Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[Belen]

Thanks Frank the DM!

Hmmm. Well. Editing is part of a writer's life. I agree with Dave's concerns, but I'm surprised he chose a public format to complain about it.

Private complaint can be ignored, while public outcry usually gets a response, and can show that the concerns are shared by more than a single individual.

 

[WanderingMonster]

Thanks Frank the DM!

Hmmm. Well. Editing is part of a writer's life. I agree with Dave's concerns, but I'm surprised he chose a public format to complain about it.

You can hardly blame him. Criticism has been pretty harsh, and not every fan understands the process of submitting work and having it edited for content and/or space. His reputation and judgement had been questioned. He did respond, but he did it very diplomatically in my opinion.

 

[rounser]

Paizo employees are NOT game designers.

Eh? I could have sworn that at least Erik Mona has definitely had a spell as a WotC game designer. Besides, saying that games editors shouldn't make rules alterations is, IMO, completely unrealistic, and in fact I'd expect reworking rules is probably a core part of the job description. Who knows how many articles they've retrieved from unpublishable status? You may not like their changes, but that's a different kettle of fish entirely...

 

[diaglo]

Eh? I could have sworn that at least Erik Mona has definitely had a spell as a WotC game designer. Besides, saying that games editors shouldn't make rules alterations is, IMO, completely unrealistic, and in fact I'd expect reworking rules is probably a core part of the job description. Who knows how many articles they've retrieved from unpublishable status? You may not like their changes, but that's a different kettle of fish entirely...

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.

 

[Belen]

Eh? I could have sworn that at least Erik Mona has definitely had a spell as a WotC game designer. Besides, saying that games editors shouldn't make rules alterations is, IMO, completely unrealistic, and in fact I'd expect reworking rules is probably a core part of the job description. Who knows how many articles they've retrieved from unpublishable status? You may not like their changes, but that's a different kettle of fish entirely...

Reworking rules is fine should they give the author a chance to respond to the changes.

They choose, not to rework rules, but to create new rules. Had the new rules been playtested over the course of several years? No. Had the new rules been created in an effort to maintain the flavor of the campaign world? No.

One wonders.

 

[Piratecat]

You are correct. I did go overboard a bit, so I edited it somewhat. I apologize for some of the more colorful comments.

Thank you.

 

[Arnwyn]

You can hardly blame him. Criticism has been pretty harsh, and not every fan understands the process of submitting work and having it edited for content and/or space. His reputation and judgement had been questioned. He did respond, but he did it very diplomatically in my opinion.

I absolutely agree with this, and believe that Noonan was wise in noting the changes in a public forum - especially as tactfully as he did.

I know that I, for one, will note the name of the author of something that I find unacceptable, and not buy from said author in the future.

To the main topic, Paizo seems to have a bit of a "thing" for watering down some things, and I've been finding I get less value all the time from Dragon (especially with it over-abundance of feats and PrCs) - while I don't give a hoot about Dark Sun, it's just another policy/direction to consider when my Dragon subscription is up for renewal.

(Dungeon Mag, on the other hand, is great and I'm sticking with it - especially since Poly is slowly being hacked away along with the reduction of the mini-games. Less of that is good.)

 

[rounser]

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

Now that's just rude.

Reworking rules is fine should they give the author a chance to respond to the changes.

That's not my understanding of how editing works...

They choose, not to rework rules, but to create new rules. Had the new rules been playtested over the course of several years? No. Had the new rules been created in an effort to maintain the flavor of the campaign world? No.

One wonders.

This "one" doesn't. Probably do it all the time. The magazine would never arrive on time if they playtested every change they made.

 

[Faraer]

Editing (I'm speaking as a book editor) varies from a glorified proofread for typos to a wholesale rewrite. More drastic edits would be in consultation with the author, but this is work-for-hire in which the publisher buys work outright, a very different environment from the rest of publishing. If I was that editor, I'd think I'd have informed the author broadly what had been done, though.

I don't see why Dragon's editors couldn't be game designers too.

Of course they care about their customer base, their revenue depends on it. That doesn't mean they have a large enough staff, or do everything with exactly the right attitude and methodology.

Now, this happened because the philosophy of Dragon (and, it seems, of WotC) is to produce material for as wide a range of players as possible. My preference would be to focus more on DMs, and specific, distinctive visions rather than a bland pick 'n' mix mulch. But I see why the lowest-common-denominator approach is taken and my response is simply not to buy the magazine any more because I don't like its content.

 

[Belen]

That's not my understanding of how editing works...

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.