Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 4079297" data-attributes="member: 957">Three things:I don't consider hack'n'slash a bad thing.  I only meant it as a more narrow subset of gaming than what I am looking for.   Parts of my regular game become hack'n'slash at times and I also happily play games that are nothing more than pure hack'n'slash on occasion.  So it really was not meant as a cheap shot, but simply as a description of the game style I see being emphasizedI have just come over from posting about monster being pure combat creatures and how everyone is celebrating that fact.  Which put me in the "hack'n'slash" mindset.  My bad because obviously there is no context for that here.Lastly, I admit that it wasn't the best possible choice of words since, obviously, you can roleplay anything.  But comments in this thread and prior conversations have stressed that 4e is more abstract, less simulationist, less supportive of world-building (with some posters even celebrating their liberation from the tortures of world-building dms), etc...  Nothing that has been said has given me the slightest idea that 4E provides added more incentive for non-combat stuff and lots of things seem to add incentive to the battle side of things.  So I'm not at all claiming that it demands it, the overall tone of "get this stuff that has nothing to do with me killing the monster out of my way" vibe certainly makes me see 4e as well further down the hack'n'slash axis than 3E.  And 3e can still be very very hack'n'slash.So I think it was a fairly reasonable characterization.  But it wasn't a cheap shot or any kind of badwrongfun claim. It was just a relative characterization.</blockquote>

Verification