Just saying that I have seen both sorts as players too. There are layers who don't like there to not be an explicit rule for everything and who resent you making it up on the fly.You could also say that the DM can simply make a judgment call, freeing the player from taking the chandelier feat. It's a matter of whether you prefer rules-heavy (as you clearly do) or rules-light, and slant your argument to subtly or not-so-subtly favor one over the other.I also have played a number of games with both the kind of dm I trust implicately and who gets excited when the players do awesome or crazy things, and the kind of dm that is easily frustrated and can get resentful over such things and make it harder to trust his judgement calls. I think the first kind of dm thrives in a system that requires alot of judgement calls, and the second kind functions better in a highly codified system.
That is also certainly true, there have been rules laywers since the dawn of dnd. And 40 years of experiences with dms(some not all) not making consistent or fair on the fly rulings has not eased this issue. Some players are better suited to such things then others. The same thing applies. Its easier for a larger portion of people to play a game that is highly codified then a game that is often dependant on dm rulings.
Myself I like a game to be one or the other. Either it is designed to be abstract and take in narrative elements from both player and dm, or for the game to be highly codified. I dont like it when there are very specific rules for some situations and not for others. I like to know ahead of time what I can and cannot do, rather then playing mother may i with the dm at the table. That sort of thing is as frustrating as it is a time waster.
|
...If you're saying, "Brian the Black leaps forward clashing his axe to his shield roaring, 'Lamh-laidir abu. Let those omadhauns come! None shall pass the ax of this Dalcassian prince without tasting the whetted steel! Come, a ripe feast for the crows you'll be.'" You're doing it with the essence of old AD&D
If you say, "I'll move my character here to block the bridge it should slow any creature larger than small size unless they make a throw vs acrobatics to get past me. I'll brace my shield for defense. I should get a +3 to resist an contests of strength. You'll still have to watch for the reach weapons but since they'll be on a corner most won't be able to pass through the square." You're not in fact doing it with the old school essence of D&D.
So the essence of AD&D was a bunch of hullabaloo?
It's a cute example, but it's a bit of a straw man. In the latter example, there's no way the player would need to go into such detail. Most GMs already know how acrobatics or reach weapons work. The player would simply need to move into position and announce any further actions (draw a weapon, ready an action, etc.). Any additional explanation is optional.
Likewise, in the first example, the player moves into position and ...well, nothing! If the passage is wide enough, I'm not sure there was anything in the old AD&D rules that would allow Brian the Black to stop a foe or even take a swipe at them as they ran past. Although colourful, the player's description doesn't really accomplish much of anything in the game. Once again, any additional explanation is optional.
Yes, there were DMs who would allow a detailed description to translate into real game effects, and of course they'd be more inclined to do so if the description were colourful and in character. Or if they were friends with the DM. Or if they had brought the pizza. Or if they were a girl and wore something tight or low-cut. Or if they were
This is hilarious in a game based on miniatures war gaming. There were a ton of rules for minis in the DMG (including facing and flanking), most people either just didn't use them or didn't know they were there (the 1e DMG is a nice example of poor organization).
Another hallmark of 1e is how many people made house rules for things already covered, because they didn't find the rules, or, like the grappling rules, the system was just too opaque and cumbersome for speedy game play.
Edit: Seriously, it seemed every other issue of Dragon back then had new grappling rules, and even Gygax said he used a completely different system in his home game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our table hit the wall with Pathfinder last night. We might be going back to 2nd edition.
We are level 8 and are working through RotRL. We have been playing Pathfinder for over a year now and playing the game by the book with no house rules.
Things that annoy me:
Monsters criting for more hit points than players have even when fully healed. We have had multiple character obliterated by x3 crit weapons. I've never in all my years seems character die as much as I have in this game.
Magic item shops...just ick
Player optimization is way out of hand. This ties into the magic item shop but the system itself points players down paths of optimization. The power gap between those who optimize and those who do not is vast.
Feats....to many d&*n feats.
Once battle starts its more strategy game and less role playing game. Too much stuff as a GM to keep track of to RP. Not a fan of this.
The Monster manual is not all inclusive. I still have to thumb through other books to look up feats & abilities just to run the creature. And it has stupid icon under it's name to represent what kind of creature it is...why not just print what kind of creature it is so I don't have to flip back to the front of the book to find the picture and match it to a creature type!
The RotRL anniversary edition book makes you fish through other books to look up monsters. And then those books make you flip through other books to look up feats. Argh! Just print the damn stat block on the page and save us a trip and time.
It has been a frustrating experience to say the least. I will not be running any more PF games. I'll play in one, but it's just not a DM friendly game and made even worse by frustrating design choices by Paizo.
-MD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, there were DMs who would allow a detailed description to translate into real game effects, and of course they'd be more inclined to do so if the description were colourful and in character...See, that was part of the problem.Yeah ... how ridiculous that someone with storytelling skills might influence a story with said skills rather than such occurring only via the vastly superior and more interesting method of rolling dice. [Tongue planted so firmly in cheek that I've drawn blood.]
I'm beginning to think there's a complete disconnect between generations.
Sure, but is D&D a story or a game? Here, you give the PLAYER with superior storytelling skills a advantage over the Player who knows the rules better or the player with PC who has the best skills and abilities. Remember, the guy who knows the rules better is not only just “rolling the dice” he know what modifiers and rules give him the best shot at succeeding. The player who has designed his PC to be best at doing those things is also not “just rolling the dice” he’s putting forethought and planning into his PC.
A good DM rewards one of these, a great DM rewards all three.
And- I am a older generation that you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just saying that I have seen both sorts as players too. There are layers who don't like there to not be an explicit rule for everything and who resent you making it up on the fly.You could also say that the DM can simply make a judgment call, freeing the player from taking the chandelier feat. It's a matter of whether you prefer rules-heavy (as you clearly do) or rules-light, and slant your argument to subtly or not-so-subtly favor one over the other.I also have played a number of games with both the kind of dm I trust implicately and who gets excited when the players do awesome or crazy things, and the kind of dm that is easily frustrated and can get resentful over such things and make it harder to trust his judgement calls. I think the first kind of dm thrives in a system that requires alot of judgement calls, and the second kind functions better in a highly codified system.
That is also certainly true, there have been rules laywers since the dawn of dnd. And 40 years of experiences with dms(some not all) not making consistent or fair on the fly rulings has not eased this issue. Some players are better suited to such things then others. The same thing applies. Its easier for a larger portion of people to play a game that is highly codified then a game that is often dependant on dm rulings.
