Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[Bendris Noulg]

But really, I'm just repeating what James very concisely presented. And hiliariously too!

Hiliarious, yes. But possibly short-sighted.

Consider for a moment that you wrote something, submitted it, and the deal's done. In your post and James', that's the end of it.

However, now the editors/developers take it and change it. They've got the right, no one's argueing that. However, in being released, there is a sizable amount of outcry about how much it sucks. And, as discussion over it reveals, what people are most upset about are the parts you didn't write. However, it's your name, not the editors/developers, that is attached to the material, and therefore it is you, not them, that is being rediculed, berated, or otherwise ripped on for it. This has a further trickle down effect: People associate your name to something they didn't like and are thus less likely to notice (and purchase!) further material associated to you.

This is why I'm glad David Noonan and Paizo have both publicly indicated the occurance of post-submission alterations; I now know that the editor is responsible for more than a few misplaced commas and improper grammer and will therefore pay as much attention to which editors are involved in a project as I am with who's credited for writing it.

(Indeed, now looking at the editor credits for some of the less-loved products written by authors I normally like, I am starting to see a few names crop up repeatedly... I'd definately say that my future purchases are going to shift to some degree because of it. If I see the same names in association to authors I have dismissed earlier, I might actually end up giving these authors another chance if I can find a product by them with a different editor. After all, there's only one author I've written off entirely for reasons other than his writing, so why not give the others a reasonable third chance now that I have a better understanding of post-submission proceedures...)

 

[Spatula]

It used the rules engine, but isn't it 2e-unfriendly?

What a silly thing to say. It's 2E unfriendly because.... it removed some classes, added others, added some races, and changed some mechanics? I suppose the other 2E campaign worlds that didn't take place in a pseudo-medieval european setting were "2e-unfriendly" as well.

 

[FraserRonald]

Hiliarious, yes. But possibly short-sighted.

Consider for a moment that you wrote something, submitted it, and the deal's done. In your post and James', that's the end of it.

However, now the editors/developers take it and change it. They've got the right, no one's argueing that. However, in being released, there is a sizable amount of outcry about how much it sucks. And, as discussion over it reveals, what people are most upset about are the parts you didn't write. However, it's your name, not the editors/developers, that is attached to the material, and therefore it is you, not them, that is being rediculed, berated, or otherwise ripped on for it. This has a further trickle down effect: People associate your name to something they didn't like and are thus less likely to notice (and purchase!) further material associated to you.

It's not short-sighted, it's practical. There is nothing I can do about it. I sold it.

David Brin, when asked about the movie the Postman--which really gave the royal shaft to a good novel--answered that he had sold it and so it would be hypocritical of him to criticize the changes. That's the attitude I take. If I'm worried, I won't sell it. If I do sell it and what you described happens, well I can defend myself if I feel I must, but I can't cry 'foul' because I knew what I was doing when I signed the contract.

Basically, if this is a worry for one, one should not accept a work-for-hire contract. One can attempt to negotiate to maintain one's rights to the work, selling only publishing rights, but--at least at my level of name recognition--good luck with that.

So, in the end, I understand my rights, I understand what I am selling and what can happen to it, and I am at peace with that. While writers (and artists) might be a dime a dozen, good writers (and artists) are absolutely not. If the publisher wishes to cut off his/her nose to spite his/her face, that's fine. I simply won't work for them again in the future.

And, yes, it may be sheer ego, but I count myself as a good writer

 

[Bendris Noulg]

David Brin, when asked about the movie the Postman--which really gave the royal shaft to a good novel--answered that he had sold it and so it would be hypocritical of him to criticize the changes. That's the attitude I take. If I'm worried, I won't sell it. If I do sell it and what you described happens, well I can defend myself if I feel I must, but I can't cry 'foul' because I knew what I was doing when I signed the contract.

Ah! But in a movie, you'll see the lines (or lines similar to)...

Based on the novel by David Brin

Screenplay written by [some useless hack with a typewriter]

What I'm expressing is a situation where David Brin would have gotten sole-credit for writting both the book and the screenplay, which is a different pot of potatoes entirely.

 

[FraserRonald]

Ah! But in a movie, you'll see the lines (or lines similar to)...

Based on the novel by David Brin

Screenplay written by [some useless hack with a typewriter]

What I'm expressing is a situation where David Brin would have gotten sole-credit for writting both the book and the screenplay, which is a different pot of potatoes entirely.

Well, if it was in his contract, I'd assume he'd have the same reaction--though I certainly am not speaking for nor channeling Mr. Brin! For me, the basic concept is: if I sign the contract, I take full responsibility for any bad stuff that happens because I sold my rights. Sure it'd be nice for the publisher to call me and obtain my permission to make alterations. In that case, put it in the contract. And if the publisher says they aren't willing to accept that alteration?

