D&D 5E Justin Alexander's review of Shattered Obelisk is pretty scathing

[Micah Sweet]

If half of the book is an existing product, and you can repackage and resell it (and end the availability of it on your digital platform for new users) then it seems like a cost-effective move.

It takes a lot less work to put out than a completely new product, you have its sterling reputation to sell it to new and old users, and you make the original version unavailable to acquire on the platform that you're heavily pushing.

WotC is trying to move product, not preserve a legacy of quality.

Saddest part of the whole story to me is the truth of this statement.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's not how comments read to me: "Now JA says it I've changed my mind", "I'm surprised WotC dropped the ball this hard". And an awful lot of people seem to be "discussing" based entierly on JA's opinions, without reference to the actual adventure at all.

Now I can't comment on the adventure since I haven't read it, it may well be rubbish, but comments like this: "A hydra in a crypt that’s been sealed for centuries" - this has been a feature of D&D since year zero. Now, there are some people who like a higher level of realism in their adventures - and a lot more who don't care and don't worry about such things. If the adventure is not designed with realism as a goal, then "what does the hydra eat (when it can't get adventurers)" is not an issue. I don't remember it troubling Herakles in the original story.

What I have observed of JA is he always rewrites adventures because they are not in tune with his personal preferences. Nothing wrong with that, so do I (I spent most of last week "fixing" The Isle of the Abbey). What I don't do is present my personal preferences as some kind of gold standard.

Herakles fought the hydra in a swamp. Plenty to eat there.

 

[bedir than]

Person who is pushing their own book right now uses extreme hyperbole about a "bad" WotC product to get extra attention -- we keep falling for this.

Keyed and unkeyed dungeons are a philosophy difference. The amount of vitriol spewed about this philosophical difference has managed to increase page views and clicks for the person selling their book.

But it hasn't been made clear that this difference actually matters when people play the game.

 

[FallenRX]

Why would they key a single standalone room?

It is probably part of their style guide to not key a single room. and it is not a sign that Modernism is rotting the minds of kids or something.

Its not a standalone room, did YOU read the adventure? They even note them as seperate rooms

Its 3 rooms one with the hostages, and the basic office of the bad guy with the info to continue the adventure, and the fight room.

Like again, i dont think its modernism rotting the minds, but its just a basic organization failure here for no reason, again, even if they dont wanna key it like normal fair. Why not just label them on the map, why is the information a mile down after 2 paragraphs, to the point you dont even know what is which until you sort through all of that. Why is something so simple harder to run for no reason, and could they have handled that basic information delivery better? Like, do you think this is the best way to present this information to a dungeon master, espeically a new one? do you? I dont, i think this is kinda junk, and would prefer them at least label or maps, or just do a normal basic key, or just anything better then this. Like maybe a minor issue fair, but it does show a lack of care and worse of all consistency is a book we spent how much money on? On top of all of the other issues this adventure has on some level, its not a good look, and i dont get why we are defending worse from a billion dollar company for no reason.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Given who wrote the review, that simply makes me want to actually check Shattered Obelisk out and see if it's any good. Mr. Alexander's takes have been so garbage on so many things, the more effective thing to do is to presume he's wrong until better evidence suggests otherwise.

How does he feel about 4e? From your opinion of him, and the preferences I assume he has based on what I've seen here and the preferences I know you have, he doesn't like it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Was it not hibernating yesterday?

If players ask about how it's managed to survive, the DM can make up any explanation in a matter of seconds. Chances are, the players won't ask. It's fantasy, the fantastic happens all the time.

My players ask logistical questions all the time. That's why I need answers.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you look at the adventure collections in Radiant Citadel and Golden Vault you see individual authors codifying adventures in a range of different ways. In Comparison, Candlekeep is rather Perkinised. And the way I codify adventures for myself is different again. And has changed over time - I stated out with a big notebook full of crossings out, scribbled notes and sketches, and now I'm using digital maps with pop-up text descriptions.

And I have whole bunch of Traveller (GDW and FASA) adventures from the 1980s, and they describe adventures in different ways again.

To get to the point and stop rambling, there are many different ways to present adventures, and there is certainly no one right way to do it.

But individuals very likely have a preferred way they like to receive information. This relates to the stuff I've studied (as a teacher) on learning styles: visual, auditory, kinaesthetic etc (the exact number is subject to debate, but I suspect it's approximately equal to the number of humans on the planet).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I generally treat dungeons like time travel movies: if you step back and think about them they just never make sense, better to just enjoy the ride!

Now, I am not suggesting this is a good adventure or that its mistakes are forgivable (I don't own and haven't read it); however, I often think we try to over think things at times and that can get in the way of the fun

D&D doesn't have to (and in my opinion shouldn't) follow the MST3K mantra. There are plenty of other games that do that.

 

[Willie the Duck]

JA is a person with a website and a penchant for writing about gaming, full stop. Everything after that is what he brings to the table. He earns our deference (or not) by previous well-crafted articles and reviews. Some of the things he has written have come off (IMO) as very insightful. Others less so. Like many people with a need to produce content on a regular basis; there are a lot of misses, errors, and things you wish he'd go back and readdress (that clearly just isn't in his time budget to go back and do). Despite being locals to each other, I've not met him, so I'm going to stay away from the discussion on the individual (seeing some of his online interactions in forums does make me think he works best when he is forced to sit down at the proverbial typewriter and deliberate on what he's going to say). One thing I will say is that he spends more time thinking about the act of playing/running D&D than I spend thinking about gaming (broad theory, or just the games I'm currently in) altogether.

One thing to recognize is that he is a critic, and one that is speaking about stuff with an eye towards his own preferences. He's not necessarily trying to give a aspiring-to-neutral 'well, if you like A, B, and C, you will like this; if you prefer X, Y, and Z, maybe less so,'-type of critique. He's biased, and unapologetically so. For that reason, whenever he does a review, I try to determine what about the subject matter he does not like, and decide if it hinges upon a preference or set of preferences where I agree with him on the matter. Integrating his reviews into a course of action (purchasing, in this case) requires work and a thumbs-up/thumbs-down type output from him would be meaningless.

For that reason, it is good that he does spell out what he likes and dislikes about the product, and very helpful that people have gone and checked what was in the adventure (so we can see if we agree with his judgement).

I don't love the guy, like I said earlier, I'm 50/50 on him.....but haven't dungeon designs changed over the last 30 years, and aren't our expectations different? When I read ENWorld, that's what I see.....but maybe that's me only remembering certain things posted here.

With regards to 'should dungeons make sense (from an ecological/social standpoint, much less why is this stone-lined hole in the ground here in the first place)?,' it's one of those things that, so far as I can tell, there is really no consensus (yet I keep finding people who are utterly convinced that their position is the far-and-away majority position). Very similar to stuff like 'how much IRL medieval realism should be followed in the game world?' or 'does my brand new, level one fighter know what kind of magic the starting wizard might be able to do?' I think a number of threads have been started around here discussing the matter, but I think they all end up pretty much where they started.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My players ask logistical questions all the time. That's why I need answers.

Unless you know which logistical questions your players are going to ask, you either need an infinitely long list, or the ability to create answers on the spot.