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

[Paul Farquhar]

There are always exceptions.

Indeed. Are you sure it aint you?

 

[AnotherGuy]

The book is great as a toolbox, though, so I don’t regret purchasing it.

That is how I think of it too. It wasn't necessarily an adventure I wanted to run but there were parts of it I could mine for my current campaign ToD/SKT mashup campaign.

I used the chapter with the explosion within the sandbox of the greater ToD/SKT. I allowed the PCs to participate if they wanted to, otherwise the adventure would unfold on its own via NPC faction/city agents doing the investigating. The PCs at the moment have had more pressing matters to actively pursue but have periodically followed up on the investigation's results.
It will play an important role in how the PCs will use the information uncovered through the investigation about Lord Dagult Neverember. Will they blackmail him for support in the Council Meetings (ToD)? Will they seek to protect him?
How will their decisions affect Lady Silverhand's relationship with them? Who else will they tell? ...etc

 

[Staffan]

And wouldn't it be fun to buy "modules" again, with the maps printed on the removable, heavy-weight covers? (Although I would prefer modern cartography, not TSR blue.)

Problem is that traditional one-shot modules don't sell. Each of them has a really, really narrow audience. Take "Deep Horizon", one of the initial set of 3.0 adventures. It's a level 13 adventure, where you're protecting a group of desmodus from beholders and salamanders. The target audience is DMs who:

• have a level 13ish campaign
• want an underground-focused adventure
• want beholders and salamanders in their adventure.

That's a pretty narrow niche. By comparison, the target audience for something like the Shattered Obelisk is "DMs who want to start a new campaign and want to use this as the basis." That's a lot bigger.

Traditional wisdom is that adventure sales suck, but that they act as marketing for the game – they lower the threshold for actually getting a game up and running. Paizo turned that on its head with the adventure path concept: adventures that provide a whole campaign with a strong storyline and a distinct theme, and that turned out to be a success. Wizards then copied the concept but made them single-volume mega-adventures instead. But even Paizo have problems with standalone adventures, which is why they're making fewer and fewer of them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Indeed. Are you sure it aint you?

No. I don't know who the exception is.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Traditional wisdom is that adventure sales suck, but that they act as marketing for the game – they lower the threshold for actually getting a game up and running. Paizo turned that on its head with the adventure path concept: adventures that provide a whole campaign with a strong storyline and a distinct theme, and that turned out to be a success. Wizards then copied the concept but made them single-volume mega-adventures instead. But even Paizo have problems with standalone adventures, which is why they're making fewer and fewer of them.

Note that even Paizo, which is extremely good at this style has faced some major challenges. They push a subscription model that attempts to reduce their downside from APs that aren’t as popular, and they had a couple of less successful APs that didn’t sell as well (the circus one and the Agents of Edgewatch one).

 

[nevin]

Note that even Paizo, which is extremely good at this style has faced some major challenges. They push a subscription model that attempts to reduce their downside from APs that aren’t as popular, and they had a couple of less successful APs that didn’t sell as well (the circus one and the Agents of Edgewatch one).

I'd argue that Paizo's problem with modules is they are all made with the Pathfinder Society in mind and this limits them in many ways. Pathfinder has built a great thing with the Pathfinder Society but it has become the bubble that everything gets developed in. They are really developing for the pathfinder society not all Pathfinder gamers.

 

[billd91]

I'd argue that Paizo's problem with modules is they are all made with the Pathfinder Society in mind and this limits them in many ways. Pathfinder has built a great thing with the Pathfinder Society but it has become the bubble that everything gets developed in. They are really developing for the pathfinder society not all Pathfinder gamers.

Unless things have changed radically with PF2e's organized play, this isn't true. The Pathfinder APs are written to be usable by a broad spectrum of possible play groups to maximize their appeal, but they are distinct from the PFS style of scenario, their structure, and the restrictions on character options.

 

[nevin]

Unless things have changed radically with PF2e's organized play, this isn't true. The Pathfinder APs are written to be usable by a broad spectrum of possible play groups to maximize their appeal, but they are distinct from the PFS style of scenario, their structure, and the restrictions on character options.

being usable by a large spectrum is great doublespeak and doesn't actually argue with anything i said. I'll even expand my original opinion. All Pathfinder development is driven mostly by pathfinder society needs and feedback and anyone outside that bubble is not generally considered. Because anything usable by Pathfinder Society is " Usable by a broad spectrum of possible play groups".

 

[Staffan]

Note that even Paizo, which is extremely good at this style has faced some major challenges. They push a subscription model that attempts to reduce their downside from APs that aren’t as popular, and they had a couple of less successful APs that didn’t sell as well (the circus one and the Agents of Edgewatch one).

I'd argue that Paizo's problem with modules is they are all made with the Pathfinder Society in mind and this limits them in many ways. Pathfinder has built a great thing with the Pathfinder Society but it has become the bubble that everything gets developed in. They are really developing for the pathfinder society not all Pathfinder gamers.

Huh. I have not noted any particular PFS thing. But the adventure path format is a bit limiting, particularly the desire to cram 10 or 20 levels of adventuring into a total of 192 or 384 pages plus ancillary material (each AP volume is 96 pages, but only about 64 pages is the adventure, the rest are various support material with more or less connection to the adventure).

Extinction Curse and Agents of Edgewatch had their own problems, one common to them and then each of them having some of their own. The common problem is that they are early PF2 APs, so the balance... let's just say there's plenty of potential for improvement. Extinction Curse also had the issue that they didn't commit to the bit. It's presented as "the Circus AP" but the circus is really a fairly minor part, with much more time spent on the Xulgath plotline and Aroden lore. It feels like they didn't have confidence that a circus could be the focus of a campaign. With Edgewatch, the main issue is that you're playing cops. And the adventure came out in fall 2020, after a period where a lot of focus had been placed in American media on police brutality. And it does not get better when you, as police, are expected to behave more or less as regular adventurers – beating up alleged criminals and confiscating their possessions as loot. They tried doing some damage control in the Player's Guide, but it really was a case of very poor timing.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

I've bolded the half of my sentence applying to myself and other experienced players, which you somehow ignored in your rush to take umbrage.

What the heck, man? I write a post explicitly saying that I like when some rules and rules changes are explained, in which I also take a stab at explaining how it can be taken too far and why it can be a downside, and you ignore the entire thing except the last five words, to totally distort my point?

Heck, half the point of my post was correcting Shardstone's apparently having misread Gradine in the same way!