WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[Snarf Zagyg]

Problematic issues aside, it really isn't that great a sourcebook. I think it's best feature was the inclusion of NWP, and also the attempt to introduce non-Western play. In a lot of ways it was a dumpster fire in regards to game mechanics, like UA. Most of the classes were power creep over original classes and it didn't play well with standard classes (not to mention that some of the classes really didn't even need to exist). The Comeliness stat. Both OA and UA are guilty of that unnecessary addition. I put it on the same level as UA. It didn't help that it fell apart just like UA.

“Power creep”? This really sounds like it was written by someone taking standard UA complaints and applying it to a book that they are not familiar with.

 

[Azzy]

“Power creep”? This really sounds like it was written by someone taking standard UA complaints and applying it to a book that they are not familiar with.

Oh, come on. UA's Barbarian and Cavalier, and many of OA's classes were clear steps-up from the PHB classes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh, come on. UA's Barbarian and Cavalier, and many of OA's classes were clear steps-up from the PHB classes.

You just listed UA classes. You never played an OA campaign, did you?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

So many pages on the opinions of some guys from Toronto.

They have an opinion, but they only are speaking for themselves. in every post asking about what is the issue with OA, they point you to their YouTube read and react series. which just happens to be on a platform that they get paid for views.

i lived in China for 5 yeas and Asia for 8. The tropes that are complained about are commonly seen on Chinese TV in historical dramas. When I asked my Chinese friends and colleagues about it, the said of course, that is the expected elements for such stories.

i have asked my Chinese friends here about the standard tropes. The ones that moved from China readily admit that they come from Asia media and are common enough there. They say that as a minority, they feel more vulnerable. So anything that makes them seem smaller or what they think paints them in a poor light, they don’t like.

By the tike this book came out, I had already moved onto Runequest, so I never bought or used the content. I am sure that the number of AD&D campaigns being run with it today are tiny. All the yelling is doing is spurring on more sales.

 

[Azzy]

You just listed UA classes. You never played an OA campaign, did you?

A. Dide you miss the part where I said "many of OA's classes"? B. Yes, I have personally played a samurai and a ninja/yakuza and have seen the kensai [sic] in play. The barbarian was no improvement over the UA one. The monk was an upgrade of the PHB one (though it needed it). The bushi was essentially an upgraded fighter. The sohei, I have no opinion on, and the yakuza (by itself) was fine, as were the wujen and the shukenja [sic].

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So many pages on the opinions of some guys from Toronto.

I do not doubt their actual offense. But I would note that:

1. They did not play AD&D (or unfamiliar with the history), and some of the things that they are offended by are not particular to OA; and

2. Instead of answering questions, as you note, they demand people watch their insanely long Youtube series that they are paid for; and

3. It just so happens that the media coverage goes to the guy's twitter page, where he happens to have a pinned tweet promoting his recent release of a 5e-compatible (and OSE-compatible) source book for Chinese monsters.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A. Dide you miss the part where I said "many of OA's classes"? B. Yes, I have personally played a samurai and a ninja/yakuza and have seen the kensai [sic] in play. The barbarian was no improvement over the UA one. The monk was an upgrade of the PHB one (though it needed it). The bushi was essentially an upgraded fighter. The sohei, I have no opinion on, and the yakuza (by itself) was fine, as were the wujen and the shukenja [sic].

Then you know the following three things:

1. The classes were not particularly imbalanced at the time, and certainly not in relation to each other if you were playing an OA campaign, and not just grabbing some abilities to use in your own campaign; AND

2. Given the Dragon articles AND the release of UA, there is no one in the history of ever that described the classes in OA as "overpowered" or complained of power creed given TSR just released UA the same year; AND

3. There is something truly bizarre with you arguing with @pemerton regarding playing the game and rules when he was clearly describing how UA, in NWPs and the use of soft and social mechanics opened up a field in D&D that was not previously used, and you replied by immediately going to the "drag and drop" class mechanics- which is why I specified an "OA Campaign."

So, yeah, I doubt your knowledge of the source material.

 

[Cadence]

That's sad. It must be awful to feel like a diversity hire. Talk about impostor syndrome.

The effort to control anxiety, ADHD, or depression is already a tall task sometimes. To throw that feeling and corporate crap on top .. and add to it how healthcare works in the US and how it can make someone feel trapped to keep it

 

[Azzy]

Then you know the following three things:

1. The classes were not particularly imbalanced at the time, and certainly not in relation to each other if you were playing an OA campaign, and not just grabbing some abilities to use in your own campaign; AND

So, we can agree that playing a mixed game—like I implied I did (the classes don't play well with the ones from the PHB)—they were out of whack?

2. Given the Dragon articles AND the release of UA, there is no one in the history of ever that described the classes in OA as "overpowered" or complained of power creed given TSR just released UA the same year; AND

Well, since, you didn't see anyone in Dragon complain that must mean that no one had problems.

3. There is something truly bizarre with you arguing with @pemerton regarding playing the game and rules when he was clearly describing how UA, in NWPs and the use of soft and social mechanics opened up a field in D&D that was not previously used, and you replied by immediately going to the mechanics.

Clearly? He only said "From the point of view of RPGing techniques", so no it's not clear that he's talking about those things. If I have gotten him wrong, them I'm sure he can correct me. And "NWPs and the use of soft and social mechanics" are game mechanics, so I don't get your complaint.

So, yeah, I truly doubt your knowledge of the source material. Maybe I should just listen to you?

I don't care what you believe, but if you really want, I can post a pic of my OA book (and some of my other 1e material).

Honestly, what are you even doing? If you disagree with my assessment of OA's classes, that's fine, but what's up with the attitude and your attempt to dismiss my opinion of the book just because you don't agree with my assessment of it? Did someone pee in your Cheerios? Maybe take a breather.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

D&D needs to continue to critically examine its history, and try to avoid egregious mistakes going forward. Inclusivity and representation are paramount.

I don't think that anyone here would deny that it had some problems - and I think we could mostly agree on what those problems are - but I absolutely loved 1e Oriental Adventures - however clumsy it appears today. It was a breath of fresh air.

And none of us here are so naive as to think that it doesn't reek of Orientalism. I mean, it's in the name...