Istlyn's page

My campaigns usually feature magic items few and far between. I've never had to artifically inflate the characters' bonuses or give any additional benefits to compensate for the lack of magic. Otherwise, you're exchanging magical trinkets for stat bonuses, which defeats the point.

My campaigns are closer to the European dark ages - pitting the heroes against the likes of barbarians, humanoids, and the occassional undead monster. Players become frustrated if they have to fight creatures that require magic weapons to hit, and they don't have the tools necessary to succeed. So, the key is to create challenging adventures where the heroes aren't likely to be overwhelmed or to become frustrated.

After spending the last 105 minutes reading the entire postings, I find that I concur with the overall sentiment: We love well-written stories, clever adventures, and pretty pictures. It's what captivated us when we started, and it's what keeps us coming back for more.

I started gaming in 1979 and changed with all the editions; however, my group will not invest in the new 4th edition. Sure, I might purchase 4.0 products - adventures, scenarios, and accessories, but no rule books. My group and I are more than a little disillusioned with the "upgrades," and we already throw out the rules of 3.5 that we don't like, so why invest in more of the same?

So, here it is: It doesn't really matter if PAIZO updates to the new edition, stay where they are, or create something new. Because as long as you continue to sell a QUALITY product, and advertise it, then you will always have a niche in this market.

Gamers are fans; not just of the game, but also of the designers, writers, and artists who create and improve our hobby. As long as the product is good, we will follow and incorporate your creations to best suit our individual needs, regardless if that is 4.0,, 3.5, or something new altogether.

To quote Shakespeare, "The play's the thing."

Best wishes on your continued success!

What edition of D&D do you currently expect to be playing at the end of 2008?

(Note: You may change your vote at any time!)

Gaming will be 3.5 ed. or nothing at all. My gaming group broke up and spread across the globe - from east coast to midwest to southwest to Iraq. I sold my 1st edition, gave away my 2nd edition, my 3.0 is gathering dust, and I'm too tired to invest in a 4th edition. Honestly, my favorite part are the stories, so I'll continue using what I have.

In contemporary terms, "Evil" by definition is selfishness, where one exalts himself or thinks more highly of himself than he should. These people are consumed about themselves to the point where they are oblvious to everyone else. This is where the attitude of entitlement originates. They believe that they are God's gift to the world and that everyone else exists solely to wait on them hand and foot. By the way, nearly every evil person would deny that they are evil. They make excuses - "It's a dog-eat-dog world" - and justify their motives and deeds any way they can.

In contrast, "Good" is defined by love; the love of self, but tempered with love of others. They follow their conscience and willingly place themselves in the role of servant - not with the attitude that they are worthless - but with the belief that they care so much about others that they will "turn the other cheek" and "walk the extra mile." They find joy in serving others and in so doing, they find their niche in society.

There really aren't too many "Neutrals" in the world, other than small children and the mentally retarded. To be neutral, one would have to be void of conscience, be without any sense of what is right or wrong. I'm not speaking of those who are ammoral - they actually do have a conscience, but they've seared theirs to the point where they can no longer hear it. True neutrals have never had the opportunity to develop a conscience - much like animals.

So, is anyone in the "real world" all good or all evil? No. Everyone is a little bit of both. However, this doesn't make one neutral. No, the best you could do to classify someone is to determine how much do they follow their conscience? Do they primarily act selfishly or selflessly?