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

[Micah Sweet]

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!

That's why this is all preferences. Plenty of folks here feel the proportion of good to bad WotC products goes the other way than you do.

 

[TheSword]

That's why this is all preferences. Plenty of folks here feel the proportion of good to bad WotC products goes the other way than you do.

This is my point. I don’t assume/claim the books that aren’t to my tastes are bad books. Other folks do.

The motive assigned to experienced writers and editors who don’t write the way they want is that either they don’t think enough, or they’re lazy, or they don’t understand the game properly.

It’s the main reason I take issue with JA’s style.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Fair. I felt the one counter-example was enough to show that the strident claim--"as inclusive as possible"--really wasn't true. But it is good to bring up other examples, I can recognize that.

 

[Shardstone]

Stagnated? Really? I think they have had some really great ideas, though it is true that some products suffered from some serious issues and missed the mark. If a new idea that pushes the envelope does not gain traction, I don't see that has stagnated artistic spirit. It was a gamble on an idea that some really loved, but not everyone did. Every book they've published has been good for somebody, even if it isn't for me, specifically.

Wild Beyond the Witchlight and Radiant Citadel were both delightful, groundbreaking publications. One being family friendly that can be resolved without combat (if wanted), and the other being all brand new lore content that introduces more about the Ethereal Plane, and alternate material planes that celebrate diverse setting seeds.

Strixhaven was a bold attempt at something new for a younger audience, and to me it looked like an attempt to capture CW tropes of teen academy romadramady (romance/drama/comedy), with jump-cut episodes rather than an organic day-to-day story. I like the idea of the setting, but I used it as inspiration for my own story, rather than utilize the adventure/mechanics of the published adventure itself.

The Book of Many Things is amazing, and offers so much variety that can be taken or left as needed.

They do push the envelope, but not all new ideas are going to sing to every gamer. And then there are the occasional serious missteps, like Spelljammer not having decent space combat, and messing up the Hadozee. It could have been good, but they missed the mark.

Strixhaven and Spelljammer I distinctly consider stagnated because they feel like cut corners and products that do not provide the experience they claimed. Planescape, imo, was good. Radiant Citadel was amazing.

But the mechanical side is lacking imo. Magic items, monster designs, races, and more toys for martials are all barebones, boring, or thin. I am particularly critical of their monsters and lack of engaging encounter design. I feel the core of the game, combat, is not being approached from the right angle.

 

[Umbran]

Given 5e's nature as the apology edition...

... or the 3e fans like Pedantic
...
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.

Mod Note:
So, this is starting to look a bit trollish - inflammatorily broad characterization of a game, followed by making if personal.

If you aren't looking to start a conflict, you might want to consider approaching the discussion differently. If you are looking to start a conflict, well, please stop.

 

[Shardstone]

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.

They need to start using their dndbeyond blog. They have avenues to commit to this idea; they should get more use out of it.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yes, I think the online blogs and so forth are good tools for this.

Must each new edition of a game carry with it an essay explaining their philosophy for every change from the previous edition? Or just D&D?

Actually yes, each new edition of a game should do this. I'm confused why you're against it.

I think you may have overlooked the "for every change" part.

There's a range of options here for how much or how little to explain, and if they go for the maximum amount of explanation, the page count really would balloon a lot.

That being said, I DO like some explanation from designers for why certain rules are the way they are. I like it when, for example, they offer optional critical hit rules and explain the impact thereof.

But I think Gradine and others have a point that if you dig into the weeds on too many things it gets unwieldy. It becomes obstructive to using the books for reference, and to new players learning afresh.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, I think the online blogs and so forth are good tools for this.




I think you may have overlooked the "for every change" part.

There's a range of options here for how much or how little to explain, and if they go for the maximum amount of explanation, the page count really would balloon a lot.

That being said, I DO like some explanation from designers for why certain rules are the way they are. I like it when, for example, they offer optional critical hit rules and explain the impact thereof.

But I think Gradine and others have a point that if you dig into the weeds on too many things it gets unwieldy. It becomes obstructive to using the books for reference, and to new players learning afresh.

And new players are the only ones that matter, right? Sometimes I feel like WotC actively wants the rest of us to go away.

 

[Mort]

And new players are the only ones that matter, right? Sometimes I feel like WotC actively wants the rest of us to go away.

Not sure what to tell you, I've been gaming for over 35 years at this point, certainly not a new player. WoTC is putting out plenty of stuff I find interesting. Group had a blast with Spelljammer, and I'm really looking forward to running the new Planescape adventure.

After that, likely back to my Greyhawk campaign which has been on hold for a minute. But runs great with the 5e rules set (ran it in 2e then 3e for a LONG time). Started fresh with 5e and everyone is having fun with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not sure what to tell you, I've been gaming for over 35 years at this point, certainly not a new player. WoTC is putting out plenty of stuff I find interesting. Group had a blast with Spelljammer, and I'm really looking forward to running the new Planescape adventure.

After that, likely back to my Greyhawk campaign which has been on hold for a minute. But runs great with the 5e rules set (ran it in 2e then 3e for a LONG time). Started fresh with 5e and everyone is having fun with it.

There are always exceptions. But which of us is that? We don't know, and neither do WotC. All we know is that their focus is in anyone who knows nothing of D&D from before 2014. And, whether or not you personally like what they're selling now, that leaves a lot of folks here and elsewhere in the community in the cold.