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

[tomBitonti]

So the players tell the DM they want to try one (or more) of those things, and the DM applies judgment and game rules to help determine the outcome. This isn't any different than role-playing has ever been, even when encounters used to be written as "There are 3 orcs in this room (hp 10, 8, 7)". The encounter you're referencing actually has a lot more than that, giving the two monsters names and personality sketches for the DM to expand upon in case the PCs decide to try something other than charging into the fight.

Sure. But it still feels like an an odd encounter which was added into a crypt crawl, without doing much to integrate the encounter with the dungeon. A dungeon to which a hydra encounter was added, vs, a dungeon which has a hydra which may be encountered. What is the story reason (or dungeon reason) for having a hydra encounter? How does the encounter fit the exploration pacing? (And, there is still no way to avoid the encounter area. The second 2/3 of this level cannot be accessed without going past the hydra.)

(The party ultimately is left with a probable need to defeat or drive off the hydra, since the party will almost certainly need to traverse the encounter area multiple times in order to unlock the final dungeon area.)

TomB

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Being the senior manager of R&D and a lead designer of the most successful RPG ever made has no relation to his skill as a designer?

Firstly, my apologies. This post got lost in the shuffle.

Secondly: Assembling a team has nothing to do with one's skill as a designer. It has to do with one's skill as a manager. This is a well-known paradox in hiring situations. The people who have the skills to be (say) excellent computer programmers do not automatically also have the skills to be good managers of computer programmers.
"Strong sense of what made D&D unique and timeless" has nothing to do with one's skills as a designer. It is, at best, only tangentially related to actually designing anything. Identifying the contents of existing things =/= creating new things. It just doesn't.

The only thing you cited which actually relates to designing anything is Ad/Dis, because that's the only act of design you referenced. Everything else is neither about something he, personally, designed. It would be like saying that someone who can assemble a really good team to write a book about art history is therefore an excellent artist himself.

Not sure what you're talking about? Would be cool if you hyperlinked the podcast. Curious what he said to upset those dozens of gamers.

I'll see if I can get one, but I doubt it. WotC has flushed its website twice since it was posted, and going to links that were viable at the time doesn't even throw an error anymore, it just sends you to WotC's main page. I can, however, tell you exactly what he said, verbatim. He was talking to Rodney Thompson at the time.

Mearls: Healing? If the guy has a broken arm, does William Wallace--
Thompson: William Wallace clearly went and inspired the guy who got his hand cut off to keep fighting. There's that--
Mearls: But his hand didn't grow back. (laughter) Now I'm being a little ridiculous.

So, while he did not actually use the explicit phrase "shouting hands back on," he does, explicitly, refer to the idea that Warlords somehow make hands "grow back." He openly cracked a joke based on crappy anti-4e edition rhetoric. Following that up with "Now I'm being a little ridiculous" is a disingenuous attempt to distance himself from that crappy joke.

In both the preceding and following sections, he explicitly says that the Warlord shouldn't exist, and that anything the Warlord does is really just being a Fighter or (of all things) a Bard. Even though Bards use spells! That's opposite to the whole point of the Warlord! It provides some battlefield healing and a lot of tactical coordination/support without using magic.

Anyway, not saying he made a game that everyone loves; that's impossible.

No. But you did say that it was to be "as inclusive...as possible." Except that it was actively antagonistic to 4e fans. See: The designers themselves actively crapping on 4e classes and overtly saying they shouldn't exist, not because people told them that, but because they were asserting their privilege as designers to end those things.

I'm saying he took "our" D&D and made it everyone else's D&D too. Specifically, the same people who would have made fun of us now want to play with us. And at the same time, managed to entice the OSR grogs back as well. That's quite the remarkable feat!

But he also did so by actively antagonizing the fans of then-current D&D. That's not making it the most inclusive it could be.

Hence: The vehicle can be any color you want, as long as the color you want is black.

