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

[Willie the Duck]

Really? For every game? For every decision? A little sidebar with an explanation for every reason for every change they make? That doesn't seem like an unreasonable demand to you?

Games used to have Designer’s Notes in them (Red Hand of Doom’s were particularly good, IIRC) and if we can have a page on “What is a role playing game” in every Players’ Handbook we can certainly make room for the occasional sidebar.

I'm rather partial to the 'behind the curtain' sidebars that IIRC 3e had. They did a good job of saying 'yes we changed this, here's why.' Mind you, I don't think 3e always had particularly good reasons for some of the changes they made from previous editions, but the effort was appreciated. A little goes a long way.

Thing is, aiming for consistency is the change. D&D dungeons did start as nonsensical funhouses for treasure hunters (cue Gronan's story of adding a food court when asked what the monsters ate). Thus a change-explanation document wouldn't cover this.

More to the point, a game is probably better for having a good explanation of the underlying assumptions under which it operates. D&D has some trouble here, in that it is such a hodge podge and so self-referential at this point. Given that (again, as far as I can tell) there's no real consensus on this, I'll hardly fault the adventure for this (this is a bone to pick you might have with D&D in general, not this adventure specifically). However, it's certainly worth bringing up in a discussion about the adventure (in case that's a part of D&D that doesn't cater to your preferences).

 

[Micah Sweet]

When you stop seeing it as "an excuse" and recognize it as "a valid perspective you don't happen to share", then you will have perpetrated some wisdom.

I honestly don't always think it's a valid perspective. Sometimes sure, but other times it really is an excuse to wallpaper over poor work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is really a matter of play style, each individual table.

Some tables have players that are just along for the ride- they want to roll dice and kill orcs. It wouldn't occur to them to ask "where's the ventilation in this room so the orcs roasting the giant hock don't suffocate on the smoke?" Or "how did the dragon get into this dungeon in the first place?? It's huge!!"
Maybe they'll push the orcs into the fire, maybe they'll kill the dragon, but they won't ask why.

Other tables have players that take notes, that pay attention to details because they (rightly or wrongly depending on the DM) believe that there's a clue in each description, secrets to be puzzled out, and big mysteries that they can solve if they're attentive. Or they just really think about the environment and history of stuff, verisimilitude is an important thing to these players (it is to me as a DM, or at least the illusion that grants it).

Neither of these play styles is wrong, BUT one of them requires an extra line of text for an encounter to "make sense" for them.

"A crack in the ceiling leads to a cavern far up above, and eventually open air." Oh so that's where the smoke goes.

"The dragon came in here centuries ago when it was much smaller, and now is too large to leave- but the inhabitants keep it fat and happy, so it doesn't see any reason to use the Scroll of Polymorph it has tucked away and escape."

It's not wrong to expect this kind of effort to be put into an adventure. It takes nothing away from the "beer and pretzels" casual players.

The problem is that if anyone at the table needs that extra line, including the DM, then it needs to be there. I certainly do expect this kind of effort to be put in.

 

[Ancalagon]

Astrophysics.

I'm actually a teacher now though, which is why I'm so keen to encourage people to think for themselves rather than listen to the latest trendy guru.

How can I "think for myself" about this adventure besides buying it and reading it myself?

That's THE POINT OF REVIEWS. To see if this is a product worth investing into.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm rather partial to the 'behind the curtain' sidebars that IIRC 3e had. They did a good job of saying 'yes we changed this, here's why.' Mind you, I don't think 3e always had particularly good reasons for some of the changes they made from previous editions, but the effort was appreciated. A little goes a long way.

Thing is, aiming for consistency is the change. D&D dungeons did start as nonsensical funhouses for treasure hunters (cue Gronan's story of adding a food court when asked what the monsters ate). Thus a change-explanation document wouldn't cover this.

More to the point, a game is probably better for having a good explanation of the underlying assumptions under which it operates. D&D has some trouble here, in that it is such a hodge podge and so self-referential at this point. Given that (again, as far as I can tell) there's no real consensus on this, I'll hardly fault the adventure for this (this is a bone to pick you might have with D&D in general, not this adventure specifically). However, it's certainly worth bringing up in a discussion about the adventure (in case that's a part of D&D that doesn't cater to your preferences).

I don't have to agree with the design parameters, or the explanation for them. I still want that explanation there.

 

[Parmandur]

How can I "think for myself" about this adventure besides buying it and reading it myself?

That's THE POINT OF REVIEWS. To see if this is a product worth investing into.

Get it from the library. I would recommend that for any D&D book. Way better to read for yourself than trusting clickbaiters.

 

[Ancalagon]

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!

A dungeon is a very dangerous place. Making sense of it helps the PCs try to predict hazard and helps them navigate the dungeon. If it doesn't make sense, that becomes impossible. Beer and pretzel game sure, it doesn't really matter. But that isn't the only way people play.

As far as dungeons never making sense in general, I think you need to read better adventures

 

[dave2008]

As far as dungeons never making sense in general, I think you need to read better adventures

I've read lots of them and they just baffle me. It is not necessarily the adventure, IDK. I just can't find a fruitful way to use a published adventure. Feel free to suggest one to me, lots of people have, but I just can't seem to get a hang of any of them. I've tried many times and I can't make hide nor hair of good nor bad adventures (ranked by others - not me). I much prefer running my own game.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Ironically, both Red Hand of Doom and the original Lost Mines were both written by Richard Baker.

Baker's presence at WoTC was underappreciated in terms of quality. I really think the talent that was there in 2014 is forgotten by a lot of people, and I don't think the WoTC of today could produce Lost Mine of Phandelver.... as this adventure (and Dragons of Stormwreck Isle) aptly proves.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've read lots of them and they just baffle me. It is not necessarily the adventure, IDK. I just can't find a fruitful way to use a published adventure. Feel free to suggest one to me, lots of people have, but I just can't seem to get a hang of any of them. I've tried many times and get make any hide nor hair of good nor bad adventures (ranked by others - not me). I much prefer running my own game.

I always pick pieces of published adventures and use them in my own world. Don't think I've ever actually just run one, not in 35 years of gaming.