Social Skills: Roll, then Role Play

[LibraryOgre]

So, someone had a really good suggestion on social skills that I feel embarrassed for not thinking of... roll, then role-play.

I mean, we do it all the time on combat, right?
"I'm gonna hit him with my sword!"
*miss*
"You swing high, missing entirely."

Why not do it with social skills?

"Ok, your persuasion roll failed abyssmally. What does that sound like?"

Rather than giving an impassioned, virtuoso, speech, then rolling horribly, roll horribly, then give a decidedly messed up and weird speech. Don't try to justify why your fabulousness failed... play the failure.

[animorte]

I really like this and have played a bit similar, but not consistently enough for it to be noteworthy. I believe it requires a fair amount of immersion from everyone involved. For that, it’s fantastic at the right tables.

Will certainly try to incorporate this more. It sounds great.

[The Insanity]

Wait. You mean there are people who don't play this way?

[Shinizak]

Wait. You mean there are people who don't play this way?

not surprising, considerably more people are new to RPGs than are experienced at them.

[NichG]

Whether this will be satisfying depends on whether the reason one wishes to roleplay is in order to depict, versus if it is in order to experience.

This serves the purpose of depiction well, but doesn't resolve the issues that can come up when system flat variance and lack of interdependence of factors doesn't align with the sense of a scenario when it comes to roleplaying in order to experience.

So like lots of things, it's up to taste...

[MrStabby]

Hmm. We dend to do the opposite. We say what we want our characters to say, we make the points we wish them to make... and these decisions the players make determine the DC that the characer must meet on their rolls.

[Tanarii]

Because unlike combat, there's usually not a complex set of rules interacting with multiple rolls to resolve the situation.

Because everyone knows how to describe what they're intending to accomplish and what method they're using. "I persuade" isn't enough information needed by a DM to resolve the situation and determine outcomes and consequences.

Because persuade rolls succeeding don't mean impassioned fiery speeches and failures don't mean wierd speech, they mean the creature you're trying to convince wasn't convinced. You described someone failing after saying "I perform" not "I persuade".

Because everyone knows how to talk in general. I've yet to meet the unicorn of the forums, a TTRPGer with poor social skills in the form of being unwilling to participate in social pillar stuff by talking. With the caveat that they are not being told that TTRPG talky-time (which isn't the same thing as roleplaying) is about dramatic acting or even just funny voices, at which point almost all players won't. (Edit: also ... players being less than decisive because all too often DMs present it as a totally wide open situation, not providing enough information for players to make informed decisions, to the degree the players aren't even sure what the goal is here ... fairly common. But IMO that is better addressed as a DM-side issue, because it is not exclusive to social pillar stuff.)

But mainly because it breaks the model: Players say what they want to do, DM determines resolution method, DM communicates the result. Switching to players say what they want to do, DM determines resolution method, player backfills why the results isn't inherently bad gaming. It smells a lot like narrative gaming (which isn't wrong in itself), but it isn't even that as long as the player doesn't define anything other than the character.

Mostly tho, it rubs me wrong. Which is a personal issue.

[Quertus]

So, someone had a really good suggestion on social skills that I feel embarrassed for not thinking of... roll, then role-play.

I mean, we do it all the time on combat, right?
"I'm gonna hit him with my sword!"
*miss*
"You swing high, missing entirely."

Why not do it with social skills?

"Ok, your persuasion roll failed abyssmally. What does that sound like?"

Rather than giving an impassioned, virtuoso, speech, then rolling horribly, roll horribly, then give a decidedly messed up and weird speech. Don't try to justify why your fabulousness failed... play the failure.

I’ve heard this many times before, and I still consider it a terrible plan. Here’s why.

Explaining the approach you are using is important.

From the strength-based intimidation thread, we have the example of having killed most of the cultists of Ytherg, the party wants to get information from one of the survivors.

