D&D 1E About the Asian contributors to Oriental Adventures, or Who even were these guys?

[Fenris-77]

@Panda-s1 - I'm not positive, but you seem to be in some doubt about whether I think there are some harmful stereotypes in OA. Of course there are. Is it dated? Of course it is, the book is 35 years old. You'll get no argument from me on either count.

My judgement of the bibliography was solely based on it's date and provenance. OA came out in 85, which means it was probably being worked on, conservatively, from at least 82 or 83, although Gary Gygax alludes to a longer process in his intro. Using a resource from 1951 isn't really that odd in that context. Survey books of that sort have a longer academic shelf life than more specific works, generally speaking. I agree that a source from 1951 from our perspective in 2020 would obviously seem ripe to contain some objectionable material, but it's a perfectly reasonable source to be using to write an RPG book in 1985.

As to the authorship of the survey works, I suspect that this is a product of what was available in 1985, not any kind of selection bias towards western authors on the part of the OA design team. The skew toward Japanese material is also perfectly understandable based on the actual material in OA. which is, as you say, primarily Japanese. Hypothetically, If I were considering a reboot, I would definitely aim for just Japan of course, rather than the clumsy pastiche of OA, but that's a 2020 design decision, isn't? You start to see the two very different lenses at work here.

It's possible for OA to both contain harmful stereotypes and also be a pretty respectful and well-researched product for it's time. I don't think you need to go deep looking for objectionable material either - it's all pretty out in the open by 2020 standards. Those are two very different interpretive lenses. Judging OA as a historical artifact is one thing, while judging it as a current gaming resource by 2020 standards of acceptability is something else entirely. It's obviously the latter lens that's the current issue, but I've noticed that a lot of verbiage from non-asian commentators seems to focus on the former by way of apology. Conflating those interpretive lenses is, IMO, pretty dishonest.

 

[Mirtek]

Because today we expect good writing?

which doesn't require an understanding of the spawning culture. I'd rather have a beer and pretzels game based on 300 than one based on setting build with a deep respect and understanding of the Illiad and ancient greek infantry tactics.

Having a depth of understanding of a culture and its myths dramatically improves the depth of writing, because you can add the nuances a shallow understanding would miss

do those nuances lead to anything that makes the monster more interesting in during it's expected lifespan of 5 combat rounds?

And did the ancienct myth have to foresight to spell out it's interaction with the creature from a myth of that other culture from 400 years later on the other side of the World?

Because the kitchen sink setting has their habitats overlap.

 

[Voadam]

I don't have sourcing for it right now, but IIRC-

1. Cook had to write this on a very short time frame, all things considered. He was given a manuscript from Gygax's friend Francois Marcela-Froideval, but none of it was used.

2. Playtesting wasn't really a thing back then, and Cook was the one who advocated (and got) the play-testing/consulting by these individuals, which was on short notice given the timeframe.

Again, I'm not sure that's the gospel truth, I am going off of memory and I haven't had coffee.

From the added history context on the drivethru entry:

Disputed Origins. Gary Gygax says that he started thinking about an Asian-influenced supplement for AD&D as early as 1980, shortly after the original AD&D game (1977-1979) was completed. He first mentioned in it Dragon #90 (October 1984) when he announced that Francois Marcela-Froideval was working on rules "for including Oriental characters in the game", possibly as part of a "second volume of [the] Players Handbook".


By 1985, TSR was in severe financial straits, and so Gary Gygax suggested that a half-dozen new books be published under his name, one of which was Fracois Marcela-Froideval's Oriental Adventures. This increased the importance of the project and required it to hit its deadline; it's also where the book's history comes into some dispute.


David "Zeb" Cook was consulting on the project because of his interest in Japanese history and culture. As a result, when Marcela-Froideval turned in a manuscript for the book that was just 30-60 double-spaced pages, it landed in Cook's lap. Gygax then wrote Cook a contract to prepare the book on his own, with just 4-5 months to go on the deadline.


Everyone agrees that the resulting manuscript is 100% Cook's own, perhaps inspired by some of the ideas suggested by Gygax and in Marcela-Froideval's notes. However in much later years Gygax would claim that Cook "ramrodded" his book through TSR, with the intent to "sink Francois' material", and that he did so by taking advantage of the fact that Gygax was "engrossed in the business affairs of TSR".


Both Cook and the book's main editor, Mike Breault, disagree with this interpretation of events. Cook points toward his contract and says that Gygax was fully informed on how the book was being prepared.


Whatever the specifics, the book’s accepted origins are: Gygax came up with the idea; Marcela-Froideval wrote a manuscript that wasn’t published; and then Cook wrote a manuscript that was.


