Whispers 3 (House of Dream of Moon), I only saw one other person’s code, but wrote a whole extra plotline that involved the player from the very beginning to the very end. In Cragne Manor, I introduced a character that followed the player around, again, through areas whose code I never saw. Writing up code that I knew literally nobody would see how or even if it worked until someone actually played the game was kind of subversively delightful to me.

I should also mention that Ryan Veeder (the Cragne Manor co-organizer but also my opponent in this illustrious showdown) was not super keen on contributed code interfering with other sections, and it was all Jenny Polodna (the other co-organizer) who dived in and helped make it work. Pretending that Ryan still harbors resentment towards me for breaking the walls of his hard-enough-already-without-people-deliberately-making-it-harder project turns this Iron ChIF competition into a bona fide grudge match, which sounds delightful, so let’s go with that. Bring it on, Veeder! If I could contribute code to your game to make your life difficult I would do it again!

(Now I’m worried that he’s going to submit a malicious pull request for my own game’s code during this competition. I guess I brought that on myself.)


Q: You’ve said that code from other games was “absolutely invaluable” when learning new languages. Are there particular games that have source code you would recommend for study to novices?

LPS: I think the most valuable code for anyone (novices or veterans) is code for a game you know, ideally for something it does that you want to emulate. I only recently found the pinned thread Inform 7 documentation and resources, but it’s obviously excellent, and contains links to a lot of full game source code; finding something in there that you’ve played before shouldn’t be difficult–and if it is, just play some of those games! They’re excellent. It might also be interesting to search github for even more examples.

The reason I like full working examples is that when coding in any system, half the time my problem turns out to stem from some bit of context for the code I’m trying to write instead of the ‘core’ code itself. Having a working example means that all of the context has to be there, even if it’s a pain to find. Working complete C++ examples will show you which files to #include (for example); working I7 examples will have all the little fiddly bits that you have to get right to reference your table or what have you. You can also plop down working code that Does Something into the middle of your own game, make sure it still Does The Same Thing, and can then gradually morph it to Do What You Actually Want. It’s not efficient in the slightest, but it has the advantage of always working, which is sometimes what you need.

In the I7 manual, the short code snippets are nice and usually what you need, but when things are mysterious, the full examples are always the way to go.


Q: Your other published games, The Chicken Under the Window, and Three Steps to the Left were speed IF. What drew you to these particular speed IF events over the others?

LPS: So, The Chicken Under The Window (or ‘cutwind.z5’, as I so hilariously named the file) has a bit of a complicated backstory. On ifMUD in 1998, we were bandying around the idea of having a competition smaller than the annual comp, and I thought, well hey, let’s just do it instead of talking about it. So I put together a web site on my university account, and introduced, “The First Ever (And Maybe The Only) Interactive Fiction Mini-Competition”. I gave people a month to finish their games, and gave them a RIDICULOUSLY COMPLICATED PREMISE. To this day, I am not entirely sure what I was thinking. But I was definitely thinking it strongly! [2] [3]

Within a couple weeks of my competition being announced, Adam Cadre announced a different mini-comp: the ChickenComp, with the premise ‘a chicken crossing a road’. My comp wasn’t even done yet! And I will admit now, with the safety of years of separation from the event, that I was more than a little salty that when I had asked Adam what he thought about my premise back before I announced it, he hadn’t said something helpful like ‘um, maybe this is too complicated’. To be fair, maybe he hadn’t noticed either? But it didn’t take the newsgroup long to figure it out.

At the same time
 it was clearly a much better competition and premise. And so I swallowed my pride, and partly in an effort to show other people that I was fine with Adam sort of stepping on my parade, and partly in an effort to get over being salty about Adam sort of stepping on my parade, I entered my own game into Adam’s comp. It was a straight-up parody of Andrew Plotkin’s The Space Under The Window (but much simpler in its structure and execution), that in the end I was kind of proud of. It really runs with its premise and is just unabashedly silly.

This is a very long and drawn-out way of answering your question ‘why this comp instead of others’: it was the first comp of its kind that wasn’t my own! It actually even pre-dated speed IF: The FEAMTO comp was May of '98, ChickenComp in June of '98, the first speed IF in October of '98, and the third (which I entered with ‘Three Steps..’, finally having both an idea and time) in December of '98.