Now, because cultists of Ytherg undergo a lot of torturous physical training, the DC to intimidate them with physical violence is high (let’s call it DC 30). Whereas the DC to intimidate them with threats of contaminating their body with salt, Ytherg’s bane, is low (say, DC 10). Threats to friends and family are “normal” (call it DC 20, why not?), whereas it happens that the cultist in question absolutely hates the other cultist who survived - threatening to hurt him is an automatic failure (“He ate my egg. I’m glad he’s dead.”)

So, if the player recites Westley’s “To the Pain” speech from The Princess Bride? That’s threatening physical violence, I respond with, “roll intimidate, DC 30”.

If the player goes all Wat, and says, “Uh, betray us, and I will fong you, until your insides are out, your outsides are in, your entrails will become your extrails I will w-rip... all the p... ung. Pain, lots of pain.”? That’s threatening physical violence, I respond with, “roll intimidate, DC 30”.

If, however, they had done their homework (or just gotten lucky - perhaps their player just heard someone use the phrase “salt in a wound” earlier that day or something), and threatened Salt contamination, I would have said, “roll intimidate, DC 10”.

Or I might have left off stating the DC, actually, and likely had Sense Motive reveal clues (especially if they threaten the other cultist). EDIT: I might also just skip the roll entirely, if I know their bonus means that they’ll automatically succeed or automatically fail given this particular approach, and stay in “roleplaying (talking) mode” rather than breaking to obvious mechanics. Feels more natural that way, IMO.

Speaking of Sense Motive,

The Devil’s in the Details

Conversations can take sudden turns when you say the right (or wrong!) things. Like, if you mention Gandalf to someone who knows that he’s dead, or mention that you’re a _______ at a ________ (insert example of your choice here)? Those tactical decisions matter (sometimes a lot), which is why we have battle maps and round by round tactics rather than “roll combat - ok, you win/lose”.

And, yes, often Sense Motive (and, more often, just asking why) is used to notice and understand why someone suddenly became more friendly / apathetic / guarded / helpful / generous / whatever, at least at my tables.

Let’s do the Time Walk Again

Suppose the player failed the intimidate against the cultist, then, as their “failure” speech, threatened to rub salt on their open wound?

Or any other “whoops - that changes things” detail.

No. Just no. Unless your NPCs are flat, personality-less blocks of wood, who would never react to any details other than “I rolled a #”, it’s a bad plan.

And if your NPCs lack any personality whatsoever, it’s not a table where I’m going to care about social interaction with NPCs.

Don’t waste my time

Honestly, I hate the purple prose, I hate listening to a description of how an Attack happened. I already know all the relevant details in most cases, and I’ve yet to have a GM who wasn’t as transparent as water glass air the void of space when it comes to “hinting” with descriptive text, so just don’t bother. It irritates me more than mood music. Don’t give me - or, worse, anyone else - fiddly little +1 bonuses unless you can make them last all day, don’t say stuff that doesn’t matter, don’t put a gun in the first act you aren’t going that isn’t possible to use in the second, and don’t waste my time with descriptive text that can be cut from the scene and we lose nothing.

Now, I love the occasional bit of description done right. The occasional “holds up, guys - do you realize that…” followed by a master story teller framing what just happened in the perfect poetic light. That’s bloody brilliant, 10/10, worth every second, would highly recommend.

Constant meaningless descriptive text? Gag.

——-

So, that’s my take on why I’d take the stance if some GM irl suggested doing this at a table. It shows that the game lacks conversational/social depth, and will waste hours of my life I’ll never get back with meaningless drivel.

Thankfully, I’ve never had to fight this particular fight irl.

[KorvinStarmast]

not surprising, considerably more people are new to RPGs than are experienced at them.

True.

Mostly tho, it rubs me wrong. Which is a personal issue.

It isn't the basic game loop, but I have been at two tables where people did it, and it kinda worked. But, all of the players were quite experienced RPGers who had played a variety of systems.

