Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[Arnwyn]

Actually when it comes to content it is easier to delete than add, but that is also IMO.

Vice-versa for me. IME, it is far far easier to add than delete. Make no mistake - since D&D is a group endeavor, there is a psychology involved here, as BU alluded to in his above post.

 

[Wasgo]

Personally, I think the best solution is if Paizo and David agree to post some of the original rules that were changed in some location. However, I think Paizo is entirely within their right to change content. I mean, this isn't a scientific journal, and what they printed must have seemed better to them. But personally, I want David's original rules, as they fit better with my personal view of Athas.

 

[MW Turnage]

That's complete bull.

As I said before, if that is the case, then if I wrote a novel and submitted it to Tor, then the names of the characters and the plot was "edited," then they can still print it under my name without consulting me?!

yeah....right.

It's happened before. I know of several authors that have had problems with copyeditors becoming overzealous and actually rewriting text. John Barnes had a novel in the 90s (Kaleidoscope Century IIRC) actually get pulled from shelves and republished on the publisher's dime because someone decided to rewrite whole parts in the prepress stage after he'd statted vetted the final copy; it was so bad that at one point two characters were merged into one...who then proceeds to have an argument with himself for several paragraphs. Something similar happened with John Brunner's Shockwave Rider in it's first edition, too.

I don't think this quite falls into that category, though. There seems to have been enough of a rewrite that the other people involved (an editor or editors presumably) should probably have a writer's credit, but I suspect that Paizo has an editorial policy against giving editorial staff bylines for rewrites (which is a good thing, BTW).

I haven't read the article, and from the sound of things don't particularly want to, and the changes are rather hard to fathom...but I don't see where Paizo did anything wrong. Dumb, maybe, but not wrong. I don't recall Noonan saying he wanted his name off the final article. If he did and they refused I'd say they were in the wrong, but in general this is fairly normal and expected for the gaming industry. Most of the other areas of publishing, as well. If you think this is bad, you should see Hollywood, where minor editing and typo-fixing is sometimes enough to give someone a co-author credit (and half of the payment).

 

[FraserRonald]

Hi all.

I'm not going to wade very far in to this except to point out the difference between writing for Paizo (or for most RPG publishers) and writing for TOR.

I've had three assignments for gaming companies. Most RPG publisher contracts are what's usually called "work-for-hire." It means they pay you and then they own it. It's theirs to do with as they wish. I may not like what they do to my work--and they may do anything they wish to it--but I sold it to them, completely.

The contract for a novel is quite different--unless you are doing work-for-hire, which is how new authors working on licensed properties often work. When Glen Cook sells a novel to TOR, they get certain rights to it. Usually those are simply publishing rights within a specified geographic area. It’s the same with most fiction magazines. For example, Realms of Fantasy might buy "First North American Serial Rights," which means--though IANAL--that they buy the rights to publish/present the piece for the first time in North America. All TOR or Realms of Fantasy buy are the rights to reproduce and sell. For novels, that is usually limited to while the book is in print. If TOR publishes my novel about a daring mercenary with a flowery name, but it doesn't take off and goes out of print, the rights come back to me. TOR can't publish it again without entering into a new contract with me.

So, basically, comparing the editorial policy of Paizo to that of TOR or even Realms of Fantasy isn't correct. Better to compare their editorial policy to that of Green Ronin or Mongoose (or WotC for that matter).

Thanks all. Take care.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I don't even get what's so bad about the article. The paladin part seems to me to say "they don't really fit, but if you want to put them in, go ahead and go nuts." Other than that and the hairy dwarves, is there really an issue? It seemed like a good conversion to me.

 

[Dendread]

First let me speak to the concerns about magazine production noted above. Posting a complaint on ENWorld about an issue being misprinted is not an effective way to communicate with Paizo. When you receive an issue that is misprinted, poorly cut, or badly bound, please contact our customer service. They’ll ask you to mail the issue to us so we can replace it; they’ll also add an issue onto your subscription. We need the physical copies of the issue so that we can give them to our printers and figure out how to prevent such problems.

As editors of Dragon and Dungeon, we also have the task of developing articles. Wizards of the Coast has a development department that makes changes to the work written by both in-house and out-of-house authors. On the magazine, we have a smaller staff and have to wear both hats. All of our editors are also designers. Check out our credentials on www.pen-paper.net.

