Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[jasper]

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

They failed.

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

Let get straight. (insert carl sagan voice) billions and billions excuse me hundreds and hundreds of rabid fans want some thing offical and the new offical version is TRUE TO THE FAITH! (drop sagan voice) Then why don't you fans collect your loose change, mortgage your home, etc and pay Dave Noonan to produce NEW and IMPROVED and TRUE to FAITH dark sun material. Hey Dave an author from what I hear of those critters they never turn up their nose at a free lunch or cash.

 

[Wurm1234]

There is a simple issue that some player's don't trust the DM. They demand all the roles are made in front of them, and adhere to official rules of some sort that allow them to double-check the DM's decision on everything. It's not the most fun way of playing, but it is still D&D. With a hobby this small, you don't always get to pick who you're playing with.

Well, I wouldn't DM for a group like that. I might still play as a PC, but life's too short to waste time with people who don't believe the DM really is trying to make the best experience for all of them. I once played with a DM who seemed to get unholy glee from TPK's but he still made it fun, so why not? Got to try a lot of different character types...

All this light and heat surrounding the Paizo Dark Sun articles reminds me of the discussions of what is, and is not, "canon" in Greyhawk and FR. My FR campaign is headed into Anauroch soon, and some of this DS stuff will make nice flavor for Anauroch. No, it isn't canon, but it should be fun. In the end of the day, isn't that what this is all about?

 

[Alzrius]

I just came late to the debate, but I'm rather impressed with the vehemence displayed here. I too was rather disappointed by Dragon's take on Dark Sun. However, I wasn't going to write about it, but seeing everything here (along with Dave Noonan's post from that other board), I've since decided to write in to Paizo to express my feelings on the matter.

Given that there are a lot of people here who seem to feel as I do, I've decided to post the contents of my email to them here. While it will require some tailoring depending on the individual, this should make it quick and easy for anyone to copy this and email it to scalemail@paizo.com to express their dislike of how Dragon treated Dark Sun. Please write in, be it a copy of my letter or your own, to express your feelings on the matter to Paizo. It's the only way any changes can really be effected. The open letter is as follows:

Dear Paizo Publishing,

Having read through the Dark Sun section of Dragon #319, I feel quite disappointed with the content presented there. Specifically, the deliberate inclusion of classes that do not fit the tone of the setting is of consternation, along with lesser things, such as the lack of breakage rules for weapons, the lack of any major prohibition on armor; all make this not the Dark Sun I was expecting, or remember.

From reading posts on the message boards at EN World and the Dark Sun forum on the Wizards of the Coast website, I am not alone, as the general trend (as I have observed it) seems to indicate that many people (possibly the majority) feel the same way I do. The fact that David Noonan himself posted on a message board to make clear his initial manuscript was quite different from the final version is an indicator of how bad the reaction seems to be.

I confess, Mr. Noonan's post is, in fact, the real reason behind my writing to you now. The idea that, what was apparently a very well-done article by Mr. Noonan, was deliberately edited to become the les-liked version we saw in the magazine, does not inspire confidence nor affection towards Paizo Publishing.

Matt Sernett, the editor of Dragon, has since (very kindly) posted back on EN World to explain why certain changes were made. While his reasoning is sound, I still find that his explanations leave me somewhat cold. The idea that all classes, no matter how against the grain of the setting they may be, must be included to make the setting "suit 3rd edition", does not seem reasonable to me. Simply removing four out of eleven base classes (from the PHB; the base classes from the Expanded Psionics Handbook notwithstanding), does nothing to necessarily eliminate interest from readers who have never played Dark Sun before. There are still many classes left, and the deliberate exclusion of a few adds flavor to the setting; sometimes what's denied says as much as what is included - having every setting use the exact same eleven possible classes can result in them seeming interchangeable. I believe it was for this very reason that Wizards of the Coast's Oriental Adventures book has several classes that it does not allow (page 32; the bard, cleric, druid, paladin, or wizard).

While Paizo most certainly had the right to make the changes that were made, it seems obvious, from the reactions and debates that have arisen, that these changes were not for the best. New campaigns can be different, and even exclude certain "core" materials, without repelling potential buyers of the magazine. Likewise, making such (rather drastic) changes to an existing campaign world (even with the built-in clause of advancing the timeline several centuries) is an almost-certain way to alienate the people who would otherwise buy the magazine specifically for that content.

In future coverage of discontinued worlds, please take steps to retain the changes that make that world unique. It's because such worlds were never truly "standard" that we all enjoyed them before; that still holds true now.

Sincerely,

[insert name here]
[insert city and state here]

 

[Monte At Home]

Designers who are into the idea of creator ownership tend to start their own companies and publish their own work.

Or they do freelance work for Malhavoc. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. Malhavoc freelancers who write an entire book on their own retain the copyrights of their own work and--of course--have final say over any editing and development changes. Not that that's much help to the industry, since we use freelance authors only a few times a year, but it's something I'm proud of. I guess I'm "into" the idea of creator ownership. It's one of the reasons I left WotC.)

