From Dragon Magazine, issue #59:
What follows is strictly for the AD&D game....With plenty of labor and even more luck, there will be an ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS expansion volume next year. It will be for both players and DMs, with several new character classes, new weapons, scores of new spells, new magic items, etc. What will follow here in the next few issues is a sampling of the material slated for inclusion in the expansion.
E. Gary Gygax, March 1982
There would be no expansion volume in 1983. Nor in 1984. The "next book of monsters" (also mentioned in the article) which was to be released afterwards, instead appeared in 1983 under the title Monster Manual II. Presumably, being mainly a compilation of new monsters appearing in prior publications...especially TSR adventure modules...it was a much easier matter of transcribing existing creature entries in alphabetical order.
Unearthed Arcana, the 'Book That Was Promised,' was finally published in the summer of 1985.
Pause for a minute. Why am I writing this? Just what is this all about?
Let's talk some straight talk for a moment: as long time readers know, I got back to playing AD&D again in November of 2020. Since that time, I've introduced a lot of young 'uns to the game, written a lot of adventures, and spent a bunch of time spreading "the Good News" of the game (as I see it). However, in all that time...now entering my 5th year of 1E campaigning...I've limited my game to the only books I consider good and essential, namely the PHB, the DMG, and the various monstrous manuals (MM, FF, and MM2). The adventures I've written (approximately 6 or 7) have all carried the notation that I strongly recommend against using the rules in the Unearthed Arcana. I haven't even cracked the UA in front of my kids; I've mentioned the book to Diego, but given only a cursory (and negative) overview of the tome to him. Neither of my kids know much...if anything!...about it, which should come as a surprise considering just how much lore they know of the history of the D&D game, its publications, and the various changes its seen over the decades.
[f.w.i.w. my kids get curious about stuff and I tend to be a wind-bag of a talker]
Just why have I excised the Unearthed Arcana from my 1E table? It's not like I never used it...as I mentioned the first month I started this blog (!), we absolutely adored the UA, back in the day, and implemented every rule it had: Comeliness, traveling spell books, social standing and birth order, bronze armor, etc., etc. If it was in the UA, it was in our game. Chain lightning was a staple spell. Heward's Handy Haversack was a staple magic item...as were magic quarterstaffs (had to have something for all those thief-acrobats in our game). My brother ran multiple barbarian characters. We used weapon specialization; maybe even double specialization. There were Hierophant Druids. We replaced the unarmed combat system in the DMG with the simplified version found in the UA. I mean, we used it all.
So why have I not used it at all since returning to the King of Games, four years ago?
There is a stigma to the UA these days. The Grogtalk folks refer it as "The Book That Shall Not Be Named." Published in 1985 it is deep into the decadent years of TSR (post-Mentzer Basic, post-cartoon, post-DragonLance)...the years that led to the spiraling issues that would (eventually) cost Gygax his company. There is a commonly held belief that the Unearthed Arcana was solely cobbled together from past Dragon magazine articles in an effort to bring one more Gygaxian cash-cow to the table to save the company from debt. This idea is echoed in the Wikipedia article on the book:
The original Unearthed Arcana was written by Gary Gygax with design and editing contributions by Jeff Grubb and Kim Mohan, respectively, and published by TSR in 1985. Gygax reportedly produced the book to raise money as TSR was deeply in debt at the time. He announced in the March 1985 issue of Dragon magazine that Unearthed Arcana would be released in the summer of that year. He proposed the book as "an interim volume to expand the Dungeon Masters Guide and Players Handbook", as the information was spread out in several places and difficult to keep track of. Unearthed Arcana was to include material previously published in Dragon, written by Gygax and updated and revised for the book.
While the latter part of that quote is indeed from Gygax's own pen (in March of '85), the inference is clearly inaccurate...as stated at the beginning of this post Gygax had already planned on an expansion volume in 1982, and the articles he penned over the next many issues (which would compose the bulk of the UA) were written expressly for the book that was coming. This was not some sort of cash grab...THAT statement in the wikipedia article is accredited to a 2006 article in The Believer magazine, in which the author (Paul La Farge) asserts:
By 1984, the company was $1.5 million in debt, and the bank was ready to perfect its liens on TSR’s trademarks: in effect, to repossess Dungeons & Dragons. Gygax got word that the Blumes were trying to sell TSR, and he returned to Lake Geneva, where he persuaded the board of directors to fire Kevin Blume and published a new D&D rulebook to raise cash.
