I'll keep it short.
How do I stop being a rollplayer and start becoming a roleplayer?
>pic related. It's how I roleplay
Even though my characters are fully fleshed out (background, general behaviour, dreams, hopes, etc.) I somehow have a hard time getting into them.
Not that guy, but a simple way to get into a character for me is to just note down some of their flaws, as well as some good stuff about them. Use those as liner notes for how your character acts in any given situation.
This is probably blasphemy to a lot of people but my group have found that RP is WAY better when we use text. We will use a chat client for in character talk, and voice for OOC and GM descriptions.
Have character goals that focus less on combat and experience points and more on less system based rewards. It also sounds like you're might be putting too much detail into your character making it less flexible and harder to RP. Try a vague character concept with plenty of room for adjustments and growth. Choose your character archtype, one character goal and one character trait you want to play. The rest will fill itself in naturally.
>A friendly ranger who likes to share food with strangers they meet while on his way to slay the beast that poisoned his family farm's well.
>A competent princess who's tryimng to prove herself to her father so her corrupt brother doesn't inherit the throne.
>An hardened vet from Afghanistan who wants to earn his college degree.
>A comedic refugee from the planet Zor who is on the run and needs to prove their interest.
>An untrusting internet blogger who discovered a major conspiracy that nobody believes.
This is good advice, but only half so. Don't make the character completely you, but rather certain aspects of your personality. Then play up those aspects that aspire to, or even those you despise.
I could never do it, but if it makes the game better for everyone then I'm glad for you.Half of the game is spending time with friends irl for me.
After you make you character, keep in mind some things that They would do even if it seems like a obviously bad idea to you.
Your Rouge may find big paydays to be too tempting to think about why someone would want to pay him for the job.
Your Cavalier will jump to save any damsel, Even if a random damsel in a dungeon is mighty suspicious to you.
boo hoo, are you triggered you fucking walking cliche?
>How do I ... start becoming a roleplayer?
Pretend you're one.
How is this even hard?
>Create a character.
>An event happens
>Before you do something, FUCKING ASK YOURSELF HOW THE CHARACTER MIGHT REACT OR VIEW THE SITUATION BASED ON THE LENS YOU CREATED WHEN YOU DEFINED THEIR PERSONALITY AND BIASES.
>Do what makes sense for the character.
Is it really that complicated?
Make an interesting character concept and stick with it. I once played a half orc rajput that coped with PTSD by making baskets. He was once given two heavily magic whips; and promptly ignored their combat usefulness and made them into a basket.
There's nothing wrong with metagaming, and many games include it as part of the proceedings.
'Rollplaying' is basically a word invented to mean 'someone I don't like', like 'barbarian' or 'SJW'. It doesn't have any real meaning.
I concur. I usually have my first time players just make themselves, but relevant to the setting. It's easier for them to grasp the setting and get into character when they're personally invested. I've never had them get all Mary Sue on me yet, but sometimes a setting can get a little overwhelming and they might clam up.
So, be you, but don't worry too much about it. If you're already good at the crunch then it'll probably be easier for you.
When I'm playing a system for the first time I usually just RP as me to grip the setting better and not have to worry about knowing the background fluff perfectly beforehand and can get into the setting easier.
Here's a good list of questions to ask yourself or have your GM ask you when figuring out your characters behavior/personality. It's shadowrun themed, but it's still a good rundown for any setting, might help develope the mindset.
>>A competent princess who's tryimng to prove herself to her father so her corrupt brother doesn't inherit the throne.
If she actually were competent, she would realize that changing the crown laws on land succession would destabilize the kingdom, allow vassals to consolidate large amounts of territory through joining houses, and in the long run would almost certainly mean that the kingdom would fall to the status of junior partner of a personal union, and probably collapse due to some resulting war.
Seconding what the other anon said about starting with a soft concept and developing from there. Feel your way forward.
I like to give myself little goals at each session and look for opportunities to accomplish them.
> Give an NPC a gift.
> Do something nice for another PC.
> Use violence as a first resort.
> (Briefly) take strong interest in some background detail of the setting, vow to investigate later.
> Take something unusual as a trophy.
> Brag to an NPC.
> Act flustered or bashful after messing up something.
> Write a short poem about the day's events.
> Mention an anecdote about your crazy uncle.
> Be forgiving when someone harms you.
> Be accusatory when someone helps you.
> Try to make a new contact.
> Attempt something outrageous, act vain if it works.
So if you simply bypass the legal heir, him and all of his children will forever have claims on the throne. Once again, this will be hugely destabilizing. Factions can form to depose the queen, he can turn to foreign powers, etc. Muddled succession led to huge civil wars in the past, even generations later.
And the fact that a female ruler is dangerous for the kingdom's independence remains. Let's say she marries a foreign king. Then they have a male son. So now the son is set to be the king of both realms.
There's a reason why kingdoms without a male heir typically saw a lot of internal strife.
Doesn't work like that. If he's the eldest male, he has a claim. He can just walk into the court of a nearby enemy and say "I'm the rightful heir, give me an army and I'll pay you back when I'm king".
Other lords, let's say the one whose daughter is betrothed to him, can declare a rebellion.
Even if you're the king, you can't just say "nuh uh" and have your way all the time. The king's power in a feudal society is derived from his vassals, not his own personal army; so any decision that is unpopular can and will be contested.
Unless you're going with some sort of crazy amazonian women-inherit-first law. But that would be pretty dumb because in the medieval period, kings were also expected to be military leaders.
>Unless you're going with some sort of crazy amazonian women-inherit-first law.
Or something actually complicated you dimwit. There's more to succession law that just 'eldest X inherits the title'.
what if I told you that you could roleplay as an interesting and compelling character, and ALSO be heavily invested in making sure your character was mechanically interesting and effective?
Just give it a rest retard. You have no idea what you're talking about if you think that a king can just arbitrarily say "Yeah I don't like my son, so my daughter is going to inherit the kingdom instead" with no repercussions.
Please list a historical medieval European succession law where a male heir of the ruler would have no claims to the throne, other than maybe some sort of vote-based system (which you clearly weren't referring to).
More: The Danish, Austro-Hungarian, and German thrones did not exist in the medieval period. The Swedish line of succession was legally unregulated until 1810.
The French throne, well:
>According to ancient custom, Pepin was then elected King of the Franks by an assembly of Frankish nobles, with a large portion of his army on hand (in case the nobility inclined not to honor the Papal bull). Although such elections happened infrequently, a general rule in Germanic law stated that the king relied on the support of his leading men. These men reserved the right to choose a new leader if they felt that the old one could not lead them in profitable battle. While in later France the kingdom became hereditary, the kings of the later Holy Roman Empire proved unable to abolish the elective tradition and continued as elected rulers until the Empire's formal end in 1806.
Nice fucking lie.
The Normans used male-first inheritance, defaulting to daughters if there were no male heirs.
I'm pretty sure the Saxons used some derivative of Salic law, which explicitly forbids female inheritance.
All it takes is a clause, like the one that requires the English monarch to be Protestant, that states that anyone found guilty of treason to the crown shall be removed from the line of succession (descendants optional).
If the prince is corrupt, then you might be able to pin treason on him.
>The current succession law in the United Kingdom evolved from succession law in both England and Scotland. Originally in both countries, there were no fixed rules governing succession to the throne. The individual could have relied on inheritance, statute, election (by Parliament or by another body), nomination (by a reigning sovereign in his or her will), conquest or prescription (de facto possession of the Crown). It was often unclear which of these bases should take precedence; often, the outcome depended not on the legal strength of the claims, but on the political or military power of the claimants.
>However, over time, the default rule became male primogeniture: later monarchs coming to the throne by exception to this rule went to great lengths to explain and justify going against these rules, and to prove their rivals illegitimate. Eventually, Parliament took control of succession.
