Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[diaglo]

I do have a question: Did Paizo give Dave the option of removing his name from the altered work?

both Henry and S'mon have the jist of my thots.

 

[irdeggman]

I have been pretty vehement in my opinions/statements concerning the whole "Who has the real official DS material" issue.

One of the things I have said concerning Paizo is that these (Dungeon 110/111 and Dragon 315/319 are that they are 'one shot' publications. That is Paizo has put out Offical DS material that they won't be supporting in the future. Basically because they can't and still make money. IMO they should focus on what has made Dragon (and Dungeon) great over the years - adding in modular changes. For example new prestige classes or an alternate method to handle defiling/preserving. They should leave the "official" conversion/rules in the hands of those that have dedicated themselves or a portion of their lives to perfroming this task (that is Athas.org and the fans on the fan site).

As far as selective editing, well as David pointed out he sold them the material and they can do with it what they wish (and evidently have).

One interesting thing though is their (Paizo) lack of recognition of the "official" fansites existence. Dragon 319 had no mention of Athos.org at all, as far as I could see - and I tried to look.

I, for one wrote them a scathing letter (via email) concerning their treatments of the Dark Sun (and other things) in Dragon #315. I also know of several other people who sent them similar themed letters, to date there has not been any letters published that are critical to the way they have handled this issue. In fact they have seemingly gone out of their way to emphasize the positive letters they have received. Cooincidence? I don't know since I don't have access to their mail or internal memos.

I did appreciate David posting on the WotC forums on this, and subsequently it puts him back into my more favorably received authors now. I had heard (and now believe) that he really does understand the DS setting and what it is (and was) about.

 

[JPL]

I thought it was the damage to his reputation as a Dark Sun guru/designer he was complaining about, though. It doesn't have to be damage to his general reputation - we have libel laws for that. It's more a subjective view; at least it's always been taken to be subjective in those countries that have statutory recognition of the MR. So if the author genuinely thinks it's harmful, that's what matters.

Edit: Also 'right to claim authorship' is generally taken to include a right _not_ to claim authorship, ie a right not to have your name on the piece if you don't want it to be - and that right is not dependent on whether the reworking is derogatory.

So Paizo should send a copy of the final draft of every piece to the author --- even if all they've done is change a comma to a semicolon [since some author might genuinely subjectively feel that this is harmful to the piece, and by extension to the author's reputation] --- and await the author's decision as to whether or not they want to be credited.

Makes sense to me. But I got an "A" in International Law.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I did appreciate David posting on the WotC forums on this, and subsequently it puts him back into my more favorably received authors now. I had heard (and now believe) that he really does understand the DS setting and what it is (and was) about.

This I can agree with completely...

Just out of curiosity, anyone know if DN is at all associated with Athas.org? It would seem that a relationship between him and them would be beneficial on all sides...

 

[Belen]

So Paizo should send a copy of the final draft of every piece to the author --- even if all they've done is change a comma to a semicolon [since some author might genuinely subjectively feel that this is harmful to the piece, and by extension to the author's reputation] --- and await the author's decision as to whether or not they want to be credited.

Makes sense to me. But I got an "A" in International Law.

Grammar and syntax no.

Content....yes.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Please read again where I said, "we aren't talking about pure unadulterated fiction. We're talking about a fiction that should meet some standards." These aren't just a matter of standards of general quality, like you might see in Asimov's. There's standards of functionality and consistancy with the normal rules, and standards set to help improve the overall sales of D&D and the magazine in which the article was publishers.

This does not seem to me to be an issue of "santiizing". I see no sign that the original was unclean, and contained information that the public should not be allowed to see. It wasn't a matter of censorship with "inappropriate content" being removed. This seems more to have been a case where the editors felt that (either on their own or on directive from WotC), some functional changes needed to be made to make the thing a better product, in some sense or other.

And remember - the original author does not seem to dispute Paizo's right to make the changes. He merely disagrees with their substance. If the author doesn't object, we are not in a position to object for him. We don't know the substance of the contract, and so should not speak on the matter of rights.

 

[Wolffenjugend]

1. It is isn't a scientific journal.

2. It's their content - they own it - so they can do whatever they please with it.

 

[D'karr]

I did not know that WOTC owned Paizo. If that's the case, then I will call WOTC for those missing issues.

They don't, call Paizo. Their customer service has always been top notch IMO.

The issue remains. They had a good faith contract with Dave Noonan and their audience to be faithful to the material.

They failed.

Did they not pay Dave for his material? If that is the case then Dave should say something to them. If they paid, as Dave seems to say, then they've fulfilled any obligation they might have had. As a matter of fact they didn't even have to publish anything at all, since they own all rights to the material. Now I'm not going to get up in arms about the 'Geneva Convention' or the remission of 'habeas corpus', etc. Since those topics always bore the crap out of me; when discussed with people that in most instances don't know what they are talking about or are just giving you their opinion. That last comment is a general statement to those that like me, are are not lawyers; not to you BU.

Instead, the new "official" version is not the true Dark Sun. They could have printed Mr. Noonan's article as is, then tacked on optional rules for Paladins etc. That would have protected the real flavor of Dark Sun and granted options for GMs to add if they wanted.

But they didn't. They chose to publish an altered version that fit the needs of the magazine and the vast majority of D&D players. The magazine is 100% Official D&D content after all; not 100% content for avid DarkSun players. Those people that feel 'betrayed' that their favorite setting was butchered should write to the magazine and complain.

I'm a DM and I found the article interesting and useful. Just as interesting and useful as tons of other articles of which I can use only a small portion. Was it DarkSun? No. But if I needed DarkSun material I could always go to http://www.athas.org and get more ideas.

 

[Belen]

Please read again where I said, "we aren't talking about pure unadulterated fiction. We're talking about a fiction that should meet some standards." These aren't just a matter of standards of general quality, like you might see in Asimov's. There's standards of functionality and consistancy with the normal rules, and standards set to help improve the overall sales of D&D and the magazine in which the article was publishers.

This does not seem to me to be an issue of "santiizing". I see no sign that the original was unclean, and contained information that the public should not be allowed to see. It wasn't a matter of censorship with "inappropriate content" being removed. This seems more to have been a case where the editors felt that (either on their own or on directive from WotC), some functional changes needed to be made to make the thing a better product, in some sense or other.

And remember - the original author does not seem to dispute Paizo's right to make the changes. He merely disagrees with their substance. If the author doesn't object, we are not in a position to object for him. We don't know the substance of the contract, and so should not speak on the matter of rights.

Again, this could have been achieved by keeping the original article and adding optional rules.

The game should not fit the rules, the rules should fit the game.

 

[JPL]

Could anyone enlighten us as to the text of the contract between Paizo and freelancer?

Because all of this talk about author's rights assumes that Noonan did not waive his right to final approval of the article.