This is one thing I'm wondering about, many just roleplay social happenings, but then its just the players abilities to be social thats getting results, not the characters (to things many confuses).

I'm hoping there will be good social abilities for stories that is about politics and such, as some characters will be bad at it and others good (though good roleplaying in the spirit of the characters abilities might get a bonus)(I always have social rolls after a scene in it is roleplayed).

Or is it based mostly on the inhereted ability of the char and not inn skills?

A little common sense goes a long way.

I'm no fighter, yet I want to play a fighter character. Should I only get experience by my actual combat abilities in real life? Do I have to swing a stick around and duck as the GM swings at me?

If a player wants to play a social character, and has invested experience into social skills, then they should not be penalized for doing this: "Okay, my dashingly handsome rogue begins to woo the damsel. He spins her a tale about how he's really a noble who lost his birthright unjustly. Can I make a Fellowship roll now?" Instead of being FORCED to actually speak seductive words to the GM and other players.

Some people just aren't comfortable with that sort of thing.

That shouldn't stop a GM from dishing out extra bonuses for good roleplaying, though. Just don't penalyze players if they're not comfortable making a heroic speech or seduce a barmaid in front of everyone.

Heres for missing my total point...

What I wrote was that the characters social abilites is the real system if he does good, not the players charms.

How many have not had a player that plays in his stats a poor social character, but roleplays like prince charming, even though the character is more like the most nonlikable person that exist?

Therefore as I posted, I find it best to have good mechanics to use social abilities with.

But if someone plays his character believble (whatever his reallife skills is) in accord with how the character should be - then that can be worth a bonus.

I'm not quite sure that I understand.

Do you mean that the system should have mechanics to ensure that players roleplay appropriately?

Like the problem of a player roleplaying a very smart, clever personality while their character has a very LOW intelligence or wits?

Yes in a sense
The system should have social mechanics, so that the characters (not players!) only can do what is within their mechanical range in the game.
I prefer games that have a solid set of social skills (and not only charm as a few have), three to five skills pertaining social interaction is a good amount.
Its better, then people who only like to roleplay that part out with out mechanics deciding can choose if they want to use it or not.
I prefer to have both elements - to roleplay it, but using the mechanics in the end with appropriate negatives or bonuses from roleplaying. This way it ensures that its still only the characters abilities that you play and not the players abilities that counts.

In our games we've gotten a lot away from using skills for social interaction, except in cases where the PC's are lying, or coercing information out of someone. Even "gather info"/streetwise stuff get's skipped for rolls unless it's really something esoteric and rare. I always thought that the social rules in the WFPR-Companion were decent enough, but being a "side-rule" just didn't catch on with our group.

jh