Help involving preference of combat over roleplay

[DarthPenance]

When we started our current campaign, my DM asked us what type of game we wanted, if it was more combat focused or roleplay focused, it was four players at the time, two of which prefered RP, one indifferent and me for a more combat.

At the start it was fine, we were all starting out so everything was new, our DM managed to get a combat per session (5-8 hours sessions) in medium, I didn't exactly enjoy the RP sessions as much as others, especially because I built my character combat-oriented (Champion Fighter with no social skills or attributes [8 int, 12 wis and 10 cha]), but after we reached level 8 and we arrived at the more political part of the setting we somehow managed to get a total of 4 sessions without any kind of combat (involving me), due to a combination of single combat from the neutral guy (it was his personal arc) and negotiation from the RP guys.(20+ hours)

Needless to say I was getting a bit ansious, kind of like how most murder-hobos are described in this forum, thankfully we finally had a combat encounter (almost didn't, only because one of the RP's patron ordered him too), which calmed me a bit, but more more the non-combat parts started to bore more and more, at first I thought it was because of my character, because he really didn't have any skills outside of combat and didn't have any spells or anything besides attacking, after a few sessions without combat we had a war in which my fighter actually died, we had no one that could ressurect, so after a burial and goodbye, I was gonna create a new character, as long as two new people who were gonna join.

Trying to stop that boredom from happening again, I thought to create a spellcaster, but the one we needed was a bard, and it was not the character concept I wanted to play, which was the Matthew Mercer's gunslinger, I know it's still a fighter but I thought, because of the part of inventions and focus on intelligence and stuff, I could do more outside of combat (while true it was not that much), so I put proficiency in skills that involve mental stats like Persuasion and Arcana.

It worked for a while, because I was trying something new, but I still found those non-combat parts boring, especially social encounters, one of the new players is a Goliath Barbarian who loves combat, I found it would help things in my part to convince the DM to have more combat, because he tries to appease to everyone, but more people enjoy RP then combat, but he's more of the type that while enjoys combat, thinks that it needs a lot of RP to make sense (which I agree, just not as much), so he enjoys the one per session combat, the other player being in the more RP style as well.

Lately we finally had a combat focused session, in which we invaded a fire giant fortress, which I personally enjoyed a lot, as well as the Goliath, since his character has a history against giants, however, one of the two more RP heavie players, in the after session talk, said that while he enjoys sessions like that (there was no social interaction whatsoever, we had 3 encounters), that they should not happen all the time, from what I understood he was suggesting to the DM to make these sessions rare, of which almost of the players but me agreed or stayed neutral in the case of the first neutral guys and the Goliath, which resulted in a bit of a one-sided discussion between me and the others, at which point I said my opinion (I even said that the DMG suggest 6 encounters per adventure day, which they didn't even believe), which they already know, they said that I don't enjoy social encounters because I don't really roleplay, because my character is similar to me in personality, which is a bit true, but not totally, I replied that I tried to roleplay but when I did (my character is Lawful Good, most of them are chaotic neutral and one Lawful Evil) it was not liked, because I acted as a LG person would, which is also as I as a person would act.

I'm very sorry for this very long text, I thought I needed to provide a bit of context for my question, which is if I'm doing something wrong and that's why I don't enjoy RP.
Again, so sorry for such a long text and for wasting your time reading this.
tdlr: I enjoy combat more than my fellow players, who prefer RP, something I find boring most of the time, am I doing something wrong?

[BeefGood]

RP, something I find boring most of the time, am I doing something wrong?
That's just about how I feel. Like I must be missing something. For example, there's a surly guard at the gate, and you negotiate and eventually bribe him to let you in. That's roleplaying, right? It probably takes five minutes in real time, so I don't see how you build a game on it (actually one-third of a game along with combat and exploration, but I don't think it even adds up to one-third.) And while I wouldn't dislike doing this, it doesn't sound like much fun. I just don't get it.

[Sigreid]

You're not doing anything wrong. Preferences don't hurt anyone and so can't be wrong. They're just preferences.

That said, you have 3 options as I see it.