Q: Do you see value in speed IF? If so, is it value for the authors, for potential players, or both?

LPS: My old college Communications professor used to say that if something is worth doing, it’s worth doing poorly. Anything that results in an artifact of self-expression has value, in my view. Finding what it’s valuable for is, to a very real extent, an exercise for the reader. And it’s fine if some people know it’s not for them, but the process of finding the value of some weird bit of art can be really rewarding: maybe you find an unexpected turn of phrase, or a new take on an old trope, or an approach to interactivity you haven’t seen before.

That said, my guess is that for most speed IF, the biggest value is to the author. Just getting something complete and out the door is a win, and the low stakes means that you can try something weird or fun or dumb and just see if it works. And failures are just as valuable (if not moreso) than successes, especially if it helps you improve in the future.


Q: What’s your basic game plan when creating speed IF? Do you plan to do something similar here?

LPS: Yes, my game plan has not changed in the slightest since 1998: damn the torpedoes, and full speed ahead!

This competition will actually be an interesting blend of my past timeframes: all of my stuff so far has been written to deadlines, but generally there was ‘plenty of time’, with the exception of Three Steps for which I had (IIRC) two or three hours total. This time there’s a good amount of time pressure and a deadline, plus the expectation of making constant progress over the course of the week. That’s new to me!

My plan is to set up a github repository for the game beforehand, including all the extensions I might need, and with a basic structure using ‘extensions’ to break up my source code into separate files. Once things start, I’ll spend a good amount of time the first day brainstorming and planning, and then
 dive in and see what happens? Since the competition is open to free-form beta-testing, I’m lining up one person each day to test the game as it stands at the end of it. I hope this fulfills two goals: it will give me the impetus to create something playable by the end of every day, and it’ll fulfill the ‘test early, test often’ mantra.


Q: You’ve been involved in the IF scene for quite a while. Of all the new things to come along in that time, which ones are the most significant in your view, and why?

LPS: I don’t feel remotely qualified to answer that question, but I can answer a related one: what’s the weirdest thing to come along? And the answer to that, hands down, is ‘people actually pay money to play IF’. That was an absolutely ludicrous notion in the '90’s and aughts. In fact, one way to spot the people on the newsgroups most out of touch with reality was if they claimed they were selling their game. Joke was on us, though, apparently! Turns out they were ahead of their time, not behind it.


Q: How has IF affected the rest of your life?

LPS: It got me my job!

In 2003, after having been in grad school for an unconscionable 10 years, my family and I moved to Seattle, moved back in with my parents, and started job-searching, this time in the city in which we wanted to live, instead of from halfway across the continent. A few months later, I found a posted post-doc position in the lab of one Mary Kuhner. “Wait,” I thought, “I know that name
” And indeed, she turned out to be another denizen of the r*if newsgroups, who had even written a review of my game lo these ages past (she gave it a ‘7’). I applied for the position, and in my cover letter said “Hey, by the way
” When she got it, she looked me up, remembered her review, and found my XYZZYNews article about coding the language puzzle. She was running a software lab, and essentially, she knew I could Do Science because of my PhD, but she knew I could program because of The Edifice. I got hired, and ‘programming in science’ is what I’ve done ever since. [4]


Q: What do you see as the highest skills in the craft of IF?

LPS: IF is inherently an interactive medium. It’s why your players are there instead of reading a book. As such, the first ‘high skill’ you need as an author is simply the ability to give your audience something to do that they’ll enjoy doing.

But the second is the same as I see as the ‘high skill’ of the craft of any art: the ability to communicate. If an author can speak truth into a game in a way that I can hear it on the other side, everything else is kind of moot–I’ll forgive even terrible or nonexistent interactivity if I’m moved by something an author has to say. I feel like most of us have heard someone sing from the heart, and suddenly it didn’t really matter if they were on pitch or kept a steady beat. The ability to bare your soul, whether it be profound, silly, dry, sincere, sarcastic, evocative, or anything else, is fundamentally how art works.

