I'm curious... when dealing with so many different and diverse types of campaigns as D&D has generally been used for... where does the line between "story" element and "mechanical" element get drawn? I mean what makes one element a story element and another a mechanical element?
I'm afraid that, on this point, my argument is going to sound a bit circular, but try to follow me. The division between story elements and mechanical elements is generally the divide between concrete dice rolling and role play elements. That is modified by the game system, though, as not all games have the same mechanics, nor consider the same things to require mechanics. Certainly story elements can be worked into a mechanical process but those things must be made to fit within the existing mechanical framework, when found necessary. They don't require the creation of additional mechanics.
I, quite frankly, shudder to think how the people who require a skill for everything would have done in my original 1e campaign. They never would have considered doing what the Paladin did, play the lute in front of the gathered nobility of Greyhawk in Keoland, because it wasn't codified to the Nth degree. Their game experience would have suffered, because they would have spent their time arguing that they needed to have a skills system added to the game.
Our life experience tends to colour how we see things should work, within the universe of the game. We hand-wave the experiences of others, as being unimportant to game play, but our own are so important that they
MUST be used. Because I'm a musician or artist, there must be art and musi8c skills to codify how well you can perform. My own experience in science is, however, handwaved off with comments like, "It's magic."
Just play the game. If the mechanics don't work as intended or stated, that's one thing; fix it. If something isn't written into the mechanics, just go with it. There will be a way to handle it.
I think these skills (Intimidate, Insight, Bluff, etc.) can be used to enhance a particular type of performance... with certain people... perhaps. But they don't encompass the actual technical skill needed for a performance in a professional capacity. Otherwise a con-man or a bully should be able to bluff and intimidate any joke they've heard into being the funniest thing ever... and I'm not buying that.
I'm afraid that you're missing my point. You can't use intimidate to make a rote joke funny, but you can use it in
crafting a new joke, to help make it funny, and by helping to create the narrative. How good is a Farmer's Daughter joke, without a scary farmer? Bluff can likewise be used in its creation but it can also be used in the telling, as a measure of
comic timing.
Check some of the skill challenges, in published modules. There's a reason why you can't spam one skill, all the way through them