1. You can use RP to start fights. This isn't re commended as it will likely be seen as being disruptive to the table.
2. You can try to negotiate for an average of 2 to 3 opportunities for combat per session, even if they are in the vein of you quietly confronting hidden evils you encounter.
3. You can try to find a more combat oriented table to play at. This can be hard depending not only on table availability and your relationship with the group.

Failing that, all you can do is play with your phone or read until it's time to fight.

[DeTess]

You're doing nothing wrong as far as I can tell, but this just doesn't seem to be your kind of campaign. There are people who run very combat heavy dungeon crawls, and people running intricate political campaigns in which weapons rarely get drawn, and there's nothing wrong with preferring one option over another.

There's also nothing wrong with quitting this game and looking for one that matches your preference.

[DarthPenance]

You're not doing anything wrong. Preferences don't hurt anyone and so can't be wrong. They're just preferences.

That said, you have 3 options as I see it.

1. You can use RP to start fights. This isn't re commended as it will likely be seen as being disruptive to the table.
2. You can try to negotiate for an average of 2 to 3 opportunities for combat per session, even if they are in the vein of you quietly confronting hidden evils you encounter.
3. You can try to find a more combat oriented table to play at. This can be hard depending not only on table availability and your relationship with the group.

Failing that, all you can do is play with your phone or read until it's time to fight.

Thanks for your response, also too the post above
1. Yeah, it would probably be very disruptive, and it would seem pretty murder-hobo, I already tried that and the response was negative, even when the target was a dire wolf...
2. I talked to my DM after the 4 sessions no combat incident, and he honestly has improved, he tries to appease to everyone but he thinks that one encounter per session is enought, we watch Critical Role and he says that Critical Role do that, even thought our sessions are much longer than theirs, but I will try talking to him again, thanks.
3. This are the only people I know that play DnD and are my friends, and I get to hang out with them, even if it was like a RP only campaign I would play so I could be with them, sorry, but it's not an option.
edit: won't be able to respond for like an hour and a half, I apologize.

[Marcloure]

To enjoy combat is not wrong. But it is also not wrong to try to make the table less combat oriented. So, the problem is that you and your table want to play different style of games, and if talking didn't do the trick, then little can be done to really fix that.
You could say goodbye and look for other table if you are playing online (that usually leaves a bitter taste on everyones mouth). But if they are your friends or if you think it'll be hard to find other local table, then you will have to have what you have. As someone mentioned above, maybe try to find something to do while you wait for the bothersome parts to end.

[Sigreid]

Totally understand the 3 thing. I play with friends myself and have put up with campaigns I wasn't that interested in to play with them.

An idea. Maybe create a character with heavy investigation and insight skills to help find the fights? A rogue could be good for that.

[willdaBEAST]

If you feel like you can't participate as much in social encounters with a character that's built for combat, I recommend taking a more narrative approach to the RPing. Describe the body language your character is exhibiting, what are they doing during this long boring conversation that they have no patience for? There are ways you can continue to contribute without disrupting players who are heavily invested in RPing and you might find that the process gets more rewarding for you. Another thing that has worked well for me is to figure out a reason to engage another party member, ideally over some event that recently occurred or something related to the campaign. Your character can be seeking advice, confused about the other character's behavior, want to teach them something, etc. You could even role-play a martial character training his less combat inclined party members in basic combat techniques or something of that nature. Running combat drills for various encounters that you anticipate. If you're fighting a monster with a cone shaped breath weapon, what kind of formation would you use?

[2D8HP]

I've played my share of Champion Fighters as well, for diversity I recommend some levels of Rogue.

Successful skill use is fun!

[clash]

If you arent enjoying the rp part of social encounters then I would build a character who can affect social encounters in other ways. Build a spellcaster who specializes in social spells to help improve odds in a social encounter.

Sorcerer for subtle spell is a must have. Some nice spells for the build are:

The entire line of illusion spells
Charm person under the right circumstances
Sleep
Suggestion
Disguise self

Warlock can be great for this as well with silent image and disguise self at will.

[ThatDrowPlayer]

I believe you're getting shorted on combat. Role-playing isn't long cinematics, endless amounts of dialogue, and back and forth between you and the DM, in character or not.

