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

[QuentinGeorge]

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?

Someone in this thread even pointed out something that Alexander missed - the innkeeper changes name and race twice! (they changed it from the original phandelver adventure, but forgot to change all the references, most likely)

 

[darjr]

Come off it. He wrote a separate blog post.

Yea. Exactly.

And I addressed it.

 

[pukunui]

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 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.

Yeah, the Zhents have historically been the moustache-twirling cartoon villains of the Realms, and while WotC declared early on in 5e that the Zhents had hidden their evil intentions beneath a veneer of legitimate if unscrupulous businessing, WotC has continued to present the Zhents as the obvious bad guys in almost every 5e adventure.

And Harper pins make as much sense as SHIELD agent watches do. The real weird one is in Hoard of the Dragon Queen, where you can encounter a Harper with a Harper logo tattoo! At least in previous editions, the pins were magical.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I came in a few years later to 5E and the preset factions all felt very silly to me. Yes, there should be movers and shakers in the world and they should have bigger ambitions that shape your game. They shouldn't all have cute names, logos and parade around like basketball teams (especially the spies, lordy).

If they matter, they should be baked into the setting. In Phandalin, there's definitely an opportunity to do more with them, like explaining what each of the factions wants with Phandalin (I have a hard time picturing all four five groups caring about the town, honestly) and what their immediate goals are, which are largely overlapping with the goals of their agents there.

 

[mamba]

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

it is an entry on the subject, it is not part of the review but a clarification on one point of that review

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.

not sure who the fans here are, but I’d say we have discussed that one for 20 pages by now, so not sure more is needed

 

[darjr]

I never said it was part of the review. ??

And as for covering it enough? It seems not. I keep getting tagged over it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I know there are other Dragon Age fans around here, so I’ll toss this out there: in my games, the Harpers are basically like the Friends of Red Jenny. A grassroots anti-establishment movement, with no centralized leadership structure, just common folk acting stochastically against oppressive nobles using a common title. Sometimes local “Harper cells” might arise organically as a result of people who frequently find themselves engaging in Harper-related activity together, but there’s no actual greater power structure. Though, most people who would call themselves Harpers are perfectly happy letting the nobles think there is.

 

[pukunui]

I came in a few years later to 5E and the preset factions all felt very silly to me. Yes, there should be movers and shakers in the world and they should have bigger ambitions that shape your game. They shouldn't all have cute names, logos and parade around like basketball teams (especially the spies, lordy).

If they matter, they should be baked into the setting. In Phandalin, there's definitely an opportunity to do more with them, like explaining what each of the factions wants with Phandalin (I have a hard time picturing all four five groups caring about the town, honestly) and what their immediate goals are, which are largely overlapping with the goals of their agents there.

At the start of 5e, the five factions were the teams you could join as part of the Adventurers’ League. You’d get a little welcome pack and everything. The reason they’re introduced in Phandalin but don’t really play a role is because they were written as a means for your AL characters to join the teams by playing LMoP and then you’d get various faction benefits and missions through AL play. But then AL dropped the whole faction idea after the first few seasons.

I know there are other Dragon Age fans around here, so I’ll toss this out there: in my games, the harpers are basically like the Friends of Red Jenny. A grassroots anti-establishment movement, with no centralized leadership structure, just common folk acting stochastically against oppressive nobles using a common title. Sometimes local “Harper cells” might arise organically as a result of people who frequently find themselves engaging in Harper-related activity together, but there’s no actual greater power structure.

Historically the Harpers were more organised than that and even had a High Harper leader, but I could easily see that all falling away during the Spellplague and the Harpers devolving to being Red Jennyish now.

 

[Charlaquin]

Historically the Harpers were more organised than that and even had a High Harper leader, but I could easily see that all falling away during the Spellplague and the Harpers devolving to being Red Jennyish now.

Frankly, I’m not all that bothered how they’ve been presented in actual realms lore. I think the Red Jenny type approach is cool, and makes a lot more sense than an anti-monarchist spy network with a team logo, so it’s what I go with. And if I happen to get a lore-lawyer trying to call me on it, I can just say, that’s what your character thought, but in this campaign that’s all rumors and propaganda.

 

[mamba]

I never said it was part of the review. ??

you called it changing the subject. Changing the subject can only happen in context, if it is not part of the review but an addendum, then it was simply focusing on one point that sparked discussion since the review was posted.

If a newspaper has a different headline story tomorrow, is that changing the subject too?

And as for covering it enough? It seems not. I keep getting tagged over it.

I guess we will see