While I like the concept of behavior choices fleshing out our characters in real ways, I dislike that it's placing players in a position where they feel like they have to make a choice between role-playing or building a stronger character.
When it comes down to it, choosing one text option over another can save a player up to 5 ability points. That's a pretty big deal. I think my biggest problem with it at this point is that impact of choices don't seem to have a pay off on their own. For example, I can have character A wax romantic about someone jumping off a cliff while character B remains pragmatic instead - in the end what does their conflicting opinions on the subject really amount to, save for the ability point bonus?
It doesn't help that the system can be gamed. For example, when deciding what to do about Ishamashell the clam, you can intentionally have character A argue to sell him while character B argues to return him to the sea. In the end you can intentionally create this conflict but have character A eventually concede to character B and the party is rewarded with a treasure chest. Meanwhile, your intentional disagreement has gotten character A a bonus to bartering and character B a bonus to NPC reactions. Everybody wins. It's not like Ishamashell rewards character B and penalizes character A.
I have to say I agree with most of what you are saying, with the Ishmashell example, indeed no-one will loose. The only real way to play around that is to have two effects on each option so that there is always both a negative and positive effect (think know-it-all talent).
Besides that I am unsure how they could change it without loosing the impact the social interaction has right now. If the negatives are too strong also, there is a possibility of people intentionally avoiding co-operative dialogues, which is not what they want either.
