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

[EzekielRaiden]

Does his dislike of 4e make his opinions on other issues invalid?

When it reveals blatant, stark hypocrisy? Yes, I do think that someone being blatantly and openly hypocritical about something gives me reason to think that their opinions are not of particularly great value, unless corroborated by other sources...at which point you may as well just use the other sources.

Again: I don't care if folks don't like 4e. I do care that folks spend an enormous effort articulating an allegedly well-thought-out, reasoned, non-biased claim that 4e is actually bad, not just that they don't like it but that it is literally the antithesis of roleplaying, only to then a few years later declare that the same thing but more severe is in fact not only good but AMAZING, one of the best things ever created for TTRPGing, something that pushes the gameplay experience to the highest heights it can possibly achieve.

When you build the cornerstone of your "no, this isn't just my preference, I am correctly saying this thing is broken and wrong" around a concept that you then later claim is actually amazing, with the fig-leaf excuse of, and I am quoting here, "it’s not the end of the world for an RPG to include some dissociated mechanics as long as those mechanics are providing a valuable function." Despite having previously said, and I quote, "They’re antithetical to the defining characteristic of a roleplaying game and, thus, fundamentally incompatible with the primary reason many people play roleplaying games."

 

[Jahydin]

How did he entice the OSR folk? I mean, we have the OSR.

Haha, I knew someone would take issue with that line. Fact is though, I'd be willing to bet almost all of us went out and bought a set of books. Considering how popular Pathfinder was, how established the OSR was, and how disliked 4E was, that's still impressive! And it's not like we didn't know what we were getting; the playtest was everywhere.

Note: I find it funny that no matter how angerly I see a YouTuber ranting about how bad the game is, I can always spot a good size 5E collection behind them on the shelf.

I'd be surprised if the same will be true with OneD&D!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

When it reveals blatant, stark hypocrisy? Yes, I do think that someone being blatantly and openly hypocritical about something gives me reason to think that their opinions are not of particularly great value, unless corroborated by other sources...at which point you may as well just use the other sources.

Again: I don't care if folks don't like 4e. I do care that folks spend an enormous effort articulating an allegedly well-thought-out, reasoned, non-biased claim that 4e is actually bad, not just that they don't like it but that it is literally the antithesis of roleplaying, only to then a few years later declare that the same thing but more severe is in fact not only good but AMAZING, one of the best things ever created for TTRPGing, something that pushes the gameplay experience to the highest heights it can possibly achieve.

When you build the cornerstone of your "no, this isn't just my preference, I am correctly saying this thing is broken and wrong" around a concept that you then later claim is actually amazing, with the fig-leaf excuse of, and I am quoting here, "it’s not the end of the world for an RPG to include some dissociated mechanics as long as those mechanics are providing a valuable function." Despite having previously said, and I quote, "They’re antithetical to the defining characteristic of a roleplaying game and, thus, fundamentally incompatible with the primary reason many people play roleplaying games."

Seems like you want him to either be right all the time or he's wrong all the time. People are more likely to be between those two extremes.

Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from - I think 4e was good and Numenera is "meh". And Justin can be very, very wrong (while being pompous and acerbic while doing it!)

But he still has some clever ideas that are worth exploring. Just not ALL his ideas.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Seems like you want him to either be right all the time or he's wrong all the time. People are more likely to be between those two extremes.

Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from - I think 4e was good and Numenera is "meh". And Justin can be very, very wrong (while being pompous and acerbic while doing it!)

But he still has some clever ideas that are worth exploring. Just not ALL his ideas.

Perhaps. Those aren't the only ideas of his where his, as you put it, "pompous and acerbic" approach has vilified something I investigated myself and found quite good, or exalted something I found mediocre at best and execrable at worst.