[Tanarii]

It isn't the basic game loop, but I have been at two tables where people did it, and it kinda worked. But, all of the players were quite experienced RPGers who had played a variety of systems.

Experience with a variety of systems is why I don't like it.

Absolutely it can work. But that doesn't have anything to do with experience. It has to do with what kind of game experience the players are looking for. Do they want to have to improvise having a situation and deciding what to do and how to do it, and be told the results? Or do they want to improvise justifying the roll of a die by describing what success / failure looks like? IMX folks that want the latter tend towards becoming GMs. But that's not universal.

[King of Nowhere]

Wait. You mean there are people who don't play this way?

Most people take the opposite approach: they roleplay through the interactiin (or even describe how they approach the conversation), and what they say - whether they make good arguments, if they use background details that touch on the npc cords - determines the dc. If the arguments they use are good or bad, it may even mean authomatic success/failure.

Quertus explained why that approach is preferred in a lot more detail

[Satinavian]

Personally i think as default you should roll afterwards. Because arguments do give quite significant situational modifiers and also often it is not that obvious what pwople even want from the interaction, which would also significantly alter the difficulty.

Also, as i rarely play games where the result of the roll relies more on randomness than skill, i usually can make a good guess about the outcome even before the roll.


However, if the roll really is out of the ordinary (e.g. games with fumble rules, iteratively exploding dice triggering or has critical successes for skills that get rolled), usually an explaination afterwards is given. Some misunderstanding or some detail that explains it.

[Jay R]

It's a good idea, but you've taken it too far.

You need to start by role-playing, so the DM can set a DC for the check.

If you're trying to convince the baron to send out some knights to stop the invading orcs, I need to know if you tell him how many orcs there are, how much damage they're doing, and that the orcs are heading towards the village where his daughter is.

Then I can set a DC, and you can roll a Diplomacy check.

This is no different from the fact that in a fight, I need to know what weapon you've drawn, where you're standing, which enemy you're attacking, and whether you're trying to just attack, trip, bull rush, or disarm before you can roll for it

Having said that, you're certainly right that explaining the success or failure after the roll can be great. Here is my best example of how that adds to the fun.

The game was Flashing Blades, a musketeer game. The rogue in the party had decided to learn the Etiquette skill, which takes three months. He'd spent two weeks on it. To make a successful role, you have to roll your Charm or less on a d20. And he had a low Charm score of 8. Note that you are trying to roll low, not high.

The party went to a high-status party, and at one point, the rogue decided that he was going to go talk to the duke's daughter, who was surrounded by noble suitors. They tried to tell him that he cannot go introduce himself to her; he needs a proper introduction. But he decided that since he was learning Etiquette, he could do it anyway.

So he barged through a collection of high-level nobles and introduced himself to her, and said, "I want to make an Etiquette roll to impress her."

So, he is attempting to use a cross-class skill he has not in fact learned, in competition with several masters of the skill, having already misbehaved, in a high-stress environment, and would have had to roll an 8 or less (if he had the skill at all).

All of the above role-playing is needed before I can interpret the roll.

He rolled a 20. Critical fumble.

I said, "You compliment her beauty, look soulfully into her eyes, take her hand gently, bend over it, raise it to your lips ... and f*rt."

This is what you're talking about -- interpreting the roll in role-playing terms. And it can really add to the game.

[Sneak Dog]

Describe the action, approach and tools. Maybe roll some dice. Describe the outcome. That's the roleplaying gameplay loop in a nutshell.

In combat a player declars their character attacks someone with a sword. Some dice are rolled. The GM declares the outcome and describes that the swing strikes the armour and finds a dent in the armour to strike a blunt blow, mayhaps inviting the player to add a line of victorious dialogue how clumsy the foe is.

In social encounters the player declares their character scaring someone by showing off that they can magically create fire in thin air. Some dice are rolled. The GM declares the NPC is cowed and asks what exactly the player is attempting to get from this NPC.

