I've been a long-time player of D&D. I love the sense of adventure, the combat, the dungeon crawling, the fact that you can make a character however you wish (in mechanical terms). But One thing I have always struggled with is Role-Play. I really do not like to Role-Play; I never have, and more-than-likely never will (but if you do, that's completely A-Okay). To put it simply: I cannot put myself in another person's shoes AT ALL, even characters I create;I really try, but it always ends up being some reflection of what I-as-a-person would do in that situation.
This becomes a major problem in several of the groups I have been in the past. The Longer-Lasting groups I've been in do not place high priority on RP. But I find myself not getting along with players who do nothing but RP. I have had problems largely since other players get completely lost in-character, when I'm just trying to be a straight shooter and get to the next plot point the DM has in store; even when the group establishes methods to clarify RP & Player speak, they are too in-character to notice. And I've been kicked out of several groups simply because I'm not good with Role-Play; Which, by the way, I had established very well with that DM that it is something I struggle with, and when I was actually getting along well with the other players. Hell, that DM would only base XP on Roleplay, and would ALWAYS give me the lowest of the group despite my best efforts. Essentially, I have had ZERO positive experience with players who RP.
[EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not 100% against RP, it's just low on the list of what I am looking for in a D&D campaign. I just am a very get-to-the-point kind of player who likes to see what happens next in the game's plot, whereas RPers always seem to me to essentially be (in movie terms) the annoying side-character who hogs the screen and brings the plot to a screeching halt. Also, I base my character creation on what class of character I wish to play.]
Am I doing something wrong, or is it I just got unlucky with other players? And how should I deal with those excessive Roleplayers?
Maybe look into another, less roleplay focused system like Dungeon Crawl Classic or similar. Or perhaps dungeon crawling board games? D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game after all, so finding groups who don't want to RP is gonna be challenging. Explore other systems and other game types and hopefully you'll find a better fit for your prefered play style!
If you mean the theatrical attitude, the voices, the mannerisms...I wouldn't expect that at my table. Of you could do it, that'd be great, and I'd reward you for it (I'd use my sense of your comfort as a baseline, so it wouldn't be based on skill but your effort), but I wouldn't punish you for not doing it. I'd find an alternative rubric for rewarding your involvement instead. Generally speaking, I don't think DMs should insist - unless they explicitly state the expectation prior to starting the game.
If you mean playing as someone else, then I have to wonder if D&D is for you. That's not gatekeeping, just more of a concern for you. It's an RPG and I find that most of the enjoyment comes from seeing how characters interact and how the story goes for them. The best fights in films aren't merely contests of strength or skill, but tell stories during the fight. That only really comes from role-playing - playing your character. The reason why the throne room fight is so good is because it's telling us the story of Luke struggling with the darkside - not just that he's capable of fighting and winning against Vader, but the fight going in inside of him between the light and the dark.
That doesn't mean the character can't be similar to you. That doesn't meant that the character had to be you, either. We are all multifaceted and have different aspects to our personality. Pick an aspect and exaggerate it, base a character around it. I always do this - all my characters share something in common with me. My first character was very intellectual, my second was very a Paladin that had very strong convictions when it comes to morality and my third is a gnomish artificer who is a bit of a prankster. None are identical to me, but their core personalities contain an aspect of mine. It's much easier to RP a character by leaning in to my own.
If playing a character doesn't appeal to you, then there must be a similar game that is more optimised for just completing objectives? Alternatively, I guess you could build terminator style character that has a similar mentality, but innafraid you'll always be frustrated because the others will want to play the game more true to their characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
As others have said, you just need to find a group that has a similar play style as you. I as a GM like to get into my NPC's head and act them out because I want to do it and I think it is fun, but I do not force roleplay on my players, and they just treat their characters like avatars in an MMO and speak or act out of character most of the time. They do roleplay a bit when I specifically use an NPC to engage them in conversation, but it is something I have to initiate and lead by example.
I am pretty sure there are GMs out there who would not mind a lack of roleplay. You can maybe try groups catered towards beginners so the pressue to role play well, or at all, might be significantly less.
No, you are not doing anything wrong. There’s no wrong way to play. There’s different ways to play, but there’s no platonic ideal of the correct D&D experience.
You just need to search around for other players like you, which is easy for me to type, but likely difficult for you to do.
As for “excessive” role players, that’s where you’re maybe making a mistake. From their perspective, they are not being excessive (I’d wager) they are just playing in a way that’s fun for them. Sometimes players like that, and players like you can get along and have lots of fun. Sometimes not. And there’s really too many variables to be able to tell which without trying it out.
So you try a new table. If it fits, great. If not, wish them well and find a different game that’s a better fit.
As a DM, I would give out XP for what the party did. Creatures killed in combat, traps found, etc. And usually everyone gets that equally because the party is small and has to work together to complete things. I do give out additional XP for really good RPing or some exceptional thing a player does, and that goes to the player specifically, but it is usually pretty small, like 50XP, and I try to keep them pretty even, so the players are all within 100 XP of each other. They pretty much level up together.
You may want to check out this article, and possibly pass it along to your DM the next chance you get. It details a method of roleplaying most people don't really recognize, and calls out the thespian dramatics as the unnecessary window dressing they are. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy me some thespian dramatics, but that doesn't make them not unnecessary window dressing.
Nevertheless. Angry specifically calls out what you're talking about - "roleplaying isn't about deciding what Grog'n'Ale the GARbarian would do in this situation. it's about deciding what you would do if you were Grog'n'Ale the GARbarian." Might be worth a read, if only to help reassure yourself that no - you're not doing anything wrong.
