Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6907415" data-attributes="member: 12731">A few disappointingly bad arguments there, Mistwell.First off you seem to assume I was talking about the entirity of 5th edition. I wasn't. What I find unacceptable is ending an official adventure module with such weak and fuzzy encounters as in OotA.Then you seem to disallow anyone from critiquing the game unless they have stopped playing it. That's preposterous.Then you seem to think that just because not ALL adventures are equally bad, that gives WotC a pass. As if we are only allowed to judge the company based on their best products?!I happen to think WotC needs to be called out more publicly for their failings. I need not laud them for their triumps, Lord knows there are too many fanboys here already. But more importantly, when you have a negative message, you don't want to be met by "but what about the good things?" Why? Because that dilutes the message.There are a lot of great things about 5th edition. The main one is: the game exists. The number of improvements over 3E mixed with 2E and 4E are innumerable. But we have all that already. Let us now speak of the few remaining deficiencies. First order of the day: Out of the Abyss has gotten rave reviews, but I state as no mere speculation the good grades are almost universally based on first impressions and "I've only read through half the book" (literally the first Amazon review starts with these words). I suspect less than 5% of all the ratings are made by people that have actually run the latter half of the adventure. That doesn't mean their ratings are fraudulent or even useless. It does, however, mean you should not use them to argue people like how the module's end is constructed.Why haven't Steve Kenson, Lead Designer, even once been called to account for how the module ends? Why is there no discussion of possibly barring Mr Kenson from writing high-level encounters when he so clearly isn't up to the task? Or, at the very least, why haven't we heard from their PR dept apologizing for how some rushed schedule meant the team could not do their very best? Is it because I'm the outlier and everybody else loves the second half of the book? I don't think so.I think it is because a vanishingly small slice of the customer base has realized its flaws, and how most people tend to favor posting about their positive experiences rather than their negative ones.So Mistwell, do me a favor and stop trying to whitewash this issue. If you have run the module, and truly think you can defend it, feel very welcome. If you share my complaints, you would be even more warmly to share your experiences.Otherwise, I would like to ask you to stop posting statements like "Obviously, it's acceptable". You're putting words in my mouth. Or worse, you try to speak for everyone. Either way, you come across as a WotC shill, mindlessly defending their every move. Furthermore, please stop relativizing the faults of the module. Sorry but I need to call you out on pure BS like: "to get better as they go, like pretty much every other game out there.  Or product line.  Or most things in life."You do realize this means all criticism is meaningless, right, Mistwell? Have a nice day,Zapp</blockquote>

Verification