And as mentioned before, the approach and tools adjust the DC for the action. Good approaches and tools make things easier, poor ones harder.

[kyoryu]

So, someone had a really good suggestion on social skills that I feel embarrassed for not thinking of... roll, then role-play.

I mean, we do it all the time on combat, right?
"I'm gonna hit him with my sword!"
*miss*
"You swing high, missing entirely."

Why not do it with social skills?

"Ok, your persuasion roll failed abyssmally. What does that sound like?"

Rather than giving an impassioned, virtuoso, speech, then rolling horribly, roll horribly, then give a decidedly messed up and weird speech. Don't try to justify why your fabulousness failed... play the failure.

Because we don't do that with combat.

We position, choose our weapons, often times choose which attack we're doing.

And really, the input from roleplay shouldn't be "how good your speech was". It should be "what your leverage is, and how you're applying it." How are you convincing someone it's in their best interests to do what you want? Threats? Bribes? Offers? Appeal to virtue?

That's the same rough level of detail as we do in combat, it's the equivalent of "who is where, and fighting with what weapon, and what moves are they using?"

EDIT: Or, I could just read the whole thread and say "What JayR said."

[MoiMagnus]

en give a decidedly messed up and weird speech. Don't try to justify why your fabulousness failed... play the failure.

IMO there are 3 legitimate answer to "What happen when a player RPs the perfect speech/argument to persuade someone?".

1. The GM determines that it is an automatic success, no roll required. On this positive side, this incentivise the players to try to find said perfect argument. On this negative side this penalise players that are bad at social skills IRL, and it's easy for the GM to unwillingly (or willingly) pick their favourite among the players. Note that in this mindset, if the speech/argument was just "good" and not perfect, then the GMs grants advantages and/or decreases the DC of the check.
2. As you suggested here, the GM ask for the roll first, and ask the players to only make perfect speech/arguments if they succeed at the roll, and instead ask them to make poor ones. On the positive side, this really pushes player to have fun with the way they RP, narrating disastrous failures as much as spectacular success, and the GM can even give to the active player the control of the NPCs for the duration of this narration. On the negative side, this can really frustrate players on the "problem-solving" side as they can't actually win using their good arguments.
3. Lastly, what seems to be what you consider the default rules is that the rolls happens after the player made their RP, and in case of failure the GM finds some ways for the action to fail, at least partially. It can be a good place for the GM to put a "No, but...", for example "While the king refuse to listen to your argument, his heir seems clearly annoyed by the refusal, and subtly hint that he might be more open to compromises than his father.". This solution combines the pros and the cons of both previous approaches, and is probably the one that put the most burden on the shoulder of the GMs.

[NichG]

IMO there are 3 legitimate answer to "What happen when a player RPs the perfect speech/argument to persuade someone?".

1. The GM determines that it is an automatic success, no roll required. On this positive side, this incentivise the players to try to find said perfect argument. On this negative side this penalise players that are bad at social skills IRL, and it's easy for the GM to unwillingly (or willingly) pick their favourite among the players. Note that in this mindset, if the speech/argument was just "good" and not perfect, then the GMs grants advantages and/or decreases the DC of the check.
2. As you suggested here, the GM ask for the roll first, and ask the players to only make perfect speech/arguments if they succeed at the roll, and instead ask them to make poor ones. On the positive side, this really pushes player to have fun with the way they RP, narrating disastrous failures as much as spectacular success, and the GM can even give to the active player the control of the NPCs for the duration of this narration. On the negative side, this can really frustrate players on the "problem-solving" side as they can't actually win using their good arguments.
3. Lastly, what seems to be what you consider the default rules is that the rolls happens after the player made their RP, and in case of failure the GM finds some ways for the action to fail, at least partially. It can be a good place for the GM to put a "No, but...", for example "While the king refuse to listen to your argument, his heir seems clearly annoyed by the refusal, and subtly hint that he might be more open to compromises than his father.". This solution combines the pros and the cons of both previous approaches, and is probably the one that put the most burden on the shoulder of the GMs.

