No Clue makes valid points. I will say however that, every game I play, regardless of system is a very heavy roleplaying experience. The fact that a superhero game is mostly about beating bad guys; doesn't preclude roleplaying heavily if I want. Nor does D & D. If I just wanna bash monsters I'll play Hero Quest or a video game.
By that same token, just because Old World of Darkness is based on the struggle of the monster within and the downward spiral of the PC's doesn't mean I can't get in fights and wreck stuff when I want.
Bubba Amon Hotep hit the nail on the head. Make your game fit your players and your running style.
In the end: a game with a very strict consequence system works great if everyone is on the same page about the narrative nature of how the particular game is being played. However, many players will see it more as a fashion in which to make the game easier or harder on characters depending upon the circumstances. For instance the opposite simplistic view of consequences and stress is this: how much damage someone can take before i win or lose. Hence the way Victor Sell's heart 'sploder spell works. Seeing that essentially says people can take roughly 26 damage before they lose. having all the types of stress/damage lead up to the same result makes it easier to lose/win depending upon who is taking the stress and who is dealing it.
The system of consequences is very frustrating to deal with when in a mixed group, people who see both sides of the conversation we are having. The group must adapt to such things or the game starts to fail everyone. Since I play with such a group i have to accept both interpretations and realize the flaws of both ways of thinking. I see value in both arguements, but I know mechanically why it seems flawed and can't really refute it.
That said, I'm not so much arguing the fact that it is bad or wrong, but that it has inherent flaws with certain groups and don't care for being told:
There are plenty of valid playstyle objections to social combat rules, but I don't think this is one.
My first instinct is to say that you apperently haven't played with a group truly willing to abuse your NPC's consequences. it is quite hard to make a challenge for a group willin to do so. narrative game or not, if the players never feel challenged you might as well put the dice aside and just sit around talk about how the story should go... the conflicts are (just like many keep saying) part of the exciting unknowable part of the game.
From personal experience, if even the "BIG BAD" is bombarded with social, mental, and physical stress. He/she goes down fast...bar none. (Unless the "BIG BAD" is rediculously and needlessly awesome at all forms of defense and such...also hard to accept as a player and hard to justify as a GM)
I simply can't see continuing this debate from my standpoint. I honestly see all the other points involved. I'm sure the system works much of the time. I just can't see why many people can't see the breakdown in game/system where I found it.