okay, so in my eyes that is mostly fluff way of saying that i get to play my character. I don't see it anymore a smoking gun for 'never use social skills' then I do for 'never make attack rolls'
Right, so that is one valid way to interpret the passage in question. However, an interpretation which can treat this passage as a rule and still produce internally consistent results is (in the academic senses) more logically sound.
no I actually don't think that it IS an exception. I personally belive that as I read it, it is all the same. I get to say how my character reacts to outside stimulie, the DM, the dice, and the rules all provide that outside stimuli.
Which makes sense if you don’t interpret the above as a rule. But, again, an interpretation that treats all the text in the rule book as rules is more logically sound than one which relies on the assumption that some of the text in the rule book is not rules.
It almost feels like some people think RPGs are solitaire with the DM standing in for a computer to play it on.
Quite the opposite, in fact. The DM’s role requires subjective interpretation, which a computer is not (currently) capable of executing.
They get to react, if they act out of character sooner or later the group may not like playing with them, but I don't see any rules on 'intimidated' for my NPCs when I DM or for my Character when I play. So I don't know where this MUST do X comes from.
I agree, which seems to me to be an argument in favor of the position that the outcome of an attempt to intimidate a PC is not uncertain.
and this is again where we disagree... the dice (and rules and DM) provide the context for the player to determin what they think and do...
This seems to be an assumption on your part. From my reading of the text, the role of the dice is not to provide context for the players and DMs to decide what they think and do, but to resolve uncertainty in the outcomes of the actions the players describe.
what rule tells you when you DM and the player rolls a sociol skill how to RP react or Think as the NPC, or is that up to you?
The how to play rules. To paraphrase: the basic pattern of play is that the DM describes the environment, the players say what they want to do, and the DM describes the result, calling for a dice roll if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the action.
okay lets take 2 examples
1) me as a player. I tell the DM my Elf walks into the bar. She describes the bar, including a whole adventureing party. I go to buy a room and one thing leads to another and the dwarf NPC from that adventureing party picks a fight (verbal) with my elf. after RPing back and forth the Dwarf tried to intimdate my elf. I am not my elf, the dm is not the dwarf, we are playing those roles though. becuse this GAME has a stat call cha and a skill called inimadate the DM rolls and tells me she got a 4 (roll of 2+2 prof no cha mod). I now make an informed choice knowing that this was not very intimadating. (in some alternate world maybe she rolled a 19+2 for a 21, and I would know they were VERY intimadating) at no point did I loose or forgo agenecy here. I am still controling my elf. I still get to decide how he reacts.
Great. You are more than welcome to play that way if you want to.
2) me as a DM. two players want to buy a dog from a breeder. I as the DM know I have stats for a cool smart dog better then the MM/PHB that I have been sitting on for months. player 1 and NPC talk, I have him brag about how his dogs have both blink dog and dire wolf in them... player offers 2gp and I have NPC laugh and say "For a rare powerhouse like this, no that will be 10gp." Now the PCs decide they think they can push around the breeder. One aids the other and they say they are "intimadating the breeder into taking the 2gp" I as the DM tell the one with the higher skill to roll with advantage, and they get some huge number (it doesn't matter lets say a 27) now I have no rules in any book or even in my notes on how the breeder reacts. I have to decide quickly. SO I have him fall backwards afried, and the dogs all move up and growl... no rule no roll took away my againcy, and it is the same for the PCs
Again, great, play that way if you want. Personally, I don’t consider “I intimidate the breeder into taking the 2gp” sufficient to determine the outcome of that action. I gather that the player’s goal is to get the breeder to accept the 2gp, and that they think their proficiency in the intimidate skill will help them achieve that goal, but not what the character is doing to try and achieve that goal, that they think the intimidate skill would be applicable to.