Myself I like a game to be one or the other. Either it is designed to be abstract and take in narrative elements from both player and dm, or for the game to be highly codified. I dont like it when there are very specific rules for some situations and not for others. I like to know ahead of time what I can and cannot do, rather then playing mother may i with the dm at the table. That sort of thing is as frustrating as it is a time waster.
It is harder to learn and play a game with more rules than fewer. More rules may make certain situations less dependent on sound judgement but you still have to follow the rule.
You set up a false dichotomy. A game does not have to be 'highly codified' or 'often dependent on dm rulings'. A game can be highly codified and often dependent on dm rulings or lightly codified and require almost no refereeing at all.
Pathfinder is highly codified. The rules are continually being added to. Nothing is going to change that. Does that make Pathfinder easy to learn or play? Fewer rules means more people can learn and play. And will do so. If I drop a thousand plus pages of rules on someone how many will simply say, 'no'? Now if I drop three or four pages of rules on someone how many will say 'no'?
How many people can learn the rules to 'tag'? Everyone above four years old. How many can learn all the rules of baseball? A bright ten year old can learn enough to play, a bright twelve year old can learn what an infield fly rule is. All the rules? It takes less than 150 pages to print out the rules to baseball and many, many people find baseball too complicated to follow. Nearly 600 pages for the core rule book alone? How many people are going to find it too complicated?
However back to the original question. Many people don't like allowing GM agency or fear it for some reason and that appears to be much of the objection to 'the essence of AD&D'. Many are afraid that more GM agency means less player agency (it doesn't).
Many here simply do not want to play the way the game used to be played or have it mixed in with unpleasant social memories of one kind or another. Some are very pleased with themselves that they have achieved 'system mastery' of somewhere north of a thousand pages of rules if you include supplements, etc. and feel any simplification a threat to that.
I can understand that. There are many things I enjoy doing well and if they were easier more people could do those same things well.
That's okay not everyone is going to want to play with the essence of AD&D and some of those people are going to do anything they can to dismiss the idea, deny there ever was such a thing, downplay the difference between the essence of ad&d and Pathfinder or denigrate those who want to find that difference (that's not a reference to you Kolo I've wandered further than I intended again).
Some of us can agree on what the essence of ad&d was. Those that do and want to add it pathfinder ought to be given the chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monsters criting for more hit points than players have even when fully healed. We have had multiple character obliterated by x3 crit weapons. I've never in all my years seems character die as much as I have in this game.
Player optimization is way out of hand. This ties into the magic item shop but the system itself points players down paths of optimization. The power gap between those who optimize and those who do not is vast.
Two simple cures: 1 All Monster have only X2 crits, give wider crit ranges as needed. Replace Greataxes with falchoins.
2. Limit sources- esp don't allow without careful review things they may have found on line or are in sourcebooks other than what they are/have been thru. Blood Money should be restricted to PC who find it in RotRL.
Yes, there were DMs who would allow a detailed description to translate into real game effects, and of course they'd be more inclined to do so if the description were colourful and in character...See, that was part of the problem.Yeah ... how ridiculous that someone with storytelling skills might influence a story with said skills rather than such occurring only via the vastly superior and more interesting method of rolling dice. [Tongue planted so firmly in cheek that I've drawn blood.]
I'm beginning to think there's a complete disconnect between generations.
Sure, but is D&D a story or a game? Here, you give the PLAYER with superior storytelling skills a advantage over the Player who knows the rules better or the player with PC who has the best skills and abilities. Remember, the guy who knows the rules better is not only just “rolling the dice” he know what modifiers and rules give him the best shot at succeeding. The player who has designed his PC to be best at doing those things is also not “just rolling the dice” he’s putting forethought and planning into his PC.
A good DM rewards one of these, a great DM rewards all three.
And- I am a older generation that you.
When I play I make it clear the place for rules lawyers is not my table. If you can do it in a single scene of a movie (swing on a chandelier, pull the rug out from under the guards, jump across the raging river) I'll allow a character to try it. Not always succeed mind you. But try sure.
I want to make every player feel like their character is the star of the show. Give all of them a chance to shine in and out of combat. I like combat to be organic, fluid, chaotic, and visceral like a real fight but I also want room for swashbuckling, magic, and daring-do.
The game started as a miniatures game but quickly changed to something very different.
|
|
Monsters criting for more hit points than players have even when fully healed. We have had multiple character obliterated by x3 crit weapons. I've never in all my years seems character die as much as I have in this game.
Player optimization is way out of hand. This ties into the magic item shop but the system itself points players down paths of optimization. The power gap between those who optimize and those who do not is vast.
Two simple cures: 1 All Monster have only X2 crits, give wider crit ranges as needed. Replace Greataxes with falchoins.
2. Limit sources- esp don't allow without careful review things they may have found on line or are in sourcebooks other than what they are/have been thru. Blood Money should be restricted to PC who find it in RotRL.
Yep. The great thing about being a DM is you can change what you want in a published adventure. I'm pretty sure the various RotRL authors won't be insulted if you tone down the deadly a little bit. Trust me, the authors of that AP were well steeped in the traditions of AD&D and didn't fear killing characters.
I used to have to cut a ton of treasure out of the AD&D published material, both do avoid the christmas tree effect and to keep level progression normal (1gp = 1xp back then).
Once you unwrap (or unzip, depending) the adventure, it is yours, regardless of who wrote it. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I play I make it clear the place for rules lawyers is not my table.
Smart, tactical players who know the rules =/= rules lawyers.
At this point, I think we've fallen back to the Stormwind Fallacy. Just because someone knows the rules and enjoys a smart, tactical game doesn't mean they don't know how to roleplay. And vice versa. The game was designed to incorporate both perspectives, and good GMs and players will know how to do both well enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is harder to learn and play a game with more rules than fewer. More rules may make certain situations less dependent on sound judgement but you still have to follow the rule.
Agreed. I think my own ideas werent clear enough. I am talking not about the learning process, or the amount of time it takes to learn the game, but how the game behaves when everything is running smoothly. Everyone is comfortable with the ruleset, and little or no rules looking up is necesary. Obviously for some, a heavy ruleset will always be an issue, either because of preference, or a simple inability to become familiar with a large amount of rules. For them, light games with lots of dm discretion are a necessity.
It is for those willing and able to absorb a large ruleset that i make my comparison.
Again this is purely opinion and based on my experience and intuitions, but I think the kind of gm that can make fair, quick, and consistent rulings at the table is a talent, not a learned behavior. I think most people can eventually learn a ruleset. But the ability to improvise, and to separate ones self from the work they have done on the game and be fair/consistent in their rulings is something most people will have a static amount of capability in.
You set up a false dichotomy. A game does not have to be 'highly codified' or 'often dependent on dm rulings'. A game can be highly codified and often dependent on dm rulings or lightly codified and require almost no refereeing at all.
