I dont really understand, what kind of rules do you need for talking with someone?
It depends on the players and the DM.
With a good DM and players that are mature, experienced with complex board games, and have some exposure to acting or improv, it'll be fantastic.
If it's a bunch of people that are completely new, they'll basically make all the rookie mistakes and won't have any support to model better behavior, and then it's a matter of how much work they'd be willing to put in. Will they get stuck in a rut? Will they get bad habits that make the game a drag? It's unknown.
If those same players get a set of rules, and introduce enough of the 'understand how much ability you bring to change the current situation, adjust your character's actions behavior accordingly, and roll dice' dynamic, then you create a framework for how they can judge success or failure when there's risk involved.
Otherwise, the DM has total control, and when the players fail they blame the DM, and when they succeed they can't take credit - it's pure improv theater railroading. By having rules, conditions for success or failure, and dice, it changes into an actual game that can go in directions nobody expects. That's explicitly true in combat, and it should be just as true out of combat.
I'm not saying a 'pure improv' game isn't bad or wrong, there are plenty of story games like that that are fun as hell. What I'm saying is that it's not the way D&D does things.
If what the game is is based on the number of rules that it has then DnD must be a magical simulation game
Yeah, that's much more accurate than calling it a wargame IMO.
I'd call it a 'fantasy tactical combat game', or 'well-disguised colonization simulator', or 'murder-hobo wealth acquisition game' also.