A new name for Late 1E

[JamesM]

Also keep in mind that not all of the material in UA is Gary's - some was the work of individual authors from Dragon magazine, e.g. the Cavalier (David Howery?)

My memory is hazy on the mechanical differences between UA and its Dragon article precursors, so I may be mistaken, but I vividly recall the Cavalier's appearance in issue 72 of the magazine under the byline of Gary Gygax. It was introduced in a "From the Sorceror's [sic] Scroll" column entitled "The Chivalrous Cavalier" or something to that effect. Was this a reworking of something someone else had done previously? I thought it was pure Gygax.

 

[JamesM]

No no no. UA was the first core rule book of 1E after the PH, DMG. It not only introduced new classes (completely out of line) but introduced new core rules and concepts that destroyed the character balance. Suddenly the guy with weapons specialization appeared more powerful and "cool" (and his pluses made a real difference) then the classic fighter with standard "old fashioned" weapons selection (user of many master of none). Players started to stick with 1 weapon and drop the rest, taking away a key richness of the fighter class and at the same time changing the focus from creative and intellegent play to sexy "character building" and power gaming (which 3E/3.5 took to its fullest extreme).

While I probably wouldn't have phrased it in this fashion, this is nevertheless spot-on. I remember very distinctly how my 1E games changed after the introduction -- and wholehearted adoption of -- UA. My friends began to spend a lot more time agonizing over character creation choices than they'd ever done before, not least because weapon specialization of various sorts made Fighters pre-eminently good, although both the Cavalier and (oddly) the Barbarian were popular choices as well.

UA also did a couple of other things that, in retrospect, seem different from what went before as well. First, UA was riddled with errors, so much so that there was a large "article" in Dragon that included entire blocks of new next that we were expected to cut out and paste over the originals. Second, UA was the first book that exploited Greyhawk as a sample setting. Whereas previous books, like the DMG, had occasionally referred to elements of the Greyhawk setting, they did so in a "generic" fashion -- they were mostly a handful of names among many others. In UA, there were explicit references ("Barbarians in the World of Greyhawk Setting(tm) ...") and many of them (most magic items seem to have a Greyhawk connection).

UA really did mark a sea change in 1E and probably heralded the end of an era, even if we didn't recognize it at the time.

 

[JamesM]

The "magic" and spirit found in AD&D/OD&D was largely due to the DMs presentation of his own imaginary world, and the players stumbling around in it, together they made up stories.

This is absolutely correct. It's the single most important element in what makes D&D D&D and it's generally overlooked, as people fixate on this or that specific thing as signifying the heart and soul of the game.

The increasing emphasis on company-produced settings and stories is a big red line of demarcation between the early days of our hobby and where we are today. Though we often forget it, this started in the 1E era. Dragonlance was a big part of it, perhaps the most prominent, but it wasn't the only part of it.

 

[rossik]

well....i dont think the game is ruined, as it looks to me after reading some comments.

i started for real with 2ed, as it was one of the first rpg material published here. i agree, as now i play both od&d and 2ed, that the importance in character creation have changed, and all the powergame stuff too.

even not liking books post 2ed, i think that people like to to put labes as "this is pre-X, this is post-X" and so on, so they can see themselves in a certain group
(i like to say that im a 2ed player).

i also agree with the "put everything in litttle boxes" comment, as i do that sometimes.
but beside that, all that mater is that we are having fun with the game we play, no matter if it is roadrail or not.


i loved to play the role as one of the heroes of the lance, and do the same adventure that they did!

my other players play like if they where playing diablo! i dont like it, but they seems to have the time of their lives

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think there were 2 changes that occured, one in rules and one in style (art and presentation).

I think the big change in rules was UA. and the big change in style really started with Dragon Lance series: 1. in artwork (focusing on character details rather then the mood and general setting, it was stiff realism often posed, and the players could no longer see themselves as the people in the pictures...reduced to spectator rather then partisipant);

and 2. the change from story evolution (randomly created as the players wondered around) to "railroading" (where the story is supplied to the DM and the players pretty much follow along its course; this also led to highly linked modules, before that modules were pretty much dropped in as 1 shots).

Thanks for that.

I guess I probably left 1e for RQ while it was still in the 'early 1e' phase. I remember seeing UA but dismissed it as unbalanced rubbish at the time, and I wasn't playing much D&D by that time anyway.

Cheers

 

[Valiant]

i loved to play the role as one of the heroes of the lance, and do the same adventure that they did!

my other players play like if they where playing diablo! i dont like it, but they seems to have the time of their lives

Agreed, AD&D wasn't for everyone, just as 2E wasn't. I personally enjoyed creating the story as I went, rather then following along...to each their own as they say.

 

[Valiant]

Plane wrote - guess I probably left 1e for RQ while it was still in the 'early 1e' phase. I remember seeing UA but dismissed it as unbalanced rubbish at the time, and I wasn't playing much D&D by that time anyway.-

I think some of the other games came out in the "nick of time", we moved over to other games when 2E went into full force, it was nice not having to look at the new line of TSR artwork.

 

[Henry]

My memory is hazy on the mechanical differences between UA and its Dragon article precursors, so I may be mistaken, but I vividly recall the Cavalier's appearance in issue 72 of the magazine under the byline of Gary Gygax. It was introduced in a "From the Sorceror's [sic] Scroll" column entitled "The Chivalrous Cavalier" or something to that effect. Was this a reworking of something someone else had done previously? I thought it was pure Gygax.

Call that a COLOSSAL misremembering on my part. I could have sworn a "Howery" Cavalier appeared in Dragon in an early issue (#57, #48) and me being surprised by it -- but on searching my archive, I see gary's Issue #72 cavalier, and nothing else. Now I'm searching for David Howery to see where I remember him and Cavaliers from (and I could have sworn it wasn't that "Corrected Cavalier" piece years later)

In which case, Gary did originate that one, too.

 

[Reynard]

One of my 3.5 players likes to make jibes -- some good natured, some less so -- at my running and enjoying 1E by specifically pointing to OA, UA, DSG and WSG as the same kind of power/rules creep that I dislike about 3.5 (when you try and include all the crap -- not the core game itself). All of those books are late into 1E's life, IIRC, and besides, I try and remind him that WSG and DSG weren't overpowered -- they were boring as all get out.

 

[Mistwell]

Bunch of old people still arguing over whether or not Truman was a good President...