As a DM I find DCs to be useful because I don't really know how my hastily sketched NPCs would respond, and because I know what the PCs are planning because the players have been talking about. Dice help me make a neutral decision.
<snip>
If the GM asks for the roll to help them make the decision, then yes. The player doesn't have a "right" to roll.
This is one approach. It's not the only possible approach even with mainstream ways of playing D&D. And of course there are RPGs that expressly preclude this approach: for instance, the player in Burning Wheel
does have a right to a roll (as per the principle of "say 'yes' or roll the dice".
This shows us that dice can serve other purposes than permitting the GM to disclaim decision-making. They can shape how the fiction unfolds, by helping shape the parameters of who gets to say what.
In my experience most players lean into the story and voluntarily have their characters make at least some bad decisions, without being required to because of dice.
But let's assume you've got a player who doesn't do that, who never roleplays anything but a superhero with no weaknesses or fears or doubts. Are you going to try to "fix" that by badgering them into submitting to your preferred style of roleplaying? What's the point of even trying that? Why do you want them to comply? Does your fun depend on it?
If it's a matter of game balance, you (as GM) have infinite tools at your disposal. Want them to be intimidated? Use a fear spell, or more dangerous foes. Want them to be persuaded? Use a charm spell, or increase the offer.
Personally, I think it unduly narrows the range of FRPGing if PCs' emotions are only ever affected by witches and magicians and the supernatural. And in RPGing that is not FRPGing there are no fear or charm spells, but it might still make sense for PCs to be frightened or smitten.
That leaves it open
how those sorts of effects are to be brought about, in game play terms. I've played RPGs with a lot of different approaches.
(And I do think it's more helpful to focus on
the approach taken in a particular game than on "what makes for good RPGing". Not every RPG needs to be the same, any more than every boardgame or card game needs to be the same.)
When I used to GM a lot of Rolemaster, with a very stable, long-term group, if a player thought that a particular event would upset or emotionally disturb their PC, they would call for a roll on the Depression Crit table, to determine that effect. Sometimes I, as GM, would suggest that such a roll was appropriate. The other players might also express a view. And it was considered pretty poor play to portray your PC as deeply invested in something (say, a relationship with a NPC) but then to ignore that if something terrible happened (say, the NPC was killed).
When we were playing Classic Traveller more recently, the players took it as given that a low INT on a character affected how they should portray that character. Traveller doesn't use a skill + attribute resolution system of the modern D&D sort, so (unlike in, say, 4e D&D) the INT was not just a modifier to a skill bonus that factored into a robust mechanical resolution framework. It was taken to be a descriptor that the player was expected to honour in their play of the character.
Classic Traveller also has PC-affecting morale rules. These only came into play once or twice in our game, but when they did no one complained. They accepted that this is a part of the game's rules, and went along with it.
I definitely think that just "rolling Intimidate" is a terrible substitute for Intimidation, especially when it is so easy for a GM to create a scenario in which players could actually fear for their characters. I think replacing that genuine feeling with play-acting based on a dice roll is...well, lame. And boring.
I don't really follow the sentiment expressed here. I don't normally find players playing their PCs - which includes portraying their emotional and intellectual life - boring.
Here are some examplex from actual play:
before Lareth would feed them and let them rest a bit (= camp), he had more to say to them. First he asked Telemere about his brother (and enemy) Kalamere. Telemere politely answered his questions, and established that Lareth and Kalamere are friends, but was refraining from voicing his own true feelings of hatred toward his brother. But Lareth goaded him until he couldn't hold back (failed Manipulator vs Manipulator), making Telemere Angry.
Lareth then turned his attention to Fea-bella. The conversation established that Lareth's father was the wizard Pallando, and his mother (Fella) was an exile from Elfhome. She was exiled because of her role in
the theft of the Dreamhouse post by Celedhring, the evil Elf
who is now a barrow-wight beneath what was Megloss's house. Lareth explained that Celedhring was Fella's brother (and hence his and Fea-bella's uncle), and that Fella was exiled with him much as, in the ancient times, Galadriel was exiled with her cousin Feanor. "And who is your father?" asked Lareth of Fea-bella.
This caused much discussion among the players - was Lareth implying that Fea-bella was the child of an incestuous relationship between Fella and Celedhring? There was also discussion about where Fea-bella did her dreaming, before she woke, Dream-haunted, and ran off bearing a half-moon glaive. Was this not in the Elf-home Dreamhouse, but rather in Pallando's house?
I suggested that Fea-bella might try a Nature (Remembering ) test, but her player didn't want to - too much grind, and little chance of success. So I resorted to my NPC, and called for another Manipulator vs Manipulator due to Lareth's goading. This time Golin helped Lareth! The test was failed, and so (as a twist) Fea-bella could not help but cast her mind back . . . As her player put it, Fea-bella wanted to remember only happy times of her childhood, with the Elven forest and rainbows and unicorns, and I set this at (I think, from memory) Ob 2. Telemere helped with his own Remembering Nature, and Korvin used Oratory to remind Fea-bella of tales of her childhood she had told her companions. Golin also aided Fea-bella this time, with Dreams-wise.
This test was a success, and so Fea-bella was spared any horrible memories (and the truth about her father remains unknown at this point).
That wasn't boring. It was pretty engaging, and at the key moment, when Fea-bella might have some horrible memory of her parentage, quite intense.
