Quote from: Franky;1127901The book itself was a cash grab, since TSR was in dire financial straits.  It could have been titled "The Best of the Dragon*, Selections from Tsojcanth, and some stuff about pole-arms".

Not really. I think previewing the stuff in dragon allowed them to get some feedback/open playtesting before going to print. Much like how 5e UA works. I'd have to backtrack and compare. Nut I am pretty sure stuff changed from Dragon to UA. So it is not just a "collection" either.

As for the book itself. Alot of people had issues with the binding. Mine is still in great condition despite the amount of use I've put it through. My only complaint was "it smelled odd" and smelled odd for a darn long time. Probably still does! I suspect what happened is there was a bad print run. Much like the notorious 5e PBH first printing some got that literally fell apart as you opened it.

Quote from: Omega;1127923I'd have to backtrack and compare...ut I am pretty sure stuff changed from Dragon to UA.

Yeah, there were some changes. I don't recall exactly what the differences were, offhand (I'd have to go back and compare, too).

QuoteAs for the book itself. Alot of people had issues with the binding...I suspect what happened is there was a bad print run.

Based on my experience only, I'd guess that it was more of the opposite: that there was a good print run (or a few good print runs), and a greater number of bad printings (or larger print runs) with binding issues. The majority of the copies of UA I've seen have the binding issues, but there are a handful I've seen that remain intact even after years of use.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1127932Based on my experience only, I'd guess that it was more of the opposite: that there was a good print run (or a few good print runs), and a greater number of bad printings (or larger print runs) with binding issues. The majority of the copies of UA I've seen have the binding issues, but there are a handful I've seen that remain intact even after years of use.

Matches my experience as well. Mine's still intact, despite a fair bit of use, and I never had any problems with the binding. And I got it immediately after UA came out. Based on the Acaeum, it's a 1st printing.

What I've seen thrown around by various TSR alumni over the years was that the first couple of 1985-86 UA prints were the ones where TSR management cheaped out, but that if you got a later 80s - early 90s UA it had the same quality binding as the 1986-87 WSG, DSG, etc. (And those books aren't known for falling apart).

Quote from: EOTB;1127952What I've seen thrown around by various TSR alumni over the years was that the first couple of 1985-86 UA prints were the ones where TSR management cheaped out, but that if you got a later 80s - early 90s UA it had the same quality binding as the 1986-87 WSG, DSG, etc. (And those books aren't known for falling apart).

My UA fell apart but DSG and WSG are ok, so sounds plausible. Mind you WSG rarely ever opened!

My Oriental Adventures book saw years of gameplay and I never had any issue with the binding, but the paper quality was pretty rough. I sold my UA decades ago so I can't comment on that one.

When UA came out I was running a "Dragonlance" campaign. I bought it when some of the contents made it into DL - so let's say that my approach to the contents was already integrated in what I was running. I didn't ruminate about them. Then I run a second DL campaign, switched to AD&D 2E, found it to be dire, moved to GURPS and I didn't look back until 3.5E (of which I'm a fan - sue me).

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1127932Based on my experience only, I'd guess that it was more of the opposite: that there was a good print run (or a few good print runs), and a greater number of bad printings (or larger print runs) with binding issues. The majority of the copies of UA I've seen have the binding issues, but there are a handful I've seen that remain intact even after years of use.

I suspect you may be right. But we will likely never know as the people with problems are going to speak up and those without problem are less likely to. But there was something off about that book no matter. But binding issues are notoriously hard to spot during QC. Assuming there was QC.

OA? Fine. Dungeoneer, Wilderness & Planes? Fine. Arcana? No so fine.

A little checking shows UA and OA came out in 85. DSG & WSG in 86. And MotP in 87. Why was UA such a mess and OA not?

Quote from: Omega;1128025A little checking shows UA and OA came out in 85. DSG & WSG in 86. And MotP in 87. Why was UA such a mess and OA not?

The late seventies started a time of transition in the printing trade.  I don't know the exact window, or how long it took to go through the industry, or details.  I'm fairly certain it was still being felt through much of the eighties. However, my limited understanding is that due to a host of factors, including rapidly rising production costs, change in paper composition, changes in glue and binding (to work around cost and paper or something else?), corresponding with problems with moving products--there was a lot of experimentation. Just the rolling problems dealing with the acid content once the hemp paper stopped being used was huge. This meant not only were the raw materials likely to be inferior, we didn't yet have the expertise to work around those problems.  Or even front-line printer experience noticing tell-tale problems in time to stop a bad print run.  Which meant printing a book was a crap shoot, especially for relatively limited print runs.

It's not as if, say, the fantasy paperbacks of that time have a better track record.  I've got copies of old paperbacks from the 60's and early 70's that went through many hands before mine, some of them sitting in a used bookstore for ages before I got them.  They are in good shape.  I had a copy of the LotR trilogy from the mid seventies that fell apart after careful (albeit multiple) readings by two people.  Other books from that time have covers that disintegrated, pages falling out in chunks, etc.  Sometimes, I'll have an 80's era trilogy where the middle book is shot, but the first and last one are fine.

Screwups with was it 3 or 4e books where the ink was smearing off from touch?
Early print runs of 5e falling apart.

I doubt theres ever been a perfect print run. (Aside from the core three AD&D books) Even Palladium with its outstanding book binding had problems with cover lamination peeling off or warping.

Another anecdotal comment: my copy of the WSG is barely used (it's a shelf queen), but its binding is broken loose a bit. That's how the complete binding failure of my copy of UA started. I suspect that if my WSG saw any significant use it would soon be in the same shape as my copy of UA (which has a broken binding and multiple pages/sections completely loose). Interesting that this seems to be an anomaly. Most people don't seem to have binding issues with the WSG.

Yeah my copy of UA fell to bits after a while.  It was a real mess and I looked after my books too.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1128048Most people don't seem to have binding issues with the WSG.

Also anecdotal- Back in my collecting days, I picked up a copy of WSG and DSG in a lot of other items I wanted- Binding/both covers looked like the pics I see of UA 's that are a complete mess. Busted all to hell. Greyhawk Adventures was also in the lot and bindings were pristine though book obviously fairly well used.  :shrug:

I do know that TSR overproduced DSG and WSG as they were practically giving them away with RPGA subscriptions. How I ended up with second sets of both.

There are things in UA we used. Mainly spells and magic items. But oriental adventures we played the living hell out of and will again. Is it balanced? Hell no. And we will play it again. We loved building custom martial styles and the proficiencies for the special maneuvers. The classes were fun with their ki abilities. Still love the honor system.