Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[Wasgo]

These clowns obviously would never have played the original version of Dark Sun anyway, so what do you care? I don't buy this argument at all.

First, the people you described would, by their own description, never have played Dark Sun in any form that did not adhere to the Core Rulebooks. So you're dead in the water right there.

Second, the people you described would not be any fun to play with, so why are you sorry you couldn't play with them?

Third, anyone who tries to use some external source to try and "beat" the DM on setting rules obviously doesn't want to play the game -- they want to engage in power struggles with their DM. They're not being encouraged by any sort of publication; they're just jerks.

Why would you want to convince jerks that aren't going to be fun to play with to play with you, anyway?

There is a simple issue that some player's don't trust the DM. They demand all the roles are made in front of them, and adhere to official rules of some sort that allow them to double-check the DM's decision on everything. It's not the most fun way of playing, but it is still D&D. With a hobby this small, you don't always get to pick who you're playing with.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

These clowns obviously would never have played the original version of Dark Sun anyway, so what do you care? I don't buy this argument at all.

First, the people you described would, by their own description, never have played Dark Sun in any form that did not adhere to the Core Rulebooks. So you're dead in the water right there.

Second, the people you described would not be any fun to play with, so why are you sorry you couldn't play with them?

Third, anyone who tries to use some external source to try and "beat" the DM on setting rules obviously doesn't want to play the game -- they want to engage in power struggles with their DM. They're not being encouraged by any sort of publication; they're just jerks.

Why would you want to convince jerks that aren't going to be fun to play with to play with you, anyway?

You seem to be approaching this from the wrong assumption.

First, I don't care if you "buy" my post. Second, I'm far from "dead in the water" simply because you don't agree with me.

While the rest of your post is true, the fact is that, in order to determine whether I'm dealing with a gamer that's looking for a good round of Dark Sun or just some over-pampered rules-natzi jerk, I have to actually meet, great, and discuss the game with said individual. That fact makes my post correct. The fact that I would write them off as over-pampered rules-natzi jerks is also irrelevant; it's the time wasted learning that they are and the additional time wasted as they try to bible-thump an (appearantly) over-edited article (designed to appeal to people that have no idea what Dark Sun is) at me that's the issue. Another issue is that said over-pampered rules-natzi jerk could very well end up on a message board like this one ranting about 2E hold-overs being enforced by a cruddy GM that ignores "official" articles that he never gave a real chance to and getting bravos, support, and ego-stroking from other posters that don't know the whole story.

So, yes, I agree, I don't want to play with a jerk. But I've found that weeding out good players from a lawn full of jerks is getting harder and harder to do, and I'd rather see the jerks with less ammuition than more.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

There is a simple issue that some player's don't trust the DM. They demand all the roles are made in front of them, and adhere to official rules of some sort that allow them to double-check the DM's decision on everything. It's not the most fun way of playing, but it is still D&D. With a hobby this small, you don't always get to pick who you're playing with.

Great points! Too bad I didn't think of these in my own reply...

Consequently, though, I do pick who I game with, even though sometimes the choice has been to not game at all.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Paizo was absolutely within its rights to make any changes they deemed necessary. This is called "development" in the game industry and it happens all the time. I'll tell you right now that if Green Ronin didn't do development work on its manuscripts, we would not have the reputation for quality that we now enjoy. Developers are the unsung heroes of the game industry.

You, sir, have a Black Company book you are supposed to be writing...

Now quit screwing around with your friends and get back to work!

 

[Umbran]

So, yes, I agree, I don't want to play with a jerk. But I've found that weeding out good players from a lawn full of jerks is getting harder and harder to do, and I'd rather see the jerks with less ammuition than more.

Seems to me, the more ammunition the jerks have, the more likely you are to detect them earlier, as they're more likely to take more potshots. How much ammunition they have after they fail to play in your game is irrelevant, isnt it?

 

[Dragonblade]

Like anything else in game design, development can be second guessed, but Matt was just doing his job here. The idea that his course of action was wrong, or worse immoral, is ludicrous.

You may disagree with his specific choices, but they were his choices to make.

Its one thing to edit for grammar, style, or syntax. You can even "develop" a submitted manuscript to your heart's content and if the contract signed by the author stipulates your right to do so, then more power to you.

But if you significantly alter a writer's original work, then the author should have the right have a disclaimer stating such next to his byline. Or the right to refuse his name on the byline altogether. Particularly if "development" credited to an author who did not write it caused him future hardship or damage to his career.

To do otherwise is immoral.

 

[Umbran]

To do otherwise is immoral.

Hey, the author signed the contract, right? Who are we to say what is or is not immoral when it's between two consenting adults?

 

[barsoomcore]

Seems to me, the more ammunition the jerks have, the more likely you are to detect them earlier, as they're more likely to take more potshots. How much ammunition they have after they fail to play in your game is irrelevant, isnt it?

What the Golchinthorgleswack King said. That covers it, as far as I can see. Playing with jerks is playing with jerks, and the sooner you can weed them out, the better.

 

[Pramas]

Its one thing to edit for grammar, style, or syntax. You can even "develop" a submitted manuscript to your heart's content and if the contract signed by the author stipulates your right to do so, then more power to you.

And this why over 90% of the contracts in the game industry are work for hire. As I said, Paizo had every right in the world to develop that manuscript as they saw fit. Dave Noonan knows (and said) this in his initial post. It's a by-product of working with someone else's intellectual property (and this was done for two, D&D and Dark Sun). Designers who are into the idea of creator ownership tend to start their own companies and publish their own work.

 

[Dragonblade]

I completely understand the reasons for work for hire.

Usually I have had nothing but good experiences with the fine products that Green Ronin puts out. Likewise, I think Matt and Paizo do a really good job with Dragon.

But this situation is a perfect example of why I think that developers should be credited along with the original author or at least have some sort of disclaimer mentioning that an author's work may have been signicantly altered.

Judging by the harsh reaction the Dark Sun article garnered towards not only Paizo, but to Dave Noonan, I think its only fair to him and other authors if game companies take responsibility for the development changes they make.