And when I’m a participant in that moment of communication, there’s nothing quite like it.


  1. Fun fact: you can see it playing in the background in X-Men 2! ↩

  2. OK, as I browse the old site again, I’m remembering more and more of what I was thinking. I was wrong, and I’m not sure how I didn’t notice that I was wrong, but I do remember my grandiose ideas of ‘oh, sure, people will be able to do this no problem’. Ah, youth. ↩

  3. Oh, yeah! I was also thinking of the Twonky Island assignment/games that students had written for a class at NWU! ↩

  4. My dad told me later that while I was languishing in grad school, he had googled me, and discovered The Edifice. ‘Ah, so that’s what he’s doing instead of writing his thesis,’ he thought (but, kindly, did not tell me). When I finally got a job in large part because of that selfsame goofy game I had written, his attitude shifted to be a little more charitable to how I had spent my time. Not that he was wrong, mind you. ↩

21 Likes

Since audacity already has been amply demonstrated, we wish our challenger only luck in the coming match. @lpsmith: May you receive inspiration suitable to the task before you, and may your dish speak truth in a way that can be heard on the other side.

With the courageous figure of the challenger looming large in our hearts and minds, we now wait for his formal challenge
 and for the reply of the Iron Chef!

7 Likes

>LOOK

Backstage

This small, cramped room has a single lightbulb hanging from a wire, illuminating a handful of shelves, a monitor, and a collection of props. A door leads east to the stage.

From the other side of the door comes the sound of your own voice saying “And when I’m a participant in that moment of communication, there’s nothing quite like it.”

A voice from your earpiece says, “OK, Lucian, you’re on in 3.”

>I

You are carrying:
a grey wig (being worn)
an earpiece (being worn)
a script

From the other side of the door comes the sound of cordial applause.

A voice from your earpiece says, “OK, Lucian, you’re on in 2.”

>TURN ON MONITOR

The monitor flares to life, showing the stage of Keyboard Stadium. A screen is disappearing as it rises from the rear of the stage, up behind the curtain.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of an orchestral fanfare.

A voice from your earpiece says, “OK, Lucian, you’re on in 1.”

>X COLLECTION OF PROPS

There’s a odd mish-mash of props lying around, including an old keyboard, a Triage Mk 1, a useful rock, a book of matches, and a cane. Most of them aren’t useful, but you figure the cane might enhance the ‘old guy’ vibe you’re going for, so you pick it up.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of the voice of Otis T. Dog: “Since audacity already has been amply demonstrated, we wish our challenger only luck in the coming match. lpsmith: May you receive inspiration suitable to the task before you, and may your dish speak truth in a way that can be heard on the other side.”

A voice from your earpiece says, “OK, Lucian, you’re on!”

>E

The door to the east is closed.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of thunderous applause!

A voice from your earpiece says, “Uh, Lucian? You’re on!”

>OPEN DOOR

The door to the east is locked.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of fading applause.

A voice from your earpiece says, “Lucian? Hello?”

>UNLOCK DOOR

With what?

>WITH KEY

(keyboard prop: taken)

The keyboard prop doesn’t seem to fit the lock.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of scattered applause.

A voice from your earpiece says, “I don’t know; he’s not responding.”

>VOICE, HELLO

You seem to want to talk to someone, but I can’t see whom.

>TELL VOICE THAT THE DOOR IS LOCKED

You can’t see any such thing.

>I CAN’T SEE ANY SUCH THING BECAUSE IT’S JUST A VOICE IN MY EARPIECE!

I only understood you as far as wanting to take inventory.

>TELL EARPIECE ABOUT DOOR

You can only do that to something animate.

>X SHELVES

The shelves are mostly empty, but in the dust you see a roll of tape, a mason jar with something in it, and two spare spotlights.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of the orchestra playing a fanfare again.

A voice from your earpiece says, “Lucian? Are you okay?”

>UNDO

The use of ‘undo’ is forbidden in this story.

>GET ALL FROM MASON JAR

stage fluff: Taken
brass key: Taken
double-A battery: Taken

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of the slightly-panicked voice of Otis: "That’s right, folks! Returning, um, from a hiatus of a, uh, number of years, it’s Lucian Smith! Who is here to challenge our Iron ChIF Inform 7!