Role-playing, actual role-playing, is playing the role your character fits. You're a fighter. You have fight in your class name. Any session that you don't fight in is a session you didn't role-play in. What's really happening in your game is people want to make Charisma (Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion) checks. Most classes don't use those, and most classes aren't faces. Playing a spellcaster isn't going to really change anything, as you won't be casting spells during dialogue, not enough to be meaningful.

There are dialgoue-heavy and combat-light games, but D&D is first and foremost an adventuring medium, to be whomever you want in a fantasy world, go on quests, slay fantastic creatures, thwart evil plots, save the day, and feel mighty. Your group is missing out on so many aspects of the game just so they can pretty much be a theater club. Acting is a good thing, but all that is role-playing, acting is not.

The DM is unfortunately listening to only one side of the table - the players have had a large amount of what they believe role-playing is, but say "oh, that was waaay too much combat here lately." I'm afraid you're only going to continue to be disappointed, unless the DM drastically changes the game. You may unfortunately need to find a a different group :smallfrown:

[DarthPenance]

Totally understand the 3 thing. I play with friends myself and have put up with campaigns I wasn't that interested in to play with them.

An idea. Maybe create a character with heavy investigation and insight skills to help find the fights? A rogue could be good for that.

My current character has proficiency in investigation and insight, which I have been using to help avoid traps (I'm the semi-rogue, since we don't have a rogue and I'm the only one with proficiency in the required skills) and insight when we are talking with someone, but thanks for the suggestion, I purposely made this character more rogue-like so that I could do that exact things.


I've played my share of Champion Fighters as well, for diversity I recommend some levels of Rogue.

Successful skill use is fun!

Again with my previous post, I'm no longer playing a Champion fighter, so the problem isn't now with the skill uses and attributes, it's more about me finding the social encounters not very exciting.


If you arent enjoying the rp part of social encounters then I would build a character who can affect social encounters in other ways. Build a spellcaster who specializes in social spells to help improve odds in a social encounter.

Sorcerer for subtle spell is a must have. Some nice spells for the build are:

The entire line of illusion spells
Charm person under the right circumstances
Sleep
Suggestion
Disguise self

Warlock can be great for this as well with silent image and disguise self at will.

I will try that in a future campaign, since I haven't played a spellcaster yet, I look foward to playing one, the only problem with those kind of spells is that charm person the victim knows they were charmed, otherwise if you could use suble spell yes those would be great, thank you.


I believe you're getting shorted on combat. Role-playing isn't long cinematics, endless amounts of dialogue, and back and forth between you and the DM, in character or not.

Role-playing, actual role-playing, is playing the role your character fits. You're a fighter. You have fight in your class name. Any session that you don't fight in is a session you didn't role-play in. What's really happening in your game is people want to make Charisma (Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion) checks. Most classes don't use those, and most classes aren't faces. Playing a spellcaster isn't going to really change anything, as you won't be casting spells during dialogue, not enough to be meaningful.

There are dialgoue-heavy and combat-light games, but D&D is first and foremost an adventuring medium, to be whomever you want in a fantasy world, go on quests, slay fantastic creatures, thwart evil plots, save the day, and feel mighty. Your group is missing out on so many aspects of the game just so they can pretty much be a theater club. Acting is a good thing, but all that is role-playing, acting is not.

The DM is unfortunately listening to only one side of the table - the players have had a large amount of what they believe role-playing is, but say "oh, that was waaay too much combat here lately." I'm afraid you're only going to continue to be disappointed, unless the DM drastically changes the game. You may unfortunately need to find a a different group :smallfrown:

I see your point, I didn't think of it that way to be honest, well, you say saying charisma checks, but it doesn't happen that much, it's more about talking to the npcs, checks are only involved if for example you're making a bargain.
My DM is listening to me, however I'm the only one that's complaining about this, since he is trying to appease to everyone, he makes it more RP heavy because the majority prefers that way, the DM himself said that he wants to help, and he is, it's not nearly as bad as it once was, but he too is restrained to try to make the game for everyone.