But La Farge's research is suspect. He notes in his footnotes that the book was Unearthed Arcana, a tome that "introduced the gnome race;" a gross misstatement (the gnome had been around since the 1978 PHB), done mainly, I believe, for effect (the gnome race was rather reviled by 2006, due to changes of characterization over the years). But I draw this conclusion because much of the article seems snarky and sensational.
While TSR was definitely facing financial difficulty due largely to mismanagement, it is a fact that Gygax had every intention of publishing Unearthed Arcana long before 1984. His time spent in California (which would result in three seasons of the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon...from '83-'85) was the main reason for any delay in publishing the projects that envisioned...and I believe that, and the personal issues he had during this time (his 1983 divorce and his new "Hollywood social life") contributed as much as anything to the declining quality of the products with his name on it post-1983.
But much, if not MOST, of the UA was created before 1983. Not only that, much of it was play-tested...if one is willing to believe the statements/updates given in Dragon magazine in 1982.
And so...perhaps this material is worthy of the game?
That's the conclusion that I am...slowly (and somewhat reluctantly)...beginning to come to. Why were the acrobat, barbarian, and cavalier featured in the D&D cartoon (first airing in September of 1983)? Because, they provided a good advertising vehicle for a planned book that had already published and tested said classes (the last one, the cavalier, being found in the April '83 issue of Dragon). I have no compunction with the feelings that the UA, as published, was somewhat rushed, slap-dash, and error-riven. But much of the stuff in the book...both its ideas and its mechanics/rules...were far less so.
Rather, they were thoughtful or interesting...and worth a gander.
What took me down this particular rabbit hole? Well, a couple weeks ago I had this "great" idea of statting up the "D&D kids" for the 1E system. But while most every one of them is easy enough, Diana the acrobat was throwing me for a loop. And since I certainly didn't want to use the UA (because of the reputation the thing is currently carrying), I figured I'd 'go back to the source' and check out the original Dragon article that had been "ransacked" for Gygax's "company needed cash infusion." And what I found (in issue #69) was an article, pretty much word-for-word the same as in the UA, and written by Gygax himself (whereas, I had assumed most if not all the UA material had been culled from the work of other authors). There was also this introduction:
"This time, rather than reveal a new sub-class such as the Barbarian, I though the Enlightened Readership of this splendid vehicle might enjoy another concept. What you are about to read is the information so far developed pertaining to a split class. This a first. To my knowledge, such a possibility has not been expressed before in any similar game system. There is nothing similar to it in the AD&D game system although choosing to change from one profession to another is not too unlike the idea. Let us then get to the business at hand. I bring you, without further ado, the official new split-class for thieves."
"This time?" "The information so far developed?" "Official new split-class?" This was not some highlight piece deemed to have enough traction for inclusion in a cash grab book...this is a sneak peak at mechanics already in development! By Gygax himself! In January of 1983!
I quickly found a copy of Gygax's "barbarian" from July of 1982 (issue #63); more information helped crystalie the picture:
"As usual, I am working on too many projects at once, and each gets a bit of attention but seems to never get done. At some point quite a few should suddenly be completed, and my productivity will seem great indeed. Meanwhile, I have dusted off the barbarian character class which the testers have enjoyed the most of the new classes I have proposed for the expansion of the AD&D rules. While the other classes seem to need more work, barbarians were instantly used and enjoyed by those eager for a change. Now you, Gentle Readers, have a chance to test the class for yourselves and see if you agree."
Okay, so...wow. This was a project in active development since at least 1982. It was being worked on in conjunction with other projects (in issue #59...March 1982...he details these as including the Monster Manual II, the never-would-be-released T2, The Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun (WG4), and yet another adventure called "Wasp Nest -- The City State of Stoink" which I don't think I've ever heard of). It is being tested in play. It is to be part of an actual, planned expansion to the AD&D rules.