Pathfinder is highly codified. The rules are continually being added to. Nothing is going to change that. Does that make Pathfinder easy to learn or play? Fewer rules means more people can learn and play. And will do so. If I drop a thousand plus pages of rules on someone how many will simply say, 'no'? Now if I drop three or four pages of rules on someone how many will say 'no'?
I would argue that no one needs to know every page of rules of pathfinder. And that is generally what I tell people that I teach the game. Basically you need to know the rules for the options you are using and the combat and skills section of the rulebook. That is closer to 30-40 pages then it is a thousand.
And again I dont mean to say highly codified is EASY, i mean to say that assuming everyone gets on board and learns the rules (a big if I know) more people will have the talent as a person to run/play smoothly in a highly codified game.
How many people can learn the rules to 'tag'? Everyone above four years old. How many can learn all the rules of baseball? A bright ten year old can learn enough to play, a bright twelve year old can learn what an infield fly rule is. All the rules? It takes less than 150 pages to print out the rules to baseball and many, many people find baseball too complicated to follow. Nearly 600 pages for the core rule book alone? How many people are going to find it too complicated?
Well my two favorite sports are football (both kinds). And actually they are sort of perfect analogies for this.
American football, has very detailed rules, with instant replay, a whole mess of refs, and an ever changing rulebook to promote 'fairness'. Soccer/futbol is a game where the rules are largely dependant on the judgement of a single person, the Ref. Both present problems with their games. But I find that there are FAR fewer (per game) refereeing controversies in american football then there are in Soccer. And the talent level (again my opinion) required to be a soccer ref is much higher then an american football ref.
American football is far more satisfying to my need for fairness. Its rare (again % per game) that I genuinely feel upset about the refs impact on the game. In soccer it happens almost every game.
I actually like to play soccer more if we are talking about pickup games and such, but I am far more likely to be angry about refing if I am watching or playing in a highly competative game.
However back to the original question. Many people don't like allowing GM agency or fear it for some reason and that appears to be much of the objection to 'the essence of AD&D'. Many are afraid that more GM agency means less player agency (it doesn't).
GM agency vs player agency does come up to alot of it. But while I'd agree that more gm Agency doesnt guarantee less player agency, it makes it alot more likely. In essence agency means control over the situation. It is pretty close to a zero sum game. If dms have more control over the situation, players have less. Some dms are more benevolent about it then others. But that doesnt mean players have control, it just means the dms are permissive.
Many here simply do not want to play the way the game used to be played or have it mixed in with unpleasant social memories of one kind or another. Some are very pleased with themselves that they have achieved 'system mastery' of somewhere north of a thousand pages of rules if you include supplements, etc. and feel any simplification a threat to that.
I really believe there is no 'the way the game used to be played'. Part of that is even when I played Adnd we had rotating dms, so there wasnt 'the dm' who was all powerful and smote as he wished. It was always shared duty. There were rules lawyers the day after the first book game out in the 70's. There were monty haul kick in the door and look the mosnter groups. There were wargamers who picked up dnd and treated it like a minis game. The only difference is we are now all able to directly talk to eachother.
In my group in junior high, when we played ADnD, we used the rules, if we couldnt find a rule, we made one up, but it wasnt a ruling, it was a rule we wrote down for future use. We also poured through whatever books, dungeon magazine or whatever else we could find for new rules to use. I honestly think the idea that there is a single 'essence' of the way the game 'used to be' is complete nonsense. Other then perhaps poorly written. But I think most people are happy that the editing standards of the industry have increased dramatically.
And in terms of it being a threat, its not a threat to system mastery. People who have a high level of system mastery will have it regardless of the system. There were people who min maxed in ADnD. The thing that is threatened is options. Many people like having lots of choices, and to them, a reduction of said choices will take something away from the game. Powergamers will always powergame, they did in every edition of dnd. But those who like exploring new and interesting options wont be able to do that if we go back to fighter, elf, dwarf, theif, magic user.
I can understand that. There are many things I enjoy doing well and if they were easier more people could do those same things well.
That's okay not everyone is going to want to play with the essence of AD&D and some of those people are going to do anything they can to dismiss the idea, deny there ever was such a thing, downplay the difference between the essence of ad&d and Pathfinder or denigrate those who want to find that difference (that's not a reference to you Kolo I've wandered further than I intended again).
Some of us can agree on what the essence of ad&d was. Those that do and want to add it pathfinder ought to be given the chance.
Again I dont think there was a single essence of adnd. And while I'd say certainly you should be able to play the game you want. You should really stop and consider whether what you want is compatable with the game you are trying to add it to. Pathfinder is not adnd. Some might call it an evolution, some might call it a degredation, I think theres alot of nostalgia built in there (honestly, when I think back to some of the nonsense I played through in my younger days I KNOW, no matter how epic the memory, I wouldnt want to do that stuff knowing what I know now). So while I'd certainly say you should be able to play the game you want. If the only way to do that is to deny people from playing what the game is (assuming they want to), then you need to look elsewhere.
If choping out rules, and options makes the game more the way you want it and that works for your group, go for it. I will still look forward to each new book, 3pp, or other supplement for something that will inspire my next character, and the stories he/she will participate in. In pathfinder at least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I play I make it clear the place for rules lawyers is not my table.Smart, tactical players who know the rules =/= rules lawyers.
At this point, I think we've fallen back to the Stormwind Fallacy. Just because someone knows the rules and enjoys a smart, tactical game doesn't mean they don't know how to roleplay. And vice versa. The game was designed to incorporate both perspectives, and good GMs and players will know how to do both well enough.
No it's a false dichotomy again. No one suggested (as far as I am aware) that smart, tactical players are rules lawyers. Smart tactical players are not rules lawyers. It can be a joy to have a table full of 'smart, tactical players'. I was responding to a poster who laid out their GMing style. I did so by giving my one deal breaker (other than honesty and by God I hope that is still understood by everyone). I did not say nor have I ever said or implied somebody who understands the rules is a 'rules lawyer'.
Sorry but I am unfamiliar with the 'Stormwind Fallacy'. I can tell you what a 'no true Scotsman' is or a 'strawman argument' but Stormwind is something I have only run across here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, been following the thread.
It's gone in some different directions like whether ad&d was any good, whether anyone playing PF should go for that old-school vibe, whether it's possible to do so, which way is better, yadda-yadda.
That's all fine and interesting but is anyone else already past that?
I mean the thread title doesn't say "Should I recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder?" or "Is it possible to recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder?" or "Did AD&D suck?".
