Now, explaining social interaction rules in D&D 5e being "like Pictionary?" That's great! It's a good frame of reference. The DM paints a picture by portraying the NPC and you get to guess at the NPC's personal characteristics (perhaps with the help of a Wisdom (Insight) check) then leverage those to make subsequent rolls to influence the NPC, if any, easier. It doesn't require jargon. People can have a layman's conversation with common-use vocabulary and share thoughts about how to use those tools to make their games better. It's less likely to result in confusion, irritation, or division. We need more of that in my view, not comments on this being "the only site of reliable gamism that will threaten other priorities in 5e." That jargon is going to be immediately confusing to some, maybe even most, and apt to lead to unhelpful exchanges.
Or, alternatively, we could collectively ponder why the bolded statement is true.
Why is it true?
Because it doesn't interact with the wonky Adventuring Day scheme.
It doesn't interact with the wonky Encounter Budget system.
Because it doesn't interact with the wildly divergent resource scheduling of D&D classes which in turn interacts with the competitive pressures of the Short Rest/Long Rest arms race between GM and players which in turn interacts with the Encounter Budget system which in turn interacts with the Adventuring Day scheme.
It doesn't put pressure on story imperatives.
It reliably yields its objective and it doesn't rely upon any kind of GM sleight-of-hand or management of a pile of overhead/book-keeping or abundant cognitive workload to do so.
Its just straight forward scene resolution that is built to be reliant upon at-will PC resources, thematic PC/NPC tech, guile, skillful characterization, and a Pictionary play loop (which is a tried-and-true formula for sussing out skillfulness of play).