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

[TheSword]

I think the challenge 5e adventures have - and I've played or DM'd the majority of them - is that they have to be geared towards new or nearly new players.

I've ran the sandboxy Curse of Strahd for a new group formed from some old friends and they really struggled. Yet I ran the railroady Descent into Avernus and they absolutely loved it, despite the fact that as a long time DM I much preferred DMing the former with my other longtime group who thought Curse of Strahd was the best thing I've DM'd

I think we have to accept that linear or simple and a very clear story/goal is a massive plus point for some people - as much as it is a turn off for others. You can't really square those two diametrically opposed goals in one product.

The sweet spot of a really strong story and more freedom is tough but I think they nailed it with Curse of Strahd, and Tomb of Annihilation.

Exciting times to see what else they bring to the table.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

If Jason Alexander was the one making these reviews, then the complaints that they're reviews about nothing would be a lot more salient.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Good lord, I know I have a hard time coming up with ideas that are more than just "Heres my lame take on bladerunner, but you know: magic is there too"

One thing, if I'm not using a pre-written adventure, I'm usually stealing the plot from somewhere else. Doctor Who has 60 years worth of stealable material!

 

[Lanefan]

Not everyone enjoys the "spend weeks of time on something that may end up narratively unsatisfying". I love immersive play, but I also love professional storylines. Good lord, I know I have a hard time coming up with ideas that are more than just "Heres my lame take on bladerunner, but you know: magic is there too"

Thing is, if you just drop the puck and let the game run sometimes the storyline* emerges and develops on its own. Players find things of interest and follow up on them until one thing just leads to the next; and those things may or may not have much if any relation to anything the DM might have had in mind going in.

Hell, in the campaign I play in there's so much we (as both players and characters) want to do in the setting and just not enough real-world time to do it; mostly due to stories we've either started on our own or to following long-held character goals and-or backstory elements.

* - or more than one, which is even better.

 

[Lanefan]

This.

I find players are simply not interested in accumulating wealth. Which gives them no reason to engage with a sandbox. I've observed it - present them with a sandbox and they sit in the inn drinking beer. But present them with someone in trouble and they are there. Their fantasy is to be heroes, not mercenaries. They voted unanimously for milestone XP over traditional xp. And milestone is basically XP for advancing the story, rather than XP for killing monsters. That tells you want they want from the game.

You have VERY different players than I.

Here, it's the players drinking beer while their characters go out and get rich and-or die trying. And if a little heroism happens to rear its ugly head along the way, then so be it; but it's not often actively sought after.

And it's not casual - we have being playing almost every week for about six years.

Ditto, only more years.

Which brings the inevitable conclusion that the most important element in a published adventure is story.

Only to a fairly short extent.

For me, the most important element in a published adventure is the adventure itself. I and-or my players will supply or generate the backstory that connects one adventure to the next and provides the reason to go on the one after.

That said, I don't run the long AP-style adventures that WotC put out these days. To me an adventure is just that: a 1e-style standalone thing that is self-contained and doesn't expect or insist upon any setting or plot implications beyond itself; those are left for the DM (and maybe the players) to sort out within each campaign, usually during downtime between adventures.

 

[delericho]

I think we have to accept that linear or simple and a very clear story/goal is a massive plus point for some people - as much as it is a turn off for others. You can't really square those two diametrically opposed goals in one product.

The sweet spot of a really strong story and more freedom is tough but I think they nailed it with Curse of Strahd, and Tomb of Annihilation.

Yeah, one of the things I felt WotC really nailed with a lot of their adventures was that balance - CoS, SKT, ToA, RotIM, and even LMoP (on a small scale) all provide a nice mix of some sandbox-ish stuff that then comes together into a final showdown.

I have various issues with a lot of their recent adventures, but that format always struck me as a real strength.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

“This adventure isn’t badly crafted, as I will show in this 15,000 word explanation!”

This works both ways. "I thought this adventure was badly crafted, with unclear and/or contradictory descriptions, and insufficient keying" is enough for a review, and more convincing than a lengthy dissection which can be shown to be factually inaccurate.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This.

I find players are simply not interested in accumulating wealth. Which gives them no reason to engage with a sandbox. I've observed it - present them with a sandbox and they sit in the inn drinking beer. But present them with someone in trouble and they are there. Their fantasy is to be heroes, not mercenaries. They voted unanimously for milestone XP over traditional xp. And milestone is basically XP for advancing the story, rather than XP for killing monsters. That tells you want they want from the game. And it's not casual - we have being playing almost every week for about six years. And it's not particularly new - back in the 90s I was playing Star Trek RPG - no loot and no sandbox there!

Which brings the inevitable conclusion that the most important element in a published adventure is story.

Delightfully anecdotal. I'm glad you and your players align in your subjective goals.

 

[Gradine]

My favorite Jason Alexander story is that in the early seasons he was struggling to really get George Costanza as a character; nothing he did made any kind of sense to him. So Jerry takes him to meet Larry David and they hang out for a day, and at the end Jason tells Jerry "Okay, I get it now"

 

[tomedunn]

Do you think it’s a good thing that explaining the muddled layout and organisational issues of this adventures requires pages of text?

“This adventure isn’t badly crafted, as I will show in this 15,000 word explanation!”

I don't think that's what my audit does.

It's not an argument for whether the adventure is well organized or not. It aims to help add additional context for those who don't have access to the adventure to check for themselves while reading the review.

That context can be used by readers to help decide if the author's idea of a poorly organized adventure align with their's, but my main goal was to remove the need for hypothetical comments, "if [example] is true then ... ", in this discussion.