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

[billd91]

(Sorry to interject, but who are you replying to? Idk maybe the page isn’t loading correctly for me, but I can’t see a quote in your comment and it doesn’t seem like you’re replying to the comment before. Just curious, sorry!)

EDIT: There are other comments that seem to be missing quotes too. Maybe my page is screwed up somehow.

That's a clear sign that a poster has you on ignore and has their settings configured to hide their posts from people they ignore (which, I believe is still the default setting).

 

[Micah Sweet]

The irony of course being that many players rank that as one of the "worst" 5E adventures, often because they say it is "too railroady". Which just goes to show how all manner of player care about or don't care about all manner of different things. Some people genuinely find the idea of a series of encounters or adventure sites the PCs are expected to go to without the book explaining what to do if they choose not to is enough for them to say the adventure is horrible. Whereas other people seem perfectly fine with guiding the players along the path in the background, even if they try wandering off. One man's trash is another man's treasure, and all that.

I'm mostly looking for keyed map and base concepts to use in my own homebrew settings, since I never run published adventures. Thus I want the mapped locations to make sense and have answers to logistical questions players might ask.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a clear sign that a poster who has you on ignore and has their settings configured to hide their posts from people they ignore (which, I believe is still the default setting).

Yup. I run into this a lot.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Trying to minimize the review by saying "who is this guy?" fails for me because I've known about the site for years, and it's referenced regularly.

We know who he is. That's the problem.

 

[doctorhook]

That's a clear sign that a poster who has you on ignore and has their settings configured to hide their posts from people they ignore (which, I believe is still the default setting).

Ahh thank you. That’s disappointing. Genuinely unsure what I must’ve said to offend someone so badly as to earn a block. (I’m guessing this person must be fairly active in this thread given the number of places that seem to be missing something.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ahh thank you. That’s disappointing. Genuinely unsure what I must’ve said to offend someone so badly as to earn a block. (I’m guessing this person must be fairly active in this thread given the number of places that seem to be missing something.)

They have me blocked too. I'm guessing @Vaalingrade .

 

[SteveC]

We know who he is. That's the problem.

There are a bunch of people that (to paraphrase Three Amigos) are infamous to me. When I come across their writings, I have to try and separate the person from what they're saying. If I can't do that, I have learned that I just need to not engage with it because I end up looking silly and I make Mod lives difficult. I'd ask about this article if it's what he's saying that is the issue or is it the fact that he is saying it. Obviously this is my policy and not something I'm trying to enforce on anyone else. And yes, I am not always consistent with it too.

 

[mamba]

EDIT: There are other comments that seem to be missing quotes too. Maybe my page is screwed up somehow.

that means there are users that blocked you, or that you blocked

If you want to fill in the blanks, use an anonymous browser window

 

[Willie the Duck]

And I can't help but think that a lot of the criticism here is coming from people who are positive about everything that WotC does and feel somehow invested in the company. Trying to minimize the review by saying "who is this guy?" fails for me because I've known about the site for years, and it's referenced regularly.

Okay. I am clearly not a mod, and I see they are active in the discussion. Hopefully that reinforces that I'm not telling people what to do, but rather advocating/asking 'what do we gain from this?' This thread seems to have a lot (so, also not targeting you specifically, this is just the last post that has done this) of back and forth regarding everyone else's perceived motivations for their positions. Postulations that people are trashing or boosting Justin's review because of unrelated like or dislike for them as a person/reviewer/gaming hobby personality; or people are defending or trashing the adventure because of their position on WotC or to the culture of criticism of WotC. I don't get what people get out of this. Can't we give people the benefit of the doubt that they actually believe what they are saying? It's not like their motivation matters overly, either they have made a salient point or not.

That's a clear sign that a poster who has you on ignore and has their settings configured to hide their posts from people they ignore (which, I believe is still the default setting).

Oh man, I just put my first person on ignore like a month ago* and man did that screw me up! Post count was missing (which I knew about), but then their quotes didn't show up in people's responses to them. Made things super disjointed.
*and then promptly reversed it because what it did to the flow of conversations was more of a frustration than one overly-fight-picking individual's posts.

 

[Sparky McDibben]

We know who he is. That's the problem.

If you don't trust a reviewer, just don't read their reviews. But please don't try to convince me that I'm not thinking for myself because I seek out information.

Ahh thank you. That’s disappointing. Genuinely unsure what I must’ve said to offend someone so badly as to earn a block. (I’m guessing this person must be fairly active in this thread given the number of places that seem to be missing something.)

That's their problem, friendo. I think you're delightful!!