DM's Play Style Is Overbearing [Any]

[Volos]

As a player, I enjoy being the goofball. I come up with ways to do something absurd in game, usually challenging my DM to handle whatever new scheme I come up with on the fly with little to no warning. Luckily I have a DM that can handle my shenanigans most of the time.

My DM spoke to me upon the recruitment for his new campaign, asking that I tone down the goof-ness. I agreed, figuring that I could play a more serious character this time around. I had this grim and gritty vigilante tiefling that I thought would be epic, but also fit into his Urban adventures. But come the third session of him game, everything changes.

Before we were just playing D&D, but now we're being forced to act out or describe everything. It's really restrictive! The way he's always run his games, and the way he was running this one, was fun. He'd run an encounter or a roleplay scene and we'd say things like "I try to Intimidate the merchant to get a better deal." or in combat, "I take a five foot step, draw my weapon as a move action, and make an attack with my bastard sword." Now it's all different.

He's saying we have to describe what we're doing. Which doesn't sound all that bad at first, but he wants us to do it with every single action! So I'm in town and I want to buy some potions, I have to say... "I dress myself for the day and set out, seeking a shop where I might procure some healing potions. I use my familiarity with the city to avoid getting lost or taken in by a less that reputable 'merchant'." Instead of just saying, "I buy some potions of cure light." It's really annoying! There are times when he lets us take shortcuts, but any time we need to take action we have to talk rather then get down to business.

He says he wants us to say WHAT we want to do and HOW we plan to get it done. Even in combat I have to describe my actions. What can I do as a player? He says this is for the betterment of the group, and the other players are going along with it... but I just don't like it. I'm not that good at roleplaying in the first place, much less in combat. I see it as more straightforward, I either swing to hit the guy or I take some other action such as defending myself or casting a spell. I honestly don't see how roleplaying can be applied to combat.

Edit: I lied

Spoiler

Show

I am not the player in the scenario I presented in the OP, but rather the DM of said Roleplay Intensive Campaign. To try and see things the way my player was, I presented the scenario from his position and asked your advice on what to do. This really helped me to understand where he was coming from and how to work things out with him better. Even so, there are aspects of his objections that I still cannot understand, but that is left to be resolved between me and him.

As the DM of the Roleplay Intensive Campaign, I feel that asking for my players to describe all of their actions In Character isn't really all that much to ask. Now It would be silly if I were to ask them to roleplay shopping, leveling up, and other background functions of the game. I haven't nor do I plan to. It was mentioned as it was one of the ways he had pointed out that asking to roleplay could become ridiculous. (He was exaggerating, obviously)

My player has complained that asking him to roleplay during game is asking too much of him, even when it comes to social interactions and strictly story scenes where there isn't anything to do but talk to NPCs or plan with the other PCs. I have asked for descriptions during battle, anything more than "I attack the enemy" is allowed. More interesting descriptions or original ideas using terrain, situational items/events, and/or tricking the enemy into a trap/hurting themselves gains bonuses or special actions otherwise unavailable. (Ex: One can attack and bull rush at the same time, or disarm and trip and opponent in one action rather than taking two turns)

We are working out our differences, but even so he claims that I have demanded too much of him. Hopefully when I present him with some of your ideas (namely, preparing battle descriptions ahead of time which is something I do for my baddies) he'll calm down and realize that being In Character can be very rewarding both story wise and even mechanically wise. I know that his meta-gaming self won't be able to resist gaining bonuses to checks or making multiple attacks/actions a turn. It's all up to me whether his plan grants such bonuses though. And atleast the rules I hold my players to is being applied to myself as well. If I cannot describe the monster's or NPC's action well enough, my players point it out to me. I accept their judgment and give a flat -2 penalty to whatever the monster or NPC was doing.

[AMFV]

Well it could be that he just wants a different style of play than you do, that sounds like the problem to me, some people want a more heavy and narrative style of play, it doesn't work for everybody though.