I tend to build systems where rolls are not used to evaluate success or failure, but rather are used to obtain information that can be used to determine how to change the argument in the direction of one that would be successful. E.g. the duke can never be persuaded of something that taken as a whole just sounds like a bad deal for him. But if you succeed in a roll, you get to know what you'd have to offer in order to get what you're asking him to do. And if you succeed on a higher DC, you get to know the exact minimum you'd have to offer.

[Telok]

Because unlike combat, there's usually not a complex set of rules interacting with multiple rolls to resolve the situation.

Actually there are complex sets of rules for interpersonal interactions. We're just used to them and don't think about it most of the time while we're in our own culture. Cross culture you get anything from both sides assuming the other person is terribly rude to full sitcom or SNL skit situations.

I visited another continent, there's this meme going back decades that the people there are terribly rude. Turns out the local culture rule is if they say "hello, good day" then it's horribly rude ti not respond in kind. Memorize two greeting/response phrases plus words for yes, no, please, thank you, and "i need coffee". Spent a wonderful three weeks there, everyone was nice & polite... and all conversation starts with that "hello, good day" exchange.

So the social stuff is just as complicated, we just tend to gloss over a lot of stuff if we're within our own culture. Just like experts in any field will gloss stuff over or assume others in their field have the same jargon.

You can do exactly the same multiple roll stuff with words that you can with combat. Its just a matter of how much detail you want to put in, how much time you want it to take, and how familiar with the subject you assume the users are. That last assumption is a bugger tho.

[KillingTime]

We mix it up, but I like the roll first approach.

When you roll an attack, you're testing your characters ability to swing a sword.
You don't force the player to describe the series of feints and cuts she makes to force the opening which lands the hit. You roll against the skill of the character and then describe the result.

Likewise when you make a social interaction you're testing against the character's ability not the player's.
An eloquence bard with expertise in persuasion is going to know the right things to say in a situation where the player is likely to bumbling tongue-tied fool. Setting the DC post-facto on the basis of the player's description is punishing to socially awkward players who want to play a socially competent character.
Likewise a perceptive, inquisitive rogue should be able to investigate a complex puzzle based on the skills of the character not the description of the player.
You wouldn't set the AC of an enemy based on how martially proficient the player is.

[King of Nowhere]

I tend to build systems where rolls are not used to evaluate success or failure, but rather are used to obtain information that can be used to determine how to change the argument in the direction of one that would be successful. E.g. the duke can never be persuaded of something that taken as a whole just sounds like a bad deal for him. But if you succeed in a roll, you get to know what you'd have to offer in order to get what you're asking him to do. And if you succeed on a higher DC, you get to know the exact minimum you'd have to offer.

that too. I've asked for sense motive "figure out why they don't want to help you" as much as I asked for diplomacy "figure out how persuasive you were".

[Quertus]

I tend to build systems where rolls are not used to evaluate success or failure, but rather are used to obtain information that can be used to determine how to change the argument in the direction of one that would be successful. E.g. the duke can never be persuaded of something that taken as a whole just sounds like a bad deal for him. But if you succeed in a roll, you get to know what you'd have to offer in order to get what you're asking him to do. And if you succeed on a higher DC, you get to know the exact minimum you'd have to offer.

Very much this. Game designers, take note!

We mix it up, but I like the roll first approach.

When you roll an attack, you're testing your characters ability to swing a sword.
You don't force the player to describe the series of feints and cuts she makes to force the opening which lands the hit. You roll against the skill of the character and then describe the result.

