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

[Mannahnin]

My intent is to provide a fantastic world with consistency and plausibility. Presenting level appropriate challenges is a secondary, but not unimportant concern.

Obviously. My priorities are similar.

When I'm designing scenarios, tools which give me helpful numbers and descriptors are useful.

 

[Mannahnin]

This is one of the advantages of the Fighter and Rogue in 5E... their class names are generic and the real identifier is the subclass name-- a Samurai, a Scout, an Inquisitive, a Banneret. So @FrozenNorth 's PC had it played in 5E would have probably been identified as an intended Rogue Scout, and thus the other players and DM would have known the character to be that from the beginning (and thus not defaulted to Thief.)

One hopes. Though given how badly that DM dropped the ball, I'm not sure it would have made a difference.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, but the problem is, you don't always pick your DCs three weeks in advance. You need to be able to improvise in response to unexpected player choices. (Isn't that kind of the point?)
Why is it good--laudable, even--for a DM to develop an internal idea of "oh, if you're trying to do that, in this context, the check should be X," but utterly unacceptable for a table to do the exact same thing, it just happens to be written down? Does the DM suddenly go from laudable to blameworthy if she writes down her intuitions about DCs?

Not at all.

How can it not? If you're improvising a check, how can it NOT include at least some kind of consideration for that?

Because whether I'm improvising or not, my first (and pretty much only) consideration is the fiction. They've gone somewhere I didn't prep and have there found a locked door? OK. I'm going to improvise a door and lock that make sense for the fictional location without consideration for the abilities of the characters who just found said door; and as a result the door might be impossible for them to unlock, or a triviality to unlock, or somewhere in between.

The whole point of Page 42 is to be an improvisation aid. That is literally what it is for.

Indeed. I don't think we're disagreeing on this.

Where we're disagreeing is whether "easy", "hard", "difficult", etc. should be defined in relation to the characters in the moment or in relation to a character-agnostic absolute. For me, it's the latter.

Believing that you cannot play a warrior of grit and skill, whether fighting with mighty thews or quick strikes, unless you have a specific name written across the top of your character sheet. That is, being more attached to what things are called than what they do; being unable to accept something that functions in every way like what you desire because it has the wrong name, and only the wrong name, no other faults.

Hence: the cage of names. The name alone is more important than getting something made to do what people wish to do. If it has the wrong name, it cannot be right; and if it has the right name, it cannot be wrong. Both of which are ridiculous, but convincing people of that is like pulling teeth.

So in summary: you're saying you can't play a warrior without calling it a [insert warrior class name here]? In game terms that makes sense, because a class' name carries with it all the trappings of said class; and just because I want to play a Thief as if it's a musclebound warrior doesn't mean it isn't still a Thief, with all the game-mechanical benefits and drawbacks that come with being a Thief.

And sure, a player can disguise a character's class from the other players/characters - I've both seen this done and done it myself* - but that's all it is: a disguise.

* - best one I've done as a player was a guy I once brought in as a "Ranger"; he was in fact a multi-class Thief/Druid, but during his (fairly short) career nobody ever figured this out.

 

[Lanefan]

You’re playing a rogue? You must be greedy, slippery and untrustworthy.

A monk? You must be a disciplined, Asian-inspired dude that spouts koans.

A barbarian? You’re illiterate, right? And you are constantly about to fly off the handle even when you’re not raging.

Seems fine to me - certain personalities would naturally tend to gravitate toward certain classes.

 

[Mannahnin]

Seems fine to me - certain personalities would naturally tend to gravitate toward certain classes.

You're missing the point. Archetypes and stereotypes can be useful when they provide an evocative shorthand for people to be able to picture the same thing.

They stop being useful and become a "cage" when they start being applied thoughtlessly, when they're not appropriate. As in the example FrozenNorth gave upthread of a DM totally stepping on his character concept of a rogue who was a military scout, instead pigeonholing the PC as a Thief.

 

[Mannahnin]

So in summary: you're saying you can't play a warrior without calling it a [insert warrior class name here]? In game terms that makes sense, because a class' name carries with it all the trappings of said class; and just because I want to play a Thief as if it's a musclebound warrior doesn't mean it isn't still a Thief, with all the game-mechanical benefits and drawbacks that come with being a Thief.

No, he's giving you examples of what the Cage of Names means, and how it obstructs fun.

The entire point of reskinning and creative character design is to use the rules to embody different concepts, that are less stereotypical.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I told you what I wanted from them. "Just do it yourself" is not as helpful or respectful and answer as you imagine. There are an awful lot if monsters that never got converted, for example.

3rd party folks are creating versions of older edition designs, especially every time a setting is opened up to DMsGuild.

You have been very clear in your opinions that 3rd party products are better than Wizards products.

What is it you want from Wizards, if you don't like their work? I'm very confused.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, he's giving you examples of what the Cage of Names means, and how it obstructs fun.

The entire point of reskinning and creative character design is to use the rules to embody different concepts, that are less stereotypical.

Not a fan of re-skinning, and generally prefer to avoid it when possible. If it's a different thing, I think it should have different rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

3rd party folks are creating versions of older edition designs, especially every time a setting is opened up to DMsGuild.

You have been very clear in your opinions that 3rd party products are better than Wizards products.

What is it you want from Wizards, if you don't like their work? I'm very confused.

Mechanical updates to their proprietary settings. That's about it.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Mechanical updates to their proprietary settings. That's about it.

Well they aren't going to do so without a setting product, so that won't happen until they write such a product. And when they do release such a product, the setting goes live on DMs Guild. Why do you want Wizards to be the ones to make the mechanical updates if upon release, it is open to 3rd Parties, and you prefer 3rd parties do it anyway? Do you value Wizards design? Or do you want them to create something, so competition can try to respond with their own variants?

Are there Wizards designs that you find are superior to 3rd party designs?