Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 1471080" data-attributes="member: 177">Please read again where I said, &quot;we aren't talking about pure unadulterated fiction. We're talking about a fiction that should meet some standards.&quot;&nbsp; These aren't just a matter of standards of general quality, like you might see in Asimov's.&nbsp; There's standards of functionality and consistancy with the normal rules, and standards set to help improve the overall sales of D&amp;D and the magazine in which the article was publishers.This does not seem to me to be an issue of &quot;santiizing&quot;.&nbsp; I see no sign that the original was unclean, and contained information that the public should not be allowed to see.&nbsp; It wasn't a matter of censorship with &quot;inappropriate content&quot; being removed.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; And remember - the original author does not seem to dispute Paizo's right to make the changes.&nbsp; He merely disagrees with their substance.&nbsp; If the author doesn't object, we are not in a position to object for him.&nbsp; We don't know the substance of the contract, and so should not speak on the matter of rights.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 1471080, member: 177"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification