Re-reading my original 2008 post in preparation for this one, I couldn't help but wince a little. It's not so much that I have changed my mind on most of the topics I addressed in it, but rather that I wouldn't phrase my objections so intemperately. The original post and comments are nevertheless worth reading. They're a useful window into the mindset of the early OSR and the diversity of opinion that existed within it on a whole host of topics. Valuable though that 2008 post is as a historical text, it doesn't represent my considered evaluation of Unearthed Arcana and its place in the history of Dungeons & Dragons (and the hobby more generally).
Before proceeding into the meat of the matter, some background. I was an avid reader and subscriber of Dragon for a five-year period starting in 1982. During that time, one of my favorite recurring columns was Gary Gygax's "From the Sorcerer's Scroll." In those columns, Gygax would often share previews of new rules additions to AD&D, many of which he said would be formally added into the game with the publication of its eventual second edition. I often introduced some of these additions into my ongoing campaign and found I liked some more than others – I generally disliked the new character classes, but I mostly approved of the new spells, for example. This was fine, because none of the options were yet "official" and I could pick and choose which ones to use.
Owing to a number of real world factors – primarily, TSR's financial troubles and Gygax's attempts to save it – plans changed. The additions Gygax originally intended for a new edition of AD&D were all bundled together, along with some additional material, to fill out a new 128-page book called Unearthed Arcana. The book was announced with great fanfare in the pages of Dragon and, of course, I snapped it up as soon as I found a copy at my local B. Dalton. I then spent untold hours poring over it so that I could incorporate its "new discoveries ... [and] a wealth of just uncovered secrets" into my own campaign.
Unfortunately, the book I took home and read that day in 1985 was nowhere near as good as I imagined it would be. To be fair, I'm not sure that it could have ever lived up to my expectations and I suspect that my disappointments then have forever colored my feelings about Unearthed Arcana. Even so, the book presents numerous problems that I do think are worthy of discussion. The most immediate of these is that, as printed, it's riddled with typos, omissions, and outright errors, probably due to the haste with which the book was put together. I still keep a two-page list of additions and corrections to UA that appeared in the November 1985 issue of Dragon inside the front cover of my copy. These problems made using a lot of its contents frustrating and led to numerous misunderstandings.
A much bigger problem is that Unearthed Arcana represents a clear and significant shift in the power level of AD&D characters. Both the barbarian and cavalier classes, for example, are very potent, with a wide range of abilities. Many of the new demihuman races are similarly more powerful, particularly in light of the wider range of classes available and levels attainable by non-human characters. Combined with weapons specialization (for fighters and rangers), mightier magic items, and greater flexibility for spellcasters (thanks to cantrips and new spells), the overall effect of Unearthed Arcana is to push AD&D in a direction that's generally higher-powered.
Now, many players might not mind this and I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with this approach. However, I think I'm correct in saying that the direction UA heralded was a clear change from the earlier presentation of AD&D. Gygax states in his preface to the book that "the AD&D® game system is dynamic. It grows and changes and expands." That's a fair point. I have no doubt that, for many who had been playing AD&D since its completion in 1979, welcomed the growth and changes Unearthed Arcana brought with it. For me, then and now, it was a step too far, evidence that, after a certain point, you can change a thing too much for it to remain the thing it once was.
In retrospect, it seems odd that I should feel this way about UA. As I explained at the beginning of this post, I loved Gary Gygax's columns in Dragon, even the ones whose content I didn't use in my own campaign. Individually, they possessed a freshness that was very appealing. They suggested that AD&D still had new horizons to cross, new frontiers to explore. When assembled together, all the little additions Gygax had released piecemeal over the years now seemed to lack that freshness that had once appealed to me. They seemed not merely stale but ponderous and even restrictive. It's difficult to explain, but, somehow, the transformation of Gygax's proposals into "official" rules laid down in a hardcover book had robbed them of the fun and vibrancy they once possessed in my mind.
As I flip through Unearthed Arcana today, I find it difficult to dislike most of its contents. Taken individually, like the original articles in which they appeared, most of them are fine as optional additions or expansions of the AD&D rules. I can easily imagine using many of the spells or magic items, for instance, and I still think the thief-acrobat is a fun addition for certain kinds of campaigns. As a whole, though, UA remains disappointing to me and I'd never use all of its contents. Perhaps if Gygax had had more time to develop them, I might feel differently, but, as it is, Unearthed Arcana is the book that started to shake my confidence in Gygax, TSR, and D&D itself – which goes some way to explain why I've often been so immoderate in expressing my negative opinion of it.
I think earnest disappointment in something that we love is a young person's game, James. Sure, I get disappointed when things don't pan out like I expect, but the towering rage, shock, betrayal and overall DISAPPOINTMENT that I felt when 2nd edition AD&D came out, when 3rd edition Warhammer 40k came out, hell, when Metallica's Black Album came out...those things just don't happen for me anymore. I just shrug and say, "well, this was inevitable." it's kind of better this way, I think.
ReplyDeleteWisdom indeed.
DeleteI don't know about that. I'm more earnestly disappointed than ever about more things than ever, and not just in gaming. I just don't have the energy to rail against it all that I used to when I wasn't a doddering wreck. :)
DeleteAnd it should be noted the book was very cheaply made compared to the prior DM, PHB, and MM. Mine broke apart almost immediately. I wrote a new title along the now bare spine that says "15 Bucks For What!?!?"
ReplyDeleteCheap and a stuff I already had from Dragon articles... what was the point other than a money grab?
I bought my (first) copy of UA at GenCon at release, and yes, the pages separated from the binding almost immediately. That aside, even as a 13 year old I realized the new classes and races were wildly out of balance with those in the PHB. Unsurprisingly, at least as a DM, I switched back to "kiddie D&D" soon after.
DeleteJust thinking of the classes, I think the thing that makes them so odd is that they were designed not for dungeon or wilderness exploration, but for more social adventures. The cavalier especially is more powerful but also has restrictions that don't make sense in the context of a more traditional D&D game. The cavalier's deathwish makes more sense when you realise that the campaign they're designed for is a more "civilized" campaign. The barbarian, with their hatred of magic, makes more sense for a campaign about tribal politics and warfare where all the players make their characters assuming they're all part of the same group or tribe or even family. They feel like they're designed for a very specific type of gameplay, almost like OA but without the rest of the world-building that that book had that brought everything together.
ReplyDeleteYou make an interesting point. Oriental Adventures classes which weren't really suited for dungeons. Perhaps TSR could tell gameplay was moving beyond the dungeon and Gygax was trying to adapt but he was ousted before anything meaningful came of it.
DeleteNot a fan of most of its content, UA saw little use at my table (basically, just spells and unarmed combat options).
ReplyDeleteBut UA and AD&D itself always make me think that Gygax had a sixth sense for what would have made the game more popular.
As much as some people revile the power-creep and changes of later editions, I think EGG would have done exactly the same had he still been in charge (while still playing OD&D at home).
The first A/D&D product that I bought that disappointed me was Monster Manual II back in 1983.
ReplyDeleteWhy were you disappointed by MMII?
DeleteAlso, I remember you posting a while back that you were no longer playing OD&D, but rather AD&D. Is that still the case? If so, how's it going?
In my own, OSRIC campaign from a few years ago, I used all the UA spells and magic items as well as weapons specialization for fighters. Those rules were great. However, I really didn't like the new character classes--especially the cavalier and barbarian fighter sub-classes. Cavaliers were overpowered and their haughty attitudes toward characters from lower classes seemed unworkable in the context of a standard adventuring campaign with PCs from different backgrounds. Barbarians were even worse. I especially could never understand why an ordinary barbarian human should be able to hit magical creatures that otherwise required magic weapons to damage. Just because Thrud is 21st level, why is it that he can hit a spectre with an ordinary sword? I want even a fantasy world to have some internal consistency. The barbarian ability to hit magical opponents didn't meet even that low bar, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteSo they were out...........
Interesting retrospective. Always worthwhile reflecting on what weve said or written in the past. Opinions change. Never read UA and most of the things I've read about it have been negative.
ReplyDeleteWhat's rarely acknowledged is the continuity between AD&D and UA. AD&D, too, has its classes that break the rules in a clunky way that doesn't quite work (the assassin, bard, and monk), and plenty of unimpressive and over-leveled spells and items. AD&D, though, hit the low-hanging fruit in terms of ideas that do work and went on into later editions, whereas UA was pure innovation with only a few enduring hits - 2nd level magic-user damage spells and cantrips among them.
ReplyDeleteI loved prices for magic items, as a young players. but I quickly started hating the power gaming that came with it. I had lots of players minmaxing, etc but that was the first time I saw the wholesale shift to "lets only do what mows down the baddies" like that.
ReplyDeleteFor me the worst thing about UA, as TexasGM suggests, is the Barbarian class. Aside from being overpowered it continued the neutering of the Fighter that began with Paladins and Rangers and has gone on to the present day.
ReplyDeleteFor most character classes you can point to fictional archetypes of some sort, e.g., "the elf is inspired by Legolas" or the "the thief is the Grey Mouser." But starting with the Greyhawk and reaching its culmination in UA, the fighter class was stripped of this:
"A fighter ... is like Conan!" No, sorry, Conan is a Barbarian
"A fighter is like ... Sir Lancelot." No, sorry, a calaveier.
A fighter is like ... Aragorn or Robin Hood. No, sorry, that's a ranger.
Nope, your fighter is just some scrub so bland that no fictional hero can emulate him.