I've given this plenty of thought, you know what I mean? I played AD&D and I liked it. I'm playing PF now and I see that d20/3.x added some things I consider improvements. I know I don't want to switch to a retro-clone, but I want to get back a certain vibe, a certain feel.
Would anyone want to collaborate on a project to do that? Something that brings together a set of house-rules with a more formal declaration of the kinds of "gentlemen's agreements" and play-style approaches that lend themselves to that experience?
We could start by looking at the OSR and retro-clones and figuring out why we are still here playing pathfinder. Figure out what to keep and what to peel away.
Could be a fun community project.
Sorry but I am unfamiliar with the 'Stormwind Fallacy'. I can tell you what a 'no true Scotsman' is or a 'strawman argument' but Stormwind is something I have only run across here.The Stormwind Fallacy is an exposure of a false dichotomy between mechanical effectiveness and role-playing. It's the admission that a mechanically-effective character is not necessarily poorly-role-played, and a well-role-played character is not necessarily mechanical-ineffective. Granted, Stormwind is a buzzword for a phenomenon that never existed to any great extent in the first place, and the only reason that you never hear it outside of this forum is because this forum is the only one that needs a term for something that the rest of the RPG community accepts as a given.
Thank you. That is indeed a fallacy.
Hey guys, been following the thread.
It's gone in some different directions like whether ad&d was any good, whether anyone playing PF should go for that old-school vibe, whether it's possible to do so, which way is better, yadda-yadda.
That's all fine and interesting but is anyone else already past that?
I mean the thread title doesn't say "Should I recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder?" or "Is it possible to recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder?" or "Did AD&D suck?".
I've given this plenty of thought, you know what I mean? I played AD&D and I liked it. I'm playing PF now and I see that d20/3.x added some things I consider improvements. I know I don't want to switch to a retro-clone, but I want to get back a certain vibe, a certain feel.
Would anyone want to collaborate on a project to do that? Something that brings together a set of house-rules with a more formal declaration of the kinds of "gentlemen's agreements" and play-style approaches that lend themselves to that experience?
We could start by looking at the OSR and retro-clones and figuring out why we are still here playing pathfinder. Figure out what to keep and what to peel away.
Could be a fun community project.
I'd be interested in contributing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey guys, been following the thread.
It's gone in some different directions like whether ad&d was any good, whether anyone playing PF should go for that old-school vibe, whether it's possible to do so, which way is better, yadda-yadda.
That's all fine and interesting but is anyone else already past that?
I mean the thread title doesn't say "Should I recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder?" or "Is it possible to recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder?" or "Did AD&D suck?".
I've given this plenty of thought, you know what I mean? I played AD&D and I liked it. I'm playing PF now and I see that d20/3.x added some things I consider improvements. I know I don't want to switch to a retro-clone, but I want to get back a certain vibe, a certain feel.
Would anyone want to collaborate on a project to do that? Something that brings together a set of house-rules with a more formal declaration of the kinds of "gentlemen's agreements" and play-style approaches that lend themselves to that experience?
We could start by looking at the OSR and retro-clones and figuring out why we are still here playing pathfinder. Figure out what to keep and what to peel away.
Could be a fun community project.
I would like to help. Drop me a link in my message box to the tread and I will help in any way I can. I would also like to introduce that style to my players and have tried recently in some ways.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The essence of AD&D that made is so amazingly wonderful was this, simply this...
I was 12
One group's essence may not be another's. I played AD&D 2nd until my curiosity about 3.5 outweighed my reservations with a crew of people ranging from 25-45. I'll put my take on the essence starting with a 2004 quote by the late Mr. Gygax describing 3rd edition:
The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game...
Essence of AD&D? To me, simply that players spent more time looking and interacting with one another than interacting with their character sheet or the rulebook.
I fear we're headed for a system that replaces the creative/social aspect of the game with a rules search that encourages character building to excel in a grid-based combat system and where the story boils down to a series of combat rolls interspersed with skill checks. I advocate for a shave of the rules to a simpler time, where if there's 40 useful feats out of a list of 2000, then let's eliminate 1,960 and see what players can do with what they've got. Is it the rules that make a character special, the story that the characers create, or is it the player and their imagination?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry but I am unfamiliar with the 'Stormwind Fallacy'. I can tell you what a 'no true Scotsman' is or a 'strawman argument' but Stormwind is something I have only run across here.The Stormwind Fallacy is an exposure of a false dichotomy between mechanical effectiveness and role-playing. It's the admission that a mechanically-effective character is not necessarily poorly-role-played, and a well-role-played character is not necessarily mechanical-ineffective. Granted, Stormwind is a buzzword for a phenomenon that never existed to any great extent in the first place, and the only reason that you never hear it outside of this forum is because this forum is the only one that needs a term for something that the rest of the RPG community accepts as a given.
But altho it is POSSIBLE for a optimized/powergamed/mechanical Player to also be great at Roleplaying, it frankly doesn't happen very often. Just like we don't have too many Theoretical Nuclear Physicists who are also Major League baseball players. It's perfectly possible for one to be a scholar and a athlete, but generally the demands of time and being a mere mortal gets in the way of exceeding at both. That's why the observation that Optimizers arent often Roleplayers is correct ... but only as a generalization, not a rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just like we don't have too many Theoretical Nuclear Physicists who are also Major League baseball players.
Yeah, it's not like Ted Williams (3.85 GPA, Amherst College), one of the greatest hitters in MLB history, could also have been a decorated military officer and veteran of two wars, IGFA hall-of-famer sport fisherman, philanthropist, and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient.
Just as it's absurd that a self-made printer invented bifocals and the lightning rod, and brokered a treaty with France that enabled us to win the American Revolution.
But, seriously, arguing it's hard for a person to be good at optimization and roleplaying is a lot closer to saying that it's rare for a supermarket checkout clerk to be good at both scanning AND bagging (note that they're both part of the same job). Of the people I gamed with in Houston, pretty much all were good at both optimization and roleplaying, so again, rarity isn't really anything I'm seeing.
Me either, RP and optimization are skills, not talents; they can be improved by people by working at them. Sometimes it's as easy as showing players a rating of the hundreds upon hundreds of option such as the guides that rate options in color-coding to show their uses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just like we don't have too many Theoretical Nuclear Physicists who are also Major League baseball players.Yeah, it's not like Ted Williams (3.85 GPA, Amherst College), one of the greatest hitters in MLB history, could also have been a decorated military officer and veteran of two wars, IGFA hall-of-famer sport fisherman, philanthropist, and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient.
Just as it's absurd that a self-made printer invented bifocals and the lighning rod, and brokered a treaty with France that enabled us to win the American Revolution.