And what, exactly, was my problem with this rule set again? Re-reading the barbarian entry, I don't see anything terrible with it. Nothing over-powered, considering the x.p. cost...and while the magic item restrictions can be 'bought off' at higher levels (the levels where those restrictions can really matter), doing so negates many of the barbarian's special abilities. And above 8th level, a normal fighter will be going up TWO levels for every ONE of the barbarian.
No looking back, my main issue with the barbarian appears to have been all the "world building" required to use the class effectively...and that's exactly what I like about it now, in my (more mature) elder years. This bit (from the UA):
Cavemen, dervishes, nomads, and tribesmen (see Monster Manual, "Men") are now considered barbarians.
...is, frankly, amazing. And says a LOT about how Gygax expected DMs to approach the AD&D campaign in their individual settings. The standard classes are all a part of a civilization; and everything outside of that civilization are considered superstitious, magic-fearing savages. Political correctness be damned; in a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting, I kind of like this...a lot! And it makes the humanoid tribes even MORE savage. Something to think about.
But...okay. The barbarian is cool. The thief-acrobat is cool. What about the other stuff: things like comeliness, weapon specialization, and the (*shudder*) cavalier class?
Here's the thing: going through these Dragon magazines, issue-by-issue, it's clear that not al of the items that ended up included in the Unearthed Arcana were created equal. The new attribute Comeliness, which I detest immensely, was simply a rambling thought exercise by Gygax as part of an update/letter to the "Loyal Readers" regarding the state of the project (see issue #67). Weapon specialization, another poorly thought out concept, is simply mentioned in passing (after a larger section featuring new illusionist spells) as a conversation Gygax had with Len Lakofka with some hastily sketched out (and un-tested) rules, based on Len's unofficial "archer" class. There is no "double specialization" mentioned.
[sorry, folks, I'm not a big Lakofka fan]
And the cavalier? It was not an off-the-cuff musing like some of these other articles. But it IS different from how it finally appears in the Unearthed Arcana. For one thing, the cavalier is a sub-class of fighter...as it should be!...a horseman specialist based on the chivalric knights of myth and legend. It is, however, generally a mess, trying to shoehorn the half-baked weapon specialization rules with the theme-specific weapon restrictions, and focus on mounted (i.e. lance combat). Except that elven cavaliers (another concept I abhor) get archery specialization because...elves? It's pretty dumb/bad, though perhaps not as terrible as the UA version which changed the nature of the paladin class, all for the bad.
However, Gygax admits the cavalier is only half baked; again this is April 1983 and life was pretty complicated (he'd just finalized an acrimonious divorce with his wife of 25 years in March); in his intro to the class he writes:
"As usual, your comments are invited. Input is most desirable, for what appears here is the basis -- not the final form -- of the sub-class. As is also usual, it is unlikely that comments sent to us will receive a direct reply -- there just isn't anyone on staff at this time to handle such work. While I am working to put together AD&D material, and Frank Mentzer is engaged in the revision and expansion of the D&D game system, the Industrious Staff of TSR are seekingpersonnel to fulfill the needs of you, the Understanding Readers. Thus, we should soon have the wherewithal to respond properly to all correspondence. Meanwhile, suffer along and accept my general thanks to all of you."
Sure, Gary. On to California.
So, the Unearthed Arcana is a mixed bag. New weapons, spells (perhaps), barbarian and acrobat classes? Good. Cavalier, comeliness, and weapon specialization? Frigging awful. Yes, the thing was rushed to production without adequate play-testing (or, even, proof-reading) probably because the company was strapped for cash to pay the bills. But this was a planned project, and much of it has Gygax's imagination and good design work imprinted in it.
And, for me, that's enough to give the UA a second try. Not the whole book, mind you, but much of it. I will, of course, want to go through the old Dragon magazine articles and see which ones need pruning, which ones are unworkable, which ones were 'good enough' before other fingers stepped in to "help" get the book together. It isn't a big deal...something to amuse myself (culling these idea). And, hopefully, something to amuse my players.
[it is, perhaps unfortunate that I have altered the 1E magic system for my home game, as the plethora of new spells and the spell book rules (not to mention cantrips and apprentice MU mechanics) would be far more useful with "standard" 1E. But my system works too good to change it just to add a handful of beloved spells (like dismissal, chain lightning, and teleport without error). Well...we'll see. We'll see]
All right, that's enough for now. My expanded mind has been emptied, and I'll try to get some sleep. Signing off from Mexico!
; )
 |
| Just look at this geezer... |
For me, I mostly agree with your thinking here. The Cavalier and Comeliness, particularly, are just not worth including. As for the Barbarian, I can't really see the purpose, but whatever. I won't include it in my games, but it's not as awful as the Cavalier. I really do wish the Thief-Acrobat had been its own subclass of Thief, perhaps call it the Burglar, which has a lot to do with my tendencies to normalize the game around Normal (0-level) Men. A 6th level character should be well past the stage of a Hero, more or less, not the beginning of a new career option (um, pace your earlier comments on Bards, though they did give me a lot to think about in regard to that class, and it's not a real comparison anyway). Maybe someday I'll work out such a subclass to stand alongside Joe Bloch's Mountebank that he developed out of sources like Gygax's later Dangerous Journeys attempt at the idea.
ReplyDeleteThe new weapons and armor are fine. I like the way that UA codifies the special attributes of weapons. Makes them easier to find when needed.
I like the new spells in UA. Well, except for Chromatic Orb, because I do not think that a 1st level spell slot, in my games at least, should be able to provide a save-or-die effect no matter how high a level the caster is, and I do not plan to introduce some 5E "higher-level spell slots" concept. The rules on spellbooks are useful, both to players looking for more flexibility in moving about and DMs looking for something to force their players to protect from those who want to take it.
I also like the new magic items, for the most part. I'm a little unhappy with how Elfin Chain was handled in UA (I prefer that it not commonly have magical plus bonuses), but so long as regular Elfin Chain from the DMG still exists I guess I'm happy enough.
I much prefer the Appendix Q System I Weaponless Combat system for pummeling and overbearing to others I've seen, including System II. I use another, more recent grappling system, though.
The cavalier, as originally presented, REALLY wanted to stick it to the PC with regard to armor worn…the character would take non-magical plate armor over ANY lesser armor, no matter how magical, weightless, etc. (and magic armor adds its bonus to saves in 1E, too).
DeleteThis kind of flies out the window with the addition of magical plate armors in the UA, and plate armor’s special damage reduction properties…
[interesting to note. The original article listed magical plate as prohibitively expensive to produce, costing at least 100K per plus of the armor!]
6th level for me is “low” mid-level (characters aren’t really high level till 11th/12th in my book) so my perspective on the acrobat is kinder than yours. However, like the barbarian, I think it just gives players a different way to play the game…which is kind of fun. It doesn’t fill a particular ‘niche’ (and neither does the barbarian) it simply gives you a way to play “thief” or “fighter” in an alternate style.
The spells…I haven’t taken the time to examine them yet. This subject may turn into an ongoing series of posts.
; )
Ever since customers at my local store (I think I was working there by then) were roped into playtesting Synnibarr, my benchmark for power levels has been the game's treatment of large bears. A brown bear in the Monster Manual has 5+5 HD, which is more or less the same as 6 HD. That is a measure of something that is particularly powerful in the game to me.
DeleteI understand what you mean, and I do something similar based on (what I call) “ogre scale.” A 6 HD brown bear is VERY large, in my book: that’s big-ass Grizzly like the man-killer in that Mamet film.
DeleteBut a level 6 character is something different. That 1E brown bear has the potential to do 32 damage in a round (double or triple with surprise!), while average HPs for a 6th level thief is 21. Dead meat if caught out alone. A high level character can survive and (probably) triumph in single combat with such a beast. 6th level ain’t “high.”
(slight addendum)
DeleteHuman scale, monster scale, and character scale are three different measures in the AD&D game, and have to be understood as such. Monsters and PCs (HD vs. level) were far more balanced against each other in (un-supplemented) OD&D…and still to a greater degree in B/X. AD&D is different.
(and that movie I was referencing was “The Edge” with Baldwin and Hopkins. Skipped my mind for a moment)
Oh, for sure the brown bear is a grizzly. That's my chosen benchmark.
