I think the "I move and attack" stuff can get boring, especially if it's slow. Like, if the players are speedy about it then you're basically playing a board game, and that's fine. I start to lose patience when you get the "can i move here? oh i can only move 30 feet. what about here? oh that will provoke. maybe if i cast misty step? oh i can't cast two leveled spells in a round. Can I hide first? Oh that takes my action? Sorry I usually play rogue. Uhhh I guess I just shoot them." mode.

I also kind of really want to spend more time in systems where the talky parts have rules, too. D&D tends to be just "wing it' and "DM decides". If you're at the noble's ball and try to make a big speech to convince the duke to flee before your army attacks, there's not really a lot of structure there. It can be fine to just "talk it out, man", but that runs into the problem where my character on paper has CHA 20 but me in real life rocks a solid 10 CHA. Or the other case, where the fighter with 8 CHA has a salesguy for a player, and he punches well above his on-paper skills using his real life personality, where I'm sidelined.

Honestly, just removing all the social skills from D&D would normalize the system.

But there's also games like Fate, that handle social conflict and sword conflict with the same rules. Stab someone? Roll fight vs whatever they defend with. Stab someone with your words? Roll Cruelty vs their Composure. In either case, if your dice come out on top enough then they don't get to go on.

I think some peopel who want more RP would hate this, since it gamifies it. But I'd rather have it than the aforementioned "real life sales guy hogs the spotlight" problem.

combat should be an RP experience.

I agree with you.

The Three Pillars of Adventure: Combat, Exploration, Social Interaction.

These are ALL "RP" and they should all be performed in-character and creatively.

Just to add to your point: I love the idea, however I lived with a group of Exalted players that took it way too far, so my group is still gunshy on doing too much combat description. So some people have seen the extremes of RP in combat, so they pull back.

I also (don’t lynch me) think that combat should be an RP experience. That could be my love for certain systems where you get bonuses for good, accurate descriptions and not simply, “I roll. I hit. I do X damage.”

Combat should be a RP experience regardless of system. What you're describing is one where proactive roleplay is a mechanical system, and I'll be honest, as someone who's never entertained a career in the theatre, or as a pompous grim fiction writer with too many thesauruses lying around, fuck that god awful fucking noise. But the choice of what to do, and how you react after the roll should be informed by the fiction of the game and the fiction of the combat, and that is roleplay.

The fact that much of the discourse around the games and resources available to players is focused on min/maxing number munchers is a social problem, not a system one.

This for sure. Some of the best roleplay can happen in combat, and I honestly love both. DMs can encourage this by awarding inspiration for good RP and crafting combat scenarios that allow players to express their characters. Some examples: Do you KO or kill the baddies? Do you go stealthy or charge in? Are they honorable combatants or do they pursue victory at any cost?

Even if the players often make these decisions without considering characterization, the DM can reconteztualize them as character beats instead of meta-level decisions. Also, the classic of having players describe their own crits or killing blows can use this method as well.

It isn't just D&D. I've picked up Cyberpunk RED recently - combat is more streamlined, but it can still drag.

Most ttrpgs are a roleplaying game glued to a strategy game and we flip flop between the games as we play. PBTA is a roleplaying game end to end. I love it with a group that enjoys roleplaying and doesn't care for strategy.

B/X is good. When characters have d6 hp and it's instant death at 0 the combat becomes way more serious and tense.

D&D 4e was unpopular but honestly I loved how streamlined it made combat. I wish they hadn’t entirely done away with it when making 5e.

Thank god, I'm not alone lol I also prefer combat

Me too

he was a perv and I'm glad he's dead

Personally I find adding a lot of flavor that has no mechanical impact kind of distracting and tiresome in a different way. Like, sure, it sounds cool you slashed their ankles or whatever, but if it doesn't do anything I need to discard that. I can't, in most systems, then be like "ok he just got stabbed in the leg he's off balance. I can take advantage of that!". It's just noise.

Some people have been like "You just don't have any imagination!" but it's not that. It's that the flavor stuff is often actively not true, and it's tiresome to hold two separate world states in mind at the same time. One where the fighter just stabbed the guy in the hand and threw sand in his eyes, and the other where he hit for 5 damage and his hand + eyes are fine.

(Contrast Fate, which explicitly encourages you to be creative about the scene, and lets you mechanically benefit as well.)

Imo WoD I feel gets the right balance of RP and streamlined combat with optional additional rules if they are needed. I'm also generally a firm believer in combat means all other forms of diplomacy has failed. I also love that no matter how strong you are, everyone has 7 points of health they can take (but there are ways of getting around that especially for mages)

And for all the good and bad that the 5e splats that Paradox is putting out, the "3 rounds and call it" philosophy of combat is something I enjoy immensely.

I'll expand this and say encounters. Sneaking past a patrol, disarming a trap, or charming a suspicious cook having a break at the service entrance... Those encounters often require some rp, but damn if there aren't stakes.