THE SCENARIO JURY AT FASTAVAL
Every year at Fastaval, a scenario jury is appointed to decide which premiere scenarios are nominated for and win the Otto Awards. For many participants, it can be difficult to see how the process of reading, judging, and selecting the scenarios works and how much work the judges put into being fair and balanced towards both scenarios and authors. Below, you can meet this year’s jury and read about how the judges are selected and how their judging process works.
This year's scenario jury at Fastaval 2026
Head Judge
Simon Steen Hansen
Simon attended Fastaval for the first time in 2001, where he exclusively played live scenarios, but he soon acquired a taste for everything Fastaval has to offer. He has held various organizing positions, including activity planner and main organiser, and has written a handful of scenarios. Simon has been a scenario judge twice before, and this is his first year as head judge.
Simon is currently playing in two Warhammer Fantasy campaigns and one Ars Magica campaign. He loves big, epic scenarios that let the players shape the narrative. And he thinks being a game master should be fun.
If Simon were a role-playing scenario, he would be a Jutland summer scenario, where half the time is spent in intense personal drama, and the other half sitting silently staring into the fire around a campfire.
Sarah Piyannah Cederstrand
Sarah attended Fastaval for the first time in 1994. She had tried DnD a few times, and there was something appealing about it, even though the concept of battling monsters and rolling dice did not entirely make sense to her. Five strangers in a classroom, creating magic together from a high-tension vampire drama, and she was sold. Sarah has been to Fastaval as a player and, after gaining confidence over a few years, as a game master ever since.
Sarah loves role-playing games in many genres. As a player, she is particularly drawn to scenarios where the characters’ motivations drive the narrative and allow the drama to unfold, or slightly lingering poetic scenarios. As a game master, she loves it when you can sense that the author cares about their players, and when there is a clear connection between content and form.
If Sarah were a role-playing scenario, she would be a wordless, abstract art scenario with strange effects or a classic investigation scenario with too many plot twists.
Mads Egedal Kirchhoff
Mads has been attending Fastaval since 2008 and has written 14 scenarios, 11 of them for Fastaval (thanks for the details, Alexandria). In addition, he has been responsible for scenarios at Viking-con and Fastaval during the promised corona years.
Mads is particularly fond of scenarios with innovative devices, narrative elements, emergence, sci-fi, surrealism, action, and tragedy. However, he plays most things, and the genre is less important than the scenario being well constructed and the author’s passion for the idea being evident.
If Mads were a role-playing scenario, it would be a tedious bleed scenario, where you play the same drama-free scenes over and over again, but with new mechanics each time and an uplifting ending.
Nór Hernø
Nór has many years of role-playing experience, but for reasons unknown, chose to attend Fastaval for the first time in 2019. However, they have made up for this by taking on the role of main organiser.
In addition to Fastaval, Nór focuses on Bifrost and the international LARP community, where they are involved in everything from Knudepunkt to Blackbox design. Now they are looking forward to being part of the scenario jury and reading the scenarios that the authors have put time and love into. Nór is particularly fond of scenarios that play with format and genre, and has a penchant for strong relationships with catastrophic consequences.
If Nór were a role-playing scenario, it would either be a classic genre piece with a good structure, or a slightly too alternative art scenario with a barely concealed revolutionary theme. There is no real middle ground.
Signe Løndahl Hertel
As a long-time live and black box role-player, Signe was first introduced to the Fastaval genre at Forum 2012, when she played the acid-tripped scenario ‘D3 U5YNL1G3’ in a changing room. Despite a somewhat confusing first experience, she was nevertheless hooked on the format and has now replaced live role-playing with Fastaval and has even written several scenarios herself.
Signe loves analysing game design almost as much as she loves playing the scenarios. She attaches great importance to good craftsmanship and a well-written scenario, but the scenarios she likes best are those where you are also seduced by the narrative and the world of the scenario. Signe is a scenario judge for the third time.
If Signe were a role-playing scenario, she would be a feel-good scenario. One of those where everyone laughs and hugs afterwards. Not particularly groundbreaking, but really, really cosy.
Mikkel Bækgaard
Mikkel first attended Fastaval in 1997, when he was a young 17-year-old driven here by his father from North Jutland in pouring rain. He arrived with a poor call scenario under his arm, and every year since then, Mikkel has returned to his favourite convention – and most years with a new scenario in tow.
Mikkel loves role-playing in all its wonderful aspects. An intense drama, a well-crafted comedy, a captivating new world. It’s not that Mikkel finds one particular type of role-playing better or finer than others. But it has to be done properly.