We developed Dark Sun to suit 3rd edition, not to stick to all the various constraints and design philosophies of 2nd edition Dark Sun. First and foremost, Dragon serves the wider D&D audience, and a series of articles that occupies roughly 30% of the magazine must be easily accessible to that audience. The “What Has Gone Before” section of the first article specifically states that the articles use material from the Expanded Psionics Handbook (ala the half-giant) and are set 300 years in the future of the setting. Setting the articles far in the future was David Noonan’s idea, which we wholeheartedly supported as a means to explain the changes the articles presented. That section also notes that what happens in the setting is up to you.

People have noted concerns about many changes made to the setting. Please understand that we did not in development or editing change many of the details some folk have complained about. The principal concerns (sorcerers, monks, paladins, bardic spellcasting) were changes made by us to suit 3rd edition as I noted above. The descriptive text for those classes goes a long way toward explaining how they could be included in Dark Sun, why they might not have been encountered before, and how easy it would be for a DM to ignore those elements. While we understood the reason why paladins were not included in the original setting, it seemed better to err on the side of inclusion as not all areas of Dark Sun are so harsh that you must kill a stranger (or your friend) for water. The much berated text that about sorcerers hiding as wizards comes after text about them usually disguising themselves as psions and notes that very brave sorcerers hide as wizards because of the freedom wizards have to operate around Tyr. The inclusion of monks necessitated changes to armor and weaponry, and the extra steps required to use the breakage rules added complication that we felt most players would not like. The weapon’s weakness are inherent in their materials, and DMs control both wealth in the campaign and what equipment is available. Lastly, heat dangers are described in the DMG, and it’s our general design philosophy not to change basic D&D rules. If a DM wants them to be more dangerous, it’s a simple matter to make it hotter. We would have discussed all these issues with David, but deadline constraints prevented us from doing so.

In the future, if you have comments about any article in Dragon, we’d love to get an email to scalemail@paizo.com. It’s the best way to give the magazine feedback. As yet, we’ve gotten only two emails about Dark Sun (both positive).

Thanks
Matthew Sernett
Editor-in-Chief
Dragon

 

[Vigilance]

Do editors have the right to edit? Of course they do.

However, to make such sweeping changes is just plain wrong.

As an author I can tell you the person credited with writing it is getting all the hate mail about the conversion not being very good.

Not the editor.

Basically the editor just hung the writer out to dry.

To Psion: Often writers *do* have the best sense of what works within a given product, but at the very least editors should allow them to pass or fail on their own.

If a rewrite is significant why not change to credit to co-writers, at least then the "editor" can take some of the heat for the choices he made.

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

Hi all.
I've had three assignments for gaming companies. Most RPG publisher contracts are what's usually called "work-for-hire." It means they pay you and then they own it. It's theirs to do with as they wish. I may not like what they do to my work--and they may do anything they wish to it--but I sold it to them, completely.

That's true Fraser, but in your dealings with me on the BNG book for did for RPGO your concerns were handled very thoughtfully in my opinion, even going so far as to not use a picture (that we had paid for) that you didn't think fit into the theme of the book.

It's a matter of respect.

And also, in my opinion, good business.

Chuck

 

[Henry]

FRIENDLY MODERATORLY WARNING TO ALL
One thing I don't like is the turn of tone the debate is taking. Disagreeing with article content and what was done is one thing, but heaving insults at another poster is another. We need to turn down the heat a bit, please.




Matthew,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate you taking time out to address specific concerns. I know you have your general audience to please, and can understand some of the changes. As I said, the athas.org project fits my needs better, and that's what I'm likely to use; I was somewhat disappointed to hear that they weren't given a mention, in their capacity as a WotC Official Fan Site, but I'll live.

 

[d4]

Instead, the new "official" version is not the true Dark Sun.

if this Dragon/Dungeon Dark Sun is the new "official" version, then it IS the true Dark Sun. it's previous versions that are no longer official and not true.

do you complain about sorcerers being available in FR and Greyhawk now, because they weren't present in 1st or 2nd ed?

FWIW, i liked the articles. i never understood the reason behind banning paladins and other classes from the game, and i think extensive weapon breakage rules would be overly complicated and only slow things down. and rules for heat dangers (including penalties for wearing heavy armor) are already in the DMG. no need to waste limited space in the magazine reprinting them.

As I said, the athas.org project fits my needs better, and that's what I'm likely to use; I was somewhat disappointed to hear that they weren't given a mention, in their capacity as a WotC Official Fan Site, but I'll live.

athas.org is mentioned several times in the Dungeon issue.