All I'm saying is that if one signs a contract that gives the publisher complete rights to one's work, one cannot then complain if said publisher exercises those rights. In this case, it seems the writer in question is of the same or similar opinion. "While I don’t agree with some of the decisions the Dragon editors made, it’s absolutely their right to make those decisions."

 

[Ranger REG]

EDIT: There's probably some of WotC's fear of splitting the game audience in there somewhere as well. Exclude paladins from a setting and you can't sell those players a paladin book.

Well, I can understand that fear, which is healthy. After all, the defunct TSR have managed to split their game audience (e.g., I like FR, but was never interested in Planescape nor find any interest in Dark Sun).

Which is probably why it should stand as a d20 game. That way, customer can expect that not all of the D&D ruleset will be used in such a setting too bleak to have paladins.

 

[Ranger REG]

Correct. I do not hate the people at Paizo. I disagree with their culture and their business model.

Well, just as long as you understand what is work-for-hire, because that is what David Noonan accepted to do and got paid for submitting his work. He wasn't forced.

If you want to write for some other publisher, perhaps it is best that YOU avoid accepting work-for-hire agreements.

Otherwise, if you have the capital (to lose them; we all know how profitable RPG publishing can be), get startup e-book publishing company going.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Actually much of the 'issues' expressed concern the fact that the fans themselves had already done this (see athas.org) and saw their work (taking over 3 years to accomplish and also "Official") to suddenly be superceded by a space consideration/deadline influenced set of articles that due to the way the magazines' profit margin is maintainted can not be supported by continual updates/errata/ etc.

I don't necessarily think that the Dragon/Dungon issues automatically supercede the excellent work done at Athas.org. Again, at your gaming table you can use whichever set of rules you want, or do like I do for a number of things and mix and match stuff until you have something you're happy with.

There have been a large number of requests to bring Darksun back to print, which I'm sure is why Paizo decided to do this in the first place (not speaking for them, of course). If everyone who still likes Darksun knew about Athas.org, then I suspect the magazine articles would have been pointless in the first place. I've spoken to a number of gamers either at conventions or at gaming stores who for whatever reason just don't go online to get their gaming fix. Despite the number of hits ENWorld gets, the majority of gamers I've spoken to have never heard of this site. If the majority have never heard of ENWorld, then how many do you think have made it as far as Athas.org?

I'm sure Paizo could provide us with dozens of reasons why the material at Athas.org couldn't be used for the article, but I see no reason why people can't take the best from both sources to have the game they want and then discard the parts they don't like. For those who have no other source, the magazine articles should serve their purposes. For those who visit Athas.org frequently, I doubt anyone including David Noonan (again. not speaking on his behalf), would fault you for perfering that material.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

All I'm saying is that if one signs a contract that gives the publisher complete rights to one's work, one cannot then complain if said publisher exercises those rights. In this case, it seems the writer in question is of the same or similar opinion. "While I don’t agree with some of the decisions the Dragon editors made, it’s absolutely their right to make those decisions."

You seem to keep missing the point: It's not a question of the author selling the rights to the material, which is understood by everyone here it would seem, but of the author being indicated as having written those changes. In the case of the movie you indicate, the script for the movie was, it would seem, dramatically altered from the original manuscript. In this case, is the author (David Brin) credited with the screenplay from which the movie was filmed? Chances are that this is not the case and that the credits of the film actually specify someone else as having written it. (Actually, this is correct: >link<.)

Now, compare that to this thread... It doesn't start off with people asking "What does David Noonan feel about the changes Paizo made to his material", but rather, "What was David Noonan thinking when he did this?" The reason for this is because, from the reader's viewpoint, there was no seperation between the author (and his final submission) and the editor (who altered the final submission to its published form) while only the author's name (David Noonan) was actually attached to the article.

So, going back to your novel->movie example, if David Brin had been asked, "Why did you make these changes for the movie?", the most likely answer would have been, "I didn't, that was Eric Roth." Which is exactly what we have here; David Noonan was asked, "Why did you do it this way?", and the answer came back, "I didn't, that was Paizo." (Paraphrased, of course.)

 

[FraserRonald]

You seem to keep missing the point: It's not a question of the author selling the rights to the material, which is understood by everyone here it would seem, but of the author being indicated as having written those changes.

Actually, no, I'm not missing the point. When I sign the contract, I know my name is attached to the product and I know changes can be made to the product under my name. If I want to address that, I need to change the contract. If I don't change the contract, that's my problem.

Again, once you sign the contract, you have to accept the consequences of signing the contract. If you don't understand the contract, get someone who does to vet it OR don't sign the contract.