If Mikkel were a role-playing scenario, he would probably be a really good romantic comedy – or a realistic drama with shades of grey, surprises and not necessarily the darkest ending of them all.
The judging process
BEFORE FASTAVAL
The very first step in the judging process is to assemble the jury. First, the head judge for the year is appointed by the head judge from the previous year (perhaps even before the previous Fastaval). It is solely the incumbent head judge who decides who will make up the judging team.
The head judge tries to assemble a balanced jury consisting of people with many different perspectives on role-playing and with varying levels of experience. The Otto judges should ideally include authors, game masters and players with different role-playing preferences.
The jury typically meets once or twice before the scenarios are submitted to agree on the process and the Otto categories, but it is only when the scenarios have been submitted that the judges’ real work begins. The judges reads all the scenarios thoroughly. Often, there are well over 1,500 pages of written material. The scenarios are analysed and discussed in depth on the judges’ internal forum. It is these written discussions that form the basis for the feedback the authors receive after Fastaval.
Immediately before Fastaval, the judges meet for a big weekend of work. Here, they review all the scenarios and discuss which ones could potentially be nominated in the various categories. They may also have some tentative predictions for the preliminary Otto winners, but nothing is certain until Fastaval. Although the judges evaluate the submitted material, it is important for them to get a feel for what works well in practice in the game rooms. There may also be elements in a scenario that are not immediately apparent from the text, but which nevertheless provide players with fantastic experiences.
DURING FASTAVAL
A big part of the judges’ work is talking to the authors, game masters, and players about the scenarios after they have been played. The judges also collect and read the feedback forms that are written in the game rooms during Fastaval. The conversations and especially the feedback forms are important tools when the jury needs to form an overview of how the written scenarios work in practice.
On Saturday at Fastaval, the jury locks itself in a room from early morning to make the final decision on which scenarios are nominated and which ones win. The jury bases its decision on the submitted scenario, reports from players, game masters and authors, as well as the feedback forms submitted.
The jury selects five nominees and one winner in each category. On Saturday evening, the lists of nominations are posted around Fastaval and published on the Fastaval website. Along with the nomination texts, the judges will also post a list with a few words about each scenario, so Fastaval participants can learn about the scenarios they didn’t get a chance to play and hopefully feel like reading or trying them out after Fastaval.
The judges spend Sunday preparing for the Otto show in the evening. They make diplomas for all the nominated authors and write the texts that will be read out on stage. After the Otto show, the jury is available to answer any questions authors or participants may have about the Ottos.
SELECTION PROCESS AND OTTO CATEGORIES
Each Otto category has a written definition (Read them here), which is discussed by the jury before the scripts are submitted. These are the criteria that the judges use when they ultimately nominate scripts and select winners. This means that when the judges discuss the award for best roles, for example, they base their decision on the criteria set out in the definition of best roles.
Nevertheless, it takes many long discussions to determine which scenarios best meet the criteria in a category. This is especially important because the judges want the scenarios to be judged on their own merits. An action scenario will always be judged on whether it is good action within the framework set by the scenario itself – not on whether it is good drama, for example.
The judges work according to four principles when selecting the nominees and winners:
- Consensus
- Discussion
- No veto
- No trade-offs
Consensus and discussion means that all judges must ultimately agree, and that agreement can only be reached through objective discussion. No Otto points are awarded by vote, as only sound arguments count in the judging process.
No veto means that a jury member is not allowed to block the nomination of a scenario without good arguments if the mood is perhaps against his or her preferred scenario.
No trade-offs means that the judges cannot owe each other anything. Each category is assessed separately. For example, even if a scenario that a jury member really loves is not nominated in one category (perhaps best roles), that scenario cannot be ‘compensated’ with a nomination in another category (perhaps best narrative). Each category is a blank canvas where the best arguments win.
Two of the Otto categories are slightly different from the others. These are the Jury’s Special Award and the Participants’ Award. Jury’s Special Award is awarded by the jury. Here, the jury itself selects the number of nominees. Each nominated scenario is selected based on either its overall idea or a particularly strong element within the scenario. Here, the judges typically have more freedom to choose with their hearts.
The participants’ award is awarded solely on the basis of a vote among players and game masters. During Fastaval, participants can vote for the scenarios they have participated in themselves. The scenario with the most votes wins. If two scenarios receive an equal number of votes, they both win the participants’ award.
AFTER FASTAVAL
When Fastaval is over, the jury will begin writing comprehensive feedback to all authors who participated in Fastaval with a scenario. The feedback will be sent to the authors a few months after Fastaval ends, so that it can be used if the authors consider writing for Fastaval again.