Character comes primarily from what a character *does*. You don't have to be snappy at improv or able to summon up a deep well of emotional memory to play D&D well, or to role-play well. Character is about action.
Knowing what your character wants, understanding what they're willing to do to obtain what they want, and knowing the things that they are afraid of can give you more than enough to play a compelling character in a D&D game.
So, ask yourself, what does this character want? If the answer is "to get to the end of the story", I'd offer you the challenge to re-frame that answer to something like "to succeed in this mission and survive the dangers".
What is your character willing to do to succeed in their mission and survive the dangers? This is a question that gives you a significant opportunity to perhaps understand what this character might be (in contrast or in alignment with your own perspective). Are they very brave? Are the selfless? Is there a moral line they can't cross? Is there not one? All of those are interesting questions, but at the end of the day you get to decide what the answer is.
What is your character afraid of gives perhaps the most important element to the puzzle, which is to say, a weakness in your character's heroic frame (something that humanizes them and makes them more well-rounded).
Good role play is about characters trying to obtain what they need. Very good, trained actors know this - the pour over scripts for action and need. It is from these strong needs that conflict is born (I want to get to the end of this dungeon and get this special sword, but there's a malignant spirit that guards it, and we need to overcome that spirit to get the treasure. Now, what is this character willing to go to succeed? What's at stake for them? What about this mission scares them? How might they respond to that fear?)
From three simple questions about need, will, and fear, you'll have a perfectly viable amount of "flesh" on the bones of your character.
I cannot put myself in another person's shoes AT ALL, even characters I create;I really try, but it always ends up being some reflection of what I-as-a-person would do in that situation.
My first thought upon reading your post was “just make your characters’ personalities more like your own.”
As you stated, your PCs can have a widely varying array of features, trays, and statistics. One can make a PC capable of doing just about anything imaginable, and then make a multitude of different PCs for anything else imaginable. However, to borrow and adapt the wisdom of Cap’n Jack Sparrow, a character is not a collection of features, traits, and stats. That’s what a PC has, but what a PC is, is the person who’s shoes you wish to occupy for a few hours at a time on whatever schedule your table holds.
It just so happens that every PC you want to play is the kind of person who picks the same shoes you do.* Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that. Your fun is not wrong. The whole point of creating different “characters” to play is so that one can pretend to be various versions of someone else for a while. If you don’t want to be someone else when you play D&D, then just keep things a little closer to home in regards to their personalities. You can still give them whatever arrangements of race, class, and background you want, an array of Ability scores the complement hose choices, and any backstory you like. Just pick personally traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws that more closely represent your own personality. That way, you will always be spot on in your RP, without having to try to be someone you don’t want to be. (Kinda like when Eminem had to portray the young, aspiring rapper Marshall Mathers Jimmy 'B-Rabbit' Smith in 8-mile. 😉)
*👇
One of my absolute best friends for the past half of my life tends to make all of her characters the kind of people she wishes she could get away with being in real life. They are all very, very good at removing people she doesn’t like from the population, and most structures from the surface of whatever world they happen to be on at the time. They are all also almost universally devoid of anything one might typically classify as “utilitarian.” Almost every spell her casters learn carry the “combat” and “damage” tags, even the cantrips. She made a couple different Warlocks and every Cantrip on their lists deals damage. The fact that she only ever casts the same two (like most people), she still considers things like prestidigitation or mage hand a wasted slot since her PCs can darned well start fires, season food, open or closed unlocked doors & windows and carry objects weighing far in excess of 10 lbs without spells. (IRL, she has never killed any of the stupid, irritating, offensive, or otherwise objectionable people she has met (approximately 90ish% of everyone), any structural damage (she may or may not have allegedly caused) was accidental (if it ever actually happened at all), and she is one of the most adept individuals I know I’m regards to all of the “utility” stuff required for general adulting.
Another friend of ours is a natural born contrarian, and a self professed man Anarchist. Every PC I have ever seen him play has at least an underlying inclination towards activities that would fit the phrase “damn the man,” even the ones he creates to be “the man.”
As a DM, I would give out XP for what the party did. Creatures killed in combat, traps found, etc. And usually everyone gets that equally because the party is small and has to work together to complete things. I do give out additional XP for really good RPing or some exceptional thing a player does, and that goes to the player specifically, but it is usually pretty small, like 50XP, and I try to keep them pretty even, so the players are all within 100 XP of each other. They pretty much level up together.
I do the same thing myself, in leu of awarding Inspiration. The only difference is I only award 25XP/instance and don’t worry about keeping them even. I used to endeavor to keep them kindasorta close, but after tracking it, over a long enough time span I realized that, at least with my group, it just ends up happening naturally. I also don’t worry at all about keeping each PC’s total XP within a certain tolerance (in your case 100 XP). 👇
I have a houserule that whenever a new player joins, or someone’s PC dies, those new PCs come in with the minimum required XP to be the same level as the lowest level PC in the party. So if everyone is 12th level, even if they’re halfway to 13th level (110,000 XP) the new PC comes in with exactly 100,000 XP. That’s something I have done since 2e when RAW, all new PCs were supposed to start at 1st level with 0 XP and I said “nay nay.” For anyone with a PC that far below the average party member I offer to run solo adventures for them during the party’s downtime to give them an opportunity to catch up. And when that player’s PC gets to tell the rest of the party about their unique adventure in character, sometimes the other players are almost a little envious. Not quite enough that they wish their PC had died and needed replacement, but enough that they aren’t as upset by PC death as they otherwise might be.