A voice from your earpiece says, “Lucian, for the love of all that’s holy, get out on that stage.”

>UNLOCK DOOR

With what?

>WITH KEY

What key do you mean, the keyboard prop, the brass key, or the double-A battery?

>HOW THE HELL IS KEY A SYNONYM FOR THE DOUBLE-A BATTERY?

That’s not a verb I recognize.

>BRASS KEY

That’s not a verb I recognize.

>UNLOCK DOOR WITH BRASS KEY

Unlocked.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of polite applause.

A voice from your earpiece says, “I dunno, can you just read his challenge? Didn’t he email it to you?”

>E

The door to the east is closed.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of complete silence.

A voice from your earpiece says, “<the sounds of typing>”

>HOW IS ONE SILENCE OUT OF SYNC WITH ANOTHER SILENCE? AND A VOICE SAYS THE SOUNDS OF TYPING? WHAT?

That’s not a verb I recognize.

>OPEN DOOR

You open the door to the east.

On the monitor, the door in the back of the stage opens.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of the voice of Otis T. Dog, saying “Since Lucian apparently can’t come out, I’ll share his prepared statement instead.”

A voice from your earpiece says, “OK, got it. I’ll read it to you.”

>WAVE

You wave, feeling foolish.

From the monitor and from the other side of the door (slighty out of sync with each other) comes the sound of the voice of Otis T. Dog, saying “I, Lucian P. Smith, hereby present this the door’s open, is he–”

A voice from your earpiece says, “I, Lucian P. Smith, hereby present this
 The door’s open! Is he there?”

>E

Keyboard Stadium Stage

The stage of Keyboard Stadium is currently mostly cleared off, though from the stage itself you can see the places where desks will be bolted on for the actual competition, along with the power and ethernet outlets in the floor. A microphone on a microphone stand is placed in the center front of the stage, with Otis is standing at it. Further east is the orchestra pit, and beyond that, the packed seats of the stadium. A backstage door stands to the west, and stairs to the northeast and southeast lead down to the audience.

Otis T. Dog is here, looking relieved.

A spotlight picks you out, nearly blinding you!

Otis announces, “Everybody! It’s Lucian! A warm round of applause for our challenger. Again.”

A voice from your earpiece says, “It’s him! Thank the good lord in heaven above.”

>WAVE

You wave your cane feebly in the air, and grin at the crowd.

The audience applauds again, politely.

Otis T. Dog steps back from the microphone.

>READ SCRIPT

You read over your short challenge to Iron ChIF Inform 7, Ryan Veeder. It’s the same as when you wrote it.

The audience waits politely.

Otis T. Dog looks at you expectantly.

>READ SCRIPT ALOUD

I only understood you as far as wanting to read the script.

>READ SCRIPT OUT LOUD

I only understood you as far as wanting to read the script.

>READ SCRIPT WITH VOICE

I only understood you as far as wanting to read the script.

>RECITE SCRIPT

That’s not a verb I recognize.

>ACT OUT SCRIPT

That’s not a verb I recognize.

>READ SCRIPT INTO MICROPHONE

You read the script into the microphone, putting a quaver into your voice so you sound old. “I, Lucian P. Smith, hereby present this challenge to Ryan Veeder, aka @Afterward, aka Iron ChIF Inform 7: I challenge you to a duel of game making! From an inspirational ingredient we both find relatively unobjectionable. With beta testers if we like. In front of this audience. In Inform 7, since that’s the system you’re the Iron ChIF of. And have written a bunch of games in, including one we’re both technically authors of, though the amount of work you put into it was–”

Dammit, you didn’t stick to the script.

The audience starts to giggle.

Otis T. Dog waves his hand at his neck; the universal symbol to wrap things up.

>WRAP THINGS UP

You speak into the mic, ‘Uh, in summary, BRING IT ON!!!’

Otis T. Dog looks relieved, and signals for Ryan to come on stage.

The audience cheers!

*** YOU HAVE MANAGED TO CHALLENGE IRON CHIF INFORM 7 ***

Would you like to RESTART, see some suggestions for AMUSING things to do, or QUIT?

