Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AnotherGuy" data-source="post: 8792441" data-attributes="member: 7029930">AD&amp;D had Basic (and maybe the PHB) as the training manual for beginners.2e had Basic and there was an example of play in the PHB3.5 DMG had an example of play4e DMG had an entire Starter Set at the back of the DMG, because they made so much space in the book by inserting all the magical items in the PHB, as the 4e PHB only covered 1/2 of the playable options that existed in previous editions.In 5e, they decided to not include an example of play (its not worth talking about the excerpt in the PHB) and stuck it in the Starter Set.The books can always improve, but what my point is, the decision not to include an example of play in the 5e DMG was purposeful, and not a failure of the DMG itself, but rather indicative of who, WotC believed, each product they published was marketed for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AnotherGuy, post: 8792441, member: 7029930"] AD&D had Basic (and maybe the PHB) as the training manual for beginners. 2e had Basic and there was an [I]example of play[/I] in the PHB 3.5 DMG had an [I]example of play[/I] 4e DMG had an entire Starter Set at the back of the DMG, because they made so much space in the book by inserting all the magical items in the PHB, as the 4e PHB only covered 1/2 of the playable options that existed in previous editions. In 5e, they decided to not include an [I]example of play [/I](its not worth talking about the excerpt in the PHB) and stuck it in the Starter Set. [B]The books can always improve, but what my point is, the decision not to include an [I]example of play[/I] in the 5e DMG was purposeful, and not a failure of the DMG itself, but rather indicative of who, WotC believed, each product they published was marketed for.[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification