I generally prefer old-school D&D for open-table games and oneshots, but GURPS for dedicated campaigns. A classless, point-buy, skill-based system is nice for more thoroughly customizable characters, but in more fast-paced games I prefer to make character creation (and the game in general) as fast and easy as possible, and I think classes do that nicely. I do have an expanded version of the AD&D secondary skills table that I use for D&D. Mainly this ties into random equipment generation, where every skill comes with a relevant piece of equipment, and I've found a lot of success with that; it generally motivates players to try and figure out creative ways to use all this weird stuff they have in the dungeon. The actual skill system itself hasn't come up much, and I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it.
As simple as skill based systems are, I very much prefer the approach and action based anti thesis that Powered by the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark are. It is so much more refreshing to see two, or more, approaches beeing applicabe to one situation and playing out the nuance on why "hunting" someone down is very much different than "swaying" someone. It's a fine nuance and difference and one could argue that skill based systems could be played similarily but actually it usually leads to a "Roll for Skill X" - which takes all freedom away, where in an approach based system the question is "How do you want to approach this" and that changes the story and course of action a lot!
I might be wrong, but I do feel the skill system is good in trying to immolate a specific setting or feel. The dnd system is good and flexible for more 'generic' fantasy. Though I only use that word because dnd is design so you can build your own world stuff, it doesn't assume you will be playing in Greyhawk or forgotten realms. But stuff like call of Cthulhu and Warhammer fantasy roleplay systems are trying to go for a specific settings feel.
It can be a difficult needle to thread. With rolled stats with some kind of modifications (4D6 arrange as you like) you still can play a character class without being totally gimped or having to roll up two dozen characters until you get one you can play. You are limited by your class and your stats but I feel like limitations push you to be more creative and also generally means more interaction with the GM and other players. Again, agree this may limit players especially as in your example, a player wants to be a fast-talking huckster but doesn't have those skills, I will fall back on stat roles and credit them for making the attempt at role-playing it. Being in a game, as a player or GM, to me implies some level of cooperation and middle ground with these kinds of game systems aka AD&D 1st edition. With skills-based systems you can play what you want but you quickly run into "optimal builds" even if you aren't a min/maxer, if you don't try to optimize your skills you feel severely penalized compared to other players. You can also get truly munchkin level builds when you throw in advantages/hinderances. Playing a spell caster? Better have eidetic memory! I can still hear a player answering the question "Why does your character have this advantage, how does it fit?" With "I get four points to my intelligence based skills for every one I spend." I agree it can limit role-playing efforts when people won't even attempt something that isn't a well defined skill. Why take a skill if the GM ether ignores the skill like "If you can't talk your way out, your character can't ether" or forbids you from doing anything that isn't on your sheet like "I want to talk my way out of this but I don't have fast-talk on my sheet". I do like bonuses for things that can be trained up in. Any idiot can fire a gun even a sniper rifle, but if you are a trained sharp shooter things get a lot better for you since you know about things like windage and bullet drop calculations. You can try anything you want but having training can mean the difference between wanting to build a siege tower but ending up with a tree fort. When I run skills-based games I almost always require a much deeper backstory to explain why you have what skills you have and why you have the advantages/disadvantages you have, I'll always work with you on it. I also expect to role-play it too. Maybe I'm just an old fart who started with D&D and didn't hit skills-based games really until college. 🤷
I prefer classless systems. I'd like to see more freeform Skill Tree systems that are layered. For example: • Skill: Combat at 8+ on a D12. You can't improve it, but you can choose to specialize into Polearms at 7+, later specializing again into a Pike at 6+, eccetra... • Skill: Social at 9+ on a D12. You can't improve it, but you can choose to specialize into Exchange at 8+, later specializing again into a Persuasion at 7+, eccetra... You still have access to each layer at different Target Numbers.
I generally prefer old-school D&D for open-table games and oneshots, but GURPS for dedicated campaigns. A classless, point-buy, skill-based system is nice for more thoroughly customizable characters, but in more fast-paced games I prefer to make character creation (and the game in general) as fast and easy as possible, and I think classes do that nicely.
I do have an expanded version of the AD&D secondary skills table that I use for D&D. Mainly this ties into random equipment generation, where every skill comes with a relevant piece of equipment, and I've found a lot of success with that; it generally motivates players to try and figure out creative ways to use all this weird stuff they have in the dungeon. The actual skill system itself hasn't come up much, and I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about it.
As simple as skill based systems are, I very much prefer the approach and action based anti thesis that Powered by the Apocalypse and Forged in the Dark are. It is so much more refreshing to see two, or more, approaches beeing applicabe to one situation and playing out the nuance on why "hunting" someone down is very much different than "swaying" someone. It's a fine nuance and difference and one could argue that skill based systems could be played similarily but actually it usually leads to a "Roll for Skill X" - which takes all freedom away, where in an approach based system the question is "How do you want to approach this" and that changes the story and course of action a lot!
I might be wrong, but I do feel the skill system is good in trying to immolate a specific setting or feel. The dnd system is good and flexible for more 'generic' fantasy. Though I only use that word because dnd is design so you can build your own world stuff, it doesn't assume you will be playing in Greyhawk or forgotten realms. But stuff like call of Cthulhu and Warhammer fantasy roleplay systems are trying to go for a specific settings feel.
There was a little game called Call of Cthulhu that did a good job with Skills.
It can be a difficult needle to thread.
With rolled stats with some kind of modifications (4D6 arrange as you like) you still can play a character class without being totally gimped or having to roll up two dozen characters until you get one you can play. You are limited by your class and your stats but I feel like limitations push you to be more creative and also generally means more interaction with the GM and other players. Again, agree this may limit players especially as in your example, a player wants to be a fast-talking huckster but doesn't have those skills, I will fall back on stat roles and credit them for making the attempt at role-playing it. Being in a game, as a player or GM, to me implies some level of cooperation and middle ground with these kinds of game systems aka AD&D 1st edition.
With skills-based systems you can play what you want but you quickly run into "optimal builds" even if you aren't a min/maxer, if you don't try to optimize your skills you feel severely penalized compared to other players. You can also get truly munchkin level builds when you throw in advantages/hinderances. Playing a spell caster? Better have eidetic memory! I can still hear a player answering the question "Why does your character have this advantage, how does it fit?" With "I get four points to my intelligence based skills for every one I spend."
I agree it can limit role-playing efforts when people won't even attempt something that isn't a well defined skill. Why take a skill if the GM ether ignores the skill like "If you can't talk your way out, your character can't ether" or forbids you from doing anything that isn't on your sheet like "I want to talk my way out of this but I don't have fast-talk on my sheet". I do like bonuses for things that can be trained up in. Any idiot can fire a gun even a sniper rifle, but if you are a trained sharp shooter things get a lot better for you since you know about things like windage and bullet drop calculations. You can try anything you want but having training can mean the difference between wanting to build a siege tower but ending up with a tree fort.
When I run skills-based games I almost always require a much deeper backstory to explain why you have what skills you have and why you have the advantages/disadvantages you have, I'll always work with you on it. I also expect to role-play it too.
Maybe I'm just an old fart who started with D&D and didn't hit skills-based games really until college. 🤷
I prefer classless systems. I'd like to see more freeform Skill Tree systems that are layered. For example:
• Skill: Combat at 8+ on a D12. You can't improve it, but you can choose to specialize into Polearms at 7+, later specializing again into a Pike at 6+, eccetra...
• Skill: Social at 9+ on a D12. You can't improve it, but you can choose to specialize into Exchange at 8+, later specializing again into a Persuasion at 7+, eccetra...
You still have access to each layer at different Target Numbers.