How much should an RPG have rules for social interaction?

[AMFV]

Does this mean that - should you play a thief-type character - folks should take it as an indication that you're considering committing a crime? Should those you play with be concerned that your interest in playing a necromancer-type might be because you've a particularly grisly hobby pertaining to the local morgue? Do you simply avoid any archetypes that don't mimic your real-world interests? Or, perhaps, do you actually play archetypes you wouldn't consider approaching from the real world?

Not exactly. For example when I play a thief type character I look for the part of myself that would involve stealing, what would motivate me to steal, what would motivate me to raise the dead. What I would be if I were under different circumstances. I don't know if I would steal or raise the dead in real life, on is literally impossible, and one is unlikely, but exploring that side of me is why I play roleplaying games. Although it's worth noting that it is emotionally and morally exhausting when I play evil characters, since exploring your unpleasant side, can be not pleasant.

But no I don't play any archetype that I don't believe I might under the wrong circumstances or if I was brought up differently. I don't play any archetype I can't understand. So no I don't look for escapism in that way. If I play a necromancer, I'm not saying I'd like to imagine something that could never be. But I'm saying what if I got myself so miserable and so desperate that I would be willing to do that, what would make me that way.

I'm not sure if that's a good explanation. My personal motivations are complex, but I can say that I don't play archetypes I would never consider, it's not fun for me. And frankly I have nothing against people that do. In fact, when I'm teaching somebody to play usually the first the thing I ask them is if they'd rather play as somebody like them or somebody that's not, it helps to figure what they would enjoy most. From what I would say that's actually the most distinction in deciding what kind of character to play.

Does that help at all? I'm not sure if it was a coherent explanation or not.

Not all games with mechanics require system mastery. FATE, Ironclaw, Savage Worlds, and the newest edition of D&D come to mind (Until the munchkins/rudisplorkers break the latter) - Making the rules intuitive is all that's needed.

And D&D doesn't require it, but any game with mechanics HAS system mastery. Because if choices are meaningful then there must be worse and better choices, and being able to choose the good things is something people are good at figuring out and it is system mastery. And there's nothing wrong with having a system that requires skill, again the only way to have no skill in a game is to have no meaningful choices.

I admit I never understood the need to role-play to explore facets of myself. I can, again, do that in real life.

And to be fair I can't understand why people would be able to or want to play something completely different from themselves. I do understand that people enjoy it though, NichG did say it better than I probably could though:

You can take risks in RPGs that would be dangerous or foolish in real life. You can also do things which would be horrible to do in real life. That doesn't just mean getting into life or death combats, it can also mean particular forms of social interaction. Plotting a scheme that will get someone to lose their status and become destitute, thereby destroying their life, is a horrible thing to do in real life that can easily backfire as well. In a tabletop RPG, its an interesting thought exercise.