- Why was I so put-out over having to do something based on a social conflict but am willing to accept similar circumstances in a physical one? Have you had similar feelings?
Well, there's kind of a complex gestalt of things that can contribute to this. But what it mostly boils down to is a simple dichotomy.
(1) The desire to play a role by making choices as if you were a character.
(2) The desire to play a role in the same way that an actor plays the role of Hamlet.
My guess is you fall pretty firmly into Camp #1, and so this mechanic that takes away your ability to make the choices for your character is pretty much taking away the entire reason you enjoy roleplaying.
This is often confusing to people in Camp #2 (who are happy having the game tell them "this is what your character will do" and then figuring out how to effectively and dramatically portray that). The example often proffered is
dominate person: Here, too, the mechanics take control of the character away. "How is that any different?" people in Camp #2 wonder.
The distinction, however, is important to Camp #1: In the case of
dominate person, the character is having control of their actions taken away from them (and I'm still playing that character who has had control taken away from them). In the case of the social conflict mechanics, OTOH, the game system is taking control of the character away from me (while the character remains in control of their own actions).
This can open up a whole new can of worms in which we debate, psychologically, how much control any of us
really have over our own actions.
Personally, I'm with you. I vastly prefer Camp #1. But I also recognize that there is a price for that: It makes it incredibly difficult (if not impossible) for any sort of social conflict mechanic to be balanced. (It's like playing a game of poker where the other guy is betting hard cash and you're betting jelly beans.)