>AMUSING

Have you tried


  • Unlocking the door with the useful rock?
  • Giving a match to Ryan Veeder?
  • Staying backstage?
  • Planting the stage fluff?

>QUIT

Yeah, good idea, you’re going to need the time to actually work on your game.

Thank you for playing!

26 Likes

I’ll have to think about it.

5 Likes

Yeah okay. I accept.

12 Likes

The challenge has been issued
 and accepted! Challenger lpsmith will soon lay it all on the line in battle against his chosen opponent:

Ryan Veeder (@Afterward), Iron Chef Inform 7, is a name synonymous with style. As the creator of 50 single-author works of interactive fiction in Inform 7, he is one of the most prolific developers in that system of all time. With two works currently on the IFDB Top 100 list (Visit Skuga Lake - Masterpiece Edition and Ryan Veeder’s Authentic Fly Fishing), 4 XYZZY Award wins plus an additional 30 XYZZY Award nominations for solo work, and a plethora of well-known titles such as Taco Fiction, Captain Verdeterre’s Plunder and the Little Match Girl and Castle Balderstone series, there is no doubt that he figures prominently in the history of the form.

The Iron Chef’s published catalogue is truly an embarrassment of riches compared to that of the challenger, but such considerations now fade into the background. This contest is solely about what happens here and now, in the arena of Keyboard Stadium. Success will be earned by whichever chef shows the superior vision, to see through to the very essence of the challenge ingredient, and speed to produce the code and story needed to capture the approval of both judges and audience.

One cannot speak of judgment without judges, so let us now bid welcome to the panel of experts who will be presiding over this match.

These five individuals have each been chosen for their unique blends of talent and fame in their respective histories as authors, critics and/or players. Together, they will subject each dish to the full weight of their judgment. Unworthy works will surely buckle under their intense scrutiny, but those of quality will stand firm. I now introduce to you this episode’s superb panel of judges, presented alphabetically by handle:

  • Chandler Groover (@CMG) is perhaps the most fearsome wordsmith in IF history, and is the modern hobbyist IF scene’s undisputed master of powerfully visceral interactive fiction experiences. Within this community, he is best known for Toby’s Nose, Midnight. Swordfight., Eat Me and The Bat, but these are just the tip of a macabre iceberg of over three dozen works listed on IFDB that have been released over the past eleven years. Together this catalog has earned him two Spring Thing wins, two EctoComp wins (both La Petite Morte and Grand Guignol), a combined 25 XYZZY Award nominations (including 3 wins), 4 IFDB Award wins (one shared), two games appearing on the IF Top 50 of All Time list (2019 and 2023 editions), and an IFComp win – and that list doesn’t include his credits due as a contributor to Cragne Manor.

  • N. Cormier (@Encorm) is best known as the co-author (along with previous judge Emery Joyce) of the popular Lady Thalia series, which have collectively earned three XYZZY Award nominations (including two wins), three IFDB Award wins (one of which is shared), the Spring Thing audience ribbons for “Funniest” and “Most Dashing Criminals,” and a Top 3 place in the most recent IFComp. She also co-authored two other works – Winter-Over, which won the IFDB Award for Outstanding Mystery Game of 2024, and Starbreakers – and is the solo author of several EctoComp La Petite Mort entries. When not devoting her time to authoring, she can frequently be seen contributing thoughtful and insightful comments on a variety of topics here on the forum as well as taking innumerable photos of her and EJ’s cats.

  • J. J. McC (@jjmcc) is the author of only a single game: Trenchline, though given the development rate of his WIP this could double in two years. His greater claim to fame is as a reviewer on IFDB, where he currently holds the #6 spot on the strength of 360 reviews in total. Each of them is a boldly unconventional, Hunter Thompson-esque thrill ride of rhetorical entertainment – a swirl of unabashedly subjective high-energy emotional impressions interspersed with hard nuggets of insight. He joins us this week as a judge while he waits for his chance to be a challenger on a future episode.

