Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4428341" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm certainly not saying that my opinion is somehow more valid than yours.  I've just been jumped over by Carniverous Bean for apparently trying to sidetrack things, I wonder why he isn't taking you to task for this.Just because you don't like something doesn't make it bad.  Or somehow too specific for homebrewers to be able to do their own campaign (which Rounser DID claim CB).  I've got a 20 year old Ral Partha miniature from a line they called Reptiliads.  Lizard warriors with a militaristic culture.  Sounds a lot like Dragonborn to me.  I've got Basic/Expert material dating from the 80's which includes the Diaboli - a race of demonic looking beings from another plane trapped in the world and feared by the locals.  Sounds an awful lot like Tieflings to me.  These concepts, while not core, were certainly in the genre for decades.  Yet, somehow they are so "brand specific" that we are being forced to play The ONE GAME of WOTC.  That's not quite what I said though.  I meant, what D&D campaign can I not run in 4e?  Not by folding, spindling and mashing, but, pretty much a direct conversion?The straw man that I am required to do massive amounts of work to run these modules in 4e is not necessary.</blockquote>