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

[Shardstone]

Did they say they were against it, or just unconvinced of the necessity/mandate?

I don't see a difference here because I believe it should be a necessity. It's actually a big problem in my eyes that games don't talk enough about the philosophy behind them. TTRPGs, even rules-lite one, are complex affairs for the mind. With the design ideas behind it firmly stated, I can better modify the game to my own standards, and I learn more about game design due to the designer's input.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Actually yes, each new edition of a game should do this. I'm confused why you're against it.

For me personally, it's because I don't care why things were changed. The game is the game. What they wrote is what they wrote. And I either choose to play it or I don't.

And if things were changed from what I remember in a previous version... if I determine I liked the old way better, I just incorporate the old way into the new game. I don't need someone to tell me why they changed it or what they hoped to achieve, because what they hoped for and what I hope for are different. Knowing theirs serves me no purpose.

 

[Shardstone]

I think the biggest weakness in both this adventure and most of WotC's adventures is encounter design.

Some encounter design is really cool, like the vampire spawn in the attic in Curse of Strahd. Other encounter design, like the fireballing wizard in the 2nd level DiA dungeon could use some work.

Likewise, it is very easy to make your adventure more internally consistent when writing it. For example, the Alexandrian points out the hydra issue. For many people, this isn't a problem. But by adding just a line or two of text about how/what it eats, or mentioning that it is starving and eating its own heads, can add a lot and give the DM more to work with despite the slightness of the addition.

These two things combine to turn me off of many WotC adventures. I either feel like my encounters could be way more interesting or that a little more cohesiveness would have a force multiplying effect on the adventure. Neither of these things are a big ask. Again, for the Hydra, one or two lines would suffice. For the adventure hooks, why not look at the adventure itself and program them in, or even wait on making them until the main book is finished?

When I look at other 3rd party adventures, I get these things. Indie creators and 3rd party studios go the extra mile on their products to make them cohesive and the encounters interesting. As a game designer myself, there's really no reason to not do these things. It doesn't take more effort, it just takes a bit of vision.

And for a game that's as focused on exploring hostile places as D&D, I'd expect these two elements to be superb in every adventure. That it's not is disappointing.

I do agree many of WotC's adventures, including this one, have great ideas in them. The mutations, the weird cow, even the idea of Mindflayers hunting down the obelisk I like a lot. DiA had many good ideas I've stolen, as has every book WotC has put out (even Spelljammer had some goodies I liked). But I'm not just buying these books to steal ideas. I'm buying these books to experience high-quality encounters and to receive coherent materials.

There really isn't a valid argument against this IMO. WotC just needs to try harder. They have the capability to be one of the best in the business, if not the best. What's so wrong with pushing them to do better?

 

[Shardstone]

That's nice, so you could just ignore those parts of the book and us of who do care can still read them.

For me personally, it's because I don't care why things were changed. The game is the game. What they wrote is what they wrote. And I either choose to play it or I don't.

And if things were changed from what I remember in a previous version... if I determine I liked the old way better, I just incorporate the old way into the new game. I don't need someone to tell me why they changed it or what they hoped to achieve, because what they hoped for and what I hope for are different. Knowing theirs serves me no purpose.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's nice, so you could just ignore those parts of the book and us of who do care can still read them.

True! But that's why I don't care if the writers bother. And if there's more people like me than there are you, it explains why WotC doesn't bother either.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me personally, it's because I don't care why things were changed. The game is the game. What they wrote is what they wrote. And I either choose to play it or I don't.

And if things were changed from what I remember in a previous version... if I determine I liked the old way better, I just incorporate the old way into the new game. I don't need someone to tell me why they changed it or what they hoped to achieve, because what they hoped for and what I hope for are different. Knowing theirs serves me no purpose.

I find explanations of the reasoning behind design extremely useful. Not only does it help me see what the intent was (which may make me appreciate the designers' way somewhat more), but it also helps me to see what functions their choices were meant to serve. Whether they succeed or fail in those functions, knowing the intent helps me if I wish to alter or replace the existing content.

It's one of the reasons why I truly love the 13th Age books. Both Heinsoo and Tweet give commentary on how they use various rules, and (best of all) actually call out the places where they don't agree on how something works. Having that designer commentary is wonderful for developing my own sense of game design and adjudication with a new game.

 

[Shardstone]

True! But that's why I don't care if the writers bother. And if there's more people like me than there are you, it explains why WotC doesn't bother either.

I don't think that logic holds. Even if it's something 70% you and 30% me, adding the philosophy is still a net gain that doesn't harm the 70%. This really just feels like you telling me that because you and others don't care about my desires, my desires don't mean anything. That's a narrow-minded view. There is nothing to be lost from talking about game design philosophy in the book.

 

[Remathilis]

Actually yes, each new edition of a game should do this. I'm confused why you're against it.

I actually liked the Wizards Presents books that came out prior to 4e. They went deep into the lore and mechanic changes they were considering. In fact, it had a better description of the lore than the core books did. While I don't need a whole book to do that, it would be nice to have a few blog posts that went into their thinking.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There is nothing to be lost from talking about game design philosophy in the book.

I guess it depends on how one looks at it, and the what is said behind the decision.

What if most of the players who read the book haven't read anything previous? And they don't the old ways that are being compared/contrasted? There ends up being a lot of philosophical talk and word count about things they have no knowledge of and might very well not care about. Sure, it might serve some of the old readers who would recognize the discussion (of those older readers who actually cared), but is that the best way to use the book space? Obviously you would say yes, I would probably say no. And I'm not making a judgement on either opinion-- I could be wrong or right, just like you could be wrong or right.

After all... I have no issue with talking about gaming philosophy in and of itself... that's why I'm on the EN World forums after all. I just question whether a WotC gaming reference book dedicated to something else is necessarily the place to have the discussion.

But we can agree to disagree on the matter.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I don't see a difference here because I believe it should be a necessity. It's actually a big problem in my eyes that games don't talk enough about the philosophy behind them. TTRPGs, even rules-lite one, are complex affairs for the mind. With the design ideas behind it firmly stated, I can better modify the game to my own standards, and I learn more about game design due to the designer's input.

It matters because you said you were confused why they were against it, when it isn't obvious that they are (only that they don't agree that it should be required).

Personally, I am always interested in the why of decisions in a game's design or revision. I think it is great if we get the answer to some of those burning questions somewhere. I can't imagine how helpful it would have been in BX if there was a sidebar explaining the reasoning behind gp=xp, the low xp for combat victory, etc. (we might have played the game more 'as intended' or at least had fewer 'what were they thinking' discussions when playing it otherwise lead to unfortunate results). That said, there is a practical limit to how much can be included before rules explanations dwarf rules. Doubly so for the discussed explanation-of-changes, which only matter if you are coming to the game with expectations of previous versions.

I think the devs are doing a balancing act, which I kinda agree has leaned too far into leaving it nebulous side; but I don't envy them the decision of what to include.