Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[Psion]

However, the main issue remains. Paizo makes little effort to fix production issues that have been discussed many times on EnWorld, while spending a lot of effort redesigning material.

It seems that they care little for their customer base.

I don't really think that's true. I think the magazines have seen a marked improvement over their state this time last year, in response to customer aggravation over their format. And the person who caused the most customer uproar in Paizo is no longer there.

In all likelihood, we are probably talking about one or two people here who are responsible for what many (perhaps rightly) perceive as overzealous editing. Many contributors they get probably need a heavy hand. But they might have failed to recognize Noonan is (IIRC) on WotC R&D and also is as athoratative a source on a DS conversion as you could have, and the editor didn't see that there weren't dealing with Joe Schmoe off the street. I certainly agree there is still room for improvement.

I think it's laughable to assert that there should be no game design editing going on. Having filled a similar role one, I can say that many original designers have widely divergant ideas of what works in a game. I have also reviewed many BAD d20 products in the early days of d20, and noticed that things improved markedly once d20 publishers brought onboard "rules editors" "NPC techs" onboard.

Paizo shouldn't be buying material if they have to edit the game design? What do you base that on? Perhaps Paizo doesn't get enough submissions to make that realistic, or submissions would have a lot less variety if they took the hard line on not ever having tweak anything.

I know from one example that some Dragon editors DO contact the authors and suggest rework. Since this is public on yahoogroups, I'll mention that Steve Peterson (no slouch at game design) wrote the article on "dragon mental illness templates" that appeared in dragon a while back. The original manuscript didn't have them as templates; that was a suggestion by the editor. And a good one at that; I consider that article to be one of the most potentially useful in the last year, and a nice break from all the prestige class fare.

 

[S'mon]

Well, it's nice to start the day by reading an over-reaction. I'd be a lot more impressed with your rant if you were able to do it without cheap shots and snide insults. I'm finding that your frothing is getting in the way of the point you're trying to make.

I thought the frothing was fine. The cheap shots & snide insults served only to drive his point home.

 

[Greybar]

While I'm very sympathetic to the argument about significant editing without consulting the author, I must say that to draw a parallel between an article in a medical journal and a fantasy game design is a horrible choice that reflects very badly on your position.

Medical journal articles have a scientific and non-arbitrary truth.
Game design and fantasy is very subjective, as we see every day in these forums.

Comparing "changing the numbers" for a drug study or a dosage suggestion is hugely different that whether a Dark*Sun weapon should have rules for specific material breakdown. Again, you only hurt your argument to suggest that the two are at all comparable.

john

 

[S'mon]

Erik M....a game designer.....BeleUmeria is right.

actually, he is right. Paizo should contact the author before they make any changes. that is SoP for most journals. the author can make the necessary changes only if they know about them.

to publish and not tell the author is bad practice. Dave Noonan should send a letter to the editor and ask that his name be taken off the article.

Yup. The USA is a signatory to the Berne Convention and its article 6bis moral rights of the author. You're supposed to respect the author's paternity & integrity rights, even if you've bought the copyright. What that means at minimum is, you can't screw with somebody's work without their permission & still leave their name on it.

 

[Guillaume]

That's exactly how editing works for journals. Yes, we can change language and grammar, but numbers....heck no!

We can suggest that authors make those changes, but it is their puppy. If we do not like it, then we do not publish it.

And they have the option to pull their paper as well.

That is just good business.

I think that comparing the publishing of scientific results with the publishing of gaming material is unfair. In one case the actual content stays the property of the author. In other words, you might publish your paper in the Canadian Journal of Zoology. In that case, you will loose the right to publish those ideas elsewhere, but the ideas and concepts remain yours. That is why we quote you later on and the the journal itself. The journal does not buy your work. It simply provides a mean of presenting it to the scientific community.

It is my understanding that the work of Mr Noonan was bought outright. From what he wrote on the WoTC boards, he sold the material to Paizo. By doing so, Paizo was well within their rights to work the material any way they saw fit without consulting him.

The two environments, the economic pressures and the legal context of editing for a scientific journal and a gaming magazine are completely different, if you ask me. Comparing the process of editing in both cases seems to be comparing D&D and Monopoly.

As for the point of the discussion : the editing decisions in Dragon magazine, I do not read it. Never found it of much use in my games. I am a subscriber to Dungeon, however. Find it useful, got plenty of ideas that I can use and the quality is very good.

Delays in delivery do happen, but I can live with that. Quality of construction of the magazine ? No different from anyother I have subscibed to or bought. You won't see any complaints on my part on that front.

Customer service ? Since Paizo took over, I contacted the customer service twice. I got curtious and prompt service from them in both instances. Again, no complaint from me there.

Just my 2 cp.

 

[reiella]

For the edit issue.

Paizo may not be entirely to blame. I'm uncertain if Paizo/Dragon/Dungeon articles have to go through D&D R&D in the same manner as any website feature, but it would make sense (for the same reason they do it for the websites) given that it's considered offical wotc material.

Hmm, if Noonan is with the R&D/oversight group, then that is interesting. Also makes sense ... given that WotC doesn't 'run' Dungeon/Dragon still, it's a bit disheartening however, as that step at least was part of what I thought constituted it being considered WotC offical.

 

[satori01]

While I can understand David's anguish over having something he cherishes being changed he does acknowledge that Dragon has the right to alter the articles it buys.

Are people up in arms about the principle of Dragon altering articles,(they have been doing it for a number of years), the fact they changed a Dark Sun article, or is it general dislike for Dragon in general?

Frankly the changes seemed reasonable to me. Dragon is presenting an older setting to the general public in a relatively short page count. People play with Paladins, monks, bards, and assasin prestige classes. They may not play with Psionics. I wouldnt call it watering down, but rather removing a barrier to entry for people whom are not Dark Sun fanatics. By all means if you dont like the rules or options they presented change them, but it is reasonable to assume that excluding core classes will inherently turn off people that like said classes.

As for general maliase with Dragon, simply put D&D tastes range the gamut. Every issue there seems to be a letter complaing about too much fiction, not enough fiction, too many prestige classes(generally 2 an issue), not enough prestige classes, too much fluff, not enough fluff so on and so forth.
I think it is impossible for Paizo to accomodate everyone's prefrence to the maximial amount.
Write them a letter/email, they might print it, but it certainly seems they read them.

As for the general alteration/ censorship issue, it seems to be a general practice in works for hire ettiquite(and law). Notification of the author would seem a nice curteousy, especially give the fact that the Paizo staff often ARE designers,(many going back and forth from WOTC), and pissing off your peers(and suppliers of articles), seems a poor show.

I seem to remember Monte Cook mentioning alterations to one of his articles,(RtToEE if I remember correctly). Mr Mearls might be able to comment on his articles being altered if he is lurking around here.

 

[d20Dwarf]

Berne Convention....medical journals....c'mon. I have been known to edit a piece or two in my time (quiet, William ), and game editing and the realities of the game business are not comparable in the least to a medical journal. Certainly you can see that.

In most cases, game editors *are* game designers as well. Erik is one, I am one, Michelle Lyons is one, and so on. As someone mentioned above, "editing" encompasses a heckuva lot of things in this industry, from proofreading to number checking to style and yes, to rewrites. Some companies in this business have a more traditional publishing schedule, allowing for long periods between manuscript and publishing. Most have *very* short schedules, however. Paizo falls somewhere in the middle, which means sometimes they can guide an author and sometimes they cannot. Generic articles can be sent back more easily, since they can be shuffled from issue to issue. A big event like Dark Sun might have simply had to be edited in house.

There was probably some designer conceit involved as well. Erik has probably helped shape Paizo's design philosophy, which could definitely diverge from WotC's or Dave Noonan's. For instance, it seems that they think all setting material must be compatible with the entire core, thus the inclusion of paladins, monks, and bards in Dark Sun. I've seen Dave's Athasian bard prestige class, and it's awesome, but it probably won't ever see the light of day in that form, which is a shame. Paizo has to stay true to their design vision, however, just like every other company does.

In this case it seems a shame they didn't stick to the vision of the original and that they made such fundamental changes to the author's work, but I don't think they overstepped their boundaries as game publishers or as editors.

EDIT: Satori asked about Mearls, and I can give my own experience. One of the articles I had published last year was virtually untouched, while the other one had name changes and ability changes that brought it more into line with what WotC was doing at the time. I didn't care either way, frankly, because they bought it. On the Dungeon side, I went through a 2-year rewrite process to get the FR adventure published, which was outrageous, especially considering the niggling nature of many of the changes. I wanted to say "just fix his hit points, for God's sake!"

 

[Umbran]

I think Guillaume has a very good point. Analogy between Dragon and journals or scientific publications is weak. We aren't talking about presentation of factual information here.

Similarly, we aren't talking about pure unadulterated fiction. We're talking about a fiction that should meet some standards. So, it is reasonable that somewhere along the line, the material should pass muster with some central game design authority. That'd be at the level of Paizo's editorial staff.

I think it would have been nice if Paizo had consulted with the original author about their concerns, but if they bought the material outright, I doubt they are obligated to do so. In addition, as others have mentioned, Paizo may be working under editorial guidelines to which the author isn't privy.

And lastly, there's the matter of timing. Paizo works with a pretty solid deadline each month. Trading back and forth with an author over editorial bits takes time. It is good to be nice, it is better to get your magazine out on time.

All in all, we don't know the whole story, and are not in a good position to judge Paizo before they speak on the issue.

 

[Belen]

I think Guillaume has a very good point. Analogy between Dragon and journals or scientific publications is weak. We aren't talking about presentation of factual information here.

Similarly, we aren't talking about pure unadulterated fiction. We're talking about a fiction that should meet some standards. So, it is reasonable that somewhere along the line, the material should pass muster with some central game design authority. That'd be at the level of Paizo's editorial staff.

I think it would have been nice if Paizo had consulted with the original author about their concerns, but if they bought the material outright, I doubt they are obligated to do so. In addition, as others have mentioned, Paizo may be working under editorial guidelines to which the author isn't privy.

And lastly, there's the matter of timing. Paizo works with a pretty solid deadline each month. Trading back and forth with an author over editorial bits takes time. It is good to be nice, it is better to get your magazine out on time.

All in all, we don't know the whole story, and are not in a good position to judge Paizo before they speak on the issue.

Therefore, if I sell a short story to Asimov's, then when I read it, all the names are changed and the plot is altered, then it's cool. They bought the copyright, so they own it, even though they published it with my name.

No one has the right to change an author's work without consultation. That Paizo does so, infringes on the basic right's of an author.

If Paizo wants to change it, then they should make suggestions before they buy the piece. In this way, the author can make the changes, rather than have someone change it behind his back.

Legally, they may have the right to do so under contract. This does not make the practice ok.

And if there design philosophy is to make sure that players get their cake and eat it too, then they are not serving the industry.

It's like potty training. If you let your dog go anywhere, anytime, then you should expect that dog to pee on you and your couch.