To the OP: there is nothing wrong with the way you play. I'd argue that many more players play your style than think their table is a "masterclass" in performance technique. Aside from the recent foray into "CR-lite 'role playing' centered play with Wild Beyond the Witchlight, if you look at how most D&D published adventures operate, I'd argue "role playing" as you're describing it is basically an adverb to the actual mechanisms of playing D&D, so your DM is awarding for style where you'd rather see more consideration paid to negotiations of the system within the game's mechanical execution. I mean you've played this way before and enjoyed that, right? So it's not that D&D isn't for you, more to that in a bit, it's that maybe this table's play style isn't your style so it's up to you to determine whether it's worth your time and energy to participate in this group or take your time an endurance in search of a group that's more accommodating and rewarding to your play style. If you stick it out, unfortunately there's not much you can do to moderate the performative play style that's encouraged by the DM.
Maybe look into another, less roleplay focused system like Dungeon Crawl Classic or similar. Or perhaps dungeon crawling board games? D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game after all, so finding groups who don't want to RP is gonna be challenging. Explore other systems and other game types and hopefully you'll find a better fit for your prefered play style!
If I was a first time poster to the community and got this feedback, I'd be pretty frustrated by this.
The OP identifies themself as a long time player of D&D. I'm a big proponent of D&D players exploring other rules systems myself, however the logic your recommendation seems predicated on sounds a little too flippantly formulated, dismissive of their table concerns, and make an essentialist assertion of what D&D is ... when that assertion just isn't the case. Yes D&D is called a tabletop roleplaying game, but (and I think you know this) D&D and all the other games we now call tabletop roleplaying games were once simply called role playing games. Sometime prior to the "tabletop" prefix, the operating prefix was "pencil and paper" role playing games. That's because the computer gaming business started publishing games they were calling RPGs and the distinction was needed; and germane to my point those computer games I think were accurately called role playing games even when they didn't have the space for the performative emotive hamming I believe is fitting your narrow definition of role playing, and much of the pencil and paper role playing games that didn't indulge in such hamming were in fact considered role playing games. I'm thinking the pencil and paper to the tabletop transition was made to make the games seem less crunchy and more social ... but I don't think they fundamentally changed in the way they were played.
Your case seems to be that role playing is a practice that can be likened CR emulating or aspirations. Yes, role playing can be that, it can also be a lot of other things. I'd argue, historically and in present practice, less role playing is done in the CR aspiration mode, and more role playing is actually folks cribbing poses and lines from their favorite media and seasoning it with Monty Python (or whatever I have my browser open to, sorry Sposta and Yurei, but I don't think either of them would say I'm a bad role player, maybe a little too meta). And really, at the end of the day, it's all more often than not just hamming. There is plenty of space in D&D to play the way the OP wants, and I hope they explore the forum more to find the bulk of the conversations throughout the forum are largely in that more crunchy vein that they seem to prefer.
Simple data pull: how much does the core manuals of the game encourage the sort of role playing performed as the OP outlines. It really doesn't. The play examples, as limited as they are seem more on point to the OP's style. If anything I'd say the Crit Role aspirant group would probably be best served by other systems, but WotC is never going to tell them that.
Maybe look into another, less roleplay focused system like Dungeon Crawl Classic or similar. Or perhaps dungeon crawling board games? D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game after all, so finding groups who don't want to RP is gonna be challenging. Explore other systems and other game types and hopefully you'll find a better fit for your prefered play style!
If I was a first time poster to the community and got this feedback, I'd be pretty frustrated by this.
That's fair criticism, but I would like to preface my response with saying just because I moderate for a D&D community, that doesn't mean I believe D&D is the be-all and end-all when it comes to TTRPGs. I noticed that they said they were a long time D&D player and that was actually the reason I recommend DCC; D&D has changed a lot over it's lifetime, but there are systems out there that harken back to those styles of play that have since fallen out of favour. I was just trying to avoid the trap of make the OP think that D&D is the only way for them to get the type of experience they're looking for.
I was also trying to emphasise where the focus within D&D lies within the community as a whole and the type of playstyles widely engender, but also that there are systems that engender other playstyles. From what the OP posted, it seemed like they were looking for more OSR style dungeon crawl, hack-and-slash, metagaming isn't a dirty word style play, which is a valid thing to enjoy, but isn't maybe as well served by D&D as it is today. I made no mention of CR, or even styles of roleplay as I did not want to presume the OP couldn't roleplay, let alone couldn't roleplay to any arbitrary degree. Instead that they do not enjoy roleplay.
I don't think recommending someone broaden their TTRPG scope when they're facing repeat frustrations finding a D&D game to their liking is bad advice, and certainly no worse than any of the other pieces of advice given here.
To the OP: there is nothing wrong with the way you play. I'd argue that many more players play your style than think their table is a "masterclass" in performance technique. Aside from the recent foray into "CR-lite 'role playing' centered play with Wild Beyond the Witchlight, if you look at how most D&D published adventures operate, I'd argue "role playing" as you're describing it is basically an adverb to the actual mechanisms of playing D&D, so your DM is awarding for style where you'd rather see more consideration paid to negotiations of the system within the game's mechanical execution. I mean you've played this way before and enjoyed that, right? So it's not that D&D isn't for you, more to that in a bit, it's that maybe this table's play style isn't your style so it's up to you to determine whether it's worth your time and energy to participate in this group or take your time an endurance in search of a group that's more accommodating and rewarding to your play style. If you stick it out, unfortunately there's not much you can do to moderate the performative play style that's encouraged by the DM.
