TheLemurConspiracy
No problem!
I'm actually relatively new to Lemmy, but I don't think there are any Spanish instances yet that have gained a lot of traction (maybe because much of the potential userbase currently frequents Menéame, a popular news aggregator in Spain, although it has its issues).
I keep an eye out from time to time though.
I do agree in that the PP (which I would definitely classify as right wing and not anywhere close to the center, whatever that might be) is unlikely to form a government (mostly because it would have to be in coalition with a far-right party that nobody else wants to touch).
However, I disagree on other points. I think the PP got the most votes, but they didn't "win" the election. There is no objectively defined "victory" in the Spanish system, but what they got yesterday doesn't allow them to get even close to their objectives of governing, and is much worse than they anticipated.
There is a possibility indeed that the PSOE (third way social democratic economics, socially progressive) and Sumar (traditional social democratic economics, also socially progressive, although not even close to far left by any accepted definition of the term) will be able to get the approval of the necessary regional parties (which is different to "governing with them in coalition") and continue with something similar to the current government. This is not at all guaranteed, and there remains a possibility that no government can be formed, and that there will be repeated elections next December.
Now, what are the difficulties if the PSOE-Sumar coalition can form a government? basically, most policies in the next four years (at least) are going to be negotiated with a wide range of ideologies, and it's going to be hard. They will be able to take nothing for granted.
Is that a bad thing? in my opinion: absolutely not. I think this is the reality of Spain: we are a mosaic of different ideas and ways of looking at different issues, not a left-right line. And that is the spirit of democracy (however imperfect our implementation of it is in many other regards), every person's opinion should count, and that will be seen at the negotiating table with more parties than ever who will have a say on things. This is strength, not weakness. What we used to have, absolute majorities where the leading party could do whatever they wanted, is what's undesirable.
Finally: I think the current government is perfectly aligned with the dominant positions in the EU in what regards to the economy, at least if we look at how things have gone so far in a wide variety of issues (covid-related aid, energy, war, etc). We are all entitled to our opinions about what is "needed", and what is "good for Spain and the EU", of course. But in my view a continuation of the current coalition would be very good news (especially looking at the rise of the far right elsewhere in Europe).
I think the best piece of advice I've seen about that particular situation, is to see what the player says (the exact words, tone, etc they use) as what their character wants to say, or what they are saying in their mind, but then the roll determines what is happening in reality.
Maybe your discourse that you were insecure about actually stroke a nerve and performs unexpectedly well at convincing the target. Or maybe what you think is the perfect speech is falling completely flat because the tone is way off, or you are sluttering, or you are too close or too far from the other person in an upsetting way. Just like in real life: who hasn't had a joke we find hilarious in our mind be met with an uncomfortable silence and a quick change of topic? although that might be just me.
What I find it usually works best as a GM is to look at how the player describes their dialogue and if it's something outstanding, or something absurd, adjust the difficulty (slightly, so the stats stay the most important factor) accordingly. It's actually the same thing I would do when the players describe a battle tactic during combat, so it's not exclusive to social encounters.
I think what works best depends a lot on the system and the style of dialogue that it wants for itself.
With “Go then Roll” you are declaring what your character intends to do, which may or may not correspond with what it ends up happening, and the game master is the one responsible to detail the outcome looking at the result. The reason why it’s the most common option is probably because it allows setting the difficulty according to the details of the action described by the player, or in other words, it allows the player to influence their chance of success by doing things well (offering a good argument when persuading a target, attacking an enemy’s weak spot, etc), or badly (saying something ridiculously unconvincing, attacking an enemy in an obviously ineffective way, etc).
With “Roll then Go”, you just indicate the approach without adding details, roll, and then have the game master give you a result. Only after knowing the result you describe what actually happens. This prevents certain situations that, while they aren’t problematic for my understanding of “Go then Roll”, can be frustrating for some (like the character describing an epic attack, or giving a great speech, knowing that their chances are high, only to then fumble the dice roll and having their action fail). Here the difficulty depends exclusively on the character’s stats and the “what” of the situation, and not the details of the “how”, which can be good or bad depending on how you like to play RPGs. On the other hand, it allows the player to describe their successes and failures as they actually happen, and not only as their characters intend them to.
Personally, I tend more towards “Go then Roll”, and it’s how I have always played, but I can see how some games can take advantage of “Roll then Go”, and wouldn’t mind trying it sometime.
It heavily depends on the tone of the campaign and the players’ preferences. Some groups, in some games, enjoy death being a potential outcome, while others prefer for it to be completely out of the question.
There are also many degrees between both, like how much should potential death be telegraphed before making a decision that could end on it, or whether it should be relegated purely to an outcome of bad decisions and never caused by bad luck with dice.
My personal favourite is for players to make a decision when they are defeated: accept death (or retirement) and have their sacrifice improve the situation, or be left at the mercy of fate and have to face other consequences (easily worse than a heroic death, if the players care about the story and the world).