Pathfinder 1E Paizo Bites- A Rant

[rounser]

Is it truly an AD&D setting

Of course it is, IMO. Leaving a few bits of the system out is just as valid as kitchen sinking everything in (as in, they both have their upsides and downsides).

 

[Ranger REG]

Ehhh. I'm not convinced.

 

[Spatula]

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?

Let's see... well, it used the AD&D rules. I guess it must have been an AD&D setting.

 

[Ranger REG]

It used the rules engine, but isn't it 2e-unfriendly?

Had TSR thought of d20 or something like it (which they probably did experimented with the release of Gamma World 3rd Edition that is based on AD&D ruleset), they could have packaged it as a new standalone game product.

 

[rounser]

Ehhh. I'm not convinced.

D&D has an implied setting with elves and dwarves and paladins and happy munchkins dancing and singing in the woods. For a large number of settings, that works fine, because all these things are part of them. For some, what you take away is just as important as what you add.

Even a relatively generic setting like Dragonlance would suffer in terms of flavor, identity and atmosphere if it were given the Eberron kitchen sink treatment, and forced to have orcs and drow etc., let alone Dark Sun, where exactly what you don't have (weapons, water) is often the focus of the game!

It appears from what I've read that WotC has pushed a couple of simple solutions to problems which often work, but would probably be better dealt with on a case by case basis. You probably know them, here's a couple:

1) Crunch good, fluff bad.
2) Options good, restrictions bad.

On the surface of it, they sound fine. Progressive and practical. However, one shoe size doesn't fit all, and products like Deities & Demigods and now Dark Sun prove exceptions to these rules.

EDIT: There's probably some of WotC's fear of splitting the game audience in there somewhere as well. Exclude paladins from a setting and you can't sell those players a paladin book.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

Well, having read through this entire thread, I'm not shocked at the outrage people express. I don't know any authors who have any appreciation for non-technical edits of their creative efforts, and very few of them would be quiet about changes to the extent that David Noonan has endured with his Dark Sun article.

I'd just like to say the whole problem looks like it boils down to a lack of a broad vision by the folks at Paizo. In the long run, they have proven to simply pick a theme, then focus on the individual parts of the theme, to the detriment of the bigger picture, issue after issue.

Had all the extra material been presented as a separate article, I doubt Mr. Noonan would have raised any issues with the article whatsoever, since it would have been a matter of mostly minor changes made to his work. This would have easily satisfied their desire to represent Dark Sun as "pure D&D 3.5", while still showing the author proper respect, especially considering the fact that David Noonan was a part of the D&D 3.5 design team (yeah, I'm making an assumption there, since there are at least 3 David Noonans writing, but apparently only one is involved with RPGs).

There's an added benefit to structuring it that way as well. Paizo perceives two markets; those who want "old skool" and those who want "pure D&D 3.5". Editing and alterations to please one market upsets the other, and inevitably, the "old skool" market is the one ignored. However, had the edits to Noonan's work been broken apart into two articles, it would have easily satisfied both markets. And it isn't something at all difficult to work into the magazine; Noonan's article could have been "Dark Sun 3.5 in the eyes of the elders" and the additional material in a separate article could have been "Dark Sun 3.5 in the eyes of a new generation", or something else along that line.

The last benefit would be that they didn't alienate yet another author. I wouldn't be surprised if we never again see another David Noonan article as long as Paizo continues running the show for all the WotC rags. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were numerous other authors who now won't bother submitting anything to begin with.

 

[James Heard]

Speaking as an artist, not as a writer, I could care less if someone takes a crap on my art after they buy it or blows it up with dynamite really. They paid me and I got the satisfaction of doing it, what other 'rights' I'm supposed to have are usually the visions of media-plagued intellects that suppose that just because people are creating for a living they've got some surreal connection with what they're doing after the birth. Sorry, some artistic folks might be like that but most of us just don't have the luxury or inclination. If someone wants me to paint moustaches on naked women on commission, that's their dime. I might dismiss the merits of the work after the fact, but that doesn't change the fact that some work is essentially for a paycheck just like plumbers and dogcatchers.

 

[Dire Bare]

I can't help it . . .

I am a longtime ENWorld lurker, and I've been drawn out against my will to add to the discussion. I even had to create a new account since I forgot my old username & password (I know, that's sad even for a lurker).

While I don't agree with all of the design choices made in the articles, both by David Noonan and Paizo, what truly saddens me is the fan reaction seen on this board and WotC boards. It is sad, ungrateful, wrongheaded, and . . . well there are a lot of other words coming to mind I can't really use and remain polite.

David Noonan, the WotC RPG staff, and the Paizo magazine staff are fans, gamers, writers, and designers who have dedicated a large portion of thier personal and professional lives to make our gaming better. Do they make mistakes? Yes. Do they sometimes make BIG mistakes? Oh, heck yeah! (I don't feel this is one of them) Are we required to take all they give us as gospel and canon? No, of course not! Do they deserve this cranky and juvenile series of personal attacks and vilification? Not in my opinion (but maybe I'm not enought of a "true fan" to truly appreciate the "descecration" to Holy Dark Sun).

Unfortunately this perverse negativity seems more common than not in "fan" circles. I've seen this same kind of behavior from Trekkies, Star Wars fans, movie buffs . . . the list goes on. It's why I mostly lurk (then why am I posting now . . . hmmmm). I just hope and pray that Erik, Matthew and the rest of the Paizo staff have been around the block often enough to take all of this negativity with a grain of salt. Heck, maybe they even prepared themselves for it before publication! Paizo, there are many Dragon/Dungeon/Poly (yes, and Poly!) subscribers and fans out there who appreciate all that you do even when we don't agree with all of your design choices! Don't let this wildstorm of negative energy stop you from a Planescape issue, an Al-Qadim issue, or better yet . . . an all-out Mystara extravaganza cross-over double-sized issue with web enhancements!

Whew! I'm done. Back to lurking.

 

[johnsemlak]

While I don't agree with all of the design choices made in the articles, both by David Noonan and Paizo, what truly saddens me is the fan reaction seen on this board and WotC boards. It is sad, ungrateful, wrongheaded, and . . . well there are a lot of other words coming to mind I can't really use and remain polite.

I think it's always important to realize that messageboards are often cluttered with extremely rude posts made by people who write things they would never actually say to a person. That's one of the problems with this medium, some posters feel that it's 'OK' to be incredibly rude, perhaps becasue of the lack of direct contact.

I'm sure it's always disheartening for game designers to read comments like that, but I imagine most have come to understand the nature of the internet.

 

[S'mon]

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.

In these days of email it wouldn't kill them to send a copy to the author of the final version, although if the change is purely commas & such the changes probably couldn't be derogatory so not strictly necessary. If the changes change the meaning of the piece then the author should have a chance to view it. This could be an apparently minor change though - eg in Orwell's "1984" "2+2=5" became "2+2= " - which changed the whole message of the book.

Of course they as (c)-owners don't have to await the author's response, they just have to give him a chance (a few days at most) to respond if he wishes.