[Kane0]

Ask your DM if he can split time in-session 50/50 between RP and combat. My table has done this in the past and it's a good compromise. If we're doing a 6-8 hour saturday game then the morning will generally be RP and the afternoon combat.

[Kaibis]

we watch Critical Role and he says that Critical Role do that, even thought our sessions are much longer than theirs, but I will try talking to him again, thanks.


I was going to suggest that you sound like Travis, from Critical Role. If you watch the show you will notice that he (as a player) becomes incredibly bored during any extended RP sessions, he loudly groans whenever a romantic interlude happens, and he will interrupt a long discussion about tactics with some kind of aggressive stunt. When he does RP, he is great, but he only does it in 10 second spurts.

He personally drives me mad, and I find him, the player, to be really rude - however, your post does make me consider that other non-rp playing styles are equally valid. He seems to be in a similar situation to you, he is playing with his friends. They don't play the way that he would prefer, but he also doesn't (I presume) want to leave their game.

I would also add, I see no reason why low int, wis, char should prevent you from role playing, I don't think that is what the stats are intended to do. The dice will reflect this at important moments, you as a player can still get involved.

[DarthPenance]

I was going to suggest that you sound like Travis, from Critical Role. If you watch the show you will notice that he (as a player) becomes incredibly bored during any extended RP sessions, he loudly groans whenever a romantic interlude happens, and he will interrupt a long discussion about tactics with some kind of aggressive stunt. When he does RP, he is great, but he only does it in 10 second spurts.

He personally drives me mad, and I find him, the player, to be really rude - however, you post does make me consider that other non-rp playing styles are equally valid. WHe seems to be in a similar situation to you, he is playing with his friends. They don't play the way that he would prefer, but he also doesn't (I presume) want to leave their game.

I would also add, I see no reason why low int, wis, char should prevent you from role playing, I don't think that is what the stats are intended to do. The dice will reflect this at important moments, you as a player can still get involved.

Thank you for your input as someone that prefers roleplaying overall.
Yes, while playing as my champion I viewed myself a lot like Travis, my friends overexagerated the 8 int so I couldn't really suggest overly smart things, as such, in the parts that most interested me, the strategy, it was left in the hands of the Wizard, with his 20, especially because the only thing I could do as a fighter was attack. However while I was bored I couldn't find myself to do things like groan or stop those moments like Grog does, because it would be rude.

[Kaibis]

I am playing a character, in my current game, that has an int of 9. I have seen how Travis plays Grog (int 8), as being unable to read etc. , and I feel that that is overkill.

At first I was challenged... I was noticing things that other players were not, but I wasn't sure about how to have my character notice them. For me, I call on the help of others when I notice things (and Travis uses a similiar tactic with Grog, he will often say something along the lines of "I don't know much, but I fink that blah blah blah").

E.g. I, the player, noticed that the room on the map had a very wide wall, I suspected a hidden room. So I had my character (int 9) walk back and forth a bit kind of confounded about this thick wall, and the lack of doors, before calling someone else over to help explain it "Hey Morris, something seems really off here". In our game, Morris did some inspecting and didn't notice anything, and he told my character "I checked X but it seemed fine" and so I let my character use brute force and smash the thing that Morris was inspecting. Voila, hidden room discovered.

I don't think int 8 or 10 really means that they are stupid (e.g. can't read) , I play it more as being uninterested in academic/smart stuff. The type of person that will read a trashy novel, but not classic literature. The type of person that doesn't want to learn a new language, or spend hours pouring over books for information, they would rather be fishing...

[Sigreid]

Thank you for your input as someone that prefers roleplaying overall.
Yes, while playing as my champion I viewed myself a lot like Travis, my friends overexagerated the 8 int so I couldn't really suggest overly smart things, as such, in the parts that most interested me, the strategy, it was left in the hands of the Wizard, with his 20, especially because the only thing I could do as a fighter was attack. However while I was bored I couldn't find myself to do things like groan or stop those moments like Grog does, because it would be rude.

Wouldn't worry about being rude. You come across as very polite and concerned that everyone get to have fun.