But, seriously, arguing it's hard for a person to be good at optimization and roleplaying is a lot closer to saying that it's rare for a supermarket checkout clerk to be good at both scanning AND bagging (note that they're both part of the same job).
You do realize that you had to use Ted Williams and Ben Franklin as your examples and that they are two hundred years apart. What, no Leonardo da Vinci or Teddy Roosevelt as examples? I know there are plenty of guys out there like Socrates that's why no one talks about guys like that.
It's not to say they don't exist but you might as well have listed Teddy Roosevelt, author, crimefighter, martial artist, rancher, big game hunter and the only person to hold the Medal of Honor and be President of the United States.
They're vanishingly rare. I know my brother was a genuine polymath.
Roleplaying and numbers memorization and crunching don't even have 'G' factor intelligence in common one uses right brain the other left generally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Number's crunching is definitely left brain, but "optimization" (I've come to prefer Game Mastery as a term to describe this) is also finding creative combinations of abilities to better represent your character. Optimizers don't value magic solely because of the numbers, but because of the options magic brings to the table.
Haste is good because it out-damages fireball, but obscuring mist, grease, and silent image are amazing because of all their potential applications.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do realize that you had to use Ted Williams and Ben Franklin as your examples and that they are two hundred years apart.
Actually, those were my absurd examples. My real examples were the grocery store checkout clerk, and also almost everyone I ever regularly played with.
I'm just saying there was a lot of stuff in the old AD&D that was arbitrary as heck and was nearly impossible for a DM to judge impartially. That's why even back then we were adding additional rules to govern miniatures and movement and stuff. I'd rather play a game system governed by rules. *shrug*
You had a totally different experience than me. We never even used minis until 3.5 (no, not even 3.0). Maps were for telling us the location of rooms in a dungeon; they had nothing to do with combat in our games.
Hey guys, been following the thread.
It's gone in some different directions like whether ad&d was any good, whether anyone playing PF should go for that old-school vibe, whether it's possible to do so, which way is better, yadda-yadda.
That's all fine and interesting but is anyone else already past that?
I mean the thread title doesn't say "Should I recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder?" or "Is it possible to recapture the essence of AD&D in Pathfinder?" or "Did AD&D suck?".
I've given this plenty of thought, you know what I mean? I played AD&D and I liked it. I'm playing PF now and I see that d20/3.x added some things I consider improvements. I know I don't want to switch to a retro-clone, but I want to get back a certain vibe, a certain feel.
Would anyone want to collaborate on a project to do that? Something that brings together a set of house-rules with a more formal declaration of the kinds of "gentlemen's agreements" and play-style approaches that lend themselves to that experience?
We could start by looking at the OSR and retro-clones and figuring out why we are still here playing pathfinder. Figure out what to keep and what to peel away.
Could be a fun community project.
Kudos to you, Grimmy, for stepping in and suggesting a way to turn this from the "AD&D vs. Pathfinder" argument it has largely devolved into and back into a productive enterprise. I'm so new to Pathfinder that I'm not sure I could contribute a whole lot to the discussion but I would be interested in such a project none the less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, look at the Beginner Box for a start if you want fewer rules, but still PF.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP (and to anyone that cares) I have been struggling with this for the longest time. I almost regret switching over to 3.5 (skipped 3rd) from 2nd ed, so this has been an ongoing issue with me an my players over the last couple of years. Now we are at the point where our PF game is on indefinite hiatus - I just don't like the system nor do I (or any of my players) want to run it.
All that being said - I do think it is possible to try an capture some of that feel from the earlier editions of the game (D&D basic, 1st ed or 2nd ed). I will hit this from two angles: The DM side of how he runs things and a more mechanical side of how things can be changed to facilitate that older edition feel. Each of these sections are a little long so I spoilered them down so as to not hurt the eys/break the mind.
DM side of running things:
My issue with the current crop of most all the APs is that they run the same formula without really hitting on the previous themes I’ve mentioned. There is some exploration in Paizo’s APs (usually the 1st 3 installments in any AP) while the rest ramps up to fight the BBEG. It seems to me (and it is probably just me) that the most successful AP outside of RoTRL is Kingmaker – a sort of throwback homage to earlier gaming with its initial sandbox installments.
I think if you want to go a little more old school tone down some of the NPC/BBEG drama and focus on a solid classic theme – exploration, Item quest (and not over 6 modules) or Strike Against the Enemy (Against the Giants, etc). Nothing wrong with BBEG, but your module selection should be able to stand on its own without a BBEG as the sole focus. In most classic styles of adventure the enemy is revealed very late in the story. Paizo seems to follow that trend but late in the story at 36 pages vs. late in the story at 6th AP installment is worlds apart in practice.
If you are going really old-school gaming I believe that the current masters of that genre is Frog God Games. They have a very strong 1st ed feel to them and capture much of the danger and intensity found in 1st ed adventures – Industry Standard when it comes to making modules of this sort. Another company putting out modules that are stylistically closer to 2nd ed is Raging Swan – which puts out some great modules as a whole. The feel, the writing the layout is just put together in a clean, tight and concise fashion – with excellent content and 2nd ed appeal.
XP and advancement: Most people who gamed in older adventures did not level up on a 1 adventure or part of adventure = 1 level. Granted there were some rules for earning xp for gained treasure but these were not usually used and as such character progression was much slower. To recapture that feel I would go with giving at the minimum the slow track Xp, but to make a real dent I would just give ½ on all CR xp and use the slow track for advancement. Since classes were somewhat balanced by xp, you could use some discretion in how you assigned progression tracks. So everyone gets ½ XP and all skill based characters (Rogues) use the fast advancement track, while most martials would use the medium track and all spell casting classes use the slow xp progression track. This is a bit of a cudgel approach, but I am making an offering here based upon the existing framework.
Encounters: I would really consider using CR as a very general guidline. If you need a moderate to powerful Dragon in your dungeon, you put it there and let the players deal with it how they feel. Smart ones will take steps to avoid it till they can take it on, while players who are of the 3rd ed mindset/background may think that “Hey, he wouldn’t throw it in unless we could kill it” are going to quickly die and get frustrated – so communication of standards and expectations is critical.
The Players and DM contract: The DM and players should focus on actually playing the game. Character focus should be directed towards character development – not mechanical, but actual character and personality. The group has to decide how much emphasis will be placed on optimization, upgrading gear or gear focus, etc vs. personal story or group story development. I would not even seek a balance between character mechanics/gear questing/optimization. For a classic feel these things need to take a backseat vs. playing the game. And by playing I mean exploring, fighting, adventuring and role-playing.