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone is in the "wrong" here. As others have said, the editors at Paizo are within their rights to change whatever they want. However, I think that they should relate those changes to the author before it goes to print. That's really what most good, professional publishers do. That said, I think that the editors at Paizo are great to work with, and they churn out an amazing amount of good content at an extraordinarily rapid pace. I'm also a little surprised that Dave aired his "grievance" publicly, but I've been guilty of that in the past so I'm certainly not going to cast any stones.

Over the years, I've seen lots of these kinds of editor vs. author clashes, and almost all of them would have been solved with just a little bit better communication (before the work goes to print) between the two parties.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

An' y'know what? I applaud your bold design descisions.

 

[coyote6]

I think there should be some sort of ritualized combat (to the death, naturally) to determine who is "right". How about adolescent alligators, in a 10 pace wide sand pit? Get Mr. Noonan, a Paizo editor, and Bendris Noulg in there, let 'em fight it out. The rest of us can have popcorn and watch.

Monte, Chris -- y'all want to be "special guest referees"? Henry and Piratecat can do play-by-play and color commentary.

If it's a hit, the next one can go PPV!

 

[Darrin Drader]

First of all, well said Monte.

One thing I would like to point out is that for the majority of the Darksun fans who read this issue without going online and discovering this big rowe, the material will serve the purpose of updating Darksun to third edition as it is presented. Yes there are things that were done and other things that could have been done differently, but at the end of the day, once an issue is printed it's up to the DMs and the players to make the setting come alive. That doesn't happen because of an article and it likewise doesn't fail to happen because of a few minor changes from the author's original material. A setting and a game comes alive because of the DMs and the players, most of which are house-ruling stuff in their home games on a regular basis. That is the way that D&D has always worked and continues to work. In short, if the published material doesn't work for your particular game, change it to suit your needs and stop worrying about it.

The one thing that I think is being largely overlooked is that before this series of articles in Dungeon and Dragon magazine, Darksun was a dead setting. I know that Darksun has a large fan base and there has been a demand by a certain portion of the gaming community to bring it back in some form. Paizo stepped up to the plate and they made this happen. Now that they've done this service for the gamers who have so badly wanted it, they're being publicly lynched because it wasn't done the way they expected. Honestly, I don't feel that this is being fair to the staff who dedicate themselves to serving the needs of the gaming community month in and month out, often giving people their first published credits in the gaming industry.

Another thing that needs to be said, as a freelancer who has had my material altered - usually for the better, but sometimes not, is that the process of development is necessary to bring raw material that is full of good ideas to a finished state. The process of development is necessary to ensure consistency with existing rules, as well as to review rules for clarity and game balance. Not ever good idea that a writer comes up with will see print and the developers do almost always have veto power. While communication with the editor and the ability to make changes to your own material is nice, it is not the norm. The developer is the person in charge of ensuring the quality of the final product. Most of the time their work is entierly transparent and nobody ever knows how much better the final material is because of their involvement. Occasionally, as in this case, they make a change that proves unpopular. Such is the life of a developer, and I feel sorry for them. When they do their job well it is the writer who gets all the credit. When they do their job poorly it is most often editors who are blamed.

The bottom line, go easy on them.They do the best they can. If you don't like the final product, change it to suit your vision of what the setting should be, after all if this material will be used at all, it will be in your game.

 

[rounser]

Now that they've done this service for the gamers who have so badly wanted it, they're being publicly lynched because it wasn't done the way they expected.

I think it happened with Spelljammer too, after Erik Mona's editorial on what was gone ruffled some feathers.

 

[Ranger REG]

This, I think, is the crux of the anti-Paizo-DS views (not to be confused with "anti-Paizo", which is a different issue entirely)... The idea that DS had to be made more "3E friendly" is alien to most DS fans because it was never "2E friendly" to begin with.

That make sense?

Yeah. In fact, that's why I asked about the original Dark Sun: Is it truly an AD&D setting or is it something that TSR misled consumers?

I mean guessing from the fans here, Dark Sun doesn't have right to be labeled a D&D game. It can be labeled a d20 game. Unfortunately, it is the only TSR "dead" product that psionic-themed or psionic-standard, and they want to help promote the XPsiHB.

Correct me if I'm wrong, devoted DS fans.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

Or they do freelance work for Malhavoc. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. Malhavoc freelancers who write an entire book on their own retain the copyrights of their own work and--of course--have final say over any editing and development changes. Not that that's much help to the industry, since we use freelance authors only a few times a year, but it's something I'm proud of.
QUOTE]


Really? I didn't know that.

To my mind, your policy is something to be proud of.

For what it's worth, I'm in agreement with Chris Pramas and the others who say it was Paizo's right to change the article as they see fit. I've sold several articles to Dragon. The first was untouched, the second went through some very major changes, and the third is in 319 (meaning I don't know what, if anything was changed). In every case, I've just accepted the results as the nature of work for hire - I signed the contract and they paid me (very well, in this industry's scale), so that's a win for me.

Although, on first blush, I do see some merit to a developer's credit in the case of major changes.

Patrick Y.