Maybe look into another, less roleplay focused system like Dungeon Crawl Classic or similar. Or perhaps dungeon crawling board games? D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game after all, so finding groups who don't want to RP is gonna be challenging. Explore other systems and other game types and hopefully you'll find a better fit for your prefered play style!
If I was a first time poster to the community and got this feedback, I'd be pretty frustrated by this.
[…]
Simple data pull: how much does the core manuals of the game encourage the sort of role playing performed as the OP outlines. It really doesn't. The play examples, as limited as they are seem more on point to the OP's style. If anything I'd say the Crit Role aspirant group would probably be best served by other systems, but WotC is never going to tell them that.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. There’s no reason (aside from money, and popularity which equals money) that Matt Mercer didn’t switch to Genesys or another narrative system a long time ago. Let alone the wannabes who don’t have Mercer’s adaptability. D&D does action-packed pulp fantasy, Indiana Jones meets Tolkien, really really well. (And to its credit, it’s fun as hell.) Almost everything else is better served by up-and-coming games whose designers don’t get the respect they deserve.
Now, I’ve played in a number of games over the years, mostly with friends, sometimes at my game store. Some were total dungeon crawls where characters were just cool avatars to joke about. Others had some genuinely CR-like roleplay (but still a lot of lethal combat). And most fell somewhere in between. All were fun and legitimate!
Also, that group you were in sounds like a bunch of pretentious jerks. I know some genuinely stream-worthy roleplayers, and they don’t play the way you described, let alone base XP on it (which is just petty). We’re all friends, we’re all there to have fun, and we’re all equal.
I think, though, that’s one of the big reasons to seek out friends to join your game rather than finding random groups. Everyone looks out for each other, and you get the chance to set a positive tone, no matter what level of RP you’re going for.
My opinion is that you have the wrong DM. As a DM, I definitely appreciate role play. I don't think my game would work without it. At the same time, I don't need every player to be a role playing champ. The idea of giving XP based on role play is pretty unusual. I do milestone leveling, and everybody levels up together. Everyone is going to contribute a different amount to different aspects of the game. I don't need to punish players for playing the way they want.
As with everyone here I think what you really need is a new decent DM and group. Like you I am NOT an actor but I can play a role in a game and take account of my character's pluses and minuses physically, emotionally and skillwise. and that is all role play really is. my current group has seven players and one is a great actor, the rest of us are decent role players and we all have fun. Frankly one good actor at a table is about all you need - I can't imagine how crazy my table would be if we were all as out there as our one actor. Personally I tend to think of myself as the NG quiet leader type and most of my characters follow that. Use those creation tables and the character's background to provide some sort of differentiation between character action/motivation and player to player interaction and you should be welcome at (almost) any table, I know I have been and such players have always been welcome at my tables when I DMed..
That's the beauty of D&D. It has such tremendous flexibility built in that different people, and different groups, can play the game however they want. You're not doing anything "wrong", because there is no right or wrong way to play D&D. You're simply playing the game your way. Some people prefer combat and number crunching. Some people prefer solving puzzles and unlocking mysteries. Some people love the deep immersion of intense role playing. And that's fine. As long as everyone in the group is having fun, that's all that matters.
Now, granted, there may be different types of players in the same group. So the group should all talk it out in Session Zero before a campaign begins to agree on the style of gameplay that's to be expected in the campaign, and to make whatever concessions and compromises are necessary to ensure that everyone in the group gets to have a fair share of the fun. But beyond that, if you're not comfortable role playing, no one should be allowed to force you to role play. In fact, you could even build your character to ensure a minimum of role playing. You could play a monk who took a vow of silence. You could play a rogue who only speaks in short hushed whispers for fear of being found by the law. You could play a fighter who is the strong silent type.
Whatever solution you choose, you should be allowed the room to play your own style of play. As long as you're not infringing on anyone else's enjoyment of the game experience, then you're fine. It's a game! Have fun!
Maybe look into another, less roleplay focused system like Dungeon Crawl Classic or similar. Or perhaps dungeon crawling board games? D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game after all, so finding groups who don't want to RP is gonna be challenging. Explore other systems and other game types and hopefully you'll find a better fit for your prefered play style!
I really dislike this sort of response not only because it reeks of elitism and gatekeeping, but it's objectively false. It's history repeating itself, we have been down this road before. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever about D&D 5e that suggests that it's "more role-play" than any other RPG, OSR or otherwise.
I agree regarding OSR, but Dungeon Crawl Classics and certainly dungeon crawling boardgames? This is what's included in every DCC: "Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed. Each adventure is 100% good, solid dungeon crawl, with the monsters you know, the traps you fear, and the secret doors you know are there somewhere."
Whether it's due to deliberate design or due to how a significant part of the community evolved doesn't really matter: the end result is that plenty of D&D 5E groups out there place a heavy emphasis on non-combat, roleplay content. It's not like this passed WotC by either, considering The Wild Beyond the Witchlight can be played in its entirety with minimal combat. Not so the HeroQuests, Descents, Cave Trolls, Gloomhavens or Zombicides of the world. You can certainly find lots of D&D groups that don't go in for heavy roleplay too, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but with a Shadows of Brimstone you know what you're going to get regardless of who you play with. With D&D, every group can be different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
BigLizard, suggesting people expand their horizons to other game systems is not elitism, nor is it gatekeeping. I'm not imposing any restrictions or criteria on how people play D&D, I'm simply stating that better fortune in finding certain styles of play may be had if you cast a wider net beyond D&D.
I would also implore not taking quite such a hostile stance when someone suggests a notion of D&D that is different to your own. Having played across various systems, there are those that engender roleplay more than D&D (for example, PbtA games) and those that engender it less (like DCC and other such OSR games).
And as for making claims of the 'objective falsity' of my statements, well absolute statements such as that rarely lead anywhere productive. D&D today is a very different game to the D&D of 20, 30, 40, or almost 50 years ago, which is the very reason that systems like Pathfinder and Five Torches Deep, and the OSR movement in general, exist. I never said D&D is the wrong game for them, I made a suggestion of broadening their search. This is the same advice I would give if someone asked for something with less magic (Ironsworn), or maybe science fiction themes (Shadowrun), or heist based (Blades in the Dark). D&D is a great system (it's my favourite within the fantasy genre), but it's not the system for every possible type of game, and even within the genre of games D&D used to primarily engeder, it's no longer the forerunner. If you want a gritty, hack and slash dungeon crawler, I'd probably recommend Five Torches Deep or DCC.
I would also recommend that you not meet people who view D&D differently to you with attacks of elitism or gatekeeping, because there is something of a irony to make such accusations, and then rigidly defining what D&D is.
I've been a long-time player of D&D. I love the sense of adventure, the combat, the dungeon crawling, the fact that you can make a character however you wish (in mechanical terms). But One thing I have always struggled with is Role-Play. I really do not like to Role-Play; I never have, and more-than-likely never will (but if you do, that's completely A-Okay). To put it simply: I cannot put myself in another person's shoes AT ALL, even characters I create; I really try, but it always ends up being some reflection of what I-as-a-person would do in that situation.
This becomes a major problem in several of the groups I have been in the past. The Longer-Lasting groups I've been in do not place high priority on RP. But I find myself not getting along with players who do nothing but RP. I have had problems largely since other players get completely lost in-character, when I'm just trying to be a straight shooter and get to the next plot point the DM has in store; even when the group establishes methods to clarify RP & Player speak, they are too in-character to notice. And I've been kicked out of several groups simply because I'm not good with Role-Play; Which, by the way, I had established very well with that DM that it is something I struggle with, and when I was actually getting along well with the other players. Hell, that DM would only base XP on Roleplay, and would ALWAYS give me the lowest of the group despite my best efforts. Essentially, I have had ZERO positive experience with players who RP.
[EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not 100% against RP, it's just low on the list of what I am looking for in a D&D campaign. I just am a very get-to-the-point kind of player who likes to see what happens next in the game's plot, whereas RPers always seem to me to essentially be (in movie terms) the annoying side-character who hogs the screen and brings the plot to a screeching halt. Also, I base my character creation on what class of character I wish to play.]
Am I doing something wrong, or is it I just got unlucky with other players? And how should I deal with those excessive Roleplayers?
Just find a group that likes more of dungeon crawl and create youself character that is like you (nothing wrong in that).
Maybe look into another, less roleplay focused system like Dungeon Crawl Classic or similar. Or perhaps dungeon crawling board games? D&D is a tabletop roleplaying game after all, so finding groups who don't want to RP is gonna be challenging. Explore other systems and other game types and hopefully you'll find a better fit for your prefered play style!
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Just two points:
What do you mean by role-play?
If you mean the theatrical attitude, the voices, the mannerisms...I wouldn't expect that at my table. Of you could do it, that'd be great, and I'd reward you for it (I'd use my sense of your comfort as a baseline, so it wouldn't be based on skill but your effort), but I wouldn't punish you for not doing it. I'd find an alternative rubric for rewarding your involvement instead. Generally speaking, I don't think DMs should insist - unless they explicitly state the expectation prior to starting the game.
If you mean playing as someone else, then I have to wonder if D&D is for you. That's not gatekeeping, just more of a concern for you. It's an RPG and I find that most of the enjoyment comes from seeing how characters interact and how the story goes for them. The best fights in films aren't merely contests of strength or skill, but tell stories during the fight. That only really comes from role-playing - playing your character. The reason why the throne room fight is so good is because it's telling us the story of Luke struggling with the darkside - not just that he's capable of fighting and winning against Vader, but the fight going in inside of him between the light and the dark.
That doesn't mean the character can't be similar to you. That doesn't meant that the character had to be you, either. We are all multifaceted and have different aspects to our personality. Pick an aspect and exaggerate it, base a character around it. I always do this - all my characters share something in common with me. My first character was very intellectual, my second was very a Paladin that had very strong convictions when it comes to morality and my third is a gnomish artificer who is a bit of a prankster. None are identical to me, but their core personalities contain an aspect of mine. It's much easier to RP a character by leaning in to my own.
If playing a character doesn't appeal to you, then there must be a similar game that is more optimised for just completing objectives? Alternatively, I guess you could build terminator style character that has a similar mentality, but innafraid you'll always be frustrated because the others will want to play the game more true to their characters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
There are plenty of people that just like the combat, you just need to do a better job of finding those groups.
Filter for "competitive" games, for "min-max friendly" games etc.
As others have said, you just need to find a group that has a similar play style as you. I as a GM like to get into my NPC's head and act them out because I want to do it and I think it is fun, but I do not force roleplay on my players, and they just treat their characters like avatars in an MMO and speak or act out of character most of the time. They do roleplay a bit when I specifically use an NPC to engage them in conversation, but it is something I have to initiate and lead by example.