I have some more from the DM game management side without messing with the rules too much, just don’t have the time to post them here. Some of these discussions revolve around limiting resources, managing the gaming work day/novas/wandering encounters and several other smaller issues.
The Mechanical Side, aka the Hard Side aka the Side that Auxmaulous has pretty much given up on-
This area is very tough to manage for there are things you can mess with and you will break the game, possible for good. Fair Warning:
No magic item creation/crafting: This is a simple fix. Magic items are still available for purchase and they can still be found. By eliminating this you are taking out some focus on a meta mini-game of crafting items (which can be their own headache).
No magic item creation/crafting or purchase: This is a little tougher. You can manage this if the unwanted treasure gained can somehow be traded (at diminished return) for something they want or need (more on needs later). Now as a DM this is a big undertaking – if you are writing modules you need to make sure that unwanted A can turn into needed C – even if it’s at a loss to the PCs it's still a gain.
If your players is equipped with a long sword handing out a +1 Bill Guisarme does not help the situation if they cannot trade that weapon for a magical long sword (NSA). So the onus is on the DM to make sure that at one point if everyone is using 5.56mm, that those .308,.44 and 9mm pistol rounds can be bartered into 5.56mm. It does put more work on the DM.
None of the above fixes break the game; they just shift the responsibility of where those resources are going to come from. Either the player will make them, buy them or they will find them. The latter is ALL on the DM.
- No Spammable spells: 0 level spells have limits, As DM you could make this a utility function whereas a caster can cast any 0 level spell on his list without prep or memorization, just 7/day.
- Casting is a full round action.
- Increase the DCs for being hit while casting, this is a subjective number. It could range from slightly harder to almost impossible (my way) of recovering after a hit
- Re-examine certain spells that give the game too much predictability or player control. Teleport is a great one to look at – don’t remove it, just think of the drawbacks and risks associated with it. For me the drawbacks/potential damage is weak – increase it so that it is only used as a dire method of transportation vs. the A train between Dungeonville and Castle Prospero.
- Spells that break other classes’ abilities should be hit hard in a reduction of use, eliminated entirely and/or Incentivized for proper use. What I did was change how spells interacted with different characters. Spider Climb gives +5 Climb bonus if cast on yourself or target, if you or the target also have Climb as a Class skill add another +5. This is what I call incentivizing spells and their use. A caster would get more mileage out of casting the spell on his parties Rogue than he would if he cast it on himself. There are several other minor tweaks that can be made to re-balance class and spell function to make the game function like an older edition of the game. Too many to list here really.
This is a dark place that most people don’t want to wade into. This is where we get heroes vs. superheroes (where the latter is hard coded in the game) and a series of hyper-optimization for end results – again –hard coded into the system and very hard to remove.
These features are too long to detail here – but what we would be looking at is basically a re-write and restructuring of the entire game.
At this point you have to decide if moving forward is even worth it. For me it isn’t – I have other games I am working on right now but I will get around to finishing up a proper AD&D3. This is the wall that I have started to surmount – but stopped mid way and asked “why”. I only included it here as part of the tombstone which was my quest to make Pathfinder more like AD&D. Imo, it can’t be done. You can make some small changes and you can run things differently, but fundamentally the focus on character optimization detracts from playing the actual game. You would have to strip much of the system down to get back to focusing on adventuring.
I think many of the "no or low magic games" or E6 or EX game threads are there for a reason and it isn't because of DM incompetence or being able to deal with world-changing magic. It's more with wanting to.
People are not getting the gaming experience they want or had out of this existing ruleset. The desire for a "classic game" is my cause and always has been my cause (and always will be), but it stems from the same frustration. General dissatisfaction with the rules.
Sorry for the negativity.
Maybe somewhere in there a few ideas may work for a DM seeking to get that classic feel. I tried it and I only got that feel when I was playing in a 2nd ed module a few years back. So it wasn’t nostalgia or being 12 – the mechanics and design expectations DO FACTOR INTO HOW THE GAME FEELS. This may go against the mantra of "it’s just how you run it" - the reality is that mechanics bleed into feel which then turns into experience.
Good luck to the Op and anyone pursuing this.
If anyone going down this road has any questions drop me a PM, I will work with anyone (however far they are along the path of impossible) if they are seeking that AD&D feel
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great post Auxmaulous and a big time thank you for the suggestions as our group is almost at the give up point.
We are going to try a few things to make it a better experience so we will see how it works. For instance we plan on mitigating some of the insane damage spikes that seem to be killing player characters far too often.
I'll play PF but will not be running any more games. I am just not enamored with the design of the adventure modules, the constant page flipping to track down stuff that should be printed in the module.
I'll fully admit some of what I miss in AD&D might be nostalgia and I'll find out if that's true next time I play it.
-MD
PS: I might even try and game without figs. It's been so long I don't know if our table could handle it. Some of the players at my table have never experienced a game without figurines so it might be interesting...or might be a total failure. lol
|
|
Great post Auxmaulous and a big time thank you for the suggestions as our group is almost at the give up point.
We are going to try a few things to make it a better experience so we will see how it works. For instance we plan on mitigating some of the insane damage spikes that seem to be killing player characters far too often.
Thanks Muad'Dib, apologies for the negativity in some spots. And I am not making any kind of accusation or attack upon PF by posting what I did, it's just about personal preference and experiences.
-------------------------
I think if everyone at the group is willing to adjust to some changes for a desired experience and you work out the details of the Player/DM contract in advance then you can get a good AD&D vibe going. And I know it's not all the rules/mechanics but they are a big part it (as stated in my previous post).
So make some stylistic (DM) and adventure choice changes (DM again) and see how it goes. On the player side it's a little tougher - players only really have their character to work on and if they have the option to make their characters more powerful/have a greater chance of survival the will take it. Reward non-optimization - not sub-optimization but reward non-standard feat choices. Ex: Dwarf takes Metallurgy as a feat. Give him some extra checks when he encounters items, sees the gear of a tribe of orcs, etc.
The only problem of messing with mechanical options on the PC side - such as eliminating or reducing obvious optimal feat choices for - is that you need to re-do most monsters (if running pre-written stat blocks).
The latter is actually easy - just ding some to-hit numbers, AC, damage and hp by straight numbers or percentage and don't feel bad because you left the official write-up. You don't need to know why there's a -2 to the creatures AC when you down-powered it, you just need to be consistent and not fudge after you make the changes. Re-working stats does not alleviate the responsibility to run the encounter accurately after you down-powered it. Fiat has been tossed around this discussion a few times and it has it's place, just not after you finalized some stats so I am not advocating this on the creature stat side of the issue.
Wanting to stay...I'm looking for the word...Pure(?) in regards to the rules, module as written, etc - is a heavy stigma for many DMs to get over. You have some posters here who run their game with their own house rules, interpretation or modifications and I'm sure initially there were pangs of doubt or questioning the validity of their choices. I mean, how the hell do you explain your homebrew (for a niche hobby to begin with) to another person who uses the same base rules without coming across as unsure or just crazy?
So that doubt exists. The DM needs to figure out what he wants, work it out with his players and just run it and see how it feels. Ideally the more mastery and experience you have with the game going into it the less experimentation or mistakes you will encounter when trying to run something non-RAW/changed. And that's ok, just do your homework so you minimize the "lab rat" experience for your players.
PS: I might even try and game without figs. It's been so long I don't know if our table could handle it. Some of the players at my table have never experienced a game without figurines so it might be interesting...or might be a total failure. lol
This is a deviation from the getting back the AD&D feel in Pathfinder
- Winging it (make a semi-random encounter or area and just get it going on the fly)
- Describe it (encounter, combat without minis, etc)
- Flip it (run an encounter or create a situation that you normally wouldn't do. Little comedy in a dark, heavy rpg or focus on heavy RP for a session with a group that is focused mostly on combat, rules or logistics of the game. Experiment in small parts.)
Every once in awhile I just try something different as a secret challenge to myself (my players don't know) to see if I can do it.
|
|
3) Deemphasis of the character building minigame. Reduction in the options and complexity of character design, so that optimization is reduced and character creation becomes much simpler. Character differentiation (beyond the basics) should be done by characterization and roleplaying, not by mechanics.
Not all of these head in the same direction and though there's overlap, some aspects may also not be too compatible.
The third one is the one that most interests me. It's also the one that seems to require the most system redesign.
Yes, and it's the one that can break the game the easiest also. Value exceptions by level, save paradigms all affected by character build.
Tread carefully.
Your other points were also excellent, #3 just scares the hell out of me.
|
|
I'm just saying there was a lot of stuff in the old AD&D that was arbitrary as heck and was nearly impossible for a DM to judge impartially. That's why even back then we were adding additional rules to govern miniatures and movement and stuff. I'd rather play a game system governed by rules. *shrug*You had a totally different experience than me. We never even used minis until 3.5 (no, not even 3.0). Maps were for telling us the location of rooms in a dungeon; they had nothing to do with combat in our games.
Thanks, I'll take that as a compliment. I'd like to think we were ahead of the curve on that one, and it certainly added a new dimension to our game.
It all started rather organically. Several of us were collecting and painting the Ral Partha miniatures, and we were starting to use them at our table (cuz what else were you going to do with them?). We'd use them to establish a marching order or to illustrate what our combat formation would be while breaking down a door (all dungeon doors in 1E had to be broken down lol). Then, someone in our group introduced us to a copy of The Fantasy Trip (which later became GURPS), and we were off to the races! It was a very simplistic roleplaying game that included a very, very simple miniatures/hex-map based movement system. We came up with our own house rules to adapt it to our games, playtesting different ideas and then debriefing it all at the end of the night. Good times! The system we eventually settled on and the play experience wasn't all that different from the 3.5/Pathfinder miniatures rules used today.
And it was still AD&D, with all the newness and improvisation that entails. But now we had movement rules! No longer did Brian the Black have to beat his axe against his shield and hope that the Dungeon Master took note. Now he could run over to the bridge and cut em' off at the pass, and it actually mattered in the game without any DM arbitration whatsoever. Personally, I thought it was exciting and a huge improvement. It was then, and it still is now.
P.S. From what I've read, it sounds like the folks at Games Workshop went through a similar process when adapting Ral Partha miniatures to their game system, except that they based it off of a Napoleonics wargame model. Oh, and that they published theirs and made a lot of money, and we didn't. Guess that'd be another difference.
|
|
- Casting is a full round action.
I see where you're going with this, but very few spells in AD&D were full round casting actions. Certainly no more than are in Pathfinder today.
Casting times in first edition were expressed in segments (1/10th of a round), and the casting time for most spells was generally 1 segment per level of spell. So the casting time of a Fireball was 3 segments, and if the spellcaster was disrupted or injured during this casting time, they would lose the spell.
How it worked out, and how we treated segments, was that each segment was a tick of the initiative countdown (we rolled a D10 back then). The wizard might begin casting on initiative 3, but his spell wouldn't go off until later in the round. The upshot of this was that spellcasters became vulnerable during the casting of a spell, especially higher level spells, and needed to be protected by the more martial party members. Lower level spells like Magic Missile they could always get off OK.
It was a complicated system, but it did build some party unity and team dynamics. Converting all spells to a full round casting time accomplishes the same purpose, but might be a bit extreme.
|
|
No magic item creation/crafting or purchase: This is a little tougher. You can manage this if the unwanted treasure gained can somehow be traded (at diminished return) for something they want or need (more on needs later). Now as a DM this is a big undertaking – if you are writing modules you need to make sure that unwanted A can turn into needed C – even if it’s at a loss to the PCs it's still a gain.
This is the big one. If you want to capture more of an AD&D feel, this is it.
Personally, I don't mind crafting. It requires an investment, not only in terms of money, but also in terms of spells available + time + feats. A good GM could turn this into a nice little side adventure, requiring characters to quest for key ingredients (you really need that unicorn horn) and make it an interesting use of their campaign downtime.
But Ye Olde Magic Shoppe? It's gotta go. It's just too easy/cheesy to snap your fingers and get whatever you want. This one, I do actually blame on video game culture. It makes magic items in the game both essential and not very special at all. They just become like your rope and your backpack, just another mundane tool of the trade.
No magic item creation/crafting or purchase: This is a little tougher. You can manage this if the unwanted treasure gained can somehow be traded (at diminished return) for something they want or need (more on needs later). Now as a DM this is a big undertaking – if you are writing modules you need to make sure that unwanted A can turn into needed C – even if it’s at a loss to the PCs it's still a gain.This is the big one. If you want to capture more of an AD&D feel, this is it.
Personally, I don't mind crafting. It requires an investment, not only in terms of money, but also in terms of spells available + time + feats. A good GM could turn this into a nice little side adventure, requiring characters to quest for key ingredients (you really need that unicorn horn) and make it an interesting use of their campaign downtime.
But Ye Olde Magic Shoppe? It's gotta go. It's just too easy/cheesy to snap your fingers and get whatever you want. This one, I do actually blame on video game culture. It makes magic items in the game both essential and not very special at all. They just become like your rope and your backpack, just another mundane tool of the trade.
