in general, I find someone who's willing to consciously make a mistake in the name of their character's knowledge or personality

>>44019996
Someone who prioritizes making a positive contribution to the immersion of the other players.

Nobody needs another sperglord who thinks he's a great role-player because he knows the sickest build in D&D, focus on making the fiction feel alive for the rest of the group.

Someone willing to buy into the story the GM is telling, and help tell it.

>>44019996
Someone that is willing to play to loose. Your character is vulnerable and, if grief and bad things make for good story (and they generally do), go seek out those things.

Not to a masochistic level though

>>44020819
The story is whatever the characters do. The players job is not to just play along and fall in line, it's the GM's job to provide the characters with interesting context and results of their actions.

The mindset that the players are just taking part in the GM's story is what leads to railroading and campaigns that would have ended the same no matter what characters were in it.

Not op, similar question. One of the biggest things stopping me from actually finding a group and trying to play is the idea of having to speak or act out scenes in character. I'm an absolutely terrible actor with no interest in humiliating myself.

Can this be avoided? I have no problem describing a character and their actions, but acting is terrifying.

>>44020954
Ham it up when speaking but use your normal voice to describe your character's actions in first person.
Really, you just need to get into it and get used to it.

>>44020578
I think the positive contribution is the biggest part.

Sometimes people are "great roleplayers" who spend so much time roleplaying for its own sake that the other players get irritated.

>>44020870
This dude gets it.

It's not the "GM's story." The GM isn't "telling you a story." You all, as a group, are creating a story. It's all your job to tell it, collectively.

>>44020954
You don't have to act out or speak "in character." You can just say "my character does x, and says y in style z."

>e.x. "Oh, then I say that they'll never pass me and I'll stop them in a really loud voice, then my dude will draw his sword and make a heroic pose."

It's really all you need. Nobody expects you to do voices or dress up or whatever. Some people do, but it's hardly mandatory.

As an acting student, i find that what I've learned helps me quite a bit when gaming.

The basis of certain styles of acting is that the only way of possibly portraying a complete character is by figuring out their goal.

Therefore, what I consider to be good roleplaying is having that goal- and using it to portray their character. I dunno if that works for everyone, but that's what I like.

The ability to differenciate IC and OOC.
The ability to slip into the thought process of a certain character/role and block out real life thoughts and worries.
The ability not to min/max at every opportunity.

>>44020954
>>44021310

>I'm totally okay with finding strangers to engage in the dorkiest hobby possible with, but I don't want to role-play IN CHARACTER like some kind of role-playing faggot.

Just relax dude, take a deep breath and realize it's retarded to worry about making a fool of yourself by role-playing in a role-playing game.

People who only ever go "my character does..." "my characters talks about how..." are plenty cringe-worthy.

Would you play with a GM who said stuff like "The evil villain hops out and makes a terrifying speech about his plans and stuff" rather than actually saying the words? Hopefully not, because that sounds awful. And it's no less awful when players do it.

>>44020954

What makes you think any of us are any good, either? My goblin character just speaks in a nasally, high-pitched version of my own voice. Almost anyone can do that. Role-playing definitely puts everyone in a state of vulnerability, just due to the social nature of the game. And that's okay, anon.

Separation Character - Player.

>>44020529
Yes, this. Someone who doesn't mind their character dying as long as it contributes to the story in a meaningful way is also great.

I think it's the player who can help the story flow; If that's creating hooks or evolving a cool character I'm more than happy to bring them along. Also theirs a sort of unwritten "movie logic" that applies to my games. Sometimes a bag of alchemist fire is used to blow up a barricade but people who try to do it in combat wont get the same effect, smililar idea about guards / minions being knocked out and subdual damage.

I think being able to run with hard and fast rule changes also helps. Take 3.0 grappling, fml what an ass pain. Good role players know that sometimes you gotta bend the rules to keep the flow: as long as that bending doesn't break overall consistency.

It's a hard long road for gms to walk and learn this stuff, but one thing that is not a good role player is the overtly helpful character who is sort or meta assisting the it angers me when they start force focusing elements; eg. "we found a crystal key, now we must find the lock to progress" no guys trust me I build in little hooks and sub quests as well as smash em together on the fly so feel free to continue to play freely than feel like it's an objective based game now you found the key to the last room (which also already has half a dozen alternative methods to open it)

>>44019996
A good roleplayer is a dedicated improv-actor.

Shame is, most people will automatically call you a spotlight hogging mary-sue if you actually try to roleplay to the fullest.

>>44023291
>Shame is, most people will automatically call you a spotlight hogging mary-sue if you actually try to roleplay to the fullest
That Guy is in the eye of the beholder. If your group is calling you out on something, you might want to consider if they're the right group for you. If every group you've played with has called you out on it, you might want to consider that the problem might be you and not everybody else