Yea, I think we are on the same page there.
I apologize if guess had the wrong connotation. I didn't mean to imply it was necessarily a completely information-less guess. But, what I'm saying is this is the playstyle of treating NPC social interactions as puzzles. Which is fine if your group enjoys that. But for many of us such a style is lacking. We dislike it because we feel it forces our PC's to do something they may not do in order to help with a social situation. Which potentially leaves us basically 3 options, voluntarily sit out the encounter, do what our PC wouldn't do for the good of the group, or do what our PC would do and lose the social encounter for the team. I get why option 3 in your playstyle would come across as bad faith. I'm just coming at this from the position that if we are doing social encounters then they shouldn't put me as a player in that kind of unfun position to begin with.
See to me that reads: NPC social interactions are puzzles and you can typically solve them this way. But the ultimate implication to me is clear: you can't play your character socially any way I don't agree with, because there is going to be hell to pay if you do.
I wanted to respond to that last paragraph. Otherwise, I agree that we're largely on the same page.
Let's say that you are out with a friend and you bump into that friend's boss, who is a massive egotistical jerk. You know that your friend has been gunning for a promotion because his wife is pregnant and they could really use the money. So your friend starts kissing up to the guy.
You can:
A) Stay out of the conversation and politely wait for your friend to finish.
B) Join the conversation and try to help your friend.
C) Tell the boss exactly what you think of him.
You might be bored if you pick A.
You might feel dirty if you choose B.
And, yeah, there might be hell to pay if you pick C. At the very least your friend is less likely to get that promotion and will probably be angry with you as a result.
That's how it goes. What else would you expect?
Assuming you choose A or B, would you say that this means your friend isn't allowing you to be yourself? I think that's a real stretch. It's more that you are restraining yourself for the good of your friend, which is in your interest (presumably you are invested in your friend's welfare).
Now you might say that this is a game and that C should therefore have a chance of getting your friend the promotion. That's not unreasonable,
and some tables probably do play that way. You can have your cake and eat it too. Not all tables though. Not my table. We prefer a certain degree of verisimilitude.
Don't get me wrong, if there was something
to suggest that approach could work then it would have a chance, but otherwise it's a bad idea (for obvious reasons). To expect otherwise would be like lighting a bonfire and expecting to pull a masterwork longbow from the ashes. You can't craft a bow by burning all your wood to ash, and you're not likely to see a positive social reaction from an NPC if you blatantly insult them. I mean, at some tables both of those might be permitted. Just not at my table. That's going a little too far for my group.