Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[mearls]

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.

I don't think I'd ever go public with any changes that the Paizo editors made to my articles, even if people on EN World were burning me in effigy. It comes down to simple professionalism. Paizo has done right by me. I get a steady stream of good paying work, excellent exposure, and I adore seeing my name in Dragon's pages. Anything I've written is the product of a team effort.

If I'm unhappy with the changes someone makes to my work, I stop working with them. It's that simple. And it should be noted that, if I have any say in it, I'll be working with Dragon and Dungeon for as long as they'll let me. They're my second favorite bunch of people to work with (after Monte and Sue of course.)

I have one thing to say about writers who complain about editors who change their work.

I would LOVE to see a writer come on this discussion board and publicly point out all the boners, gaffes, nonsensical sentences, and other mistakes that his editors have fixed. Until a writer does that, I don't have much patience for people who have to deflect any criticisms of their work on to an editor's head.

Editors are the most under-recognized people in this business. A good editor spells the difference between an OK and a great book, but you never see anyone say anything like "Oh, Michelle Lyons edited this, I so have to buy it." The critical role an editor plays is one of those things that you don't notice until you work in the biz.

 

[Henry]

I do have a question: Did Paizo give Dave the option of removing his name from the altered work? Because as WanderingMonster said, his reputation is at stake in a vastly changed work. He understands very well the specifics of the Dark Sun setting, and the changes made that I've read about seem to radically alter the setting, enough to where it's not really the same setting.

No one here I think disputes Paizo's legal right to do the rewrite. What's disputed is the ethics of it, while leaving Dave's name attached, assuming he still wanted it there.

Following the same logic, if I submitted a short story about a loving relationship to a company, and they purchased it, but then radically altered it such that it became a work that promoted domestic violence, I'd want to disavow my association with it, too, because what I sold was nothing resembling what they printed. The Dark Sun rewrite is not nearly as drastic, but if fans were asking what I was smoking, and quoting me back things that I didn't write, I'd say they deserved to know, too.

 

[Emiricol]

I agree, and the (in my opinion!) poor quality of their output is why I let my subscriptions expire. I suppose there are instances of editors rewriting material wholecloth in other fields, but I only see it regularly in the RPG industry.

I have some strong personal feelings about some of the editors involved, having clashed with one or more specific people before. So this doesn't surprise me.

Anyway, people can feel however they want. I know how I feel, and like many others, I voted with my wallet - by not giving them more of my money.

 

[herald]

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.

My suggestion to you is to grow a thicker skin. If you don't like the rules, change them.

 

[herald]

I don't think I'd ever go public with any changes that the Paizo editors made to my articles, even if people on EN World were burning me in effigy. It comes down to simple professionalism. Paizo has done right by me. I get a steady stream of good paying work, excellent exposure, and I adore seeing my name in Dragon's pages. Anything I've written is the product of a team effort.

If I'm unhappy with the changes someone makes to my work, I stop working with them. It's that simple. And it should be noted that, if I have any say in it, I'll be working with Dragon and Dungeon for as long as they'll let me. They're my second favorite bunch of people to work with (after Monte and Sue of course.)

I have one thing to say about writers who complain about editors who change their work.

I would LOVE to see a writer come on this discussion board and publicly point out all the boners, gaffes, nonsensical sentences, and other mistakes that his editors have fixed. Until a writer does that, I don't have much patience for people who have to deflect any criticisms of their work on to an editor's head.

Editors are the most under-recognized people in this business. A good editor spells the difference between an OK and a great book, but you never see anyone say anything like "Oh, Michelle Lyons edited this, I so have to buy it." The critical role an editor plays is one of those things that you don't notice until you work in the biz.

Hear, hear!!!

 

[Arnwyn]

but if fans were asking what I was smoking, and quoting me back things that I didn't write, I'd say they deserved to know, too.

Well said, Henry.

 

[Piratecat]

I would LOVE to see a writer come on this discussion board and publicly point out all the boners, gaffes, nonsensical sentences, and other mistakes that his editors have fixed. Until a writer does that, I don't have much patience for people who have to deflect any criticisms of their work on to an editor's head.

Mike Johnstone fixed a tremendous number of mistakes in Of Sound Mind. That guy is a whiz, and my product would have been a lot poorer without him. I tried to argue that he was wrong on one particular point, and not only was he able to show me that I was the one who was mistaken, he managed to do it gently and without embarrassing me. How cool an editor is that?

 

[Belen]

My suggestion to you is to grow a thicker skin. If you don't like the rules, change them.

I think you missed the point.

Mearls: I respect your position and I agree that editors can catch major gaffes; however, if that is what they did in this case, then this uproar would not have happened.

A good editor should be transparent. Yes, they may not get the glory, but that is not their job. If Paizo wants to design their own material and articles, then go for it. They should not be in the thought-polic business by changing the basic content of articles that they accept for submission.

Paizo has done a disservice to the entire gaming community. This goes beyond fitting articles to any specific layout style. They have decided to fit articles to their idea of content-style. This is basic censorship.

What's worse, they do this using someone else's name.

 

[Belen]

Mike Johnstone fixed a tremendous number of mistakes in Of Sound Mind. That guy is a whiz, and my product would have been a lot poorer without him. I tried to argue that he was wrong on one particular point, and not only was he able to show me that I was the one who was mistaken, he managed to do it gently and without embarrassing me. How cool an editor is that?

Very cool. But it sounds like Mr. Johnstone worked with you by consulting you about changes.

He did not make the changes and then let you find out when the book was produced.

 

[mearls]

Paizo has done a disservice to the entire gaming community. This goes beyond fitting articles to any specific layout style. They have decided to fit articles to their idea of content-style. This is basic censorship.

There's a few issues at work that we might not be privy to. The editors may have changed the content at the behest of someone at WotC. They may have thought that it would be more fun to include as many options as possible, rather than cut out classes by fiat. I don't really have an opinion either way - I played Dark Sun a few times, but I don't have an emotional attachment to it.

I do think that a better way for a writer to handle a situation like this would be to talk to the editors and see about releasing a PDF with the cut content, or create a web page at the Paizo site to offer options to people who want to cut out paladins and the like. It doesn't help anything to have fans mad at the editor rather than the writer. What does that really accomplish?

And believe me, no one's reputation is at stake here. Getting work in the RPG business is a much higher function of knowing people than producing good work.

Anyway, I can completely understand why the changes upset people. I'd be super-*******-pissed if WotC released a Greyhawk book that had Elminster setting up shop in the Valley of the Mage. The stock answer I'm supposed to give you is that it's an RPG, you can change or ignore stuff, but that's a cop out. You were looking forward to the Dark Sun material, and you're disappointed. It's like Alien III - you don't have to buy the DVD, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have an impact on how much you like the entire Alien series.

What I would suggest is perhaps writing a very polite letter or email to Dragon that says something like "I'm a big Dark Sun fan, and I heard there was some material cut from the article, such as an Athasian bard prestige class. I'd be really interested in seeing it, since in my game I prefer to use the non-spellcasting bards from the original DS set, rather than the 3e class. Is there any chance we'll see a web enhancement?"