[MrStabby]

You could go for playing something like a sorcerer/fighter - or possibly look up Nova Build Paladins.

This way you get to be great at the things you enjoy. You get to be even more awesome if there is little combat in a day. Furthermore, the quicker you can end fights the more fights you can have in a day without it taking up too much time.

[DeTess]

Yes, while playing as my champion I viewed myself a lot like Travis, my friends overexagerated the 8 int so I couldn't really suggest overly smart things, as such, in the parts that most interested me, the strategy, it was left in the hands of the Wizard, with his 20, especially because the only thing I could do as a fighter was attack. However while I was bored I couldn't find myself to do things like groan or stop those moments like Grog does, because it would be rude.

You should talk to them about this. Of course your character shouldn't be suggesting to solve the problem using quantum physics, but 8 is well within the normal human range. They have no place in telling you how to play your character.

Worst case scenario, if you come up with a super-smart solution, give it to the wizard-player OOC, and play out IC how something your character said sparked that plan in the wizard

[white lancer]

Four sessions without combat? That seems pretty crazy to me, and that's coming from someone who prefers the roleplay side of things. Are you sure the DM planned for his sessions to be like that? I only ask because the campaign I'm DMing has gone two sessions without combat, but I had possible combat scenarios prepared for both (in one the players talked themselves out of having to fight, while another they simply spent so much time RPing/strategizing that they didn't get to the battle). Sometimes the players' actions prevent an encounter that you otherwise might have had, which could easily be the case with the group of players you've got.

I'm not sure what else you could do--as others have said, it's a matter of you and much of the rest of the group enjoying different things about D&D. The fact that you've let them all (especially the DM) know that you'd like to have a little more combat in the game is a good start, but there's only so much that any of them can do.


I am playing a character, in my current game, that has an int of 9. I have seen how Travis plays Grog (int 8), as being unable to read etc. , and I feel that that is overkill.

FWIW, Grog had an Int of 6, I believe. So less intelligent than virtually all PCs or sentient beings in general.

[AHF]

Thank you for your input as someone that prefers roleplaying overall.
Yes, while playing as my champion I viewed myself a lot like Travis, my friends overexagerated the 8 int so I couldn't really suggest overly smart things, as such, in the parts that most interested me, the strategy, it was left in the hands of the Wizard, with his 20, especially because the only thing I could do as a fighter was attack. However while I was bored I couldn't find myself to do things like groan or stop those moments like Grog does, because it would be rude.

The bolded text above is the only part of this that makes me think less of your friends at all - to sideline someone they know isn't interested in RP from having an active role in that portion of the game is pretty crappy. The Wizards 20 intelligence is a great asset but shouldn't make him the center of attention for all strategy. For example, there is a lot of strategy involved in football but some guys who have made a great living coaching or playing the game would be an 8 intelligence equivalent in D&D (i.e., in the first group of people below average). Having your character crack a complex code would seem objectionable but just coming up with a good common sense approach to a problem should be not only permitted but encouraged -- especially when dealing with someone who has already made it known that they are feeling their interests are being marginalized at the table.

Sounds like you have a pretty healthy dynamic at the table for the most part but the others just don't like combat. Nobody but the DM will be able to solve that one as combat is frequently going to be driven by the opponents you face and how amenable they are to alternatives. Introduce a group of fanatics to the equation and suddenly there won't be many options to get around fights. Have an evil merchant as the opposition and the potential to strike a bargain that avoids combat is really, really high.

[Rhedyn]

I personally don't enjoy complex dungeon crawling. I don't enjoy playing them. I don't enjoy running them. I don't enjoy thinking about them.

That though, is a personal failing on my part as a player of this hobby. Learning how to be engaged with what is at first not engaging is a skill. It requires empathy, learning new ways of thinking, and self examination. You have to learn why you don't like something specifically to learn how to enjoy the greater whole. I don't like complex dungeon maps because visualizing each room and their relations becomes difficult and it's necessary for me to enjoy a dungeon. I can tackle this problem with better memory and summarization skills of each room.

You should isolate why you aren't having fun in the RP and what parts of RP you do like. Then try to understand how your friends think about RPing and why they like it. Reconcile the two and your overall enjoyment of the game increases.

