Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what it is. Not even a 22 charisma can make someone do something that they would never do.
No. If you read the 5e DMG, every example and use of language is PC using the skill/ability check on NPCs. Crawford also confirmed that RAI is for social skills and ability checks not to work on PCs.
This.While I understand the point that you're making, I don't think you fully appreciate the alternative argument.
This exact issue isn't just one about social mechanics now; it's arguably the single oldest issue in the game itself. You can trace its lineage in D&D to the first great schism when it comes to skills; the introduction of the thief class, both in terms of the original class (which used more of an MU framework) and the adapted Gygax version. The debate was essentially that the presence of these specified rules for the thief meant that characters who formerly just did these things could no longer do them unless they were thieves. The presence of these rules meant that only characters who specifically chose the thief class could do these things. Contrast that with the original thief, McDuck, in Arneson's campaign, who was a thief not because of enumerated skills (rules) but because of what he did.
But you could go further back if you wanted. If you look to the ur-TTRPG, the original divide was (yeah, you know what's coming) between Kriegsspiel and Free Kriegsspiel, and the divide occurred because of ... rules. Because of the question of whether or not you should have, as you call it, a structured play system.
In effect, people aren't arguing over preferences (although, let's face it, they are). They are arguing over defaults. I think most people wouldn't begrudge other people what they want ... at least, I hope that's the case. I have to admit, I do question that sometimes. Still, I think that people who prefer a more freeform method are worried that if more advanced social mechanics rules become default and adopted, then that will gradually take over the game. In the same way that once the thief class was the class that could hide in shadows and pick pockets and find traps, then the fighter no longer could (in TSR-era D&D).
On the other hand, I would have no objection (as I'm sure no one would) with an optional supplement, or even an optional section in the DMG*, that specified the bestest and greatest social mechanics you can want! Because I want people to get what they want.
*Of course, much like any number of rules in the DMG, it is questionable if anyone will know of their existence in order to forestall possible debates, because ... oh, nevermind. Sometimes I wonder if people think the DMG is just a bunch of magic items surrounded by blank pages.
And this, including the part where some make it into the 5e DMG, though I'll add as optional rules.I can largely agree with that. And, yes, I do believe you hit the nail on the head.
As far as getting what I want, I suppose, you could argue that I already have. After all, 3pp have all sorts of social combat mechanics for 5e. There's a veritable shopping list of different systems, so, at the end of the day, it really is on me to simply adopt one of those and use them. I have already done so for exploration in my Spelljammer game, for example, to very good effect. And, of course, there's things like Level Up and the small mountain of material there that could certainly be adapted.
From free fanmade stuff, all the way to highly professional polished stuff. I'm really spoiled for choice. I mean, I was just perusing the other day an adaptation of Blades in the Dark's clock system for use in D&D 5e. There really are a small mountain of options out there.
It would just be nice if some of those actually made their way into the DMG so I didn't have to try to convince my bloody players that stuff that doesn't necessarily have the WotC seal of approval on it is perfectly fine to use in the game.But that's a separate issue.
This of course assumes that the things @Lanefan and I are advocating for, which were present both in earlier editions and in OSR games to which those editions contributed their DNA, are somehow objectively tedious and annoying. Obviously I we disagree on that point.
Any particular reason why not? And by that I mean an articulated reason.
Not necessarily. They are designers. They will know what works well together, what is neutral together, and what works poorly together. They could just give them letter assignments. Modules marked A work poorly with Modules marked D, but well with modules marked C and E. Or they can just say, "Warning: This module conflicts with the Free Cats module so they don't work well together."
See, I'm having a bit of trouble with this. As @Snarf Zagyg and you both mention, there's a tension in game design between freeform and structured play. But, you're saying that even though you prefer freeform play, the existence of mechanics means that you will abandon your preferred playstyle in favor of structured play, the same way that we abandoned freeform play in favor of having thieves with skills in the game.
That gets unwieldy really fast as you increase the number of modules.
Again, isn't this simply saying that no one actually prefers free form play? That the mere existence of mechanics results in groups abandoning free form play kind of points to pretty strong evidence that this preference for free form play is being imposed on the group and is not actually a reflection of how the group wants to play.
Can you provide an example of this concern in a real game, or is this still a hypothetical fear?
