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

[doctorhook]

Okay, perhaps a brainstorming session: How can we make the five factions more relevant to this plot? (Lord’s Alliance, Zhentarim, Order of the Gauntlet, Harpers, and Emerald Enclave)

The original adventure leaves the faction engagement very open ended—it didn’t affect the original plot much. But the followup chapters are firmly Tier 2, where relationships between PCs and factions ought to become more important. So what interests are the factions likely to have regarding this mind flayer invasion? And since all of them will definitely want to stop the mind flayers, how do we distinguish each faction’s specific goals?

 

[LordEntrails]

@LordEntrails
Again. He changed the subject. Ask him.

I don't think he changed the subject. Note he titled the third part of the review as an "Addendum" Not "Part 3" he already came to his conclusion in part 2. The addendum was only to address concerns from this thread and others who have blown all out of proportion one of the ~15 items he listed as problems. And no, it was not what he stated was the "Core Failure" is. That's #6 on my list.

I would say why it appears to me this thread has focused so much attention on a minor point of the review, but then I fear I would be thread banned for that.

 

[LordEntrails]

Some of 7 seems like it was wrong (the hydra does have access to the outside world and thus food via an underground water channel), other stuff like whether the NPCs can get to their locations I don't remember seeing confirmed or denied by other readers.

This is a good point. And since I assume you are right, it is an error in the review. It's good to know that. Thanks.
What about the pointed out issues with the goblin barricade and the named mind flayer boss itself?

3, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 15 seem like they're going to be real problems for DMs if they're accurate.

Not #3, but all the others seem to me to be due to poor editing and/or editing standards. Or simple a lack of playtesting with drafts of the materials. I mean if you had play tested this (even at lunch) and went to give players those handouts, wouldn't the issues have been immediately obvious?

 

[darjr]

I don't think he changed the subject. Note he titled the third part of the review as an "Addendum" Not "Part 3" he already came to his conclusion in part 2. The addendum was only to address concerns from this thread and others who have blown all out of proportion one of the ~15 items he listed as problems. And no, it was not what he stated was the "Core Failure" is. That's #6 on my list.

I would say why it appears to me this thread has focused so much attention on a minor point of the review, but then I fear I would be thread banned for that.

I never said it was the “core failure”. Where did that come from?

How is an addendum to a two part blog entry not a third blog entry on the same subject?

It isn’t minor to Justin. I do find it ironic that the very thing that was important enough to him to post a third blog entry about it and his fans dont want to discuss it.

But do note my comments on the third blog post are not a limit to any thoughts I have or in this thread. I dunno why you seem to think that?

Finally, he meant to talk about it, he meant to focus on it, he changed the subject. He meant to. It seem like it is important to him. I dunno why, not really, I’m not him.

 

[LordEntrails]

I never said it was the “core failure”. Where did that come from?

Justin lists #6 as the core failure of the module. It's directly from the top of part 2. And it's not about keying dungeons.

How is an addendum to a two part blog entry not a third blog entry on the same subject?

Its on the subject, but it not part of the review. It is a response to the response of the review. I view it as differently. You do not have to.

It isn’t minor to Justin. I do find it ironic that the very thing that was important enough to him to post a third blog entry about it and his fans dont want to discuss it.

It appears to me the third post is a response and clarification about the conversations that are happening about the review. It's about how one of the ~15 critiques is being blown up.

But do note my comments on the third blog post are not a limit to any thoughts I have or in this thread. I dunno why you seem to think that?

Finally, he meant to talk about it, he meant to focus on it, he changed the subject. He meant to. It seem like it is important to him. I dunno why, not really, I’m not him.

I'm just going to let this part go. I'd rather talk about the 14 other critiques than re-hash this over and over.

 

[LordEntrails]

Okay, perhaps a brainstorming session: How can we make the five factions more relevant to this plot? (Lord’s Alliance, Zhentarim, Order of the Gauntlet, Harpers, and Emerald Enclave)

The original adventure leaves the faction engagement very open ended—it didn’t affect the original plot much. But the followup chapters are firmly Tier 2, where relationships between PCs and factions ought to become more important. So what interests are the factions likely to have regarding this mind flayer invasion? And since all of them will definitely want to stop the mind flayers, how do we distinguish each faction’s specific goals?

I've always struggled with factions and making them relevant. It's hard for me. One-part is should factions be obvious? Do all Harpers wear a pin and everyone knows what it means? Do they have member lists?

