My group says my roleplaying style is incorrect. How do I roleplay correctly for them?

Question

I'm currently playing in a 5th edition forgotten realms campaign and I keep getting comments on how I don't role-play correctly. My character is a tiefling rogue hellbent on becoming a god but I can't seem to actually "correctly" role-play.

When I have my character do anything I usually end up saying something along the lines of "Sinon shoots the orc" or something along those lines and apparently the other players don't think that's correct which constantly makes what I say ignored until I phrase it in a way that makes me be the character like instead of saying her name. They want me to say it as if I'm the one doing it and for some reason I cannot seem to get my head around it.

Am I actually role-playing incorrectly and if I am are there any suggestions that could help me change how I role-play?

Answer 1

There are few "rights" and "wrongs"

Roleplaying is similar to theater in many ways. One of these is that there are many different styles of performances. Some groups talk in third person about what their characters do, like you describe yourself doing, others talk in first person, and yet others perform improvised theater of their characters' actions, particularly social interactions.

There are advantages and disadvantages with every approach, and like theater which form you prefer may be a matter of taste - so "right" and "wrong" are not words I would apply on a broader level.

However, each game has a style

Consider the TV series "Game of Thrones". It is (was) an epic gritty fantasy drama tragedy of high stakes and high tension. Now, imagine a typical Sacha Baron Cohen character appearing, and getting away with acting outrageously around and towards notoriously violence-prone characters like the Mountain.

While there may (arguably) be nothing wrong with the character in and of itself, in such a setting it sticks out like a sore thumb - it breaks immersion.

As such, it is generally a good idea in roleplaying to consider the style of your table and try to adapt it, unless you have an agreed-upon concept where the "sore thumb" thing makes sense.

Metagaming

There are a few generally agreed upon concepts to avoid that I have encountered, most notably the concept of "in character knowledge" and "out of character knowledge". Meaning, there are both things your character would know, which you do not know, as well as things you know which your character wouldn't.

If, for instance, you are playing a fantasy game, and your characters encounter a gnome with "a wand that summons a metal projectile with a loud bang and a cloud of smoke, which is hurled at great speed at the enemy the wand was pointed at", you may realize that the gnome may be an inventor who has created a gun, but your character would likely believe the gnome to be a magician.

Acting on knowledge that would not be available to your character is generally frowned upon, and will tend lead to friction.

Powergaming

Another concept is "powergaming", but this is both harder to define and less universally rejected. Notably, this website has both the "powergaming" and "optimization" tags, where the primary difference is in whether the question asked is trying to find a good way to make their character more powerful, or if it is about dealing with someone making too powerful choices.

The description for the optimization tag reads:

For questions pertaining to the positive aspects of character optimization, often abbreviated as CharOp. (If dealing with player problems relating to optimization, use the [powergaming] tag instead.)

While the description for powergaming reads:

For problems with the negative aspects of playing an RPG "to win" via excessive character power and/or rules abuse (aka min-maxing, munchkinism). Use the optimization tag instead for positive aspects of character optimization.

So powergaming is, in many ways, more similar to style than to metagaming - everyone makes choices for their characters, and most try to make those choices be relatively good (from some perspective), so here it is, as with style, a matter of considering what level of powergaming is suitable for your table.

In D&D, it can be a bit tricky for a Dungeon Master to deal with a group with extremely differing levels of optimization. Challenge Ratings are less useful if half the group are highly optimized spellcasters played by tactically-minded players, and half the group read the descriptions of classes and feats to find something narrativistically suitable, paying little heed to utility and often forgetting what capabilities they actually have.

In short

Don't be discouraged, you're not doing anything wrong - just, perhaps, some things that don't fit in with your group's style. Try to be aware of how the others play, and do your best to emulate and thus fit in with them.

However

Some people may not be comfortable with all styles. Saying, "I shoot the orc" instead of "my character shoots the orc" may make you feel as if you are doing the act yourself, which you may be uncomfortable with.

There is, unfortunately, no good answer then. You may be able to habituate yourself to the table's style, but if you can't, then they may not be a good fit for you.

Have fun

Roleplaying is supposed to be a fun hobby, a game we play together for enjoyment (and, perhaps, personal development). If a specific table has a style which makes you uncomfortable, one they are protective of, you may not be able to have fun at that table.

Always remember there are other tables.

Answer 2

What constitutes the correct way to roleplay varies, wildly, from game to game and from table to table.

Therefore, there isn't one single correct way to experience the hobby.

It looks like the correct way to roleplay at your table is to speak as if you were your character. In some groups, you might be able to say "I'm sorry, I'm not used to it, I hope I can improve with time". In some others, people are so convinced that their way is the only right way that they will shake their heads and think that you're a bad player if you say that because they really think that there's one right way to do things.

If you want to keep playing at this table, you'd better ask (keeping to play in a way that they perceive as incorrect would be detrimental to their fun and, in turn, to your), but don't worry: even if it doesn't work out, and they think of you as a bad roleplayer, that's just in their eyes.
There's plenty of people in the hobby that have different standards and would consider your way to talk about your character's actions perfectly acceptable.

So, no, you are not roleplaying incorrectly. But you are roleplaying in a way that particular group of people does not appreciate, and they are being particularly harsh in labeling that so negatively.

To be honest, there's valid reasons to want more immersion. It helps people playing the game to detach themselves from what's happening at the table, it makes easier to focus on the in-world events. But for some tables this is not what they are trying to get, some tables just got taught that way and it's become a dogma: this is how it's done, everything else is bad. I have interacted with tables like that and it's never been pleasant.

So, you might try to ask why they think your way is not correct. If they're dogmatic, expect some more harshness. Again, that's on them, not on you.

Answer 3

Your style is completely valid by the rules.

The D&D 5e Player's Handbook p.185-186, "Roleplaying", describes two approaches to roleplaying: descriptive, where you narrate your character's actions, and active, where you speak as if you are the character. The rules explicitly support the player's decision to use whichever you want:

There are two styles you can use when roleplaying your character: the descriptive approach and the active approach. Most players use a combination of the two styles. Use whichever mix of the two works best for you.

And the descriptive approach specifically gives the example of speaking in third-person, which is the approach you use:

Chris says, "Tordek spits on the floor, growls an insult at the bard, and stomps over to the bar."

In my experience, it's common for players to speak "in-character", i.e. in first-person. You see this usage a lot when people play video games; e.g. when Mario falls down a hole, the player says "I died" rather than "Mario died", and when the player character in Dark Souls is killed, the game says "You Died". However, it's entirely legitimate to speak in third-person. Show your group page 185 of the Player's Handbook if they don't believe you.

If you have difficulty speaking for your character, it may help you to prefix it with "Sinon says"; e.g. "Sinon says 'Bartender, we are looking for information...'". If you don't prefix it, the other players can usually determine from context whether you're speaking as the player or your character. With time, you may become more comfortable with speaking in first-person.

Answer 4

RAW both styles are acceptable and encouraged

PHB, "Roleplaying" pp. 185-186 (first emphasis mine):

There are two styles you can use when roleplaying your character: the descriptive approach and the active approach. Most players use a combination of the two styles. Use whichever mix of the two works best for you.

Descriptive Approach to Roleplaying
With this approach, you describe your character’s words and actions to the DM and the other players. Drawing on your mental image of your character, you tell everyone what your character does and how he or she does it.

You are comfortable playing with the descriptive approach.

Active Approach to Roleplaying
If descriptive roleplaying tells your DM and your fellow players what your character thinks and does, active roleplaying shows them. When you use active roleplaying, you speak with your character’s voice, like an actor taking on a role. You might even echo your character’s movements and body language. This approach is more immersive than descriptive roleplaying, though you still need to describe things that can’t be reasonably acted out.

Your fellow players are using the active approach and you indicate that they are attempting to get you to do so by ignoring your actions unless you do.

The biggest concern I have is with what the DM is doing when this happens. The other players can choose to ignore you or not, but when you say "which constantly makes what I say ignored until I phrase it in a way that makes me be the character like instead of saying her name", is the DM complicit in this?

A 5e DM is instructed that both styles of play are valid, and further, that they should be accommodating of individual players rather than enforcing a specific style.

DMG p. 240 "Inspiration" (emphases mine):

Take into account each player's roleplaying style, and try not to favor one style over another. For example, Allison might be comfortable speaking in an accent and adopting her character's mannerisms, but Paul feels self-conscious when trying to act and prefers to describe his attitude and actions. Neither style is better than the other. Inspiration encourages players to take part and make a good effort, and awarding it fairly makes the game better for everyone.

That being said, it is ultimately the DM's game, and roleplaying style may be important to them as a part of the atmosphere they are trying to set. You need to know this. Talk with the DM first. If they have a preference for the 'active style' and you are not comfortable with that, you may need to find another game. If they have a preference for the active style and you would like to try that but are finding it difficult, enlist the DM's aid. Ask them to remind you or help you rephrase things, and also ask for their help in getting the other players to respect your attempts to change your style.

If, on the other hand, your DM doesn't have a preference as to style, but is content to permit the other players to bully you, then you need to decide whether it is time to find another game, or whether this game is worth the discomfort of having to stand up for yourself. If the latter, explain to the other players, outside of the game, that there is no 'correct' style of play, that you are playing the way you feel comfortable, that you are allowing them to play their characters and you expect the same courtesy from them. If their response is to bully you further, you are better off finding another group. If they can respectfully explain that they simply prefer the active style as more immersive and would like you to adopt that style, then ask for their help in doing so, and tell them that encouragement works better with you than ignoring your character's actions. Ask them to say things like, "I'm sorry, what are you doing?" when you lapse into descriptive style.

Answer 5

Roleplaying isn't measured in right or wrong

There's only very few things in roleplaying that are decidedly right in all situations. There are a few things that are just wrong, but in general every style of roleplaying is valid in some way or another.

What is wrong roleplay?

Wrong roleplaying is technically beyond the line of what is roleplaying at all. Think of things that are endangering people or are illegal, but which a person might claim to be just roleplaying. If your character is about to backstab the goblin raider, swinging wildly with a prop foam dagger might still be acceptable but using a kitchen knife would not be roleplaying but premeditated murder.

Group Style?

Op is experiencing a situation where a specific style (more on what is a style below) seems to be a silent group consensus. It's unclear if OP joined the group after its founding or if it was founded together with them but the others have played together before.

In any way, a group can have style expectations in several ways. In text-based RPGs via irc, telnet or forums, it's common that third-person is the expected style when referring to the character, but first-person style RPG isn't too uncommon either.

Some groups are stricter in enforcing style than others. In second-life, there's the visual avatar (and animations), sound-gestures, voice-chat, and both private as well as public text-chats to commence your roleplaying. However most roleplaying Sims do turn off voice chat, and some have a style guide about prescribing or banning a specific list of avatar styles (e.g. "no furry avatars") and even going so far as indicating a preferred length for replies ("poses"). In many sims I visit, people will also automatically use nigh-exclusively third person. People using first-person are talked to, or shunned.

How to treat OOC can be part of the group style. In a larp environment, it is often considered rude to address anything in an out-of-character manner, unless you are clearly in the Out-Time zone or it is some kind of emergency. In a LARP, the primary expectation is not to say anything in indirect or descriptive ways, but to act out whatever you want to do and say everything your character wants to say by saying it yourself. It's not ok to use first-person-exterior "I tell the servant off." but it's expected to talk first-person actor style "Begone, servant. You are dismissed."

Dealing with group expectations & styles

To learn about a group style, you first have to talk about it. Once you know it, you can evaluate if you feel uneasy with it, and then you have to talk to the players as a player, explaining what you are comfortable with and why. A possible starter could be akin to:

I noticed you all use the first person singular for your character actions. Is that mandatory?

If the other players all want to play with a first-person narration style, that's their preferred style as it can further immersion, and it is a valid opinion.

If you find third-person narration style better, because of whatever reason, that is your opinion and it is valid.

However, while both are valid, sometimes styles get in the way of roleplaying your character. If, as the querent experiences, the group shuns a specific style and tries to enforce theirs, the group should make that style expectation clear. If there is a serious reason that bars someone from following the style expectations, then that can be explored in a discussion, and maybe the expectations can be adjusted. But if the expectations are too crass from one another, then maybe the group and the player are not a good fit.

In a satirical example, think about a group that wants to play extreme grimdark future in Warhammer 40.000, each character is expected to be a Hive-city underling that is fed on corpse starch and has killed about two to three handfuls of people already when the character crawls out of character generation. And then a new player comes around and wants to play a pink pony talking about friendship... Yea, that is so not going to go well.

In a similar fashion, the way you refer to your character as either the character or I can be a point of contention, and it's best to talk about it.

And in the end, it boils down to No roleplay is better than bad roleplay

What is style?

Roleplaying in general is a method to tell your part of a collaborative story. How the story is told is a question of style. Let me grab some literary examples...

The bartender's smile widened. His ugliness was the stuff of legend. In an age of affordable beauty, there was something heraldic about his lack of it. The antique arm whined as he reached for another mug. It was a Russian military prosthesis, a seven-function force-feedback manipulator, cased in grubby pink plastic. "You are too much the artiste, Herr Case." Ratz grunted; the sound served him as laughter. He scratched his overhang of white-shirted belly with the pink claw. "You are the artiste of the slightly funny deal."¹

She hands me a security pass that has “visitor” very firmly stamped on the front. I can’t help my smirk. Surely it’s obvious that I’m just visiting. I don’t fit in here at all. Nothing changes. I inwardly sigh. Thanking her, I walk over to the bank of elevators and past the two security men who are both far more smartly dressed than I am in their well-cut black suits.²

He sat back. A sense of complete helplessness had descended upon him. To begin with, he did not know with any certainty that this was 1984. It must be round about that date, since he was fairly sure that his age was thirty-nine, and he believed that he had been born in 1944 or 1945; but it was never possible nowadays to pin down any date within a year or two.³

We got three excerpts from books here, all tell the story extremely differently. Neuromancer, the first quote, uses a third-person external view of all actions, depicting the bartender and all the actions from the outside. We learn what the character looks like, sounds like, and even can imagine how touching them would feel like, but no introspective into the feelings and thoughts. The next quote from 50 Shades of Grey is in the first-person and describes the actions taken as if a very self-conscious person is narrating the world to themselves. As a stark difference to the two, 1984 is in third-person, introspective but also shows us to some degree unreliable.

But all of these writing styles are valid. They might not be good styles for all goals, but they are styles. They help in telling the story in different ways, to feel differently about the plot and actions.

Now, roleplaying also has styles. And again, let's make examples... or rather, let me ask in Chat to help make some examples of how to phrase the same basic setup of a rogue trying to open a lock to the GM.

Trish: My character got Thieves Tools and proficiency. When I try to carefully pick the lock, what's the DC?

Alan: I carefully examine the area approaching the lock for anything out of the ordinary. Then ever so gently I insert one pick, listening and feeling for any signs of a trap. If I don't sense something wrong, I drop to one knee before the door to bring my eyes closer to the lock as I pull out another pick, using the pair to slowly probe the inner workings of the mechanism, waiting until I hear the tumblers settle into place. - 2023.02.05-10:05AM GMT

Thomas Markov: I will punch the door with my thieves tools. - 2023.02.05-12:43PM GMT
GM: Ok... uh... Roll me a... strength check with... I guess you get proficiency bonus on that one.

All of these are equally valid ways to phrase what your character does. They just are different in style. The one is rather matter of factly, glossing over the details and interested in the mechanics. The other explains in detail what the character does. But both are valid roleplaying examples and just different styles.

When roleplaying, you tend to talk about good and bad roleplaying.

As established, most roleplaying is style dependent, and there can be a group expectation. That leads to the conclusion that not all styles are good for all groups. As show, the surroundings can radically alter what is expected, and sometimes it is spelled out more than other times.

Some styles are almost always bad for a table. For example, there's an essay on Bad Roleplaying, discussing from an angle of forum roleplays, but which is in big parts applicable for roleplaying in general. It identifies four indicators for bad roleplaying, two of which can be valid tools if used correctly. I will discuss those points below.

But besides those indicators of bad roleplaying, there's another factor that has to be discussed first: Bad roleplaying is any roleplaying you personally feel uncomfortable with enduring it. Like, if you are very pro-X, being in a group that constantly voices anti-X opionions. That is not bad style, this type of bad roleplaying is just bad as in bad for you. If you are faced with that, try to talk about it to make it better, or leave such a game that stresses you for your own good.

Godmodeing

Godmoding is... well, a character of a player that godmodes is typically a Mary Sue or Gary Stu. They know everything, they have always the right tool on hand and are just perfect... Blessed are you when characters have a proper sheet and everything is accounted for on the sheet, for that prevents godmodeing in the first place...

At least till the player starts to cheat and on their own adds items or feats to the character sheet without being allowed to, ignores damage taken or fudges dice. In other words: Godmodeing is usually the same as cheating around a table.

Powerplaying

Powerplaying or Powerposing is dictating results on other characters when you don't have the right to do so. A particularly grevious example would be:

GM: You stand in front of the goblin king, disarmed, hands bound with hemp rope and naked. He is starting to ta...

Groanan: I tear my shackles, jump forward and slap the goblin king in the face, turning it into pulp, filling the vacuum between its ears with air for the first time as he dies. All the other goblins cower or run in fear.

Groanen (the barbarian) not just broke the game rules, he also committed to bad roleplaying. Of course the GM can say "it doesn't happen that way." and demand rolls, but in general, it's just bad form to dictate the other players and the surrounding elements, unless that is specifically allowed by the GM or the game rules.

Retconning

Nimble: Do I see anything odd in the next hall?
GM: Nope.
Nimble: I walk down the hall.
The GM rolls dice
Nimble: Did I say walk down the hall? I meant sneak down the hall.
GM: So why didn't you say sneak before?
Nimble: I shouldn't have to. I'm a thief, I sneak everywhere I go.
[... a little discussion.]
GM: Fine wine, we'll do it again...
The GM rolls dice, as before.
[Discussion till another rollback happens, then another, sending the tank forward this last time.]

You do remember this epic scene from The Gamers, right? Well, THIS is what a retcon is. Whenever a player faces consequences they don't like, they either argue till it is rolled back and they can fix it, or they just wipe the event happening from history.

Retconning can be bad roleplaying because it makes people upset because it creates wonky continuity of the games played and in general, violates the tenet of "In Character Action results in In Character Consequences". It also involves a lot of often angry discussions, and thus isn't helpful for good relations among players.

But not all Retconning is bad. A good retcon doesn't roll back everything, but only fixes a particular bad aspect with group consensus or where things were mixed up. For example, erasing that a player accidentally metagamed and mentioned Player knowledge ICly that the character doesn't have is a good retcon, but usually happens on demand of the group or GM. Another example of a good retcon is if the player mentions, that they forgot to play out the crippled foot in the last two turns, and then re-calculates the position on the battlefield, as long as it doesn't start to invalidate the whole combat. Or of course, erasing the bad roleplaying that just happened - that's a good retcon too.

Metagaming

metagaming is using player-knowledge that the PC doesn't have or shouldn't have to determine actions.

If the Lvl 0 halfling commoner Bilbo Baggins from Bag's End (not lvl 10 Rogue(Thief) Baggins in possession of a certain ring) can name you the line of kings of Gondor down to a certain Aragorn and identify Strider as that one without being told it before... then the player has just metagamed because he read LotR.

Metagaming is also looking up monster statistics between games, and often some degree of metagaming is ok, or even encouraged by some games (like paranoia). How much a group is comfortable allowing is group dependant. As a result, I believe this is somewhat the least of the four types, and also not always bad roleplaying, though it can be distracting.

---

1 - Gibson, William: Neuromancer, New York (1984).
2 - James, E L: 50 Shades of Grey, New York (2011).
3 - Orwell, George: Nineteen Eighty Four, London (1949)

Answer 6

As someone who has played D&D since 1990. No,you aren't doing anything wrong. You are playing your character in a perfectly acceptable way. If I were you I would find another group to play with. They have no right to demand you play or rp a certain way. Don't worry about it they say it's about immersion or any reason they have. You are not playing for them and their experiences. They can deal with it and get over themselves. Or like I said best option is to just leave and find a better group that doesn't pressure it's members to play the game how THEY want you to play. Good luck and happy gaming!

Answer 7

Am I actually role-playing incorrectly?

No. 'Blah does X' is roleplaying.

Are there any suggestions that could help me change how I role-play?

Listen to how the people at the table in your game do it. Copy their style. If they all say 'I stab the shopkeeper', then if you want to stab the shopkeeper say 'I stab the shopkeeper'.

Are all games like this with specific roleplaying style requirements?

No. This is fairly rare.

Do you always need to copy people at tables like this to roleplay?

No. If your descriptions and emotive and exciting (generally means using adjectives), you do good voices, or you read the taste and temper of your audience well you can use nearly any style of roleplay at nearly any table. That requires performance skills, though.

Copying people nearly always works.

I'm copying and it isn't working. Why?

Either you are missing a detail while copying their style, or you are violating an unwritten assumption of the game they play. The first is observation failure - observe more. The second you can usually determine by either asking someone privately 'what was I doing that isn't done in this game?' or by observing what all the players avoid doing. Unwritten assumptions that can be hard to discern and are not usually talked about in game manuals that I have run into are;

• no breaking modern day USA laws in-game
• characters act in combat by consensus of the group not individually (the psychic combat hivemind)
• characters are immune to any negative action from another character (anything from criticism to pickpocketing is no bueno)
• actions other than optimal damage dealing during combat are bad (running away, trying to find another solution etc)
• taking actions that don't 'follow the plot' (whatever the group's consensus thinks that is) are bad (even to the most minor degree)