While we all know that Role Play is preferable to Roll Play, I can't help to ask why it so often has to be an either/or option. I freely admit that I have painfully limited experience when it comes time to actually play D&D, but it seems to me that the Roll Play aspect gets the short end of the stick quite often.

I would love to join a game with a character that was well-thought out, has a thorough background, realistic motivations and flaws. I'd love to have that character in a long, serious game that will see that character challenged, and bonus points to any campaign that forces said character to change their worldview, or at least throroughly examine it.

That said, it is NOT that particular set of desires that drew me to D&D.

A particular issue that I keep seeing pop up between DM's and players is levelling. Players wanting more levels faster, and DM's preferring to concentrate on the story. And while the DM has undisputable control of the game, and I accept and encourage that, I don't understand how that simultaneously makes them automatically correct on this issue 100% of the time.

I see the DM's side of the argument in this: encouraging the Role play is a good thing, it really is. And I understand that after all the work that goes into creating and maintaining a game world, you want to see your story completed. Fair enough. By the same token though, what some DM's seem to be forgetting, is that a lot of players have just as vivid a vision of exactly what they want their character to be. And a lot of times, the levelling system itself is holding the character back.

I've posted elsewhere about my absolute rotten luck with being able to get a Shadowdancer character into a campaign. I tried D&D in real life for 3 years straight, different cities, different groups, different DM's, and not ONCE have I found a DM who'd let me start out with it, nor stay with one party enough to level it sufficiently. Rotten luck on my part, but its soured me on the whole Role Play insted of Roll Play thing, instead of at least trying to use both.

Because I have this picture in my head of the character I want. And its not about the abillity to teleport between shadows, or summon a shade to help, or any of that other stuff (in the interest of honesty: its not ONLY about that). I want to understand the mindset, or at least one particular mindset, that would draw a character to chose shadow over light or dark, both literally and metaphorically. I want to see NPC's react to somebody with these abilities. Houw would shadowdancer's react to NPC's that feared those powers they didn't understand? Hated them? Worshipped them?

And yeah, also because it would just be cool the things I could do in game with a shadowdancer. But again, is that a bad thing? The advantage of higher level characters, in my mind, is the chance for higher level abilities to be use in story telling. Dramatic entrances and exits, more power to help shape the game world and the responsibility that goes with that.... another thing I'd love to see is a wizard in the party that constantly bestows intelligence and the ability to talk on the animals it meets, and see the cumulative effect on the world over time. A silly thing to do, but it could be fun dealing with the consequences of that. And having to put down a talking animal rebellion would stick with a player, don't you think?

I'm just rambling at this point, so I'll wind this down. One last thing to think on though. The Inn lately, and real life for some of us, has rather a high turnover on games started and abandoned. While its nobody's fault when real life gets in the way, its punishing to put work into character after character, only to have to discard them before they ever reach the vision you had for them. So don't automatically discount your player's calls for higher levels. Sometimes they're just as into the story as you are. They just want to be into it with the character they imagined, not the one they have.

I support your ideas if only because the idea of talking aardvarks rising up make me happy.

i agree.
i'm quite vocal that i dont have a DnD knowledge base to use when writing my posts. but i still enjoy the format.

I like to think more over how the char would react in said situation due to past experience Vs how they should react due to stats and rolls.

if you want feel free to bring your shadow dancer to the guild rp if you want.

There you go then Grugg. Talking aardvarks.

*evaporates*

Chess... just purely out of curiousity, would you be equally interested in playing a shadowdancer-esque type hero in a modern/superhero type game world, or are you really just wanting to play in a medieval setting?

open to the idea. what'd you have in mind?

*evaporates*

Chess,
I mean something similar to Silent One's character in Eol's Prometheus game.

http://www.rdinn.net/view_topic.php?topicid=3679&page=1

Basically, would a character with powers to see in the dark, control light intensity, teleport from shadow to shadow, and create minions from shadow be interesting to you if the character was set in a modern/"superhero" setting?

Ayrn

It sounds interesting yeah. I would be just as interested in finding out where such a character fits in during modern times as I would be medieval ones. That said, I have a thing for medieval settings. Those, and high sci-fi, so those are usually my go-to. But its the character more than the setting its in that interestes me. Usually.