Likewise when you make a social interaction you're testing against the character's ability not the player's.
An eloquence bard with expertise in persuasion is going to know the right things to say in a situation where the player is likely to bumbling tongue-tied fool. Setting the DC post-facto on the basis of the player's description is punishing to socially awkward players who want to play a socially competent character.
Likewise a perceptive, inquisitive rogue should be able to investigate a complex puzzle based on the skills of the character not the description of the player.
You wouldn't set the AC of an enemy based on how martially proficient the player is.

Yea and no.

Any system worth playing the fight, you don’t just “roll combat” - you’re “testing the player” with what they attack / what maneuver they use / what Spell they cast / etc.

Similarly, you “test the player” with their approach. And you don’t “punish the socially awkward player” - you set the same DC for Westly’s “to the pain” speech as Wat’s “fong you” blunder, as they’re both “threats of physical violence”.

So, absolutely, Character skill tells how far you can get. But player skill tells what direction you’re headed.

[GloatingSwine]

Similarly, you “test the player” with their approach. And you don’t “punish the socially awkward player” - you set the same DC for Westly’s “to the pain” speech as Wat’s “fong you” blunder, as they’re both “threats of physical violence”.

But you also set the same DC for a third person description of what their character is going to do as long as it contains sufficient detail for you to set one, and if it doesn't you prompt for that detail.

Because the socially awkward person is also going to feel really bad if you make them stumble over acting the scene out because you're making them embarass themselves by looking silly in real life.

Roleplaying is not acting.

[Tanarii]

Actually there are complex sets of rules for interpersonal interactions. We're just used to them and don't think about it most of the time while we're in our own culture. Cross culture you get anything from both sides assuming the other person is terribly rude to full sitcom or SNL skit situations.

Acknowledged. I was talking about game rules, and of course I'm talking about D&D. Other systems exist with social combat rules, or use a generic resolution system with multiple decision points and rolls for any and all resolutions.

[animorte]

Roleplaying is not acting.

I believe I have to disagree with you here a bit. There is certainly a difference between the two, but they’re mostly the same.

In both of them, you are embracing a character. You are expected to have an idea of what that character wants and needs. What is it about their past, present, and future that drives their decision-making process?

The biggest difference between the two is probably having a script. The actor can often be told about their character and the world they’re in, even so much as what they’re supposed to say and do. While role-playing, you have more reign to design details of your character, especially what you’re doing and saying.

But in both of them, it still helps to be aware of why they are as they are. Being good at one can translate many skills to the other. Admittedly this is not always the case. Some people can’t function without a script and others rebel against the structure.

[NichG]

Roleplaying can be many things, including acting and non-acting. Roleplaying games can indeed use player skill to determine whether a hit lands or what someone's 'AC' is. There are LARPs like this. They can also not do so.

Declarative absolute statements about what all other people always or never do at their tables are almost always wrong.

[Tanarii]

In both of them, you are embracing a character. You are expected to have an idea of what that character wants and needs. What is it about their past, present, and future that drives their decision-making process?

"What's my motivation?"

The biggest difference between the two is probably having a script.

It's making the decision for the character in the fantasy environment that is the heart of roleplaying.

Too many folks equate Roleplaying to the player talking as if the character at the table, which is often correlated with acting. Improvisational at least. But that's not the Roleplaying part. Making decisions for the character is the Roleplaying part.

[Quertus]

But you also set the same DC for a third person description of what their character is going to do as long as it contains sufficient detail for you to set one, and if it doesn't you prompt for that detail.

Because the socially awkward person is also going to feel really bad if you make them stumble over acting the scene out because you're making them embarass themselves by looking silly in real life.

Roleplaying is not acting.

Oh, absolutely correct! Kudos! I actually feel rather embarrassed for not catching & commenting on that earlier.

So, yes, reciting “to the pain” or “fong you”, *or* just saying how you sharpen your knife while talking about peeling the skin of an apple, or whatever you describe in 3rd person, all falls under “physical threat”, all has the same DC.

