The whole issue of dice rolling in Encounters is perhaps more touchy than I had realized. I can't figure out why exactly, but I'm trying to understand. Here are some thoughts on this...

Whenever a player proposes anything that has a chance to fail, a skill roll is appropriate. If there is no chance for failure, then don't roll. That is fundamental to almost every roleplaying game that uses quantifiable skills. And, it applies to all skill uses, including social skills. Roleplaying still happens - it doesn't go away just because dice are rolled to determine success or failure. In fact, the results of the roll help to steer everyone forward in their roleplaying.

I think part of the angst against 'mechanics' in a social encounter may be due to the fear that too many unnecessary rolls will be made, when the dialogue should have flowed freely without interruption. In other words, the definition of 'failure' may be more difficult to grasp in an encounter, while 'failure' in combat or on a journey is easy enough to understand.

For Loremasters that wish to make up results on their own, there is no 'random' chance for failure or success and this is okay*. The Loremaster is deciding outcomes based solely on his own judgments of player performances, decisions, or his needs in the narrative. Therefore, no rolls are necessary and the game continues smoothly on. This could apply in combat or journeys as well.

*I can see that if a Loremaster does this too much, however, it can undermine the need for skill ranks and the foundational structure of the game. It robs players of the opportunity for earning Advancement points or using Traits, etc.

So, how do you determine if dialogue or actions during an encounter have a chance for failure? And what does that mean?

Interesting timing, as I've been thinking quite a bit recently about the importance of rules in games (this prompted by some ongoing discussions on rpg.net).

For my part, I'm going with rules as written for encounters. I have a group that enjoys the more "improvisational acting" aspects of RPGs to varying degrees. While I've tended to reward "good" roleplaying (i.e. speaking in character) with automatic successes, etc., this effectively results in penalizing those players who don't care to/aren't comfortable with/not as skilled at improv acting.

It also has the effect of essentially removing subsystems of a game. If that subsystem (or task resolution) goes, then why not another? And why have any of them if we just "agree" that you should succeed?