A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

Certainly you should aim to entertain everyone at the table! And you seem to think that the purpose of social encounters is to 'win' them, which is not the case.

Tge first is trivially true. It's a game played for entertainment, so yes, play should be entertaining to all.

As far as "winning" social encounters, perhaps you just have meaningless social encounters where nothing is at stake, otherwise it would seem that the "win" condition is to get what you want or clise to it, no matter if you're using a formalized mechanic or if it's just acting well enough to convince Bob.

 

[Lanefan]

I want to be clear I’m not advocating for boiling every social interaction down to one roll. It’s perfectly fine to play the NPCs in a way that’s appropriate to what’s been established.

What I’ve come to realize is that I don’t enjoy when there are details about the NPC that have not been established in any way and when those factors are what steers play. Because the GM is largely responsible for what I know of this NPC and then is also responsible for the NPC’s behavior and his response to the PCs’ actions.

All of this may be based on how this NPC would behave and may follow that logic perfectly. And yet for me as a player, I’m just bashing my head against this encounter, trying to find the one key that can open things up, and not even knowing what that key may be.

I hope that’s clear.

Yes it is, but I think you're asking for a degree of player knowledge that exceeds your character knowledge if you expect this info about someone you've never in-game met or heard of.

If there are limited ways to deal with a situation, they need to be signposted or otherwise introduced into the fiction. It’s easy this way to punish players for not finding the “right way” to deal with the NPC or situation.

This is, I believe, what @pemerton refers to as puzzle-solving.

Same as reality: if you meet someone (say, your new boss) for the first time and don't know what makes that person tick there's always a chance you're going to rub that person the wrong way for no reason you can figure.

Both in the game and in reality, the puzzle-solving bit lies in getting to know the person.

 

[Aldarc]

Or more or less eschew rules in favour of roleplay...?

This presents itself as something of a false dichotomy. The quantity of rules does not somehow produce more or less roleplay as if it was a rote factor. If you think, for example, that rules facilitating social encounters somehow curbs thespianism in games like Blades in the Dark, Dogs in the Vineyard, Monster Hearts, etc., then you are sorely mistaken. What matters is how those rules that are present facilitate a particular roleplaying game experience. You clearly of the singular mind that rules can't or don't facilitate roleplay, though hopefully you can at least sympathize (as in understanding the different psychological experiences of other human beings apart from yourself) that not everyone shares that sentiment in regards to roleplaying games.

Mostly, I'd guess, because while social interaction can be played out live in person at the table, combat and exploration (almost universally) cannot; and thus must be abstracted somehow.

Mostly, I'd guess, it's because the game was originally designed as a tactical skirmish game of dungeon-delving that rewarded skilled play so social mechanics received minimal, tertiary mechanical support. So the social "freeform" is less a design intention and more of an unintended by-product.

A - weight and impact can happen absent mechanics.
B - I see this as their opportunity to learn, and to gain that confidence.

C - I refuse to understand or accept the validity of other forms of roleplay.

This appears to be defining roleplaying as acting well enough to convince/entertain Bob.

This seems to be the only understanding of roleplaying that they are willing to entertain.

Certainly you should aim to entertain everyone at the table! And you seem to think that the purpose of social encounters is to 'win' them, which is not the case.

Then why not roleplay your combat and exploration encounters on the basis of entertainment without mechanical support?

 

[Lanefan]

Indeed, that system exists: it's called "Mother, May I?"

Yep - and it's a fine system for thems as likes it...of which I'd be one, most of the time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Tge first is trivially true. It's a game played for entertainment, so yes, play should be entertaining to all.

As far as "winning" social encounters, perhaps you just have meaningless social encounters where nothing is at stake, otherwise it would seem that the "win" condition is to get what you want or clise to it, no matter if you're using a formalized mechanic or if it's just acting well enough to convince Bob.

There sometimes might be clear goals, but often not. For people who like playing social situations, the interaction in itself is the point. And this doesn't mean that there is no weight, there can be dramatic reveals, funny moments, emotional scenes, bonding and myriad other things present in good (and bad) interpersonal drama.

 

[Lanefan]

This appears to be defining roleplaying as acting well enough to convince/entertain Bob.

Yep - and I expect Bob to act well enough to convince/entertain me in return.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There sometimes might be clear goals, but often not. For people who like playing social situations, the interaction in itself is the point. And this doesn't mean that there is no weight, there can be dramatic reveals, funny moments, emotional scenes, bonding and myriad other things present in good (and bad) interpersonal drama.

Do you believe these things are lacking in other system?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Mostly, I'd guess, it's because the game was originally designed as a tactical skirmish game of dungeon-delving that rewarded skilled play so social mechanics received minimal, tertiary mechanical support. So the social "freeform" is less a design intention and more of an unintended by-product.

Sure. So was the penicillin.

Then why not roleplay your combat and exploration encounters on the basis of entertainment without mechanical support?

That's a perfectly valid way to handle those too, and sometimes I have. However mentally modelling complex physical situations without external framework is far harder than doing so with a simple conversation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you believe these things are lacking in other system?

Not necessarily. Merely that a system is not needed for them. But I certainly have found some systems to interfere with them. Exalted's social combat system certainly was such.

 

[Lanefan]

This presents itself as something of a false dichotomy. The quantity of rules does not somehow produce more or less roleplay as if it was a rote factor. If you think, for example, that rules facilitating social encounters somehow curbs thespianism in games like Blades in the Dark, Dogs in the Vineyard, Monster Hearts, etc., then you are sorely mistaken.

I'm glad to hear that.

What matters is how those rules that are present facilitate a particular roleplaying game experience. You clearly of the singular mind that rules can't or don't facilitate roleplay,

Based on the experience of myself and others who jumped from older systems that had few or no formalized mechanics for social interactions to newer-at-the-time systems (e.g. 3e D&D) that did, and seeing how the amount of roleplay dropped away and how an attitude of "skip all the talking, just roll the damn dice" started to take hold among some players, then yes it's a very easy connection to make.

Mostly, I'd guess, it's because the game was originally designed as a tactical skirmish game of dungeon-delving that rewarded skilled play so social mechanics received minimal, tertiary mechanical support. So the social "freeform" is less a design intention and more of an unintended by-product.

I'm not so sure about that. Benefit of the doubt says the social stuff got less attention because the designers realized it didn't need much, and that in-character talk at the table would suffice. Meanwhile combat, which couldn't be acted out live at the table but was seen as a key part of the game, had to be modelled somehow and designing that model took some effort.

Exploration was kinda left to slip between the cracks, but that's another issue again.

This seems to be the only understanding of roleplaying that they are willing to entertain.

Er...if roleplaying is defined as playing a role - i.e. acting - which is what you're in theory doing at such times as you can match live-at-the-table action to in-game action (almost exclusively limited to social interactions in TTRPGs; some LARPs take it considerably further), then what other understanding can there be?

Then why not roleplay your combat and exploration encounters on the basis of entertainment without mechanical support?

As I just said a post or two back, as they can't be done live at the table combat and exploration need some sort of modelling. Game mechanics help with this.