Some suggest that Gygax’s animosity toward Cook came about not because of Oriental Adventures, but instead what came afterward: reportedly, Gary Gygax asked Cook to join his new company, New Infinities, around 1986. Cook instead opted to remain at TSR where he continued to work with Gygax's arch-nemesis, Lorraine Williams, and where he eventually authored AD&D 2e (1989), which replaced Gygax's iteration of the game. It seems quite possible that this was the actual source of the dispute and might have colored the principles’ views of Oriental Adventures.


Disputed Bylines. Though Breault, Cook, and Gygax all agree that the text of Oriental Adventures was entirely written by Cook, the book was still released with the name "Gary Gygax" on the cover. This matched TSR’s trends for 1985, which also saw the release of the D&D Masters Rules (1985) and T1-4: The Temple of Elemental Evil (1985), each with Gygax receiving prime billing despite the fact that he probably didn't do any of the new work on either book. The intent was probably to put Gygax's name first and forefront in as many projects as it was possible, as good marketing that was intended to help save TSR from its financial hardships.


Though the cover of Oriental Adventures says "Gary Gygax", it doesn't actually say "by Gary Gygax" — a distinction that might or might not have been intentional. Greyhawk Adventures (1988) similarly lists James M. Ward's name on the cover without a "by". The inside credits of Oriental Adventures offer a more accurate depiction of how the book was created saying that "Original Oriental Adventures Concept" was by Gary Gygax with Francois Marcela-Froideval while "Oriental Adventures Design" was by David "Zeb" Cook.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

From the added history context on the drivethru entry:

I knew I was remembering something, but I never thought to look there- they almost always do a pretty great job with the blurbs!

Getting back to the OP, I have been checking through my mental notes and some of my physical materials, and I don't think I can find any additional information on the playtesters.

 

[jayoungr]

it's like really? some of the only Asian people to receive credit in an English language D&D product were just players? not even contributing any content or subject expertise, just "critiquing and improving the manuscript"?

Isn't that what a "sensitivity reader" (to use the current term) is supposed to do?

 

[ChaosOS]

which doesn't require an understanding of the spawning culture. I'd rather have a beer and pretzels game based on 300 than one based on setting build with a deep respect and understanding of the Illiad and ancient greek infantry tactics.
do those nuances lead to anything that makes the monster more interesting in during it's expected lifespan of 5 combat rounds?

And did the ancienct myth have to foresight to spell out it's interaction with the creature from a myth of that other culture from 400 years later on the other side of the World?

Because the kitchen sink setting has their habitats overlap.

At this point all I can say is you and I have fundamentally incompatible views on what an RPG sourcebook should provide - if I'm paying for a sourcebook I want it to provide depth and show care for its work, not something sloppily put together made up of half baked ideas. You can do all of that while still functioning within a fantasy kitchen sink!

As a point of comparison, I have the exact same problem with how some pop culture handles greek mythology. Hades getting cast as Satan is the same issue. It's lazy writing and entirely misses the opportunity to tell new stories that are different from the same stuff you've been churning out. It's the same criticism I have of certain romance authors - they just rewrite the same story and change out a few names to call it done.

 

[wingsandsword]

@Panda-s1 - I'm not positive, but you seem to be in some doubt about whether I think there are some harmful stereotypes in OA. Of course there are. Is it dated? Of course it is, the book is 35 years old. You'll get no argument from me on either count.

My judgement of the bibliography was solely based on it's date and provenance. OA came out in 85, which means it was probably being worked on, conservatively, from at least 82 or 83, although Gary Gygax alludes to a longer process in his intro. Using a resource from 1951 isn't really that odd in that context. Survey books of that sort have a longer academic shelf life than more specific works, generally speaking. I agree that a source from 1951 from our perspective in 2020 would obviously seem ripe to contain some objectionable material, but it's a perfectly reasonable source to be using to write an RPG book in 1985.

As to the authorship of the survey works, I suspect that this is a product of what was available in 1985, not any kind of selection bias towards western authors on the part of the OA design team. The skew toward Japanese material is also perfectly understandable based on the actual material in OA. which is, as you say, primarily Japanese. Hypothetically, If I were considering a reboot, I would definitely aim for just Japan of course, rather than the clumsy pastiche of OA, but that's a 2020 design decision, isn't? You start to see the two very different lenses at work here.

Also, when discussing the research that was in 1e OA, the context that this was long before the internet needs to be taken into account.

Nowadays people can jump online and find a wealth of information from around the world in moments, but in the early 1980's it's quite plausible that a researcher in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin might be a lot more limited in what he could find, and a book on the region from 1951 would be pretty plausible as what could be found in a local library at the time (recalling what it was like trying to do research as a kid pre-internet in the library of the small, rural town where I was growing up and most of the references on ANYTHING you wanted to find seemed to be 20 to 30 years old at best).