 

[TheSword]

If page limits are really the issue, I'd personally be happy with a D&DBeyond article (series) – or even a separate product a la 4e's Wizards Presents books – dedicated explaining their design philosophy in enough detail for me to understand why they made the choices they did.

They do several interviews and discussions about their work both before and after… though I am also minded of this little one excerpt…

There’s only so much criticism someone should have to put up with regarding the quality and style of their writing. They don’t owe you what you personally want. There’s a balance and interaction is a really great and positive thing, but it isn’t anybody’s divine right! I think this conversation and the expectations around it often cross over into entitlement. Not that I’m saying that is necessarily the case here.

 

[pukunui]

I actually liked the Wizards Presents books that came out prior to 4e. They went deep into the lore and mechanic changes they were considering. In fact, it had a better description of the lore than the core books did. While I don't need a whole book to do that, it would be nice to have a few blog posts that went into their thinking.

Didn’t James Wyatt do some blog posts talking about monster lore changes during the D&D Next playtest period (before he moved over to the MtG team)?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Firstly, my apologies. This post got lost in the shuffle.

Secondly: Assembling a team has nothing to do with one's skill as a designer. It has to do with one's skill as a manager. This is a well-known paradox in hiring situations. The people who have the skills to be (say) excellent computer programmers do not automatically also have the skills to be good managers of computer programmers.
"Strong sense of what made D&D unique and timeless" has nothing to do with one's skills as a designer. It is, at best, only tangentially related to actually designing anything. Identifying the contents of existing things =/= creating new things. It just doesn't.

The only thing you cited which actually relates to designing anything is Ad/Dis, because that's the only act of design you referenced. Everything else is neither about something he, personally, designed. It would be like saying that someone who can assemble a really good team to write a book about art history is therefore an excellent artist himself.


I'll see if I can get one, but I doubt it. WotC has flushed its website twice since it was posted, and going to links that were viable at the time doesn't even throw an error anymore, it just sends you to WotC's main page. I can, however, tell you exactly what he said, verbatim. He was talking to Rodney Thompson at the time.


So, while he did not actually use the explicit phrase "shouting hands back on," he does, explicitly, refer to the idea that Warlords somehow make hands "grow back." He openly cracked a joke based on crappy anti-4e edition rhetoric. Following that up with "Now I'm being a little ridiculous" is a disingenuous attempt to distance himself from that crappy joke.

In both the preceding and following sections, he explicitly says that the Warlord shouldn't exist, and that anything the Warlord does is really just being a Fighter or (of all things) a Bard. Even though Bards use spells! That's opposite to the whole point of the Warlord! It provides some battlefield healing and a lot of tactical coordination/support without using magic.


No. But you did say that it was to be "as inclusive...as possible." Except that it was actively antagonistic to 4e fans. See: The designers themselves actively crapping on 4e classes and overtly saying they shouldn't exist, not because people told them that, but because they were asserting their privilege as designers to end those things.


But he also did so by actively antagonizing the fans of then-current D&D. That's not making it the most inclusive it could be.

Hence: The vehicle can be any color you want, as long as the color you want is black.

Its more like, "The vehicle can be any color you want, as long as it isn’t black". Your wording would be true if they hated on every edition except one, not the other way round.

 

[TheSword]

I don't think that logic holds. Even if it's something 70% you and 30% me, adding the philosophy is still a net gain that doesn't harm the 70%. This really just feels like you telling me that because you and others don't care about my desires, my desires don't mean anything. That's a narrow-minded view. There is nothing to be lost from talking about game design philosophy in the book.

The problem is not just one of page count. It’s also about what information is necessary and important to the campaign.

Every line of text that I don’t need is another line of text that I have to wade through to get to the information I do need. So it isn’t simply the case that I get the 70% of stuff I like and put up with 30% I don’t at no disadvantage to myself.

Ultimately this is a stylistic choice and a prioritizing of what really matters to the audience that are reading the book. They can only publish one Shattered Obelisk, but hopefully different products will tick different boxes for different people. New or nearly new players which form a huge part of WotC’s market probably don’t get as hung up on how long the hydra has been there. It’s not relevant to the hydra’s purpose in the adventure. Im sure several old players like myself feel the same. I’m glad they saved my eyes the trouble.