I am pretty sure there are GMs out there who would not mind a lack of roleplay. You can maybe try groups catered towards beginners so the pressue to role play well, or at all, might be significantly less.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
No, you are not doing anything wrong. There’s no wrong way to play. There’s different ways to play, but there’s no platonic ideal of the correct D&D experience.
You just need to search around for other players like you, which is easy for me to type, but likely difficult for you to do.
As for “excessive” role players, that’s where you’re maybe making a mistake. From their perspective, they are not being excessive (I’d wager) they are just playing in a way that’s fun for them. Sometimes players like that, and players like you can get along and have lots of fun. Sometimes not. And there’s really too many variables to be able to tell which without trying it out.
So you try a new table. If it fits, great. If not, wish them well and find a different game that’s a better fit.
As a DM, I would give out XP for what the party did. Creatures killed in combat, traps found, etc. And usually everyone gets that equally because the party is small and has to work together to complete things. I do give out additional XP for really good RPing or some exceptional thing a player does, and that goes to the player specifically, but it is usually pretty small, like 50XP, and I try to keep them pretty even, so the players are all within 100 XP of each other. They pretty much level up together.
You may want to check out this article, and possibly pass it along to your DM the next chance you get. It details a method of roleplaying most people don't really recognize, and calls out the thespian dramatics as the unnecessary window dressing they are. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy me some thespian dramatics, but that doesn't make them not unnecessary window dressing.
Nevertheless. Angry specifically calls out what you're talking about - "roleplaying isn't about deciding what Grog'n'Ale the GARbarian would do in this situation. it's about deciding what you would do if you were Grog'n'Ale the GARbarian." Might be worth a read, if only to help reassure yourself that no - you're not doing anything wrong.
Angry GM on How To Actually Play a Character
Please do not contact or message me.
Character comes primarily from what a character *does*. You don't have to be snappy at improv or able to summon up a deep well of emotional memory to play D&D well, or to role-play well. Character is about action.
Knowing what your character wants, understanding what they're willing to do to obtain what they want, and knowing the things that they are afraid of can give you more than enough to play a compelling character in a D&D game.
So, ask yourself, what does this character want? If the answer is "to get to the end of the story", I'd offer you the challenge to re-frame that answer to something like "to succeed in this mission and survive the dangers".
What is your character willing to do to succeed in their mission and survive the dangers? This is a question that gives you a significant opportunity to perhaps understand what this character might be (in contrast or in alignment with your own perspective). Are they very brave? Are the selfless? Is there a moral line they can't cross? Is there not one? All of those are interesting questions, but at the end of the day you get to decide what the answer is.
What is your character afraid of gives perhaps the most important element to the puzzle, which is to say, a weakness in your character's heroic frame (something that humanizes them and makes them more well-rounded).
Good role play is about characters trying to obtain what they need. Very good, trained actors know this - the pour over scripts for action and need. It is from these strong needs that conflict is born (I want to get to the end of this dungeon and get this special sword, but there's a malignant spirit that guards it, and we need to overcome that spirit to get the treasure. Now, what is this character willing to go to succeed? What's at stake for them? What about this mission scares them? How might they respond to that fear?)
From three simple questions about need, will, and fear, you'll have a perfectly viable amount of "flesh" on the bones of your character.
My first thought upon reading your post was “just make your characters’ personalities more like your own.”
As you stated, your PCs can have a widely varying array of features, trays, and statistics. One can make a PC capable of doing just about anything imaginable, and then make a multitude of different PCs for anything else imaginable. However, to borrow and adapt the wisdom of Cap’n Jack Sparrow, a character is not a collection of features, traits, and stats. That’s what a PC has, but what a PC is, is the person who’s shoes you wish to occupy for a few hours at a time on whatever schedule your table holds.
It just so happens that every PC you want to play is the kind of person who picks the same shoes you do.
*Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that. Your fun is not wrong. The whole point of creating different “characters” to play is so that one can pretend to be various versions of someone else for a while. If you don’t want to be someone else when you play D&D, then just keep things a little closer to home in regards to their personalities. You can still give them whatever arrangements of race, class, and background you want, an array of Ability scores the complement hose choices, and any backstory you like. Just pick personally traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws that more closely represent your own personality. That way, you will always be spot on in your RP, without having to try to be someone you don’t want to be. (Kinda like when Eminem had to portray the young, aspiring rapperMarshall MathersJimmy 'B-Rabbit' Smith in 8-mile. 😉)*👇One of my absolute best friends for the past half of my life tends to make all of her characters the kind of people she wishes she could get away with being in real life. They are all very, very good at removing people she doesn’t like from the population, and most structures from the surface of whatever world they happen to be on at the time. They are all also almost universally devoid of anything one might typically classify as “utilitarian.” Almost every spell her casters learn carry the “combat” and “damage” tags, even the cantrips. She made a couple different Warlocks and every Cantrip on their lists deals damage. The fact that she only ever casts the same two (like most people), she still considers things like prestidigitation or mage hand a wasted slot since her PCs can darned well start fires, season food, open or closed unlocked doors & windows and carry objects weighing far in excess of 10 lbs without spells. (IRL, she has never killed any of the stupid, irritating, offensive, or otherwise objectionable people she has met (approximately 90ish% of everyone), any structural damage (she may or may not have allegedly caused) was accidental (if it ever actually happened at all), and she is one of the most adept individuals I know I’m regards to all of the “utility” stuff required for general adulting.