EDIT: that was not clear, at all (my player must have rolled poorly) - point is, any physical threat results in the same DC, regardless of how it’s delivered, including “in character” vs “3rd person”, not just “to the pain” vs “fong you”.

I believe I have to disagree with you here a bit. There is certainly a difference between the two, but they’re mostly the same.

In both of them, you are embracing a character. You are expected to have an idea of what that character wants and needs. What is it about their past, present, and future that drives their decision-making process?

The biggest difference between the two is probably having a script. The actor can often be told about their character and the world they’re in, even so much as what they’re supposed to say and do. While role-playing, you have more reign to design details of your character, especially what you’re doing and saying.

But in both of them, it still helps to be aware of why they are as they are. Being good at one can translate many skills to the other. Admittedly this is not always the case. Some people can’t function without a script and others rebel against the structure.

Roleplaying is making decisions for the character, as the character. It’s starting at the motivation, and trying to figure out the action / line. It’s asking the question, “WWQD?”.

Acting is the exact opposite. It is starting at the action / line, and, if necessary, asking the classic actor question, “what’s my motivation?”, in order to get the delivery correct.

So they’re related, in the same way “hot” and “cold” are related - they’re related in that they’re opposites.

EDIT: I see ninjas!

[PhoenixPhyre]

My struggles with roll first are twofold. First, it encourages menu/button based play. Hit the biggest number on your sheet to win. No thanks.

Second, and worse, many times I'm not even sure that a roll is needed until about halfway through the talking. And certainly not what kind of roll or what the DC will be.

I need to know what you're trying to do (intent) and how you're doing it (method), as well as any other particular details you care to provide. I don't need exact words, because your characters aren't speaking English at all. So exact words aren't really useful except for the players. Which is fine. But doesn't influence the roll. A "I want to ask him to do X, talking up his honor" statement works as well (or not) as a flowery speech. Details matter, but not how the player presents them to me. And I'm more than willing to prompt for details or ask clarifying questions. That's a big chuck of my job as a DM.

[Tohron]

I immediately thought of this comic from DM of the Rings, which illustrates one way to do this in rather hilarious fashion.

[animorte]

"What's my motivation?"

It's making the decision for the character in the fantasy environment that is the heart of roleplaying.

Yes, very much what I was getting at.

Roleplaying is making decisions for the character, as the character. It’s starting at the motivation, and trying to figure out the action / line. It’s asking the question, “WWQD?”.

Acting is the exact opposite. It is starting at the action / line, and, if necessary, asking the classic actor question, “what’s my motivation?”, in order to get the delivery correct.

So they’re related, in the same way “hot” and “cold” are related - they’re related in that they’re opposites.

EDIT: I see ninjas!

I was prepared to fight this battle on top of my hill, so bring it on!

I actually liked where you were going with your response right up until you blatantly said "hot" vs "cold." The parallels between the two are enough that if you have experience with both, it really doesn't feel nearly as different as all that.

Just out of curiosity, how many other people here have experience in acting, as a character in a production of some sort?
- I'll answer for myself: I've spent half of my life in that environment (acting, improv, dance, costume design, light and sound technician, set building, publicity... literally everything) so I legitimately speak from experience.

Getting into D&D about 10 years ago (it was 3.5e), role-playing was initially difficult for me because I kept telling myself everything was just as you say: hot and cold. I stepped back and finally began to draw the parallels. Sometimes an actor will need to improvise at various points with the understanding of their character's motivation, script or not. I realized that all I needed to do was understand the motivation and not be afraid to step into my character's mind a little bit. Everything after that was so much easier.

Now, I'll admit that many different people have varying experiences of the matter, but they're not nearly as opposite as you think. The player is using similar understanding to guide their character through the environment. Role-playing just opens up the idea of talking about what you want your character to do instead of pretending to be the character.

To build off of your metaphor, running water: It's closer to turning on the water and letting it run through the faucet vs picking up the hose and pressing the button.