That precise combination of "pompous and acerbic," false positives, false negatives, and (as far as I'm concerned) rather serious hypocrisy, or usage of double standards, is enough to make me think, "I not only do not agree with this person's opinions, but find their work detrimental to effective discussion." Hence why I said what I said initially:

Given who wrote the review, that simply makes me want to actually check Shattered Obelisk out and see if it's any good. Mr. Alexander's takes have been so garbage on so many things, the more effective thing to do is to presume he's wrong until better evidence suggests otherwise.

In other words, despite his rather clear intent to steer people away from a product, this review (if it alters my behavior at all) would only make me more interested in purchasing that product.

I am willing to believe that his conclusion is correct. I simply have no reason to believe it is correct from anything he says. I would need either first-hand knowledge, or multiple other reviews from folks I find credible. At which point, it's hard to see what his review has contributed beyond "hmm, I should look into this more," which would seem the exact opposite of his intent in writing this.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Seems like you want him to either be right all the time or he's wrong all the time. People are more likely to be between those two extremes.

Don't get me wrong, I get where you're coming from - I think 4e was good and Numenera is "meh". And Justin can be very, very wrong (while being pompous and acerbic while doing it!)

But he still has some clever ideas that are worth exploring. Just not ALL his ideas.

It's not so much being pompous (I can do pompous), it's the refusal to acknowledge that different opinions might also be valid which is actively harmful, given his level of influence.

4e is a case in point - I don't like it, it doesn't work at all for the way I play. But the way I play isn't the same as the way everyone plays.


AS for this particular product, I was never going to like it because I never much liked Lost Mines. And the reason I don't like it is this: it's too low stakes, just another day in the office for some caravan guards. I like much more heroic, higher stakes adventures. If you gave it to me to run I would blow it up and replace it with something much more weird and high stakes. And that's what I think happened here. WotC said "Lost Mines is popular, but we want something more exciting as our intro adventure, how can we keep earning money from it?" Unfortunately they gave the task of repurposing to someone who is like me, rather than someone who actually likes that style of play and could build on it.

NB, I believe the difficulty of the early encounters has been increased because they are working on the assumption that people playing this have already played Lost Mines at least once before.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I bought 5e and enjoyed it. I stopped buying WotC a few years ago when they stopped making things I liked, but I still play other 5e stuff (particularly Level Up). I will not be buying any OneD&D.

I also enjoy several OSR games, buy them and play them whenever I can.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

Fully agreed. Dragon of Icespire Peak was definitely a less cohesive, less complete adventure than Lost Mine of Phandelver, but it did flesh out the same area to an extent.

But when I previously suggested that this new product should integrate both and make a thorough mini-setting of the Phandalin region, I got a lot of flak comments to the tune of “This book is already going to be 50% reprint and you want it to be even more redundant?!?!?” No, I want it to integrate and synthesize the existing materials. Big missed opportunity here by WotC.

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think a 100% reprint would have been better. Like Yawning Portal. i.e. this book is aimed at people who came in late and missed that earlier stuff.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think a 100% reprint would have been better. Like Yawning Portal. i.e. this book is aimed at people who came in late and missed that earlier stuff.

I think part of the problem is that it’s trying to be both.

 

[delericho]

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.

That explains a great deal, not least why they kept appearing in early adventures but basically didn't do anything but give five different reasons for the PCs to finish the adventure.

That said, I do (mostly) like the faction idea - one of the things I wish they'd leaned into a bit more was the notion of having the tiers of play be about different things (tier 1 being beginner adventurers, tier 2 being about their place in their world, tier 3 about shaping that world, and then tier 4 about some sort of legacy - these latter two being essentially the Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies of 4e). The factions would then be a big part of tier 2. But, of course, they never did anything with that.

That said, I'm also generally of the opinion that campaigns do well with some sort of "side dish" (to go with the Orc&Pie), which would vary campaign to campaign and help them feel different. So one might be about building faction rep, another about establishing a stronghold in the wilderness, a third about uncovering arcane mysteries, and so on. In which case, the factions would likely be part of that side dish for some campaigns. But they never did anything like that either.