I don't use any optional, variant or house rules. Reading what you're saying, I have to wonder what the last time you read the DMG on social interactions. Because it states that you may want to chat with the NPC in order to get insight checks to uncover their characteristics, that the DM sets the DC, that anyone who has participated in the conversation can make the check, that if another PC substantially contributes to the check the persuasion check can be made with advantage, there may even be multiple checks depending on the situation. There's also advice on targeting specific players so that they have a chance to participate "If a couple of players are dominating the conversation, take a moment now and then to involve the others." All from the rules.
Could it be better? Of course, and I hope the 2024 edition does a better job. Then again, I don't envy them because no matter how often they state "The rules are not in charge, you [the DM] are" some people will take any example they give as the one true way that the game must be played. There will never be enough advice to cover every situation. But discussing how the DMG should be rewritten is a whole other topic.
The DMG doesn't give advice, examples, or rules on how to do any of that. It's mostly "You are the DM, you fix it. You figure it out. If someone is not involved but wants to be, you fix it. With stuff and things I'm not going to explain or elaborate on".
This is why 1e and 2e didn't emphasize Charisma. If you're not going to explain how to Use Charisma then don't use Charisma.
This is why 4E had an official rule for group conversations and social interactions because they wanted to have rules for charisma and does explain the entire process of it.
Fifth edition mostly went "rely on your experience from older editions, go watch Twitch or YouTube, or listen to Spotify or Apple."
I mean even having an official D&D Videos with explanations on how to play and how to DM would have been great.
The “mostly” there technically makes this more truth than hyperbole, and as I’ve said before, my biggest criticism of 5e is the garbage guidance in the books.
That said, even with a better DMG…it’s still in a separate book that I’ve seen a lot of DMs just…never purchase or read. I really wish that we could leave behind the 3 core book model and just have a game rules book and a world book (with enemies and maps and worldbuilding and all that).
I know that will never happen, of course. Still, I’d love to see a series of videos on DDB and YouTube that act as a sort of video DMG, with different D&D celebs hired to explain different things, and a round table discussion at the end of each group of videos.
Now it's just that it's bad advice. That's fine, it's your opinion. No one I know of disagrees. So why are you now trying to make it sound like I, or anyone else, disagrees?
Social and exploration being "hack and slash"? That aspect of the game has pretty much always been what you make out of it. Luckily there are plenty of examples out there just a search away if anyone actually needs or wants it.
Seeing this debate, I now understand so many other arguments on this forum.
You literally have a group that segregates all the pillars of play. And then, when they segregate those pillars, they specifically only allow the best character to contribute to the scene.
It is no wonder there are so many debates about fighters and warlocks on here. When you forcefully remove everyone from the exploration and roleplaying pillars based on your style of gameplay, you are bound to have some resentment towards specific classes.
This isn't universal with all skills, but its commonly seen that a failed roll with a social skill will tend to make a situation higher. In a way, its similar to the situation with stealth skills. And its not limited to the D&D sphere.