Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Windjammer" data-source="post: 4802809" data-attributes="member: 60075">If even half of the Paizo post's content is true, then &quot;deferential&quot; strikes me as an odd choice of adjective in this context.Oh, they could have - and in fact, did so, on a previous occasion. Not only is the following side-bar a superb way to handle (as opposed to: dodge) the issue. Also, the 3.5 module to which the side-bar belongs is a supreme example of how to treat classic material respectfully while not letting deference getting the better on the obvious needs to bring classic material in line with the underlying design principles of modern incarnations of D&amp;D.What's more, WotC staff is perfectly capable to handle classic material respectfully when converting it to 4E and - in the process of doing so - showing how the new edition can really capture what was, and remains, great about the original. Just to see this, consider the following:I bow my head to Mike Mearls for this gem of design.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Windjammer, post: 4802809, member: 60075"] If even half of the Paizo post's content is true, then "deferential" strikes me as an odd choice of adjective in this context. Oh, they could have - and in fact, did so, on a previous occasion. Not only is the following side-bar a superb way to handle (as opposed to: dodge) the issue. Also, the 3.5 module to which the side-bar belongs is a supreme example of how to treat classic material respectfully while not letting deference getting the better on the obvious needs to bring classic material in line with the underlying design principles of modern incarnations of D&D. What's more, WotC staff is perfectly capable to handle classic material respectfully when converting it to 4E and - in the process of doing so - showing how the new edition can really capture what was, and remains, great about the original. Just to see this, consider the following: I bow my head to Mike Mearls for this gem of design. [/QUOTE]

Verification