Accusing your own heir apparent of treason is pretty batshit insane.
Not to mention that, once again, people marry to your house in expectation that they are marrying your heir. Is the son married to a foreign princess? You can bet there will be war if the marriage is now worthless. If the son married to a powerful duchess? Same thing. What about all the military officers that the son commanded in battle, or was expected to command? Etc.
Furthermore, most lords would not want to see the kingdom become a junior partner to a foreign kingdom, as that would mean, basically, that the kingdom's wealth would be redistributed to its neighbor. They would also join rebellious factions. Etc.
It's simply a dumb idea.
But it really doesn't matter. If you want to do it in your fantasy world, go ahead. But there's a reason that has never happened in reality. Because if you simply look at the consequences, it's far better to have any male heir, than any female heir. Unless maybe he's simply cartoonishly evil.
Literally who are you quoting?
Look up Norman Common Law.
Just because the king was too weak (or unwilling) to enforce his own law doesn't mean that the law didn't exist. It was very common in medieval politics for a weaker heir (in terms of legitimacy) to take the throne if he had enough power (in terms of allies).
>inheritance, statute, election (by Parliament or by another body), nomination (by a reigning sovereign in his or her will), conquest or prescription (de facto possession of the Crown)
So you admit by your own words that the laws existed
I said there were no laws regulating them. That doesn't stop some guy going 'I am the son of the king! His lands rightfully belong to me!', the same way it doesn't stop some other guy using the fact that he's the most powerful baron in the land to claim the throne.
Try playing a game that is built around Rp'n, and pretty much forces you to talk more than fight - as it has insanely lethal combat.
So try Legend of the 5 Rings
OP do other players roleplay? If not then maybe the issue is you feel out of place and uncomfortable doing it.
Alternatively maybe the game you are playing doesn't give enough opportunity and is too focused on action and numbers
No laws regulating what? Succession? The normans had laws regulating succession. Treason? I'm pretty sure plotting for the throne was a little bit illegal.
If the hypothetical king simply decided "nah fuck everything", he could sure as hell try to get his way. But it would end up with a really messy civil war, and the royal family would in the long-term lose the throne if he -won- (as a consequence of marriage), and he would have to execute his own son and his lords for treason. If he lost, he would be forced to abdicate and his daughter would probably be imprisoned or executed.
Like, what is the point of that? It's a really bad outcome either way. It's just a dumb shaggy dog story that ends in shit for everyone.
>'Rollplaying' is basically a word invented to mean 'someone I don't like', like 'barbarian' or 'SJW'. It doesn't have any real meaning.
It has a meaning, it means a player that plays the game purely mechanically and without any attempt at the parts of the game that require acting in character. If you play the game purely as a stat-block and not as an actual thinking character then you are rollplaying.
My groups tend to just do in- and out-of-character chatter in different languages. It makes it real easy to make jokes OOC without anyone reacting IC to it. Using text just seem like a major inconvenience when playing face to face, and would just halt the game for a very minor benefit.
There are parts of the US where German is about as common as English. Spanish is really more of a Southwest thing. Then there's fucking Vermont, which is like Innsmouth if it were the size of Belgium.
The piece of advice that helped me most with my roleplaying is that you don't play for yourself, you play to entertain your GM and your fellow players. Put on a show, if there's dialogue then put some feeling into it, if there's combat describe how your character reacts to every blow and how he's engaging with the enemy beyond just tactics, if you have to use your knowledge explain where you get that knowledge from or at least allude to it. And most importantly if you fail a roll don't just play it off, how your character fails is even more important to giving him life than how he succeeds.
I don't know why everybody feels like combat is inheritly antithetical to roleplaying. You can show a lot about a character just by portraying how they fight. What kind of weapon do they favor, what kind of tactixs, are they super focused and concentrated during a fight or are they on edge, do they like to talk trash or maybe to beg off, what are they most afraid to fight and why, all of those things are important traits to think about.