My impression of you is that you need to see your mechanics interacting with the RP. So you need to grab yourself a full caster so that your spells have interesting out of combat applications. Your next character in this campaign should be a wizard or ask your DM if your current character can become a wizard who fires cantrips out of their gun or something.
I doubt the skill system can satisfy you in 5e. Skills aren't mechanics you control. They are something the DM interprets. Since you can't envision what "+9 arcana" actually does or means, then that won't be interesting for you.
You need spells.

[DarthPenance]

You should talk to them about this. Of course your character shouldn't be suggesting to solve the problem using quantum physics, but 8 is well within the normal human range. They have no place in telling you how to play your character.

Worst case scenario, if you come up with a super-smart solution, give it to the wizard-player OOC, and play out IC how something your character said sparked that plan in the wizard

I did talk about this, so I could make some suggestions which were basically saying it was from my wisdow (12), but the 8 intelligence character is dead, so that is no longer an issue.


Four sessions without combat? That seems pretty crazy to me, and that's coming from someone who prefers the roleplay side of things. Are you sure the DM planned for his sessions to be like that? I only ask because the campaign I'm DMing has gone two sessions without combat, but I had possible combat scenarios prepared for both (in one the players talked themselves out of having to fight, while another they simply spent so much time RPing/strategizing that they didn't get to the battle). Sometimes the players' actions prevent an encounter that you otherwise might have had, which could easily be the case with the group of players you've got.

I'm not sure what else you could do--as others have said, it's a matter of you and much of the rest of the group enjoying different things about D&D. The fact that you've let them all (especially the DM) know that you'd like to have a little more combat in the game is a good start, but there's only so much that any of them can do.



FWIW, Grog had an Int of 6, I believe. So less intelligent than virtually all PCs or sentient beings in general.

It was a combination of doesn't having a proper combat, like casting a spell and then doing nothing else, and one (the Monk), which was kind of his personal arc, had single combat twice in the four sessions, both were tests, so we couldn't assist, and of the Warlock and Wizard negotiating or ways out of combat, I think the DM had prepared for us to fight but we didn't, I think similar to your case.


The bolded text above is the only part of this that makes me think less of your friends at all - to sideline someone they know isn't interested in RP from having an active role in that portion of the game is pretty crappy. The Wizards 20 intelligence is a great asset but shouldn't make him the center of attention for all strategy. For example, there is a lot of strategy involved in football but some guys who have made a great living coaching or playing the game would be an 8 intelligence equivalent in D&D (i.e., in the first group of people below average). Having your character crack a complex code would seem objectionable but just coming up with a good common sense approach to a problem should be not only permitted but encouraged -- especially when dealing with someone who has already made it known that they are feeling their interests are being marginalized at the table.

Sounds like you have a pretty healthy dynamic at the table for the most part but the others just don't like combat. Nobody but the DM will be able to solve that one as combat is frequently going to be driven by the opponents you face and how amenable they are to alternatives. Introduce a group of fanatics to the equation and suddenly there won't be many options to get around fights. Have an evil merchant as the opposition and the potential to strike a bargain that avoids combat is really, really high.

Like I said above, the 8 intelligence character is dead, it's just that the Warlock and Wizard had very high mental stats, as such, they dominated most of the planning and dialogue.


I personally don't enjoy complex dungeon crawling. I don't enjoy playing them. I don't enjoy running them. I don't enjoy thinking about them.

That though, is a personal failing on my part as a player of this hobby. Learning how to be engaged with what is at first not engaging is a skill. It requires empathy, learning new ways of thinking, and self examination. You have to learn why you don't like something specifically to learn how to enjoy the greater whole. I don't like complex dungeon maps because visualizing each room and their relations becomes difficult and it's necessary for me to enjoy a dungeon. I can tackle this problem with better memory and summarization skills of each room.

You should isolate why you aren't having fun in the RP and what parts of RP you do like. Then try to understand how your friends think about RPing and why they like it. Reconcile the two and your overall enjoyment of the game increases.

My impression of you is that you need to see your mechanics interacting with the RP. So you need to grab yourself a full caster so that your spells have interesting out of combat applications. Your next character in this campaign should be a wizard or ask your DM if your current character can become a wizard who fires cantrips out of their gun or something.
I doubt the skill system can satisfy you in 5e. Skills aren't mechanics you control. They are something the DM interprets. Since you can't envision what "+9 arcana" actually does or means, then that won't be interesting for you.
You need spells.

I see, I didn't think about that, however, I do like using skills, and rolling dies, I have often considered that being a spellcaster would make me feel like I help more, which is true, they do have more options, changing class would probably be complicated as it would require me to most likely change characters, we're at a point in the campaign which changing characters would be extremely hard, and besides the lack of spells and interest in the more RP heavy parts I enjoy my current character.
For why I don't enjoy RP, I think it's because I don't feel like I can do much, I'm naturally not a speaker, so when I speak, I speak clearly and direct, not elluding people with words or finding fancy words to persuade someone, and sometimes I find myself unable to find the right words to say that which I want to, so I end up staying silent, that and because my characters usually don't have a very high bonus to social skills (my current character only has a +6 in persuasion), so if I roll low I might make more difficult for the party, contrary to combat which I know what to do and how well I can do it, which is very well.

[ThatDrowPlayer]

I see your point, I didn't think of it that way to be honest, well, you say saying charisma checks, but it doesn't happen that much, it's more about talking to the npcs, checks are only involved if for example you're making a bargain.
My DM is listening to me, however I'm the only one that's complaining about this, since he is trying to appease to everyone, he makes it more RP heavy because the majority prefers that way, the DM himself said that he wants to help, and he is, it's not nearly as bad as it once was, but he too is restrained to try to make the game for everyone.

I appreciate a DM that listens, but every player matters. I was running the game a few years back with a large party (we had around 12 players, I think - needless to say, it wasn't great, and I have learned smaller parties are better) who were mostly concerned with combat, so we ran a lot of combat yet we still had good role-playing moments for our RP minority. One player in particular was playing the iconic halfing-rogue :belkar: (by the way, I know Belkar is a ranger, haha, just like that icon), and I asked his opinion on the game. He said that he enjoyed it, but he wished there were more "roguey" things for him to do. That was really my first concrete criticism, so I took it to heart and began incorporating ways for him to do "roguey" things while the combat was going on.

In the same way, I think a good DM should always listen to their players, no matter how many are in opposition. I'm glad that things are better at your table, I hope that your DM will understand that not every player wants to be acting in social situations. Some players are there to go on adventurers, slay baddies, and be triumphant. There's plenty of role-playing to be had in combat.

[Pex]

You feel the need to roll dice. Non-combat encounters would probably bother you less if you were rolling a d20 often to do something. You need the game mechanics to work with you. Multiclass into rogue. If you can't officially by the rules because of your ability scores ask the DM to waive it and let you multiclass anyway. You're trying to meet the group halfway and make yourself get involved when it's non-combat time. Rogue will give you game mechanic means to do stuff when not in combat. Being and thinking like a rogue will engage you in the game when it's not a combat because your class gives you stuff to do. It will help teach you to play the non-combat part of the game. As a rewarding feature, you get to roll sneak attack damage when it is combat time.

[DarthPenance]

You feel the need to roll dice. Non-combat encounters would probably bother you less if you were rolling a d20 often to do something. You need the game mechanics to work with you. Multiclass into rogue. If you can't officially by the rules because of your ability scores ask the DM to waive it and let you multiclass anyway. You're trying to meet the group halfway and make yourself get involved when it's non-combat time. Rogue will give you game mechanic means to do stuff when not in combat. Being and thinking like a rogue will engage you in the game when it's not a combat because your class gives you stuff to do. It will help teach you to play the non-combat part of the game. As a rewarding feature, you get to roll sneak attack damage when it is combat time.

This actually helps a lot, I have been thinking about multiclassing to rogue, I just didn't know when, I think at least after next level, which should come very soon, which is 11, where I get third attack, and if I'm not desperate after 12, because I have a few odd scores to improve.