It sounds to me, like you want a more loose and free game, with less focus on the IC stuff or at least less enforced focus, since that's an environment that you enjoy. I would bring up with the DM that you aren't enjoying the game anymore and that you'd like to come to some kind of compromise regarding the extensive description. If he isn't then you should probably find a different game, or else reconcile yourself to putting up with this one, really that's where you're at, sadly.

[Volos]

The thing is that I really do enjoy his game, just not the way he has changed in running it. Before I knew what was expected of me, and what I could get away with. Now I'm not so sure. I was trying to scare off a potential foe, and instead of having me roll Intimidate he decided I was trying to Bluff the enemy. With his new way of running things, we describe our actions and aren't allowed to say anything related to the rules system, then he tells us when and what to roll. So we're left to roleplay and describe our actions as best we can, hoping that he'll let us roll what we want to. The other players aren't having an issue with this, but since I'm playing a gritty grey zone vigilante, some of my actions aren't coming across as I plan. I really want to stay in his game, but I'm not sure how I can get back to enjoying the campaign with his current play style. Should I just talk to him about it frankly and ask him what he's expecting of me?

[AMFV]

The thing is that I really do enjoy his game, just not the way he has changed in running it. Before I knew what was expected of me, and what I could get away with. Now I'm not so sure. I was trying to scare off a potential foe, and instead of having me roll Intimidate he decided I was trying to Bluff the enemy. With his new way of running things, we describe our actions and aren't allowed to say anything related to the rules system, then he tells us when and what to roll. So we're left to roleplay and describe our actions as best we can, hoping that he'll let us roll what we want to. The other players aren't having an issue with this, but since I'm playing a gritty grey zone vigilante, some of my actions aren't coming across as I plan. I really want to stay in his game, but I'm not sure how I can get back to enjoying the campaign with his current play style. Should I just talk to him about it frankly and ask him what he's expecting of me?

Well that's basically kind of a different style of gameplay, since he's changed gameplay styles then either you need to discuss it with him, since he's not going to change back. Talk to him about it, if he can't fix the issue, then either buckle down or leave, sadly those are your choices.

[Red Fel]

It also depends on the game. For instance, in a mechanics-oriented game like D&D, the "how" you do something is less important. It's not unimportant, and adding a bit of detail certainly adds to immersion, but at the end of the day, you're buying goods, or you're rolling Intimidate, or you're casting Magic Missile. It's not elaborate.

But there are other games where the "how" does matter. For instance, in Exalted, by describing your actions - any action, no matter how mundane - in an awesome or badass way, you gain various bonuses. This incentivizes are more detailed, narrative style of gameplay.

It's possible that the DM in your game is trying to switch to a more narrative style. And it sounds like you're not a fan - at least, not without incentives. I would suggest, as AMFV does, talking to your DM. Figure out what he wants and why he wants it, and if it's something you're comfortable providing. Figure out if there's a better way for him to incentivize it than to simply say, "No, give me more details!"

As an aside, roleplaying can easily be applied to combat. Go watch an anime. Any anime. It really doesn't matter. Watch the part where the protagonist confronts a rival, and gives a long speech about love and justice and the power of friendship, about how his blood boils and his hand burns and the truth will prevail and he will right wrongs and triumph over evil. Watch the part where he stares the enemy down, sword at his side, in a crouch, and suddenly both lunge simultaneously, landing behind one another, standing silently for a moment before one of them falls over, sliced in half. Or where lights surge from his outstretched fist, the silhouettes of despairing souls rushing and roaring outwards, surrounding his foe before devouring them whole. And so on and so forth. If he really, really wants combat RP'd, ham it up until he chokes on it.

[Cristo Meyers]

Well that's basically kind of a different style of gameplay, since he's changed gameplay styles then either you need to discuss it with him, since he's not going to change back. Talk to him about it, if he can't fix the issue, then either buckle down or leave, sadly those are your choices.

Agreed. This is probably time to sit down and have a discussion about what's going on. At least then you'll have all the facts to make a decision.

