Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Paradox" data-source="post: 5107013" data-attributes="member: 2875">Which I don't understand because every edition got that accusation. 2e was dumbed down from 1e, and 3e was dumbed down from 2e, so you've already got morons and idots playing. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think that perception comes from the fact that the books have to explain what a roleplaying game is, since the books are targeted to new players as well as old. Consider, you already know what a roleplaying game is, so those pages explaining it might seem like it's "talking down" to you and are useless. But such simplistic explinations have ALWAYS been in the game. Go ahead and check any edition, and you'll get a "simple" explination of what a roleplaying game is. And you DO want the rules to explain the rules. People aren't happy (rightly so) that 4e throws out 1(w) without explaining what it is before the first useage of the term.Sure, experienced players know what AC is, what HPs are, what the six ability scores are and so on. They already have a grasp of the basics, so seeing them explained again may seem like a waste of space. But it's not.</blockquote>