I also have no objection to crafting per se as it was available in 1st Edition. I would simply increase the caster level requirements for most of the item creation feats. IMO a 1st level PC should never be able to create scrolls, yet Pathfinder gives Scribe Scroll to Wizards for free at 1st level.
Increase Scribe Scroll and Brew Potion to a caster level requirement of 7th level (in one class), the chargeable item creation feats (Wands, etc.) to 9th level and permanent item feats to 11th level. Also, add in a Permanency spell (6th level spell) that is required to create permanent items that has some significant cost with each casting(Con loss, exp loss). That would pretty closely approximate AD&D.
- Casting is a full round action.I see where you're going with this, but very few spells in AD&D were full round casting actions. Certainly no more than are in Pathfinder today.
Casting times in first edition were expressed in segments (1/10th of a round), and the casting time for most spells was generally 1 segment per level of spell. So the casting time of a Fireball was 3 segments, and if the spellcaster was disrupted or injured during this casting time, they would lose the spell.
How it worked out, and how we treated segments, was that each segment was a tick of the initiative countdown (we rolled a D10 back then). The wizard might begin casting on initiative 3, but his spell wouldn't go off until later in the round. The upshot of this was that spellcasters became vulnerable during the casting of a spell, especially higher level spells, and needed to be protected by the more martial party members. Lower level spells like Magic Missile they could always get off OK.
It was a complicated system, but it did build some party unity and team dynamics. Converting all spells to a full round casting time accomplishes the same purpose, but might be a bit extreme.
Like Auxmaulous, I thought about making spell casting a minimum of a full round action, and like you, I felt that was a little draconian. I would suggest adding in a casting time element like AD&D had by having a caster roll a die whenever they cast a spell (either a d10 or d20, perhaps adding a modifier based on spell level) and subtracting the result of that die from the caster's initiative score. The result would be when their spell "fired". Any damage they received in between beginning the spell (on their initiative score) and when the spell fires (on the modified score) would require a concentration roll or, if you wanted hard-core AD&D, auto loss of the spell.
Example:
Melf begins casting Fireball on his initiative of 17, he rolls the "spell casting" die (d20 in this example) and gets an 11, thus his spell will "fire" on initiative count 6. Any damage he sustains between initiative count 17 and 6, inclusive, requires a Concentration check to avoid losing the spell.
EDIT: I just realized that my rule is even MORE draconian than Aux's. I read Auxmaulous's concept as a spell that takes 1 round to cast not a full round action. Also, I should note that I would eliminate Attacks of Opportunity from the game entirely. I suspect they were included, in large part along with readied actions, to offer a way to disrupt spellcasters. Personally, I find AoO rules overly complicated and burdensome and they would be the first thing on my "chopping block" if I were re-writing PF.
Personally I love crafting. I love that wizards get scroll creation at 1st level. I love it because, since the wizards in my homebrew start out with PFS level starting cash AND a set of clothes on their back, plus they're gifted a spellbook to start, they could if they wanted to start with 150 GP worth of homemade 1st level spell scrolls (at half cost).
What this does for me as a GM is it allows me to no longer accept excuses for the 15 minute workday. If the complaint is not enough healing, I tell the party to make the wizard and cleric know one another, make a bunch of scrolls, and bam; healing. If the complaint is spells; scrolls. If the complaint is daily powers, I tell them resource management.
Also I try to work in thematics when a PC crafts more permanent magic items. It hasn't happened often in my games but I've had wizards collecting monster bits, weird fungi and such on regular adventures for magic item creation later.
It doesn't seem to break my game. Also when I was back in 2e a buddy of mine had his character make my character a magic sword. It ended up being the crux of the game; an heirloom that bound the 2 in friendship so later when the demon prince tried turning my buddy against me I held up the sword, made an impassioned speech and got him a new save. I LIKE crafting and I feel it adds a lot to my game.
One of the reasons I got out of 1e was to get away from ALL the work being on the GM. Players should, to some degree, own their own fun. They should also be motivated to work toward the fun of all. I think a lot of the changes from 3x on helped promote those two tenets, crafting and character design being 2 of them.
But the thing is, that's only what I think. This isn't something I can prove or disprove; its my opinion solely based on my own experience. This will be different for everyone. But really, isn't that what Gygax and Arneson strove for? A game that's constantly different for every group and never the same twice?
Personally I love crafting. I love that wizards get scroll creation at 1st level. I love it because, since the wizards in my homebrew start out with PFS level starting cash AND a set of clothes on their back, plus they're gifted a spellbook to start, they could if they wanted to start with 150 GP worth of homemade 1st level spell scrolls (at half cost).
What this does for me as a GM is it allows me to no longer accept excuses for the 15 minute workday. If the complaint is not enough healing, I tell the party to make the wizard and cleric know one another, make a bunch of scrolls, and bam; healing. If the complaint is spells; scrolls. If the complaint is daily powers, I tell them resource management.
One major change I would like to see in any new version of D&D/PF would be a modification of the spell progression charts for caster classes. I would like to make the table much flatter with more spells at low levels and far fewer spells, and a lower ceiling on max spell level, at higher levels. This actually would be a change from AD&D as well, but I think would make the game better balanced at higher levels and more enjoyable for caster classes at lower levels.
Example:
I would give a 1st level Wizard a base of 4 1st level spells rather than just 1. A specialist Wiz with an INT of 12+ would get 6 1st level spells per day making them far more useful.
However, a 10th level Wizard would have a spell per day chart looking something like this...6 1st level, 4 2nd level, 2 3rd level and 1 4th level. I would likely eliminate all spells above 6th level and judiciously remove some of the more game altering ones at levels 5 and 6.
Y'know there's a lot of folks that say "remove game-altering spells" and if that works in their games awesome. It doesn't work for me though. Take movement for example: if you're 10th level, a wizard, and command power that makes whole armies tremble, why the heck would you walk, ride a horse or even fly on a carpet at mundane speed? Plus, what fun is it for the player? I'm 10th level; I'll have to cut across the valley of evil (1st - 3rd level adventure area), head up the Shiverspine river in the hills here (4th - 6th level adventure area) and then tiptoe through the pass where Myldefar the Dragon Fiend dwells (12th - 15th level adventure area) to get to the McGuffin. It should only take... 2 weeks.
Now the alternative is "where does the party want to explore today? Here? Ok...we're here" then they roll for miss chances, or fly with overland flight or have someone teleport them for cash without error or whatev. Bottom line, they don't have to bother with things that don't interest them. Plus, there's always ways to temporarily shut those things down with the magic of GM fiat (I know; a cop out but ok ONCE in a while...) without completely eliminating them from the game.
I don't know. To each their own. Everyone plays their own way. Just bear in mind: there were game-altering spells in the older editions too.