Another friend of ours is a natural born contrarian, and a self professed man Anarchist. Every PC I have ever seen him play has at least an underlying inclination towards activities that would fit the phrase “damn the man,” even the ones he creates to be “the man.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I do the same thing myself, in leu of awarding Inspiration. The only difference is I only award 25XP/instance and don’t worry about keeping them even. I used to endeavor to keep them kindasorta close, but after tracking it, over a long enough time span I realized that, at least with my group, it just ends up happening naturally. I also don’t worry at all about keeping each PC’s total XP within a certain tolerance (in your case 100 XP). 👇
I have a houserule that whenever a new player joins, or someone’s PC dies, those new PCs come in with the minimum required XP to be the same level as the lowest level PC in the party. So if everyone is 12th level, even if they’re halfway to 13th level (110,000 XP) the new PC comes in with exactly 100,000 XP. That’s something I have done since 2e when RAW, all new PCs were supposed to start at 1st level with 0 XP and I said “nay nay.” For anyone with a PC that far below the average party member I offer to run solo adventures for them during the party’s downtime to give them an opportunity to catch up. And when that player’s PC gets to tell the rest of the party about their unique adventure in character, sometimes the other players are almost a little envious. Not quite enough that they wish their PC had died and needed replacement, but enough that they aren’t as upset by PC death as they otherwise might be.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To the OP: there is nothing wrong with the way you play. I'd argue that many more players play your style than think their table is a "masterclass" in performance technique. Aside from the recent foray into "CR-lite 'role playing' centered play with Wild Beyond the Witchlight, if you look at how most D&D published adventures operate, I'd argue "role playing" as you're describing it is basically an adverb to the actual mechanisms of playing D&D, so your DM is awarding for style where you'd rather see more consideration paid to negotiations of the system within the game's mechanical execution. I mean you've played this way before and enjoyed that, right? So it's not that D&D isn't for you, more to that in a bit, it's that maybe this table's play style isn't your style so it's up to you to determine whether it's worth your time and energy to participate in this group or take your time an endurance in search of a group that's more accommodating and rewarding to your play style. If you stick it out, unfortunately there's not much you can do to moderate the performative play style that's encouraged by the DM.
If I was a first time poster to the community and got this feedback, I'd be pretty frustrated by this.
The OP identifies themself as a long time player of D&D. I'm a big proponent of D&D players exploring other rules systems myself, however the logic your recommendation seems predicated on sounds a little too flippantly formulated, dismissive of their table concerns, and make an essentialist assertion of what D&D is ... when that assertion just isn't the case. Yes D&D is called a tabletop roleplaying game, but (and I think you know this) D&D and all the other games we now call tabletop roleplaying games were once simply called role playing games. Sometime prior to the "tabletop" prefix, the operating prefix was "pencil and paper" role playing games. That's because the computer gaming business started publishing games they were calling RPGs and the distinction was needed; and germane to my point those computer games I think were accurately called role playing games even when they didn't have the space for the performative emotive hamming I believe is fitting your narrow definition of role playing, and much of the pencil and paper role playing games that didn't indulge in such hamming were in fact considered role playing games. I'm thinking the pencil and paper to the tabletop transition was made to make the games seem less crunchy and more social ... but I don't think they fundamentally changed in the way they were played.
Your case seems to be that role playing is a practice that can be likened CR emulating or aspirations. Yes, role playing can be that, it can also be a lot of other things. I'd argue, historically and in present practice, less role playing is done in the CR aspiration mode, and more role playing is actually folks cribbing poses and lines from their favorite media and seasoning it with Monty Python (or whatever I have my browser open to, sorry Sposta and Yurei, but I don't think either of them would say I'm a bad role player, maybe a little too meta). And really, at the end of the day, it's all more often than not just hamming. There is plenty of space in D&D to play the way the OP wants, and I hope they explore the forum more to find the bulk of the conversations throughout the forum are largely in that more crunchy vein that they seem to prefer.
Simple data pull: how much does the core manuals of the game encourage the sort of role playing performed as the OP outlines. It really doesn't. The play examples, as limited as they are seem more on point to the OP's style. If anything I'd say the Crit Role aspirant group would probably be best served by other systems, but WotC is never going to tell them that.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
That's fair criticism, but I would like to preface my response with saying just because I moderate for a D&D community, that doesn't mean I believe D&D is the be-all and end-all when it comes to TTRPGs. I noticed that they said they were a long time D&D player and that was actually the reason I recommend DCC; D&D has changed a lot over it's lifetime, but there are systems out there that harken back to those styles of play that have since fallen out of favour. I was just trying to avoid the trap of make the OP think that D&D is the only way for them to get the type of experience they're looking for.
I was also trying to emphasise where the focus within D&D lies within the community as a whole and the type of playstyles widely engender, but also that there are systems that engender other playstyles. From what the OP posted, it seemed like they were looking for more OSR style dungeon crawl, hack-and-slash, metagaming isn't a dirty word style play, which is a valid thing to enjoy, but isn't maybe as well served by D&D as it is today. I made no mention of CR, or even styles of roleplay as I did not want to presume the OP couldn't roleplay, let alone couldn't roleplay to any arbitrary degree. Instead that they do not enjoy roleplay.
