I will say, though, that having the player actually talk to the GM as if he were the NPC is much more fun and engaging than any possible social minigame.

The thing is, while combat rules aren't all that realistic, they are compromise because the players cannot possibly replicate combat any other way. Yet social interactions, since it's just talking, can be replicated on the game table.

I don't see how the GM deciding whether or not the player's argument are convincing is any more arbitrary than the GM deciding that an NPC has a Social Armor Class of 14 and 6 Social Hit Points.

Count me in this camp as well. The argument "what about unsocialized nerds wanting to play smooth-talking orators?" has always felt flat to me. It's like saying, "what if someone who isn't athletic wants to play soccer real good?". If the game we're playing is a tabletop simulation, then sure, let's roll using the "soccer skill". But you don't get to roll or use a mechanic if the game is, you know, soccer.

Quote

The thing is, while combat rules aren't all that realistic, they are compromise because the players cannot possibly replicate combat any other way. Yet social interactions, since it's just talking, can be replicated on the game table.

Trust me, you cannot replicate believably 18 Cha suave bard, having Cha 6 yourself That's the problem.

What about a player saying, "I use my bard's suave and sophistication to impress and hopefully seduce the bar wench"?

The GM might ask "How?"

And that player could reply with "I use compliments that occasionally seem like they could also be insults... then I get her drunk."

I personally do not allow the players to wave off the interaction and go through with it by mechanics alone, no matter how good their stats are. This makes the interaction easily shallow and might be counterproductive towards your goal of interaction centered gaming, that´s just my two cents though.