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

[FitzTheRuke]

I disagree THIS adventure sounds not good (though I am hearing differing opinions on that - maybe it is good). That's not an indictment of "all" adventures. WOTC has some truly fantastic adventures from WOTC and I'd say the majority are excellent.

I definitely don't think that one can determine if this adventure is "Good" or not, based on Alexander's review. I think you CAN determine that it has some problems - things that could have been clearer or formatted better, or considered by the writers that would make it easier for a DM to run. There's no surprise there!

But whether or not YOU (generic you) could bang it into shape for your table to have fun with? That's less clear. You probably could. Would some of the things that Alexander pointed out make it more difficult for you to do so? Probably. Probably not ALL of the things, depending on if the text made more sense to you than it did to him (or simply inspired an answer, even if the answer isn't there in the text). You might not even notice some of his complaints. You might find other frustrations instead!

Honestly, I think the main takeaway is that there's still a lot of improvements that could be made to adventure design when it comes to making them better for DMs to follow. It's not that they're bad; it's that they could be a lot better. Criticism, I think, at it's best, is there to push for a better future.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. And they are potentially problematic in a home campaign if PCs belong to different factions.

That would be about the only way factions could be made interesting to me. Otherwise, kingdoms and nation-states can perform much the same function.

Which I guess is why 5e has moved on to the "group patron" idea. All the party members on on the same side.

If they wanted to take this tack and dial it to eleven, they could even chuck in some guidelines as to how the PCs (in a bigger-than-single-AP campaign) could be, become, or start their own faction.

 

[Lanefan]

I definitely don't think that one can determine if this adventure is "Good" or not, based on Alexander's review. I think you CAN determine that it has some problems - things that could have been clearer or formatted better, or considered by the writers that would make it easier for a DM to run. There's no surprise there!

But whether or not YOU (generic you) could bang it into shape for your table to have fun with? That's less clear. You probably could. Would some of the things that Alexander pointed out make it more difficult for you to do so? Probably.

Truth be told, I think his having pointed out some of the problems would make it easier to bash into shape, as if nothing else he's already done the work for you of finding and highlighting some areas that are potentially going to need attention. For example, if you're not keen on players seeing/knowing things their characters don't yet know about then from his review you already know not to use some of the player handout material.

Probably not ALL of the things, depending on if the text made more sense to you than it did to him (or simply inspired an answer, even if the answer isn't there in the text). You might not even notice some of his complaints. You might find other frustrations instead!

Indeed.

Honestly, I think the main takeaway is that there's still a lot of improvements that could be made to adventure design when it comes to making them better for DMs to follow. It's not that they're bad; it's that they could be a lot better. Criticism, I think, at it's best, is there to push for a better future.

Agreed.

 

[MerricB]

In the introduction to this adventure it says “One side of the poster map shows the Phandalin region, including prominent locations in the Underdark where the characters will travel. If the players don’t recognize these names yet, that’s good! Once they learn in the game where they’re headed, they’ll realize they’ve heard of the location and can head in the right direction at will.” So, while some may disagree with the designers' choice to include these, it was done intentionally on their part.

The early part of the story is "Find Cragmaw Castle" and then "Find the Lost Mine", and the adventure is structured around those things. They are the main goals of the characters.

Having them on the player map is... incompetent.

 

[doctorhook]

Agree 100% and made a similar point in my own post about 10 pages back. This book could and should have woven together all the threads into something greater.

Yes, I gave you a like when you originally posted it, but went back and upgraded it to a love.

 

[MerricB]

That would be about the only way factions could be made interesting to me. Otherwise, kingdoms and nation-states can perform much the same function.

Within the Sword Coast of the Forgotten Realms, kingdoms and nation-states are few and far between. So, so much wilderness and small independent towns!

Within the hardcover adventures, there are two examples of using the factions well, IMO.

Tyranny of Dragons has all the factions interested in stopping the Cult of the Dragon, and in the second half of the adventure you're attending the Council of Waterdeep (with all factions in attendance) and doing tasks that gain or lose favour from those factions. At the end of the adventure, your choices determine which factions help against the Cult.

Waterdeep: Dragon Heist has sequences of missions given by factions. It's very brief, but more than a few DMs have built entire campaigns out of the inspiration it provides. It points the way that Lost Mine could be expanded.

Considering the structure of Lost Mine, the bit where you're doing tasks for quest-givers in town is quite short - a couple of sessions at most - and so the adventure has each of these quest-givers with only one quest. Because Lost Mine was an introductory adventure, this makes sense. If I continued the story in Phandalin after Lost Mine, then you can build upon those NPCs and do more faction stuff.

Now, Wizards doesn't really know how to handle the factions, and so the role of these quest-givers is "one and done" for Lost Mine.

One problem I have with the Shattered Obelisk is that it says "By the time the mind flayer fanatics’ plot against Phandalin becomes clear in later chapters, the characters’ attachment to one or more NPCs in town should encourage them to save it." (Chapter 2, "Running this Chapter") But there's not really much time or material to help become attached to these characters - and then almost all of the NPCs are never referenced in the new material. Instead, they introduce a new NPC to be the players' primary interaction!

I'd rather prefer it if Chapter 5 (the first of the new material) was more "here are small quests for the folk of Phandalin to give the characters" that deepen the relationships and understanding of the town before jumping right into the Mind Flayer plotline.

But I'm still running the adventure - so we'll see how much it matters in play. I expect we'll get to the new material in about 2 or 3 weeks.

Cheers,
Merric

 

[pukunui]

If they wanted to take this tack and dial it to eleven, they could even chuck in some guidelines as to how the PCs (in a bigger-than-single-AP campaign) could be, become, or start their own faction.

They made a start on that in the DMG … but I guess you didn’t know that because nobody (other than me) reads the DMG!

EDIT: Look at the "Factions and Organizations" section of the DMG. It includes basic rules for creating your own faction, using the Harpers and Zhentarim as examples, and also includes the renown and piety optional rules (the latter of which was later expanded on in the Theros book).

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I disagree THIS adventure sounds not good (though I am hearing differing opinions on that - maybe it is good). That's not an indictment of "all" adventures. WOTC has some truly fantastic adventures from WOTC and I'd say the majority are excellent.

Oh no, I'm happy indicting all of their 5E adventures.

 

[This Effin’ GM]

My review mentioned a lot of these same issues.

I was really upset about those obelisks.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Thinking on it, I wonder if this was an adventure calling out for a treatment like "Return to the Tomb of Horrors"? That is, produce it as a boxed set that includes a reprint of the original adventure, a booklet giving a guide for the wider region, and then one or more adventure books providing further quests, culminating in a return to the Forge of Spells for... reasons.

And, ideally, I think they'd have been well served to pitch it as the first campaign for people who have just completed the new Starter Set - LMoP is fairly generic, and deliberately designed to break new DMs in gently, so rather than a tonal shift, or pitching it for 'us' they'd probably have been better going for more of the same.

At the very least, the new book should have had copious sidebars on integrating it with Dragon of Icespire Peak with plenty of links between this material and that. It would be good for setting continuity and brand synergy.