Heck, it sounds like they're decided you're playing FATE instead of DnD. What Volos has described sounds a lot like a Dresden Files/FATE style of game.

[Jay R]

Even in combat I have to describe my actions.

"OK. Standing in Di Grassi's broad ward, with my right foot forward, I void his attack with a slope pass to my right (his left), executing an atajo cambrio, setting up a tondo reverso with the back edge of the sword. I complete the pass with a compass step to put my left foot back behind me in the new orientation."

[I've just mixed three mutually incompatible fencing systems.]

There are other ways to kill a cat than by smothering it in cream, but it is often the best way.

[Prince Raven]

I don't see the problem here, your DM is asking you to roleplay in a roleplaying game, that seems pretty reasonable to me.

[AMFV]

I don't see the problem here, your DM is asking you to roleplay in a roleplaying game, that seems pretty reasonable to me.

He's asking him to act, which is not necessarily tantamount to roleplaying. Just because somebody isn't as good at narrative description or isn't as good at acting doesn't mean that he should be penalized in his ability to roleplay. Now there can be games where that is a common aspect. But if he's not having fun then he should discuss this with the DM. Since it's not an aspect equally in most systems or games.

[Rhynn]

Your GM had a decent idea ("get them more involved through roleplay!") but put it into practice really badly. Long descriptions are not inherently better or worthier than short ones, and the real way to create involvement is to hook the players into the setting and the events and the characters, not to mandate unnecessarily wordy descriptions. Your group needs to have a discussion about this, and if y'all don't come to a consensus that will make for a fun game for you, you should walk and find a game that does work for you.

He's asking him to act, which is not necessarily tantamount to roleplaying. Just because somebody isn't as good at narrative description or isn't as good at acting doesn't mean that he should be penalized in his ability to roleplay. Now there can be games where that is a common aspect. But if he's not having fun then he should discuss this with the DM. Since it's not an aspect equally in most systems or games.

Yes, yes, yes.

Acting around a table is not the same as roleplaying. Roleplaying is about making decisions, to me. Acting is optional and unnecessary. A lot of people get a kick out of it, but it's very rarely done at all at my table, for instance, and my players are still plenty involved in the game, the characters, and the setting, when they're presented well.

[Driderman]

If this is a new thing I'd suggest rolling with it for the time being and see if you don't gradually get to a point where found a common middle way.

Honestly, my first thought was "you don't know how good you got it!" because that sounds like a GM who's invested in his game and wants his players to be as well.

[inexorabletruth]

It could just be an RP experiment. Every now and then I take my players through RP experiments to see if something is a hit. Sometimes they love it, sometimes they hate it, sometimes I hate it, which has resulted in many amusing anecdotes. I say humor him for about 5 sessions.

If it's still not working out after you've given it your best shot, then you've learned that you're not a deep immersion RP guy. Talk to him about it and see if you can opt out of the heavy RP and go back to doing what you do best.

If he won't budge and you still want to play, then try pre-writing some scripts for things you do, and just reading them back when the time is appropriate.

Write up like three attack scripts, three haggling scripts, and maybe three stealth scripts. Examples to follow:

• Attack: Sweeping high and spinning low to catch the [opponent] off his guard, I swing my [weapon] out wide, drawing a straight, silvery line across the [opponents] midsection.
• Haggle: I lean in conspiratorially and whisper, "There is a rumor going around that you have the best [items] in town. I wish to procure something for myself, if the price is fair enough…"
• Sneak: Tiptoeing through the dark [area] I peer around the corner to make sure the [adjoining area] is clear of lookers-on.

These scripts won't serve every purpose, but it might help in a pinch if your creative juices are running dry. I did something like this in a game where the DM insisted we describe everything like we were award winning novel writers too. The pressure and social awkwardness made me clam up, so having a few emergency scripts lying around to help me describe how my character shot an arrow for the thousandth time in his campaign helped a lot.