  • Brian Rushton (@mathbrush) is the community record holder for playing interactive fiction. According to the most recent public IFDB data he has an astounding 3,683 registered games played, of which 99.5% have also been reviewed. That’s 40% more plays than the second-place holder, and covers just shy of one-quarter of all games known to IFDB. (Similarly, he has published over 4 times as many reviews as the second-place reviewer.) He has also authored more than two dozen games, including Absence of Law, The Magpie Takes the Train, The Impossible Stairs and Grooverland. His most recent major release, Never Gives Up Her Dead, won the People’s Champion Tournament of 2025. In addition to these credits, he is a frequent contributor to this forum and a moderator at IFDB, as well as the organizer of the IFDB Awards and Spring Thing.

  • Victor Gijsbers (@VictorGijsbers) read in Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than to be loved, and used this insight to become a standout critic of interactive fiction. It is well-known that all critics are failed authors. Therefore only the influence of shadowy cabals can explain that his games – which include De Baron, Kerkerkruip and Turandot – have twice won Spring Thing, garnered 15 XYZZY Award nominations (including two wins plus another shared win), and received 3 IFDB Awards. Gijsbers also organizes the quadrennial IF Top 50 of All Time list, which suspiciously has included at least one work by him in every edition. As a final feather in his cap, he spearheaded the creation of The Rosebush, a free online magazine dedicated to publishing longer form articles about interactive fiction. In his free time he has a job teaching philosophy.

Please welcome our judges as they take their seats of honor and make their opening remarks.

21 Likes

It’s great to be here, Otis, to witness these two titans of text-based technological treatises treat us to a taunt-filled tussle. Here at Keyboard Stadium, I can sense that anticipation in the crowd and the other judges.

As an IF historian, I’m here not only out of my interest in the oeuvres of these two experienced chefs, but also to see how the themes and flavors present in their past works inform the present ones, and to witness their ongoing arcs of exploration and experimentation. The weight of time constraints and public pressure will bring this to a boiling point, providing new key points of insight into the science of IF cuisine that will help future generations to come.

Looking forward to the match!

(I illustrated the challenge)

21 Likes

It was a long and arduous journey from Utrecht to the Keyboard Stadium, a journey filled with cookie cutter puzzles and lawnmower conversation trees, and even a place where I had to bring a caveman, a taco, and a goat across a river in a boat that could contain only one of them at a time. To make matters worse, the caveman was so hungry that he would eat either the goat or the taco if left alone with them, and the only possible solution was to first teach him language and extract a solemn promise from him to not eat anything until I returned. “If you do eat that taco,” I told him, “this will become a game about crime.” That put some wrinkles of worry onto the otherwise imperturbable edifice that he called his body.

But here I am, eager, nay, hungry, nay starved for good interactive fiction! I thus join you, Otis and my beloved fellow judges, to find out whether lpsmith has what it takes to beat Veeder. Unlikely? Perhaps. But as a judge I will look neither at reputation nor at past accomplishments. Only one thing counts: the dish that is set before us when the bell rings.

The iron chef and the challenger are of course both masters of fun. But for this judge, fun is not enough. I want energy. I want personality. I want to be swept away by a tsunami of unchecked enthusiasm, to find myself, befuddled, on a deserted beach, thinking – I don’t know what that was, but that was FUN! So. No pressure. May the best person win.

20 Likes

I have to admit I’m feeling like a fish out of water here in Keyboard Stadium – we’re a long way from my usual stomping grounds in the Twine Gardens! I’ve never had to deal with a caveman or a useful rock, so I’m agog at all the exotic challenges already on display! (I did get stuck in a looping conversation with a werewolf on my flight over and almost had to romance them to end it, but when I explained I was married they were very understanding.)

But my unfamiliarity with Inform 7 doesn’t mean I’m going to go easy on our contestants! I’ve made my journey here to experience exotic gameplay and novel tastes, and I am not easily satisfied. I want to be dazzled! I want to be wowed! I want to say, “Where has this game been all my life?” I’m looking forward to seeing who can best deliver the magic I’m craving, whether it’s our defending ChIF or our scrappy challenger.

Whoever wins, I’m expecting an adventure the likes of which have never been seen outside of Keyboard Stadium!

18 Likes