I grant that my argument is based in 3rd edition D&D, but I think it applies somewhat to any game where one has to allocate some sort of points, and choices have to be made between combat abilities and social abilities. Simply put, if the DM allows hefty bonuses for good roleplaying in social situations, then if as a player I possess enough roleplaying skill to make my character "good enough" at diplomacy, I have no need to put points there. I can instead put my points into combat.
Players react to the DM. If a 3rd ed. rogue finds that he is already able to sweet talk his way out of dangerous situations, then when he next levels up and has to pick between putting points in diplomacy, which he is already successful at, or tumbling, which he sometimes fails, he's going to pick the combat option. In other game systems this might translate into a vampire: the masquerade character who chooses to invest in dexterity instead of intelligence, because AS A PLAYER he is already smart enough to make his technically think headed character act intelligently.
There's no real answer to this problem, except, as I said before, trying to go the middle road, and having players who are willing to voluntariliy not pursue the maximum amount of power the rules say they can have. The first is difficult, the second almost never happens, because unless everyone does it, its no fun to have one guy in the group be noticeably more powerful than you are.
I grant that my argument is based in 3rd edition D&D, but I think it applies somewhat to any game where one has to allocate some sort of points, and choices have to be made between combat abilities and social abilities. Simply put, if the DM allows hefty bonuses for good roleplaying in social situations, then if as a player I possess enough roleplaying skill to make my character "good enough" at diplomacy, I have no need to put points there. I can instead put my points into combat.
Players react to the DM. If a 3rd ed. rogue finds that he is already able to sweet talk his way out of dangerous situations, then when he next levels up and has to pick between putting points in diplomacy, which he is already successful at, or tumbling, which he sometimes fails, he's going to pick the combat option. In other game systems this might translate into a vampire: the masquerade character who chooses to invest in dexterity instead of intelligence, because AS A PLAYER he is already smart enough to make his technically think headed character act intelligently.
There's no real answer to this problem, except, as I said before, trying to go the middle road, and having players who are willing to voluntariliy not pursue the maximum amount of power the rules say they can have. The first is difficult, the second almost never happens, because unless everyone does it, its no fun to have one guy in the group be noticeably more powerful than you are.