Something I've tried that seem like they should work but never really do;

• keep track of faction reputation. Number should work fine, but even liked, disliked, trusted, enemy is probably good enough.
• Those NPCs who provide important info during an adventure, make them from a friendly faction and make that apparent to the players.
• Quest givers, yea, these should all be connected to a faction. Even if it's just the distant uncle of the missing child is a Harper.

So might these be valid motivations or goals for each of the factions?
Harpers: mind flayers take away free will, therefore they must be suppressed or eliminated
Oot Gauntlet: MF's are evil, therefore they must be destroyed!
Emerald Enclave: the MF's control of the obelisk risks the natural order of the area. We must remove the power of the relic from their control.
L's Alliance: Phandelver is an important trade passage for the power centers (cities) and therefore we must be aware of any growing powers that threaten trade between the cities. Investigate and make sure trade is not threatened.
Zhents: The MF present an opportunity for expanding our power in the region. Determine if they can become allies for our mutual benefit, and if not, eliminate the competition!

 

[Lanefan]

I do not see the true focus of his posts about map keys. But let's take a summary of his specific complaints:

1. Plot hooks are generic mush
2. No development of relations with factions
3. Initial encounter is made harder threatening a TPK
4. Foreshadowing of the mind flayer plot is weak and a flat out failure
5. Marketing Hype is completely inaccurate
   (that is all part 1, absolutely nothing about map keys)
6. The "Core Failure" is that the campaign is a race against the mind flayers to obtain fragments is pre-ordained with little the players can impact (railroad, my word). What they can impact is random and non-sensical.
7. Logical fallacies: super high INT creature is stupid, consequences of party failures are pointless, living creatures trapped for decades in room with no food, NPCs with no way to get to where they are,
8. Finale is a dud
9. Maps that don't match the text
10. Not all maps are keyed/numbered
11. Poor Design - continuity errors, NPCs with incoherent backstories and incomprehensible motivations, timeline contradictions,
12. Player handout (poster map) with secret locations
13. Player handout with (shard locations) that is just wrong
14. Cool lore for DMs only
15. Player handout (story tracker) with spoilers and no instructions on use (not obvious to reviewer)

And yes, he wrote an addendum about unkeyed dungeons and why he said what he said. Seems that since the internet has blown up about one of his approximately 15 complaints, he taken the time to explain in detail what threads like this are complaining about.

How about we talk about the other 14? Or are they not interesting because we all agree with them?

Of these: 1, 3, 4, 6, 11, and 14 are the sort of things that might work fine for one DM but not another. 2 and 14 are perhaps left for the DM to flesh out or not, as desired, perhaps keeping in mind that some DMs will be trying to run this using a completely different backstory bespoke to their own campaigns. And 5 is just typical of marketing campaigns everywhere, nothing to see here.

As noted by others, we've done 10 to death. 8 has been a problem with some WotC adventures for a while now.

BUT: 7, 9, 12, 13 and 15 are the sort of errors* that just shouldn't exist (but all too often do) in a professional publication; and the reviewer is quite right in calling them out harshly. 12 in particular has been a gripe of mine ever since they started including battlemaps: they always show things the characters can't yet see or know about when arriving at the map's edge.

* - it's probably worth noting that if a reviewer could spot these things on a read-through that means they weren't really all that that hard to notice; so how on earth did the editor(s)/proofreader(s) miss them? Makes me wonder what other less-obvious issues might rear their heads on a full play-through?

 

[billd91]

I've always struggled with factions and making them relevant. It's hard for me. One-part is should factions be obvious? Do all Harpers wear a pin and everyone knows what it means? Do they have member lists?

There are settings where factionalism is pretty easy to handle. The OA module Blood of the Yakuza has really easy to handle and use factions. It's set in Nakamaru, a northern city in Wa, and the main factions are localized and easy to grasp. By comparison, the factions that keep getting dealt with in the 5e Forgotten Realms adventures are big, broad, and kinda mushy. Their motives are... often a bit obscure in any single adventure. Yet there they are. It's like they're trying to make "fetch" happen and, for me, it quite frankly isn't.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

@LordEntrails
Again. He changed the subject. Ask him.

Come off it. He wrote a separate blog post.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've always struggled with factions and making them relevant. It's hard for me. One-part is should factions be obvious? Do all Harpers wear a pin and everyone knows what it means? Do they have member lists?

Yeah, the pins have always seemed really silly to me, especially for the harpers, who are ostensibly supposed to be spies… I also never know what to make of the Zhentarim, as their behavior seems openly villainous to me, yet for some reason they’re just… allowed to operate unobstructed? Also, players can join them? Like, it’s one thing to have a designated morally-gray playable faction, but the Zhents just seem straight-up evil to me.