DeleteBut also, our 6th level Fighter - admittedly needing Strength of 18/00 - has the potential to do 24 damage to the grizzly in return every round, and is likely to have more hit points in the bargain (average 27.5 for the bear, an average of 33 plus Con bonuses of up to 24 more points for the Fighter). Further, the Fighter can potentially output up to 96 (!) points of damage every round to 0-level bandits, generally killing six of them every round, while the bear is still only giving that same max. 32 points per round, killing perhaps three per round. The superiority of the Myrmidon to that grizzly bear only becomes more stark when average damage and hit rates are taken into account, since the Fighter will certainly have better AC and also has bonuses to hit the bear.
I really do think that a 6th-level character is quite a fearsome creature.
I have a different perspective on the myrmidon's damage output. Certainly he can strike six bandits in a single round, but his maximum "damage output" is still only 36 (the number of HPs possessed by the six 0-level characters). And a full minute of combat (the 1E round) is a LONG time...he simply is showing his vast superiority against untrained combatants who have not a chance in hell, by cutting them down in record time.
DeleteSure, such a character with a high strength and con could probably 'solo' a brown bear. But he'd be in pretty bad shape afterwards. And adventures generally have more than a single encounter. This, for me, is reflective of the genre fiction that inspired the game. Hit points are the character's main "gas tank," and as they deplete the range of exploration diminishes.
But, hey: we all have different standards for scale. For me, a brown bear isn't the same as a single hill giant. Which isn't the same as a single fire giant...or a group of hill giants. And if you're tapering off your campaign at "bear level" (because that, for you, is the limits of human heroism), than you are leaving a lot of AD&D content on the cutting room floor.
For me, 6th is "mid."
I'm not saying that's the end of an adventuring career, I'm saying that it isn't, or shouldn't be, the beginning of such a career. That's why I'm not very happy with the Thief-Acrobat as designed and would prefer it to have been a more normal subclass. (I'm also not sure that the exact numbers given for the T-A are good, as I seem to recall that the listed numbers for broad jumps and such at the lowest levels of the T-A aren't much more than you can expect from high school athletes.)
Delete20,001 x.p. (the number needed to become a thief-acrobat) is, for me, still very much the "beginning" of a character's career. It does not take very long to acquire that much x.p. (assuming survival and success in ventures)...probably two or three months of weekly sessions? How long is a career expected to last?
DeleteAs for the characters only being as good as high school athletes (an olympian has an average of 27+ feet just to qualify in long jump!), I can only counter that sports science has progressed a looooong way from the middle ages. Such a PC in "D&D land" will be able to perform amazing feats that others (in the same setting) will be unable to duplicate. And that's good enough for me.
; )
I think that my hypothetical ideal for rate of XP gain by players (this is very abstract, mind) should be about 100XP per day per level of regular, intensive adventuring, or about 700 per week per level when they show up. Without going into the math, that's very approximately about 70 days or so of regular adventuring for a Thief, so I'd agree with your 2-3 months to 6th level. That said, to get to 7th level is another 38 days or so, then another 39 or so to get to 8th, 50 more to get to 9th, and 56 more to get to 10th, the name level where a Thief can legitimately found their own Guild, for a total of 253 days or so of intensive adventuring. That mostly shows the rather compressed time scale of intensive adventuring, though, since that career from apprentice rogue to Guildmaster lasts just about eight and a half months. And that's fine. A lot of players want to start over around that point anyway, especially if the DM doesn't give the characters a freebie by allowing them to protect their hoards without building a stronghold, and gather the necessary guards, to keep them in.
DeleteAs an aside, a Fighter would take about 102 days to 6th level at the same rates, and about 395 to get to 9th, name, level. Again, these are very abstract numbers.
You can compare Olympic records from the early years of the modern Games to see star athletes without the benefits of sports science, but that's why I picked high school athletes and not the finely-tuned Olympians. A typical high school athlete has an average standing long jump of around 7 ½ feet, compared to the 6th level Thief-Acrobat who can manage, uh, 5 feet. From another source, an untrained freshman athlete jumping their first time managed to jump 13 feet 5 inches, while one high school team required a 17 foot running broad jump to make freshman conferences and the person reporting that estimated that an average freshman athlete should manage 15 ½ feet or more, compared to the 6th level Thief-Acrobat's 9 foot disappointment. Why would a 6th level T-A not be able to match even an untrained freshman?
