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

[Willie the Duck]

You make a really good point. The difference I see is that we have some people talking about the review in terms of facts "it says X, but here's what the adventure really says, so that's incorrect" and we also have some who either don't like the reviewer or take any criticism of WotC or their products personally.

Enworld has people who absolutely believe WotC can do no wrong, and also some who hate them with the intensity of 10000 suns. For me, I'm in the middle. I play 5E but I also am not its biggest fan. Whenever there are discussions about things like this review, both of those extreme sides come out. I like some posters on both "sides" of this issue, so I'll try and discuss with them, but I really do try to ignore those on the extreme ends. If I'm engaging with someone, it's because I find what they say interesting even if I don't agree with it.

I hope that makes sense. There's been a lot of interesting and useful back and forth on this thread, and it is personally useful to me, since a DM I just played with asked if they should go and buy this very adventure.

We undoubtedly do. Likewise, all those Facebook/Reddit/Twitter* threads I used to read where they devolved into back-and-forth accusations of being 'disingenuous' included a huge number of people who were being incredibly selective in their arguments and evidence to support preemptively calcified positions. But I don't peruse those other social media very much anymore, in part because of the lack of fair, open, and substantive discussion; but also in part because accusations of 'you're just saying that because <preconceived position unrelated to primary subject of discussion>' are part of that lack of substantive discussion. From my perspective doing that is part of the discussion alongside the extremists, not the part with the people are discussing how the review and the printed adventure match up.
*or choose your equivalent, they all have this.
Looking at it differently, either someone is saying something substantive about the review and/or adventure or they aren't. If they are (in effect) saying 'this Justin guy is trash'/'how dare you impugn WotC?,' or if they say 'Justin's review is fine, you just hate him'/'you just can't stand people trashing WotC,' they both fall into the latter category.

Enworld has people who absolutely believe WotC can do no wrong, and also some who hate them with the intensity of 10000 suns. For me, I'm in the middle. I play 5E but I also am not its biggest fan. Whenever there are discussions about things like this review, both of those extreme sides come out. I like some posters on both "sides" of this issue, so I'll try and discuss with them, but I really do try to ignore those on the extreme ends. If I'm engaging with someone, it's because I find what they say interesting even if I don't agree with it.

I have no horse in the race. D&D isn't even my dominant RPG, with neither 5e nor WotC specifically to blame for that. The one thing I'll say is that (from my perspective), like all the other great schisms here on Enworld (and the other forums I visit), both sides want to feel both like the secret majority and the beleaguered underdog. That seems a universal, and something that won't go away. So I don't really see the value in filling the threads with accusing people of being one of those extremists.

The golden age of D&D and RPGs in general was 12. No game company or game line ever seems to do what you want them to do for an extended period, and at the same time when they are doing so the people who have a problem with it are being so very unreasonable. In the meantime, there's this review of this one book out there, and there's a lot to say about both the book and the review that don't hinge on your, my, or the other guy's secret agenda with regards to the reviewer or the book's producer.

 

[GuyBoy]

I haven’t the faintest idea who Justin Alexander is, but I’ve bought Shattered Obelisk ( having run LMoP for my family) and intend to run it for my face-to-face group on their request, once we finish Scarlet Citadel.
I enjoyed reading it through, will add some personal touches here and there, and expect to have a blast ( including you, @TheSword ).
If he lives anywhere near London UK, Mr Alexander is very welcome to join the campaign!

 

[Parmandur]

Sadly, our library system falls into this. Most of the books in our local "big city" library is at least 20 years old (for example, they do have a D&D PHB, but its the 3.0 version). The library in my nearby rural town (about 8 miles down the road) is rocking titles from the 50's and 60's, and their "new" books are from the 80's. I don't know if they even have access to an intra-library exchange service.

If you don't mind me asking, what system is it? I'm curious to see what resources they might have.

 

[darjr]

Well, they still exist, for now!

https://www.twitch.tv/search?term=mike%20mearls%20happy%20fun%20hour&type=videos

You are going to have to manually copy/paste that link, the auto-imbed is breaking it.

Here try this link

 

[Parmandur]

Here try this link

Right on: these are a great resource for understanding the design thought process behind 5E, as it was then and is till today.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That’s true. I actually quite liked running Elemental Evil/Princes of the Apocalypse BUT by the end we were all finding it pretty tedious—lots of colour-coded dungeon crawling there. My favorite parts were all custom segments I wrote for my party, not written into the module. Overall that module could easily drop 4 of its 13 major dungeons without diminishing the story.

Our best experience was the cave of the necromancer. Although my party was way overleveled, it was quite a challenge.

 

[ersatzphil]

Right on: these are a great resource for understanding the design thought process behind 5E, as it was then and is till today.

…eh. I would argue, for better or worse, that 5e design philosophy has moved on. Relevant tweet throwing it under the bus:


Edit: because Twitter isn’t embedding the way I want it to:

 

[Charlaquin]

(Sorry to interject, but who are you replying to? Idk maybe the page isn’t loading correctly for me, but I can’t see a quote in your comment and it doesn’t seem like you’re replying to the comment before. Just curious, sorry!)

EDIT: There are other comments that seem to be missing quotes too. Maybe my page is screwed up somehow.

Probably someone blocked you.

 

[mamba]

Definitely not anyone I blocked, I checked and my blocklist remains empty. Must be someone blocking me.

since it was pointed out, if you use an anonymous window, do not engage them.

To me that part was obvious, for one you cannot, as you are not logged in, and for another they would not see your post anyway… did not think this needed saying because of that

 

[Parmandur]

…eh. I would argue, for better or worse, that 5e design philosophy has moved on. Relevant tweet throwing it under the bus:


Edit: because Twitter isn’t embedding the way I want it to:

Oh, it has changed and evolved...but of you attend to the fundamentals of each Class Mearls laid out, and look at the '24 playtests, I think you will find the core has remained quite consistent.