Sometimes it just denies reason how easily one can go e.g. from [Persuasion] to [Trade].
It's realistic. Maybe too realistic.
The skillcheck design is based on my professional experience. As you probably know, I talk for a living.
When you're trying to convince your 'opponent' (convince him to use your services, convinces him to sign a longer contract, convince him to keep trying after his initial campaign failed, convince him to pay what he owes you, convince him to do anything he doesn't want to do, basically), a single argument (as single check) is never enough.
Usually, your 'opponent' has 3-5 objections, reason why he doesn't want to do what you want him to do. You have to deal with all of them and use different skills: some you dismiss with strong arguments if the flaws are obvious or you have a good opening, some you bullshit through, either making him believe or doubt his own position; you can appeal to his logic, greed, doubts, fear, confidence, even beliefs that it has to work (but not all at the same time; it's not Oblivion and different people have different buttons).
Here is a simple scenario.
<Presentation>
objection #1 - I want to think about it (a weak attempt to disengage)
response: [streetwise] Think about what? It's natural to have doubts, but we've been in business for 30 years and I can assure you...
objection #2 - I'm not sure it's going to work for us (translation: I'm afraid to make a bad decision, so I'd rather make no decision at all)
response: [persuasion] *explain how the product is a perfect fit for him.
objection #3 - it sounds great but our budget is spent (fucking weasel, I can smell the money on you)
response: [trading][streetwise] We both know that money isn't an issue here. I'm afraid you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not an expense, but a short-term investment... *appeal to greed, focus his attention on the returns
etc.
I'm not saying that we designed it the best way evar, so if you have more suggestions...