But again, that's just my justification for reworking the class, which I might or might not ever do.
Are the problems the numbers themselves, or is it more a case of "we want to be Acrobats at level 1"?
DeleteLike, are most of the solved by simply changing the numbers in column 1 on the THIEF-ACROBAT FUNCTION TABLE to be 1-17 instead of 6-23, and calling it a sub-class instead?
Yeah, I suggested doing something similar back in 2013 ("just subtract five levels and call it a subclass"):
Deletehttps://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2013/04/subclasses-variants-and-filters-p-3.html
Very easy fix. However, setting-wise, I think I prefer there to be FEWER acrobats in the game...and making them a "prestige class" of sorts accomplishes that (for me).
For me, the problem is both. The class should be a regular subclass and also the numbers given are simply too low. As I said, if a starting T-A can't manage a standing jump of more than ⅔ that of an average high school athlete, or worse not more than ⅔ that of an untrained high school first-timer, then they aren't very good, not comparably as competent as a Veteran. Given that 1st level Thieves are also fairly weak (I've been weighing the arguments here that the Thief skills need to be reorganized and beefed up; I'm leaning against the idea at the moment, but that it can be seriously raised is worth thinking about), that could be considered a reasonable approach, but I don't like it. A 1st level character, to me, should have some competency in their area of expertise, at least comparable to a typical high school athlete in this case at 1st level.
DeleteI don't try comparing game classes to Real Life because it's just a game. Maybe, if a TA starts his Jump skill at 5', it's just because on a battlemat a 5' square is a simple straightforward measurement to begin the progression with. 5', 7', does it really matter in the game? Not to me. I've had similar discussions with players over damage. If getting stabbed with a dagger does 1-4 damage, an unarmed attack has to do less. And you have monks with martial arts in the game, and they have to start out at first level, too. So for every other character, how can you expect a die greater than 1-2? Game mechanics.
DeleteFor us one of the biggest changes that UA made was suddenly everyone was a drow elf. A female drow to be specific because they got more bonus abilities. This was before the Crystal Shard so it wasn't in homage to that ranger, but power gamers being power gamers.
ReplyDeleteUA is definitely a mixed bag but it appalled to us at the time for the power creep it presented, as a young kid seeing our PC get more cool powers and even an extra Stat was wholey embraced, with gidy enthusiasm.
We had multiple Drow (both genders) pop up in our campaigns, too, but no rangers…1985 was long before Drizzt. Interesting that the archetypal “double-wielding” ranger of latter editions can be directly linked to the UA (all Drow can use both hands equally per its text, and this is the first place a “Drow Ranger” is even possible).
DeleteStill, in the Dragon articles in the subject, Gygax is pretty clear about the non-viability of using Underdark races as PCs due to their substantial penalties in sunlight, a point that a lot of young DMs (I’ll include myself here) FAILED to emphasize. Again, this is a world building thing…with proper world building, these mechanics become more useful for making tough NPC opponents, NOT player characters.
RE Comeliness
We used this stat a LOT, back in the day. I can say from experience that no good ever came of it. None.
Agreed in retospect Comeliness was just bad news....especially when used by middle schoolers.
DeleteBut to be fair we used Charisma as aractiveness before the release of UA as we couldn't wrap our heads around how charm could be separated from ones physical attributes. I'm not proud of middle school me.
We all had middle school selves. Learning to accept our adolescence (and adolescent mistakes) is part of the maturing process.
DeleteBut, yeah. Comeliness. Currently writing a post on it.
; )
We loved UA when it came out, and I've never stopped using it. Not being a regular part of the "online community" means we don't usually hear about any "stigma" that may be discussed there. I played a Cavalier for ten years and we had fun. I still use Comeliness because it's fun. Weapon Specialization gives the sometimes-regarded-as-boring Fighter something to consider. Spells, magic items, it's a great book in my not-so-humble opinion. Well, except for the physical quality of the book. ;-)
ReplyDeleteThe physical quality is, indeed, terrible. I own two copies of the UA (including the one I received for my 12th birthday in November of 1985) and they are both in shambles.
DeleteAfter, coming to the conclusion that I might want to use some of these rules, I pulled the trigger on ordering a new P.O.D. copy in hopes the binding quality will be better (if not, at least it extends the life of the books I already have).
