|
The WotC 'D&D Campaigns' campaigns Mark of Heroes and Xen'Drik Expeditions and now LFR had/have scope for GMs to create adventures which they can then run as part of the campaign, with players getting credit/rewards for playing them as if they were 'official' campaign adventures.
Given that one of the concerns about replay is a lack of low-level adventures making it difficult for players to create third and fourth characters (and to find adventures which they can play with new players) I wonder if this is something the campaign would like to consider.
As a rough proposal, I'd suggest something like this: GMs can create adventures which can award 1XP, up to 1PA, and a specified level of gp. It may be that the adventure should only run at tier 1-2, and a particular character could only play through a specific adventure run by a GM once - but that character could play a different adventure run by the same GM, at least until it reached 3rd level. Guidelines would be issued reiterating the adventure creation rules that form part of the Pathfinder RPG - and players would probably have to trust the GM to provide an appropriate challenge. The scheme would be enhanced by the publication of some adventure outlines or plot points which GMs could be encouraged (or required) to include in their adventures, but this isn't necessary. GMs could be told of 'off-limits' plot points to avoid conflict with ongoing plot-lines, or an area of the world 'set aside' for these adventures.
These may not be as 'good' as official, published, PFS adventures, but could allow willing GMs to facilitate play in their local groups. If more control was wanted, this could be limited to GMs with a particular star rating (showing that they've GMd plenty of PFS and presumably have an idea of how the campaign works and what is appropriate) and/or the permission of a Venture Captain could be required before a GM could create and run these adventures.
I don't have a personal interest in this - I'm not a PFS organiser and play about once a month if that - but after skimming over hundreds of posts about replay, this seemed to be a possible partial solution.
|
I've never liked this idea but I have never been able to vocalize the why.
In the end, I want quality mods and an equal experience for everyone. This could fall into the same kind of abuse pattern as some of the replay issues.
I wouldn't play in them, but I wouldn't deny others the chance.
BTW, it's not from lack of wanting to write these. I have 3 mods in another OP campaign and am in the process of brainstorming on the 4th.
|
<Heavy VC Disclaimer, I am but a pawn>
I am of a few minds on this.
1- I like this idea for the reasons you mention: more play options (always a good thing).
2- Quality and balance are my two greatest issues, but most local coordinators know who are their good/average/bad gms are.
3- Let's be honest here... Paizo want and need to sell PFS adventures, with such a solution in place, they might sell a lot fewer units of adventure.
So there it is... I'd say I'd go for a wash
JP
who has a 3 adventure story arc set in the Moonshae Isles available
|
These may not be as 'good' as official, published, PFS adventures, but could allow willing GMs to facilitate play in their local groups. If more control was wanted, this could be limited to GMs with a particular star rating (showing that they've GMd plenty of PFS and presumably have an idea of how the campaign works and what is appropriate) and/or the permission of a Venture Captain could be required before a GM could create and run these adventures.
The issue here is cannon... all the official things are edited to fit existing cannon... Paizo wants to be abel to have that control over the canon version of the world. PFS uses the Paizo version of Golorion, so pretty much anything found in it needs to be considered cannon.
|
With regards to quality, a consistent gaming experience, and canon - to ensure these, Paizo would want an approval process. If these scenarios were worthy of one local group or region to play, why not make them available to all groups, particularly given concerns around there not being enough low-level scenarios?
I understand what you're trying to achieve here, a local process which skips Paizo's approval and development rounds. Though I think if you have a proposal that is truly PFS worthy, you should submit it through the current submission procedure so all can benefit from your efforts.
Cheers,
DarkWhite
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I understand what you're trying to achieve here, a local process which skips Paizo's approval and development rounds. Though I think if you have a proposal that is truly PFS worthy, you should submit it through the current submission procedure so all can benefit from your efforts.
This. There is a system in place to allow everyone to write official PFS scenarios, If a GM is making something up outside that system, that's the root of the hobby, but the game isn't official and earns the players no credit.