Indeed they probably felt that having at least a few actually Asian people at least consult and review on the work on some level was a nod towards making said book with input from the culture involved.

. . .and the fact that OA was written first and foremost as a gaming reference, not a detailed cultural study. It was written to provide enough information to let a gaming group run a D&D game with an East-Asian fantasy flavor. It wasn't meant to be a detailed textbook on Asian cultures or mythologies any more than Greyhawk was meant meant to be a textbook on medieval Europe or the Monster Manual was meant to be an adaptation of medieval bestiaries. For a typical gaming group whose ideas about the region (and expectations for the book) were probably drawn largely from 1970's Kung Fu films, Kurosawa's samurai movies, and the various media of the 1980's ninja craze, it would seem to be a wealth of information and sufficed quite well for its design goal.

Spending a lot more time and effort on detailed research and consultants on this book to make it a somewhat more nuanced, diverse look at the region would have probably been a lot more expensive and not done a lot for the success of the book at the time. If done, it would have ultimately just gone down as yet another example of wasteful spending at TSR in the 1980's, alongside TSR's needlepoint distributorship.

I see a LOT of this strife over 1e OA as people trying to judge a book published in 1985, that was probably written in the early 1980's, as if it was fresh off the press. If it was a brand new book, then it would be pretty weak. . .but for its time it was pretty decently researched and well liked and generally stood pretty well for quite a while.

Frankly, the part that's aged the poorest has been the name. The term "Oriental" is pretty archaic, and seems to act like a lightning-rod for complaints. I wonder how much of this controversy wouldn't even exist if the book was released under another name.

 

[MGibster]

Because today we expect good writing? Having a depth of understanding of a culture and its myths dramatically improves the depth of writing, because you can add the nuances a shallow understanding would miss.

Oriental Adventures was well received with Ashley Shepherd praising it for being a whole new way to play AD&D (I pulled that from the Wiki article). We expected good writing in 1985 as well, but of course standards have changed since then. Barring any problematic elements, if OA was released today we'd laugh at the font, the art, the layout, etc., etc. because the standards for production are so much greater than they were in the 80s. And you're looking for depth of understanding of other cultures and nuance? I think you have much higher expectations than most of the audience in 1985 had for their pretend elf game.

Furthermore, we still today see issues where non-western sourcebooks and adventures are written from the perspective of a tourist - just look at ToA! What people want is to feel like their voices are heard and their culture is presented as a viable option for play.

I think most of the Forgotten Realms books I have were written from the perspective of a tourist. His name was Volo.

 

[Alzrius]

Spending a lot more time and effort on detailed research and consultants on this book to make it a somewhat more nuanced, diverse look at the region would have probably been a lot more expensive and not done a lot for the success of the book at the time. If done, it would have ultimately just gone down as yet another example of wasteful spending at TSR in the 1980's, alongside TSR's needlepoint distributorship.

You're not wrong, but looking at the circumstances the book was written under, it was an issue of time as much as it was money. From the Oriental Adventures product history (note my use of an affiliate link here), emphasis mine:

By 1985, TSR was in severe financial straits, and so Gary Gygax suggested that a half-dozen new books be published under his name, one of which was Fracois Marcela-Froideval's Oriental Adventures. This increased the importance of the project and required it to hit its deadline; it's also where the book's history comes into some dispute.

David "Zeb" Cook was consulting on the project because of his interest in Japanese history and culture. As a result, when Marcela-Froideval turned in a manuscript for the book that was just 30-60 double-spaced pages, it landed in Cook's lap. Gygax then wrote Cook a contract to prepare the book on his own, with just 4-5 months to go on the deadline.

Now take into account what you said about the likely availability of resources, and we have a clearer picture of the constraints the book was produced under.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Satine Phoenix is Filipino-American. But as far as the olden days, someone said that Jim Holloway had some Asian ancestry, but haven't found any confirmation on that. There was a Sylvia Li that wrote an article in Dragon magazine #151.

It's not D&D, but Tunnels & Trolls had a fairly strong presence in Japan, with some products created there and eventually translated into English.

Addendum: I do want to ask in this separate thread: who are the other Asian contributors to D&D? are there any? it's not like there's a lack of players like me either, and I want to believe even in the early days there were at least a few Asian American players rolling up elves and fighting-men. the now much maligned Daniel Kwan is very much into RPGs, and even wrote unofficial material for 5e, and makes an actual play podcast about a 5e game, though I guess he's dropped that system (and hell I can't blame him). point being there are Asian people who are into D&D enough to write and sell their own original material. hell I remember in a thread a few weeks back someone brought up the thriving gaming scene in Malaysia and Indonesia, and this of course includes playing D&D.