Are you a good role player?

[Agamon]

I'm not bad. I do better with good roleplayers around me then otherwise. I'm better as a DM than as a player. As a DM, I've already given tactics some thought and get into the moment better. As a player, my mind tends to focus more on the tactical side. I also let the more talkative players do the talking, though I can be quite talkative myself if I want to.

 

[Empress]

I do alright, I guess. I'm out to have fun, not get an Oscar, so any character inconsistency is likely to happen in the name of enjoyment.

 

[MonsterMash]

Everyone thinks they're above average. And I'm the same. I really do think I'm an above average roleplayer.

What do you mean by 'good role player', BTW?

Actually I voted that I'm just average so maybe not quite true.

Having a wargaming background I tend toward tactical thinking and can find it hard to avoid the 'kill things and take their stuff' mentality - thought I do try in my current campaigns. Maybe wait for my DM in one to comment as he's a regular on ENWorld.

 

[eris404]

I voted just average. I love to role-play and talk in character, but I get distracted easily.

 

[Imperialus]

I'm sorry, I must rant for a moment here.

My group consists of (in every set of characters we roll up)
1) a really really really dumb fighter (or barbarian or somthing that smashes stuff)
2) a psycotic rouge of some sort that works against the party as a hobby.
3) a meglomanical druid or cleric who attempts to take over the world through minions
4) Blackmage from 8 bit theater.
5) a very quiet druid or ranger who doesn't say much but tries to be a good person at least.
6) a character created for "humour" purposes, say a gnome paladin on a flying wardog with an everburning torch stuck to her helmet who screams IEEEEEEEE! like the guy from the Kia commertial anytime she charges.
7) me who other than wizards/sorcs will play just about anything.
8) a DM pounding his/her head against the table.

In this group I would rate myself the best role player out of the lot, I try to integrate my characters into the plot, provied plot hooks for the DM, keep the party going in the same general direction ect. I'd still say I'm decidedly average but I will say that it is most cirtanly NOT better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

That said I have no serious complaints about my group we have a blast playing and despite the rather silly atmosphere the table sometimes takes when they sit down and actually have a problem to solve they can be quite good at it.

 

[Haradim]

I would say that I'm average compared to the impression that I've gotten from my fellow players, and various stories I've read and heard about. Likely worse compared to much of ENWorld, judging from my impression over the time I've lurked here (and assuming people aren't embellishing their experiences, skills, and so forth).

That said, I've really only played in one group, with one style of play.

 

[Mr. Lobo]

I'm below average and need help.

I DM most of the time and am better at describing things vs actual roleplaying. I'd like to role play more because I have this fantasy about actually "being there", if you follow me, when I am gaming.

I believe that explains why I feel at a loss when I run a PC instead of DMing. I can describe what the PC is doing but I can't seem to think what the PC should be thinking.

Oh well, I need help. And lots more practice.

 

[Empress]

I'm sorry, I must rant for a moment here.

My group consists of (in every set of characters we roll up)
1) a really really really dumb fighter (or barbarian or somthing that smashes stuff)
2) a psycotic rouge of some sort that works against the party as a hobby.
3) a meglomanical druid or cleric who attempts to take over the world through minions
4) Blackmage from 8 bit theater.
5) a very quiet druid or ranger who doesn't say much but tries to be a good person at least.
6) a character created for "humour" purposes, say a gnome paladin on a flying wardog with an everburning torch stuck to her helmet who screams IEEEEEEEE! like the guy from the Kia commertial anytime she charges.
7) me who other than wizards/sorcs will play just about anything.
8) a DM pounding his/her head against the table.

In this group I would rate myself the best role player out of the lot, I try to integrate my characters into the plot, provied plot hooks for the DM, keep the party going in the same general direction ect. I'd still say I'm decidedly average but I will say that it is most cirtanly NOT better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

That said I have no serious complaints about my group we have a blast playing and despite the rather silly atmosphere the table sometimes takes when they sit down and actually have a problem to solve they can be quite good at it.

So you've got seven players?

 

[NewJeffCT]

I think I'm good at not meta-gaming. However, I'm naturally a quiet person and my characters tend to be the same in game... so, I'm basically playing different versions of myself in game. The quiet loner with a sarcastic streak. Granted, I tone down the sarcasm if playing a paladin or goodly cleric and ramp it up if I'm a rogue.

So, I gave myself a below average, as I'm not doing much.

 

[TerraDave]

I must agree. Almost every instance of bad, disruptive or stupid behaviour by a player that I have seen has been justified by a claim that the person is just trying to role play well.

As much as I would like to disagree with this (and Diaglo's post), I have a PC who is stirring a stupid and destructive tangent for, what I can tell, "roleplaying" reasons, in what has otherwise been a good campaing (and his charecter has been fine-except for this). So far, I have kept a lid on it, but we will see...and it could just be him...but it fits.