[Prince Raven]

"Don't worry my lady, I will be here to catch you"
"You have my full confidence, brave sir" [Lady Damsel drops from the ledge, you catch her and gently lower her to the ground]

Is a lot more engaging than

"Diplomacy to get her to jump, 15"
"You succeed, she drops from the ledge, roll plus strength to catch her"
"16"
"You catch her"

[Sith_Happens]

If he really, really wants combat RP'd, ham it up until he chokes on it.

I was going to briefly comment on the ridiculousness of the scenario and then second the actually helpful advice... But then this.

Repeat after me:
THIS HAND OF MINE GLOWS WITH AN AWESOME POWER!!!

[Prince Raven]

Dude, if I had an attack that took something like 11 combat rounds to prepare, you bet I'd ham it up.

[Volos]

Well he is giving us bonuses if we describe our actions in either a cool or story appropriate way. I've talked to him via facebook last night, and he said that he basically started doing this style of DMing since most of us were meta-gaming too much. He felt that we were thinking too much about the system and less about the story. We're running through an adventure path, so I can see where he is coming from.

I myself am a huge culprit of meta-gaming my way out of most every situation. Pit me against a human opponent, and I can't help but think... I have a +15 to Intimidate, he couldn't have more than 5HD, and I'm 3rd level. If I drink this potion of Enlarge Person, that's another +4 to my check. So yeah, I'll stop listening to those noises coming out of his mouth (Story Dialog) and make my check without asking the DM if I'm allowed or if its my turn.

My DM says he wants us to roleplay and come up with new and interesting actions both inside and outside of combat to make the game more fun and more story orientated. He showed me an example of a combat scenario where we'd be fighting in a manor per-se. If I wanted to cut the chandelier rope and ride it to the top to charge the BBEG while simultaneously crushing anyone under the chandelier, I'd make an appropriate skill check as determined by him, and then I'd not only get a cool charge (with maybe a free bull rush) but also I'd get 'trap' damage on the foes below based on a function of my level crossed with my skill check total.

It seems really complicated, but since all we have to do is describe ourselves and he does the math, it should be fine I guess. I can see where he wants to make the game more engaging, but I still get caught up with on the spot roleplay. So what should I do to be more prepared to roleplay both inside and outside of combat?

[Driderman]

Well he is giving us bonuses if we describe our actions in either a cool or story appropriate way. I've talked to him via facebook last night, and he said that he basically started doing this style of DMing since most of us were meta-gaming too much. He felt that we were thinking too much about the system and less about the story. We're running through an adventure path, so I can see where he is coming from.

I myself am a huge culprit of meta-gaming my way out of most every situation. Pit me against a human opponent, and I can't help but think... I have a +15 to Intimidate, he couldn't have more than 5HD, and I'm 3rd level. If I drink this potion of Enlarge Person, that's another +4 to my check. So yeah, I'll stop listening to those noises coming out of his mouth (Story Dialog) and make my check without asking the DM if I'm allowed or if its my turn.

My DM says he wants us to roleplay and come up with new and interesting actions both inside and outside of combat to make the game more fun and more story orientated. He showed me an example of a combat scenario where we'd be fighting in a manor per-se. If I wanted to cut the chandelier rope and ride it to the top to charge the BBEG while simultaneously crushing anyone under the chandelier, I'd make an appropriate skill check as determined by him, and then I'd not only get a cool charge (with maybe a free bull rush) but also I'd get 'trap' damage on the foes below based on a function of my level crossed with my skill check total.

It seems really complicated, but since all we have to do is describe ourselves and he does the math, it should be fine I guess. I can see where he wants to make the game more engaging, but I still get caught up with on the spot roleplay. So what should I do to be more prepared to roleplay both inside and outside of combat?

First of all, maybe you should consider switching to another system because while your DMs great idea is doable in D&D, it's a lot easier to manage in other, lighter systems that doesn't encourage it's players to "computer-game" the system rather than roleplay it.

Secondly, don't worry about being on-the-spot. I know it can be difficult, I'm sure we've all had that social anxiety one time or another when faced with a spontaneous RP scene, but try to get into the spirit of things and it will soon become a lot easier.
Besides, all these guys are your friends right? They'll be in the same position and they won't think badly of you if you don't pull off every scene perfectly so don't worry, it's just a game after all.

Thirdly, try to think about awesome lines or actions that your character could say or do, in terms of description and not mechanics, while outside the game. Write something down, maybe even make a short story that highlights aspects of your character you can use to better determine how and why he acts as he does, if you're so inclined.
I find that RP'ing a character is difficult if you mainly think of the character in terms of his mechanical traits, once you forego those concerns in favor of thinking of the character as a person, it becomes a lot easier to roleplay him since you'll have an instinctive grasp of how the character would react in a given situation, instead of having to assess it like a tactical board-or-computer game scenario.

[Prince Raven]

With all seriousness, have you considered doing some pre-session improv exercises?

It's also useful to stay in character. Constantly switching betwen IC and OOC makes it difficult to stay immersed and requires you to mentally re-engage with your character once you're put on the spot.

[Kane0]

Pick one word, action, etc to really overdo and drive home. Each session, every session. It will either establish a default state for your character, annoy the hell out of the DM or be hilarious. Possibly all of the above.

For example, in our group that word is 'cautiously'. Should anyone use that word any and all other people at the table are permitted (nay, obligated) to give the DM ideas on the horrible, spontaneous fate of the accused.

[valadil]

I've seen other GMs try this. Some have more success than others. In my opinion your GM is taking it too far.

I really like fleshing out the details of a social interaction. You can't just push the diplomacy button to make the guards go away. Come up with a couple sentences and use the skill to see the effect they have.

Going into detail on shopping is unnecessary though. I get that he wants to immerse you in the game but I don't think it's actually buying you anything. Skip the mundane tasks, especially if they're frustrating, and do some RP where it matters instead.

I also think part of the problem is the system. I'm not going to tell you you can't RP with DnD. Rather your familiarity with the system is problematic. You know what your skills do and you want to activate them. You know what cure light wound does and what it costs. If you didn't have that knowledge, walking into a shop and trying to figure out which healing potion was right for you wouldn't be so tedious. If you didn't know the difference between bluff and intimidate you'd say what you want to say and the GM would tell you what to roll. You wouldn't have this problem of knowing the system, pretending you don't and then getting frustrated when the GM's interpretation of your actions don't match your goals.

[Driderman]

I also think part of the problem is the system. I'm not going to tell you you can't RP with DnD. Rather your familiarity with the system is problematic. You know what your skills do and you want to activate them. You know what cure light wound does and what it costs. If you didn't have that knowledge, walking into a shop and trying to figure out which healing potion was right for you wouldn't be so tedious. If you didn't know the difference between bluff and intimidate you'd say what you want to say and the GM would tell you what to roll. You wouldn't have this problem of knowing the system, pretending you don't and then getting frustrated when the GM's interpretation of your actions don't match your goals.

I don't think the issue is so much that he knows how the system works, but rather than his group have been taught/taught themselves to play mechanically rather than roleplaying as such. It's an easy trap to fall into with many systems, but D&D in particularl seems to encourage this.

As I see it, it becomes a problem when the players are playing the system rather than the story. Instead of running with what the GM says is appropriate, the game turns into an exercise in knowing the system and suddenly the players get all sorts of assumptions about how the world is supposed to react to their actions. Instead of using roleplaying to influence a guard, it becomes a matter of the player assuming that their level X of social influencing skill will do the work for them. As such, the game system actually replaces the GM in terms of who dictates the rules of the game, which is also what spawns rules debates often.

[Sith_Happens]

Dude, if I had an attack that took something like 11 combat rounds to prepare, you bet I'd ham it up.

Don't be silly, everyone knows transforming and flourishing are both free actions.

[Spore]

Pick one word, action, etc to really overdo and drive home. Each session, every session. It will either establish a default state for your character, annoy the hell out of the DM or be hilarious. Possibly all of the above.

For example, in our group that word is 'cautiously'. Should anyone use that word any and all other people at the table are permitted (nay, obligated) to give the DM ideas on the horrible, spontaneous fate of the accused.

Spoiler

Show

I am sorry this is childish and immature.

Please try it out before you judge it. Roleplaying out buying potions isn't something to fill an hour with but you could spare five minutes of your time doing it, don't you? Maybe you get a discount on them too for convincing Diplomacy. But I agree, playing out every minor detail is tedious.

[AMFV]

Well he is giving us bonuses if we describe our actions in either a cool or story appropriate way. I've talked to him via facebook last night, and he said that he basically started doing this style of DMing since most of us were meta-gaming too much. He felt that we were thinking too much about the system and less about the story. We're running through an adventure path, so I can see where he is coming from.

I myself am a huge culprit of meta-gaming my way out of most every situation. Pit me against a human opponent, and I can't help but think... I have a +15 to Intimidate, he couldn't have more than 5HD, and I'm 3rd level. If I drink this potion of Enlarge Person, that's another +4 to my check. So yeah, I'll stop listening to those noises coming out of his mouth (Story Dialog) and make my check without asking the DM if I'm allowed or if its my turn.

My DM says he wants us to roleplay and come up with new and interesting actions both inside and outside of combat to make the game more fun and more story orientated. He showed me an example of a combat scenario where we'd be fighting in a manor per-se. If I wanted to cut the chandelier rope and ride it to the top to charge the BBEG while simultaneously crushing anyone under the chandelier, I'd make an appropriate skill check as determined by him, and then I'd not only get a cool charge (with maybe a free bull rush) but also I'd get 'trap' damage on the foes below based on a function of my level crossed with my skill check total.

It seems really complicated, but since all we have to do is describe ourselves and he does the math, it should be fine I guess. I can see where he wants to make the game more engaging, but I still get caught up with on the spot roleplay. So what should I do to be more prepared to roleplay both inside and outside of combat?

Well if your problem is shyness or not being able to put ideas into words, you could actually try a small amount of alcohol. I know it sounds terrible, but a small buzz will help with getting rid of some social fear and that will assist you in being able to roleplay more easily. Also then you won't be as nervous when you're on the spot. Naturally being plastered is not productive to a good game, but that's neither here nor there, if you can moderate, having a light buzz may really help you. Of course whether or not that's feasible depends on your age and your opinions regarding alcohol. I've found that a few beers really lowers my nervousness as far as roleplaying goes though.

[Mastikator]

[snip]

Acting around a table is not the same as roleplaying. Roleplaying is about making decisions, to me. Acting is optional and unnecessary. A lot of people get a kick out of it, but it's very rarely done at all at my table, for instance, and my players are still plenty involved in the game, the characters, and the setting, when they're presented well.

Gotta disagree with this. To me roleplaying is acting without a script, whenever you aren't in character you're not roleplaying. Making decisions is a part of creating the story, but it's not a part of making your character. If you don't speak in character to the other players while they are in characters. And it IS important that you do "funny voices", communication is 80% non-verbal, this is why you get much much more out of roleplaying if you roleplay the mannerisms and accent and everything. Anything less and the other players are only getting a very vague idea of what your character is like.

I'm not saying you can't half-ass it if that's more fun to you, fun is the goal after all. But you are half-assing it.

Now I do agree that the DMs execution of ramping up the roleplaying level is not that great, IMO describing your actions shouldn't be the main focus, unnecessary details are ok to omit. But saying "I buy a potion of cure light wounds" isn't roleplaying, you just missed the part where you talk to the shop keeper, the small talk where the DM gives you a feel of what the town is like.

[Red Fel]

I was going to briefly comment on the ridiculousness of the scenario and then second the actually helpful advice... But then this.

Repeat after me:
THIS HAND OF MINE GLOWS WITH AN AWESOME POWER!!!

Oh, you've been in my latest build thread, have you?

In all seriousness, though, it's very hard to maintain a gritty tone - usually known for understated acts or monotones - and still ramp up the acting. Ask your DM if you can lapse back into a lighter character, and in exchange you'll try harder to act out your actions.

Frankly, hamming it up a little can be fun, if you're ready and able to have fun with it.

[AMFV]

Gotta disagree with this. To me roleplaying is acting without a script, whenever you aren't in character you're not roleplaying. Making decisions is a part of creating the story, but it's not a part of making your character. If you don't speak in character to the other players while they are in characters. And it IS important that you do "funny voices", communication is 80% non-verbal, this is why you get much much more out of roleplaying if you roleplay the mannerisms and accent and everything. Anything less and the other players are only getting a very vague idea of what your character is like.

I'm not saying you can't half-ass it if that's more fun to you, fun is the goal after all. But you are half-assing it.

Now I do agree that the DMs execution of ramping up the roleplaying level is not that great, IMO describing your actions shouldn't be the main focus, unnecessary details are ok to omit. But saying "I buy a potion of cure light wounds" isn't roleplaying, you just missed the part where you talk to the shop keeper, the small talk where the DM gives you a feel of what the town is like.

Well that depends, for certain people and in certain systems that style of roleplaying is okay, but it's definitely not the only way to roleplay. I wouldn't call anything else "half-assing" certainly, since there are many different ways to become involved in the 'role' aspect of your character, from motivations and long term goals, to minutae, that do not require extensive acting. Acting is not a skill everybody possess, and while it is okay to have a game with a heavy focus on that (just as it's okay to have a game with a heavy focus on math, or a game with a heavy focus on strategy), it's not the "best roleplaying" way.

[Mastikator]

Well that depends, for certain people and in certain systems that style of roleplaying is okay, but it's definitely not the only way to roleplay. I wouldn't call anything else "half-assing" certainly, since there are many different ways to become involved in the 'role' aspect of your character, from motivations and long term goals, to minutae, that do not require extensive acting. Acting is not a skill everybody possess, and while it is okay to have a game with a heavy focus on that (just as it's okay to have a game with a heavy focus on math, or a game with a heavy focus on strategy), it's not the "best roleplaying" way.

Actually it is. Everyone played pretend when they were a kid. Those of us who've larped can tell you that *everyone* can roleplay, you don't have to be good at it. IMO doing it poorly is better than not doing it at all. Merely not breaking character is above average.

A game that is heavy focused on math or strategy is probably a wargame (or action/adventure game) with some aspects of roleplaying added. It can still be a wargame if you only control one character.

[AMFV]

Actually it is. Everyone played pretend when they were a kid. Those of us who've larped can tell you that *everyone* can roleplay, you don't have to be good at it. IMO doing it poorly is better than not doing it at all. Merely not breaking character is above average.

A game that is heavy focused on math or strategy is probably a wargame (or action/adventure game) with some aspects of roleplaying added. It can still be a wargame if you only control one character.

That's not necessarily the case, those are aspects present in many roleplaying games, so if I find the math more fun and I introduce houserules to turn it up to 11. As this DM did with roleplaying, am I wrong? I don't think so. It's just a different style of game, and it won't appeal to everybody.

For some people, roleplaying is incredibly frustrating and difficult, which is why that should be something that shouldn't necessarily be a requirement for everybody. Many people did not play pretend in the fashion that you're describing, or as they grew up they stopped enjoying it. It is possible to get into a character or have emotional involvement in the game, without acting, now that's a different style of game, but neither really is better or worse. To my mind, bad roleplaying and no roleplaying at all are tantamount to the same thing, with bad roleplaying being slightly worse because it sucks up so much time, which is a scarce resource. Now I love me some good roleplaying, and I love immersive games, but it's not everybody's cup of tea, and I recognize that.

[Mastikator]

So instead of accepting that roleplaying isn't for everyone we water the definition down to the point where roleplaying is virtually a meaningless word just so people who like to play war games, board games and strategy games can be said to play roleplaying games?