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

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

Yeah, I don't see the point of ignoring people personally, but I don't speak for anyone but myself.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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.

Nothing wrong with seeking out information. It was the people who think the word of that single source is sufficient (posting early on in this thread) that I found disturbing. Naming them would be against forum rules.

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod note:
It is not for you to speak to what third parties have done to control their own experience on the boards. Please don't. In doing this you are showing disrespect for other people's choices of how to interact.

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

If you want to get into trouble with moderation staff, do continue to instruct people on how to bypass our control features.

Folks, if you can't see something, you can't see something. Going hunting for it, and trying to respond to it, is inappropriate. You are not entitled to see content from each and every poster on these boards. Please respect the choices of folks who don't want to interact with you.

 

[SteveC]

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

You make a really good point. The difference I see is that we have some people talking about the review in terms of facts "it says X, but here's what the adventure really says, so that's incorrect" and we also have some who either don't like the reviewer or take any criticism of WotC or their products personally.

Enworld has people who absolutely believe WotC can do no wrong, and also some who hate them with the intensity of 10000 suns. For me, I'm in the middle. I play 5E but I also am not its biggest fan. Whenever there are discussions about things like this review, both of those extreme sides come out. I like some posters on both "sides" of this issue, so I'll try and discuss with them, but I really do try to ignore those on the extreme ends. If I'm engaging with someone, it's because I find what they say interesting even if I don't agree with it.

I hope that makes sense. There's been a lot of interesting and useful back and forth on this thread, and it is personally useful to me, since a DM I just played with asked if they should go and buy this very adventure.

 

[doctorhook]

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

Definitely not anyone I blocked, I checked and my blocklist remains empty. Must be someone blocking me.

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

Well shucks, thanks mate! You too! I’m gonna be riding that compliment all day.

 

[Parmandur]

I would NOT be surprised, as in the Boston area I have access to some of the best library systems in the nation.

I suggest you might be surprised that, unfortunately, not everyone has access to top of the line services - they are a privilege not everyone has. Librarians are generally awesome, but in some/many places they are woefully underfunded.

It's true, but even in the boonies there is more available these days.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Richard Baker left Wizards in late 2011, but he did Lost Mine and Princes of the Apocalypse as a freelancer (the latter via Sasquatch Game Studios).

He's also the main designer on IMO the best 2e-era adventure, Dragon's Crown. I really wish Princes of the Apocalypse had been more like that one.

Princess of the apocalypse sadly had similar problems in dungeon design. I really do find that annoying and it prevents me from seriously running a product as I can't ignore it.

 

[Stormonu]

I would NOT be surprised, as in the Boston area I have access to some of the best library systems in the nation.

I suggest you might be surprised that, unfortunately, not everyone has access to top of the line services - they are a privilege not everyone has. Librarians are generally awesome, but in some/many places they are woefully underfunded.

Sadly, our library system falls into this. Most of the books in our local "big city" library is at least 20 years old (for example, they do have a D&D PHB, but its the 3.0 version). The library in my nearby rural town (about 8 miles down the road) is rocking titles from the 50's and 60's, and their "new" books are from the 80's. I don't know if they even have access to an intra-library exchange service.

 

[doctorhook]

Princess of the apocalypse sadly had similar problems in dungeon design. I really do find that annoying and it prevents me from seriously running a product as I can't ignore it.

That’s true. I actually quite liked running Elemental Evil/Princes of the Apocalypse BUT by the end we were all finding it pretty tedious—lots of colour-coded dungeon crawling there. My favorite parts were all custom segments I wrote for my party, not written into the module. Overall that module could easily drop 4 of its 13 major dungeons without diminishing the story.

 

[el-remmen]

That’s disappointing. Genuinely unsure what I must’ve said to offend someone so badly as to earn a block.

You can't take it personally (well, you can, but whatcha gonna do?). The way I look it at it other people have to do what they have to do to enjoy their time on the boards and that is about them and not you. I have certain people I otherwise love who I sometimes have on ignore because for whatever reason their posts (or people's reactions to them) are irritating me and I need a break and can't trust myself to just not click.

(of course, there are also other people who I just need to block for my sanity, but again that is my thing)