You just made something click together, and now I have a whole post written up, but here is the conclusion, for your consideration:
ReplyDelete"It is not an obsession, but rather a certain intense fascination which many, myself included, feel towards the rules of 1e and much of what Gary Gygax authored.
For example, I think that Oriental Adventures is the peak of setting material, because it oozes with flavor.
But, more so than anything regarding these rules, of 1e, Gygax, Oriental Adventures, it is the fact that they were written to reflect an experience that was already ongoing, rather than in an attempt to create an experience, which, I think, draws people to them.
The experience created the rules. Then, it is no wonder that these rules should be highly regarded, not because they are good, though some are, but because they are, above all, honest."
Very poetically written (I mean that as a compliment), and I think there’s truth there as well. We focus on design, partly because that is a game in and of itself, but FIRSTLY because we want to understand why the game works. And in the beginning, what we (customers) saw and played was FINISHED PRODUCT without missteps and problems and issues.
DeleteIt was only later…when demand outstripped the supply and when the main brain trust had been kicked to the curb (or the combination of entities that made for a delightful stew of good chemistry) that the design became flat and untenable.
Maybe.
That comment on oriental adventures makes me wonder, what if UA was something similar but more specifically Sword & Sorcery. Almost a a different game where magic items are rare (so the barbarian might actually be used). cavalier could be some kind of nomadic barbarian instead of a knight. new spells go well with a new setting to give a new feel. Just a thought, it is what it is. My table had no use for UA.
DeleteHey, Ruprecht! Good to hear from you!
DeleteYeah, I don't think the UA was ever envisioned as a S&S setting book in the same way as OA, but always as an AD&D "rules expansion." You can see this all the way back to its earliest mentions in Dragon (circa issue #58 in February '82...and keep in mind what was printed in any given month was generally written earlier...sometimes much earlier).
OA was a place to put all that "Asian stuff" that kept popping up in the game...things like the samurai class (Dragon #49), martial arts weapons like nunchaku and shuriken (Dragon #61), or even the monk class (originally found in Supplement II and later updated in the PHB). Gygax considered there to be enough of this to do a thoughtful, Eastern-themed book that could remove such ideas from the pseudo-European setting of the main game and consolidate them in one source.
This 'consistency of theme' concept was both new and very different from the UA which is as much "kitchen sink" fantasy as any earlier D&D product in terms of content.
I agree that was the intent of UA I was imaging the better alternate version of our world. The shift to 2E was when the game mostly dropped sword & sorcery and weird tales type conventions and leaned into High Fantasy (at least in the art). It would have been nice if UA had more of a purpose as a semi-setting book than as the dump of extra this and that it turned out to be.
DeleteJeff Grubb has talked about editing UA in a few places before too, it sounds like it was a bit chaotic but still intentional. Here's one: https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2020/08/interview-jeff-grubb-part-i.html
ReplyDeleteThanks for that...I'll be sure to check it out. Even in 1985, Grubb was a solid designer, having spearheaded Marvel Superheroes. I just wonder how much input he had as one of the newer guys on staff.
DeleteCount me as among the "loved it when it came out" group. I had seen many of the spells already in previous publications (Dragon, Module S4) largely because I was a magic-junkie.
ReplyDeleteThese days I look at it with a bit more critical eye, but I still use it. I take AD&D, warts and all, and use it. Maybe not always as-is, but certainly "as-needed."
Must be something in the water. Here is a current discussion of it on Facebook.
ReplyDeletere: "Wasp Nest -- The City State of Stoink"
ReplyDeleteI really should compile a blog post on all of the history that we know about this unpublished Greyhawk supplement, sometime. Thanks for the reminder, Jonathan! :D
re: on UA
By default I disallow use of UA in my campaigns. Which is not to say that I don't use some of the rules, races, classes, spells, and magic items in my games---because I do, and have been doing so since many of them appeared in Dragon prior to their 1985 compilation.
But in general I leaven the use of UA, trying to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, which can be pretty difficult in the case of much of its content....
Allan.
Appreciate the comment, Allen. Please let me know if you have a post on "Wasp Nest" to read!
Delete