I don't think recommending someone broaden their TTRPG scope when they're facing repeat frustrations finding a D&D game to their liking is bad advice, and certainly no worse than any of the other pieces of advice given here.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Couldn’t have said it better myself. There’s no reason (aside from money, and popularity which equals money) that Matt Mercer didn’t switch to Genesys or another narrative system a long time ago. Let alone the wannabes who don’t have Mercer’s adaptability. D&D does action-packed pulp fantasy, Indiana Jones meets Tolkien, really really well. (And to its credit, it’s fun as hell.) Almost everything else is better served by up-and-coming games whose designers don’t get the respect they deserve.
Now, I’ve played in a number of games over the years, mostly with friends, sometimes at my game store. Some were total dungeon crawls where characters were just cool avatars to joke about. Others had some genuinely CR-like roleplay (but still a lot of lethal combat). And most fell somewhere in between. All were fun and legitimate!
Also, that group you were in sounds like a bunch of pretentious jerks. I know some genuinely stream-worthy roleplayers, and they don’t play the way you described, let alone base XP on it (which is just petty). We’re all friends, we’re all there to have fun, and we’re all equal.
I think, though, that’s one of the big reasons to seek out friends to join your game rather than finding random groups. Everyone looks out for each other, and you get the chance to set a positive tone, no matter what level of RP you’re going for.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
My opinion is that you have the wrong DM. As a DM, I definitely appreciate role play. I don't think my game would work without it. At the same time, I don't need every player to be a role playing champ. The idea of giving XP based on role play is pretty unusual. I do milestone leveling, and everybody levels up together. Everyone is going to contribute a different amount to different aspects of the game. I don't need to punish players for playing the way they want.
As with everyone here I think what you really need is a new decent DM and group. Like you I am NOT an actor but I can play a role in a game and take account of my character's pluses and minuses physically, emotionally and skillwise. and that is all role play really is. my current group has seven players and one is a great actor, the rest of us are decent role players and we all have fun. Frankly one good actor at a table is about all you need - I can't imagine how crazy my table would be if we were all as out there as our one actor. Personally I tend to think of myself as the NG quiet leader type and most of my characters follow that. Use those creation tables and the character's background to provide some sort of differentiation between character action/motivation and player to player interaction and you should be welcome at (almost) any table, I know I have been and such players have always been welcome at my tables when I DMed..
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
That's the beauty of D&D. It has such tremendous flexibility built in that different people, and different groups, can play the game however they want. You're not doing anything "wrong", because there is no right or wrong way to play D&D. You're simply playing the game your way. Some people prefer combat and number crunching. Some people prefer solving puzzles and unlocking mysteries. Some people love the deep immersion of intense role playing. And that's fine. As long as everyone in the group is having fun, that's all that matters.
Now, granted, there may be different types of players in the same group. So the group should all talk it out in Session Zero before a campaign begins to agree on the style of gameplay that's to be expected in the campaign, and to make whatever concessions and compromises are necessary to ensure that everyone in the group gets to have a fair share of the fun. But beyond that, if you're not comfortable role playing, no one should be allowed to force you to role play. In fact, you could even build your character to ensure a minimum of role playing. You could play a monk who took a vow of silence. You could play a rogue who only speaks in short hushed whispers for fear of being found by the law. You could play a fighter who is the strong silent type.
Whatever solution you choose, you should be allowed the room to play your own style of play. As long as you're not infringing on anyone else's enjoyment of the game experience, then you're fine. It's a game! Have fun!
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
I agree regarding OSR, but Dungeon Crawl Classics and certainly dungeon crawling boardgames? This is what's included in every DCC: "Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed. Each adventure is 100% good, solid dungeon crawl, with the monsters you know, the traps you fear, and the secret doors you know are there somewhere."
Whether it's due to deliberate design or due to how a significant part of the community evolved doesn't really matter: the end result is that plenty of D&D 5E groups out there place a heavy emphasis on non-combat, roleplay content. It's not like this passed WotC by either, considering The Wild Beyond the Witchlight can be played in its entirety with minimal combat. Not so the HeroQuests, Descents, Cave Trolls, Gloomhavens or Zombicides of the world. You can certainly find lots of D&D groups that don't go in for heavy roleplay too, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but with a Shadows of Brimstone you know what you're going to get regardless of who you play with. With D&D, every group can be different.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
BigLizard, suggesting people expand their horizons to other game systems is not elitism, nor is it gatekeeping. I'm not imposing any restrictions or criteria on how people play D&D, I'm simply stating that better fortune in finding certain styles of play may be had if you cast a wider net beyond D&D.
I would also implore not taking quite such a hostile stance when someone suggests a notion of D&D that is different to your own. Having played across various systems, there are those that engender roleplay more than D&D (for example, PbtA games) and those that engender it less (like DCC and other such OSR games).
And as for making claims of the 'objective falsity' of my statements, well absolute statements such as that rarely lead anywhere productive. D&D today is a very different game to the D&D of 20, 30, 40, or almost 50 years ago, which is the very reason that systems like Pathfinder and Five Torches Deep, and the OSR movement in general, exist. I never said D&D is the wrong game for them, I made a suggestion of broadening their search. This is the same advice I would give if someone asked for something with less magic (Ironsworn), or maybe science fiction themes (Shadowrun), or heist based (Blades in the Dark). D&D is a great system (it's my favourite within the fantasy genre), but it's not the system for every possible type of game, and even within the genre of games D&D used to primarily engeder, it's no longer the forerunner. If you want a gritty, hack and slash dungeon crawler, I'd probably recommend Five Torches Deep or DCC.
I would also recommend that you not meet people who view D&D differently to you with attacks of elitism or gatekeeping, because there is something of a irony to make such accusations, and then rigidly defining what D&D is.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here