Your reference to "play-acting" seems to be intended disparagingly, but I don't really feel its force. All depiction of character in RPGs is play-acting, in the sense that these characters aren't real and we're all pretending, and making it up as we go along. But if you mean something like
Telemere's player isn't really angered by having to deal with Lareth who is friends with his hated brother, well that's not quite correct. He is definitely discomforted by it, because - playing his character - he would rather be honest about his feelings towards his brother, and not have to go along with Lareth. And when he fails the roll, and I tell him that Telemere is Angry, he's angry too! Or at least a bit put out: he would have preferred to succeed on the roll, and he has an emotional response to his failure.
If a system of social mechanics is producing outcomes that don't follow from the prior fiction, or that don't seem to fit within the unfolding fiction, to me that shows that the systems is a poor one. But there are non-poor systems of social mechanics out there in the universe of RPGs!
Player agency is vital to the game but also delicate in times of interpretation. To preserve that agency, features that compel any kind of PC action should be used sparingly. As a way to allow the fiction to mean something to the gameplay while within that agency, the GM has considerable options at their disposal (e.g. a Fear effect, or a simple "attacks against the orc are at -2 because you're shaken" even without a defense). The GM can just do those things because they are in the language of the game and the GM as arbiter and world-presenter can just say "well, this orc is exceptionally intimidating". But they should never get into "mind control" territory, which a general application of Intimidate applied to a PC may often dance the line of, depending on how it's written.
An interesting case study of this line is a charm effect, which in my experience when targeting PCs is deployed with extreme caution and special cases, is still fairly constrained, and even then considered pretty nasty.
I think this is another case of different RPGs taking different approaches.
In the Prince Valilant RPG, which is one of my favourite, there is a concept of Special Effects: the GM can assign these to significant NPCs as part of their scenario planning; and the players get access to them by being awarded "Storyteller Certificates" by the GM, for good/engaging/compelling play. Here is one Special Effect:
INCITE LUST
This Special Effect makes one character’s primary thoughts turn to lust for another character of the opposite sex. The user of the Special Effect may select any two characters, even Adventurers, as the lustful party and as the object of desire. The emotion is permanent.
The current Storyteller will have to make a ruling as to how the lustful character behaves. If the lustful character is an Adventurer, the controlling player decides how lust affects his character. A Storyteller may veto the controlling player’s wishes only if the intended behavior is unrealistic.
If this Special Effect is used to permit one character to dominate another, common sense and logic should be used. The character will not jump off a cliff for the object of his lust, nor will he necessarily wish to marry her. This can be a cruel Special Effect to use, especially if the object of lust is unattainable.
The middle paragraph is pretty important: if the affected character is a PC ("Adventurer", in the terminology of the game) then that PC's player gets to decide how their character behaves. But they are expected to incorporate the dictated emotion into their play.
I've used this affect in play:
warning came that a military force was approaching in the distance. The drawbridge was raised and the gates closed. But Sir Morgath, looking out from the battlements, could see that in front of the soldiers were two women riding hurriedly on ponies. (In the tram on the way to the session I had decided to use the second of the Woman in Distress episodes found in the main rulebook.) There was debate - should the drawbridge be lowered? - but Sir Morgath was against it, as too risky. The women arrived at the edge of the moat across from the drawbridge and called out for help to Sir Gerran, who as Marshall of the order was in command of the gates. Lady Lorette of Lothian explained that she was fleeing from her fiance, Sir Blackpool the Count of Toulouse, to whom she had been betrothed by her father and who had treated her cruelly. Would they not lower the drawbridge?
Although Prince Valiant is not technically a pulp it is from the same period - the 30s and 40s - and there is a degree of pulp-era stereotyping in Greg Stafford's presentation of women in his scenarios. In this case, Lady Lorette has Presence 4 and Glamourie 5. So as she pleaded to Gerran I rolled her 9 dice vs Gerran's Presence of 3. I allowed Gerran's player two bonus dice (the maximum morale bonus allowed for in the system) as a resolute Marshall defending his castle, so he had 5 dice in total. And rolled better than me! And so he didn't relent.
Meanwhile Sir Morgath had lowered a rope down the wall of the castle. He called out to the Lady and she leapt into the moat and swam to him, where he took hold of her and carried her up the wall. But the handmaiden accompanying her did not have the strength or courage to jump into the moat. So Morgath slid back down the rope and swang across the moat to rescue her. (At the start of the session I had handed out some fame (the "XP" of the system) that had been earned in the previous session. This had qualified Morgath for a new skill rank, which he had spent on Agility: his player felt he was repeatedly suffering for a lack of physical ability at key moments. It now served him well, as he got 3 successes on his 4 dice.)
In the scenario as written by Stafford, the Lady has the Incite Lust special effect which she will use against the strongest and most famous male adventurer, provided he is not married. Anticipating possible complications, Morgath - when asked by the Lady who her rescuer was - announced himself as Sir Morgath, husband of Lady Elizabeth of York. But being an unfair GM while also trying to run with the fiction, it seemed only to make sense that Morgath should fall for the Lady as he carried her in his arms into the castle. The player cursed me appropriately, but also had seen it coming. He took the Lady into the keep to ensure her safety.
<snip>
He did have the sense, in character, to make sure that the messengers sent to York to discuss the matter of the regency should also bring him back a token of his wife Elizabeth, which he hopes will help him remain faithful despite his feelings of attraction to Lady Lorette.
It subsequently turned out that, rather than just a token, Elizabeth herself came to join her husband on his knightly travels. Naturally various hijinks ensued.
