Community

fodigg wrote:

Why? Cause he evaluates things differently than you? Because he *gasp* doesn't like the product? You can evaluate something and not like it without blindly "bashing" it.

Sure you can, but when you evaluate a product with snarky comments you are bashing not reviewing.

Alyri wrote:

Because this isn't about teaching them how to play the actual game. this is teaching them how to play this particular module. Perhaps maybe you didn't grasp that concept?

The Quick Start Rules aren't designed for people who don't own the core rulebooks? Then why was this published before the core rulebooks? And why are the Quick Start Rules included at all?

What part of, "Unfortunately, these types of gratuitous errors aren't limited to the fluff content. The rules are also riddled with errors." Did you not understand?

Didn't you notice that I mention both points eleven and twelve at the same time or were you just itching to say did you not understand again?

Actually, I didn't. I did, however, notice you mention points 10 and 11 at the same time. And that's precisely the reason I was wondering why you ignored point 11 in order to post your nonsensical "reply".

Points two, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, and fifteen all deal with grammar and editing

But only 20 words actually deal with spelling errors, which is what you claimed was the problem.

Now, if you want to honestly claim that contradictory, confusing, unclear, and incomplete rules aren't a problem in an introductory product, then that's an entirely different claim than saying that I was "blasting people with a wall of text just to complain about spelling errors".

(Incomplete rules, in this case, specifically meaning the lack of rules required to play the adventure.)

You complained about trivial things in order to make a complete essay.

It's almost as if two completely different people are posting from your account. In one message you'll complain that I was "sniping" and then you'll flip-flop completely and complain that I was being too complete in my complaints.

Or how about there's three roads going to Winterhaven yet on page 18 where Winterhaven is actually shown there is only one road going into town or that according to the townfolk the burial site is southwest of town yet according to the map it is south southeast of town or that there is a water source at the kobold lair yet no water is shown of the map

... and then flip-flop back again to complain that the real problem is that I didn't list everything that was problematic in the module. Which is true. The point of this particular essay was to give a broad review of the types of problems found in the module -- not an encyclopedic cataloging of every individual fault.

As for this specific instance, however, there's not really a problem. The map and text indicate that Winterhaven was built as a defensive fortification on a hill. The logical conclusion is that the NE-SW road shown on the area map doesn't run through the center of town, but instead runs past the walled fortifications. The road shown on the detailed map of Winterhaven leads down to the crossroads between this unnamed road and the King's Road running away to the east.

Alyri wrote:

See this is funny I gave you a number of things wrong with the the product, that to me has 'actual merit,' yet I am a fanboy who thinks it's perfect?

Remember, you're the one who started attacking his critique.

Alyri wrote:

As it is, you appear to just be a critic randomly throwing out bitter, bile-filled propaganda because WotC failed to see that your that good of a contributor.

Der-what? Where are you getting this crap?

Alyri wrote:

Only because you asked me to. I was perfectly fine with my original statement of I think someone really likes to see his on words on a page.

That, in itself, didn't constitute an attack, if not a personal attack against JustinA?

Alyri wrote:

Guess you haven't gone to his website? Maybe you should. Then perhaps you could make an informed opinion.

My opinion is as informed as it needs to be. I have no obligation to seek out additional information to judge this thread other than what is stated in this post

Alyri wrote:

If you did you would notice that he has made a number of assumptions based on rumor and used those assumptions to make grand 'essays'
Plus, in 4th Edition saving throws are always strict 50/50 affairs -- there are no modifiers. So you can quickly calculate that there's only a 50% chance a victim who has been affected by the spell will fall asleep at all; and only a 0.9% chance that they'd stay asleep for even 1 minute.
See he has the wrong information but, already has solutions for nonexistent problems. Dwarves has a +5 bonus vs Poisons it's called cast iron stomach, right there on the dwarf fighter character sheet.

Then maybe you should critique those points. You're saying he's being disgenuous because he doesn't have all the information?

Alyri wrote:

Which brings me back to this statement:
I was actually hoping that once the rulebooks were published, people would stop using the "don't judge it until it's published!" excuse. But apparently it's just morphed into "don't judge it until it's been published for some unspecified amount of time!"
You know that statement you thought was so funny you at it.
If, now this might sound strange to some, people would actually wait until the rules are out with an errata up if it's needed (mostly likely it will be) then go ahead and do what you think needs to be done.

What I find humorous is that you're trying to shift the focus of the discussion from "review" to "essay" and now to "errata" to excuse your rude, casual dismissal of JustinA's efforts, none of which you were obligated to read.

gideonpepys wrote:

I would have liked to have used this thread to engage in a sensible discussion in regards to improving this product and my player's experience of it. In fact, I still would. Justin, please continue to post your views.

Gentlemen, might I propose that we ignore Alyri's incoherent ramblings and inexcusable personal attacks, and retire to the billiard room for cigars and brandy?

You know, I guess I should make a more 'coherent' response just for you.

Oh I fixed you post to be grammatically correct(that's the red marks, in case you didn't know)