Same goes in games. If you want role play, you need to reward role play and the best way to do that is through mechanics which reward role play. So, the guy who buckles his swash is more effective than the guy who is playing Combat Bingo.
I mean, there's a reason that pretty much every other gamer out there looks down on D&D gamers as the nadir of role play.
I think you can encourage or discourage certain role play by rules. The GM can also encourage or discourage role play (for example, whenever our Swashbuckler does anything but swing to hit or miss, the GM rolls his eyes and announces some failure - the chandelier can't hold your weight - GM call; a sword strike while swinging from the chandelier takes -8 to hit and does half damage - mechanical discouragement). But, for many players, role play is its own reward. Punish it and the player may stop, or may just find a group with a play style suited for his play. You can certainly role play a character's personality, both in and out of combat, with or without mechanical awards.
In many groups, the reward is the admiration of your peers "That was really cool" carries no mechanical reward, but it will be remembered long after a +2 bonus to hit has been forgotten.
And I think that's not the case. People who are bad at telling the GM what their character wants to do will certainly not be better at convincing the rest of the group what they should be doing. When it comes to making plans and descisions, the other more vocal and active players would still do all the planning and once a descision has been made, the player with the high Charisma character is told that they need him to make a skill check now.
A player who is a poor orator and running a character with an 18 CHA and maxed out interaction skills should be FAR better at, say persuading the Captain of the Guard that their presence in the local graveyard at 2 AM with shovels was for very good reasons, and he should leave them to it (an extreme example, to be sure) than a player who is glib and well spoken, whose character has an 8 CHA and no investment in social skills. I doubt either player will not know it would be great to persuade this fellow that they are not up to nefarious activity, but only one character has the social skills to have a shot a pulling it off. Both should get a bonus for raising the recent incursion of Zombies on the locals, but the high CHA character Hs a much better shot at presenting the case so as to persuade the Captain that we are here to stop those incursions, not because we are responsible for them.
Combat is a physical activity, negotiating a purely verbal one. And playing the game is a verbal and social activity and not a physical one. That's an important difference. These two aspects of the game are not the same thing.
They are different in some respects and similar in others. The fact is, some people are better at physical activities, and others are better at verbal, or social, or any other, activities. If the player’s abilities determine success at social activities, then all that’s left for them to invest resources in will be combat – their character abilities won’t change their chances of success. You stutter and look at your shoes, so you can never play a persuasive Orator. The glib layer can, and he gets to be as good at combat as you are. To me, that limits the game inequitably.
Being awesome as manipulation is not something that can be emulated the same way as being awesome at swordfighting. I did have quite a number of players in my groups who tended to sit back and do their part, but leave the planning and descision making mostly to a smaller group of three or maybe four players, who do 90% of the talking. And never did any of them want to play a character who is a great talker.
I see where the idea is coming from, but I just don't think it's really the case.
They did not want to, or they have learned that they cannot change the mechanics in any way, so attempting to play such a character is an exercise in futility? I find it hard to believe there are no players out there who want to play someone better at social skills than they are. Maybe your players are the exception, or maybe players who want this don't get it from your game, so they either accept that and stop trying, or they find a group which allows them to effectively play the character they want to play.
Sure, the players may discuss what they want to accomplish and how. In combat, one player might suggest another use a specific ability, engage a certain opponent, or use a certain tactic (“if you make a 5’ step, you can Flank”), but the player’s great tactics don’t mean he can describe the skilled knifefighting of his Wizard to get a to hit and damage bonus on par with the Fighter. So why should the glib orator be able to use those skills to make his social outcast character as good a persuasion as the 18 CHA bard?
You make a character, and you play that character. He has strengths you lack, and you have strengths he lacks. He's not "you in a different body".