It’s what pencils and margins are for. And let’s be honest, trivially easy to correct for the experienced DMs that might be bothered by it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The do several interviews and discussions about their work… though I am also minded of this little one excerpt…

There’s only so much criticism someone should have to put up with regarding the quality and style of their writing. They don’t owe you what you personally want. There’s a balance and interaction is a really great and positive thing, but it isn’t anybody’s divine right! I think this conversation and the expectations around it often cross over into entitlement. Not that I’m saying that is necessarily the case here.

Are you getting what you want now? Because if you are, that bias is going to color your discussion points just as much as the people who aren't. At least @Hussar is honest about their joy at other people's preferences being denied in WotC's current design.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Its more like, "The vehicle can be any color you want, as long as it isn’t black". Your wording would be true if they hated on every edition except one, not the other way round.

Nah. There's also the old-school fans that hate it because it isn't the fantasy heistery they want (look at all the many, many, many, MANY threads trying to spindle, fold, and mutilate the 5e rules into achieving actual old-school style play), or the 3e fans like Pedantic pulling their hair out over the blatant disregard for actual simulationist priorities beyond superficial/lip-service/token efforts. Or the folks who want low-magic worlds and are truly infuriated that there's only like three or four classes in all of 5e that don't inherently use magic...and several of them have magic-using subclasses.

5e is 3e, tuned up a bit, with a show of looking old school while being as close to """traditional""" as possible--by which I mean, as close to 3e as possible--without intentionally stepping on any of 3e's land mines.

It's definitely offering...well, let's say one color, in a variety of tints/shades/tones. If you want a different color, you're fresh out of luck, unless you go and homebrew your own new variant.

You yourself have said you're one of the people shouldered with such a burden, a 5e that doesn't appeal to you and is indeed working to remove the parts you like best, so it's really quite surprising to hear you of all people say this.

 

[TheSword]

Are you getting what you want now? Because if you are, that bias is going to color your discussion points just as much as the people who aren't. At least @Hussar is honest about their joy at other people's preferences being denied in WotC's current design.

I get enough of what I want that I think they’re a bloody good production company. 4 books out of the last 5 years were not at all to my taste. The rest were pretty damn good and deserving of the 5 stars they were getting.

The bits I didn’t like were thematic issues - not production/editing issues. I share my dislike of the authors choice. But what I don’t do is call them bad writers/editors or lazy. Or even say they’re bad products. It’s just not to my taste.

Luckily for me, this year has been winner winner chicken dinner!

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nah. There's also the old-school fans that hate it because it isn't the fantasy heistery they want (look at all the many, many, many, MANY threads trying to spindle, fold, and mutilate the 5e rules into achieving actual old-school style play), or the 3e fans like Pedantic pulling their hair out over the blatant disregard for actual simulationist priorities beyond superficial/lip-service/token efforts. Or the folks who want low-magic worlds and are truly infuriated that there's only like three or four classes in all of 5e that don't inherently use magic...and several of them have magic-using subclasses.

5e is 3e, tuned up a bit, with a show of looking old school while being as close to """traditional""" as possible--by which I mean, as close to 3e as possible--without intentionally stepping on any of 3e's land mines.

It's definitely offering...well, let's say one color, in a variety of tints/shades/tones. If you want a different color, you're fresh out of luck, unless you go and homebrew your own new variant.

You yourself have said you're one of the people shouldered with such a burden, a 5e that doesn't appeal to you and is indeed working to remove the parts you like best, so it's really quite surprising to hear you of all people say this.

Oh, I agree with you completely on this. Your explanation only covered 4e hate and misrepresentation (a sore topic for you I know), but your conclusion was inclusive of several playstyles WotC doesn't support (which is quite true). I agree with your conclusion, but your stated evidence only covered one corner of the issue.