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

[FitzTheRuke]

One is just a battle arena with no exploration, the other has distinct areas thst need to be explored and wrong tracks to go down. Seems straightforward and consistent to me.

That's how it differs for the PLAYERS, not how it differs for the DM.

EDIT: The DM needs to know what's in those three Keyed locations (plus the "maze") on the first map, and what's in the four rooms on the second. And keep which is which straight. They're both simple (in that they've got four parts each).

 

[Parmandur]

That's how it differs for the PLAYERS, not how it differs for the DM.

As a DM, I can keep track of one room in relation to one room. Or in the case of the buried house ruin, the single encounter and single item of interest in the small place. Nothing would be gained from keying either. Whereas the exploration challenge benefits from being keyed.

 

[Lanefan]

There is no unkeyed dungeon: they included battlemaps for a few non-Dungeon encounter spaces.

Somebody was saying that dungeons being keyed or unkeyed was a matter of preference. I was questioning how an unkeyed dungeon would be the least bit useful for the DM.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

As a DM, I can keep track of one room in relation to one room. Or in the case of the buried house ruin, the single encounter and single item of interest in the small place. Nothing would be gained from keying either. Whereas the exploration challenge benefits from being keyed.

The DM needs to know what's in those three Keyed locations (plus the "maze") on the first map, and what's in the four rooms on the second. And keep which is which straight. They're both simple (in that they've got four parts each). Neither are particularly "hard" to keep track of. That's not entirely the point. The point is to make it easier to keep track of, not a case of possible vs impossible. (And also to take less precious text space that can better be used for other parts of the adventure - apparently A LOT of important stuff often gets cut "for space").

 

[Lanefan]

In this case? No. It's a single room with a combat encounter. The maps primary value is to the VTT crowd. The words get the point across better (to my brain)

Ah. I didn't realize we're on about single-room maps here; I thought we were talking about the map of the dungeon level (the only map worth bothering to include) and that parts of it were keyed and other parts not keyed.

I'm not at all a fan of including single-room maps on every page. It's completely wasted space. Just give me a detached (or detachable) version of the level maps that I can clip to my DM screen* while I'm running that level, and I'm good to go.

I'm even less a fan of full-size player-side battlemaps, as they inevitably show more than the characters can initially see.

* - or better yet, do like 1e and put the level maps on one side of detached hard cardstock that I can use as my DM screen while running that adventure!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Ah. I didn't realize we're on about single-room maps here; I thought we were talking about the map of the dungeon level (the only map worth bothering to include) and that parts of it were keyed and other parts not keyed.

It's not - quite - a single room map that JA objected to. It was a three room map. It's definitely on the borderline between "needing" keying and not. JA obviously thought it did - @darjr and @Parmandur think the idea is laughable. I think it could go either way, if I'm honest. I just think that it's funny that there ARE a few maps in the book that have four or less Keys - IMO equally "un/necessary" for keying.

 

[Parmandur]

Ah. I didn't realize we're on about single-room maps here; I thought we were talking about the map of the dungeon level (the only map worth bothering to include) and that parts of it were keyed and other parts not keyed.

I'm not at all a fan of including single-room maps on every page. It's completely wasted space. Just give me a detached (or detachable) version of the level maps that I can clip to my DM screen* while I'm running that level, and I'm good to go.

I'm even less a fan of full-size player-side battlemaps, as they inevitably show more than the characters can initially see.

* - or better yet, do like 1e and put the level maps on one side of detached hard cardstock that I can use as my DM screen while running that adventure!

Yeah, the bits in question are "battle maps" clearly meant for VTT in the digital version. No exploration, just a fight.

 

[Parmandur]

It's not - quite - a single room map that JA objected to. It was a three room map. It's definitely on the borderline between "needing" keying and not. JA obviously thought it did - @darjr and @Parmandur think the idea is laughable. I think it could go either way, if I'm honest. I just think that it's funny that there ARE a few maps in the book that have four or less Keys - IMO equally "un/necessary" for keying.

I would drop the map. It doesn't add much.

 

[Umbran]

That's a bit high-handed, isn't it?

As if saying those who disagree with you are all making lame excuses isn't?

The best way to not understand people is to assume your own superiority.

 

[darjr]

It's not - quite - a single room map that JA objected to. It was a three room map. It's definitely on the borderline between "needing" keying and not. JA obviously thought it did - @darjr and @Parmandur think the idea is laughable. I think it could go either way, if I'm honest. I just think that it's funny that there ARE a few maps in the book that have four or less Keys - IMO equally "un/necessary" for keying.

I found his response to be laughable. Not necessarily the idea of keying a dungeon.

Of all the things he could respond to? This is it? This deserves a blog entry all by itself?
It struck me as blind adherence to dogma, how many angels on the head of a pin, and then his map and I just thought of the cave man counting "One, Twomany". I laughed.

Here is the description of the area, I found those areas almost instantly.

Here's the room. Don't get lost.