Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[Belen]

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.

Even if he did waive the rights, Paizo is still at fault.

D'Karr- You are making my point for me. The magazine is 100% DnD approved. This means that many players will just assume that is the Dark Sun they will play. This leads to miscommunication among players and GMs, and basically tells players that the rules trump the GM.

GM: "That's not Dark Sun."
Players: "According to the officials, it is. Now, you can do it your way, good luck finding players...or...."

You may not think this happens, but I have seen it, although I am lucky enough to have players who, may complain about restrictions, at least allow me to fall or fly first.

 

[Dogbrain]

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.

It's SoP for worthwhile professional journals upon which modern science rests. A silly and insignificant little game magazine doesn't need such a policy. Actually, "silly and insignificant little magazine" probably describes any magazine that would not have such a revision policy. But maybe "silly and insignificant" is the Paizo target.

 

[herald]

I think you missed the point.
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.

Don't presume to speak for the whole gaming community. I for one stayed away from Darksun just because they didn't have certain classes. Plain and simple.

I applaud the fact that those classes were added and I support them in thier choice!

 

[Henry]

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

No one disputes that. What is questioned is do they have the right to do whatever they want with the author's name?

 

[JPL]

Even if he did waive the rights, Paizo is still at fault.

Not at legal fault.

Nor at moral fault. If the contract said, "Here is my writing, to do with as you wish, and no need to send me a copy for review before I decide whether it is worthy of bearing my name, and thank you for the check"...then it sounds like Paizo did what they agreed to do.

You must mean artistic fault...i.e., they made content decisions that you disagreed with. That happens. For what it's worth, I would've rather seen Dave's version, too.

 

[D'karr]

D'Karr- You are making my point for me. The magazine is 100% DnD approved. This means that many players will just assume that is the Dark Sun they will play. This leads to miscommunication among players and GMs, and basically tells players that the rules trump the GM.

GM: "That's not Dark Sun."
Players: "According to the officials, it is. Now, you can do it your way, good luck finding players...or...."

You may not think this happens, but I have seen it, although I am lucky enough to have players who, may complain about restrictions, at least allow me to fall or fly first.

You know, that is a funny way to look at things. Specially since when I'm the DM, nothing is official for the campaign unless I say it is. If it doesn't affect your game (you've already said that your players are not like that) then what is the problem? How does this affect YOUR game.

I can't be making your point since in Official D&D paladins, sorcerers, monks, etc. already exist. So in your opinion the magazine that provides 100% Official content should not provide content for people that use those classes because it is not "DarkSun."

BTW, since your solution would have been to keep the article as Noonan supposedly wrote it and add the "options", what prevents you now from taking those "options" that don't fit your vision of DarkSun out?

A discerning DM that wants to preserve the "Official" DarkSun can simply remove those things that don't fit. Just like Noonan said he did for his homebrew campaign. Or they can go and convince players to go back to 2e AD&D.

Forgive me for not being able to drown in this glass of water.

 

[Belen]

Don't presume to speak for the whole gaming community. I for one stayed away from Darksun just because they didn't have certain classes. Plain and simple.

I applaud the fact that those classes were added and I support them in thier choice!

It's easier to add than delete. They could have done both.

Instead, they decided that their vision trumped all others, including the author's.

 

[herald]

It's easier to add than delete. They could have done both.

Instead, they decided that their vision trumped all others, including the author's.

And that's thier right, because they are after all the editors. An editor's vision does trump a writer's.

 

[D'karr]

It's easier to add than delete. They could have done both.

Instead, they decided that their vision trumped all others, including the author's.

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

Since it is THEIR magazine, yes their vision does trump all others. They paid for the article after all. The editor has creative control of what sees the light of day in that publication. I do believe that trumps all other visions.

 

[Belen]

And that's thier right, because they are after all the editors. An editor's vision does trump a writer's.

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.