*evaporates*

I've run into similar situations in a number of table-top and PbP games, myself... In my case, though, I was flummoxed by wanting to play assassins and having the GMs throw the "no evil alignments" or "I just don't like assassins" or some other rationale at me (which is not to say that I took them as "excuses," mind you; most often (but not always) the rationale behind the character rejection was sound where the game/campaign was concerned). So, rejected and dejected, I'd go off and whip up another character/class that I could get as close to the character I had in mind but also fell in line with what the GM was looking/hoping for. Honestly, this is probably one of the reasons that I drifted away from rules-based gaming after a while and started to prefer the free-form arena or, above even that, just writing (alone or in collaborative story telling mode with one or two other people).

That said, I'm not entirely sure that this issue really boils down to roll play vs. role play, either. Role play and roll play can, and often do, coexist in the same game, it's just not that easy for some GMs and/or players to effectively balance the two. I think that, in a lot of cases, the games/campaigns that GMs have in mind are initially conceived with lower level characters in mind and, as such, there would just be no way to work in a character of sufficient level to have attained those "prestige classes" without having to rework encounters and, possibly, sizeable chunks of the game in order to accommodate said characters... Frustrating from both sides, I think, really.

You bring up some really good points, here, Chess, and the heres and theres of it could likely be discussed for hours and days on end. At the end of it, though, I kind of think what it all comes down to is the need for more "mid to high level" games along with the GMs and players alike who could handle such a thing in all of its complex glory!

I get that. And I have to admit that alot of those concerns my never have entered my head if it hadn't been for the DM's I ended up with.

But it never ceases to amaze me how MARRIED to the rules some DM's can be. Getting back up on the Shadowdancer soap box, starting as a character level 1, level 1 Shadowdancer wouldn't overpower a character, so I don't know why nobody is willing to accept that. The prereqs are a Dex of 13, three feats so tame they're on the fighter's bonus feat list, and ranks in Move Silent, Hide, and Perform (dance), all skills which would be perfectly reasonable to have training outside of a class. You could argue that the skill ranks would give to big of an advantage, but the only thing that really sets it apart is the Hit die, and I'd gladly take a substantial cut there to play the character I want. Hell, I'd do it on the wizard's hit die, and its a MARTIAL character.

I guess what it boils down to is that I can't stand GM's who heavily restrict players, then complain that players aren't making the effort; that telling this story takes both parties. And they're right about that. But if you have the right to kill or nerf the character I WANTED to role play, I have the right to muchkin the $&%@ thing until it resembles a character I'm CAPABLE of role playing.

(Edit: Because there is only so many times I can role play a lvl 1 Rogue/Bard/Fighter/Druid/Ranger/Monk/Wizard/Sorceror before they all become stale.)

....Wow, went off on a tangent there. Sorry.

No apologies necessary. I understand completely where you're coming from. I was just kind of going 'stream of consciousness' with my response, there, and veered rather close to devil's advocate.

It kind of sounds like what you need, my friend, is to get in with a group that might be willing to sit down and define some house rules (whether that means creating new ones or modifying or completely ditching old ones) that both the GM and characters can agree would make the experience more enjoyable for all parties concerned. You don't want the GM nerfing your character 'out of hand' and the GM doesn't want you munchkining so there you have to make room for negotiation lest no one truly enjoys themselves and the game(s) and character(s) played therein become just as disposable as the paper their written on... where's the fun in that, right?

Soooo... why not pull your group together and have a 'brainstorming session' to piece together something that works for all of you... "Okay, I'll allow the Shadowdancer if you cut this perk/ability or take a hit die drop".... "Fine, I can do that, but, if I do, I'd really like to see rule X go out the window because of Y and Z"... It'll involve some haggling, for sure, but if you've got a good group it'll all come out in the wash and make things more enjoyable all around.

Aaaaand there I go runnin' off at the mouth again without really saying much of anything.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to join a group since two moves ago. Been looking in the area, turned up zip so far.

These posts are based on a few things I've seen here on the Inn, and many, many, many more horrors of past groups.

But again, good ideas. Thank you for the feedback.