Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6323312" data-attributes="member: 87792">If the article misinterpreting Monte Cook <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142" target="_blank">was written by Monte Cook on his own website then yes I am</a>.&nbsp; I looked the article up and not any summaries of it before posting.No.&nbsp; No it isn't.&nbsp; That isn't what Monte Cook said at all.&nbsp; I have linked the original article Monte Cook wrote above and was quoting it directly.&nbsp; He did not say &quot;we made some feats better than others because balance wasn't actually possible&quot;.&nbsp; Something I would have respected.&nbsp; He specifically states that &quot;Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.&quot;And I resent being told that &quot;you're referencing an article that's also misinterpreting what he said&quot; when I specifically took the time to look the article up, to re-read it, to check whether it said anything different from what I remember it saying, and then to quote it directly with a copy and paste from the web.archive.org archive of the article in question.For third parties reading this, the section in question written by Monte Cook in his own words reads:I will say that something bad mentioned in that article (the very next paragraph) made it through to 4e, and 4e suffered badly because of it.[/FONT]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6323312, member: 87792"] If the article misinterpreting Monte Cook [URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142"]was written by Monte Cook on his own website then yes I am[/URL]. I looked the article up and not any summaries of it before posting. No. No it isn't. That isn't what Monte Cook said [I]at all[/I]. I have linked the original article Monte Cook wrote above and was quoting it directly. He did not say "we made some feats better than others because balance wasn't actually possible". Something I would have respected. He specifically states that "[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Arial]Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game." [/FONT][/COLOR] And I resent being told that "you're referencing an article that's also misinterpreting what he said" when I specifically took the time to look the article up, to re-read it, to check whether it said anything different from what I remember it saying, and then to quote it directly with a copy and paste from the web.archive.org archive of the article in question. For third parties reading this, the section in question written by Monte Cook in his own words reads: [COLOR=#000000][FONT=arial][SIZE=2] I will say that something bad mentioned in that article (the very next paragraph) made it through to 4e, and 4e suffered badly because of it. [/SIZE][/FONT][I][/I][/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification