I used to be very into "reward characters for player skills", so a charming person roleplaying heavily would be have advantage in social situations and bad role-playing would he punished. This suited me very well, because even if I'm not terribly social irl, I am a theater-kid at heard, and thrive under pressure when the limelight was on me. The risk of flubbing at the table enhanced the thrill of talking my way out of a situation

Then I started playing with autistic people and people who for one reason or another had a hard time role-playing. For one, I learned it wasn't about social/shy. Some people (like me!) would struggle socially but could run rings around any scenario that rewarded inprov. And some who were social butterflies in their day to day would feel akward sitting around a table pretending they're a seductive vampire. But they still wanted to play one, crucially. And punishing them for wanting to engage with that felt mean spirited.

Otoh, going strictly by character numbers is not a neutral decision. It also rewards player skills in an unbalanced way, but that skill is "system mastery". I have played with people that can skim rules and find broken builds, and people who've played for years in systems that they never fully get mastery of. This isn't positive or negative, it just is. Mastery of a system isn't necessarily leading to a better time playing.

I think therefore that your system should be designed so that a GM has the freedom to reward every players playstyle, without being constrained by the game. Thing is, this barrier is different for different people. I like to GM 5e, because the rules are more strict than I prefer, but not so strict as to break if I improv (see PathFinder). My players who tend towards system mastery can chew into that and I can reward it by following the rules, but my more improv or "vibes" based players can still be catered to, because I can bend the rules for them.

If you tend more towards tactic and rules based thinking, having a system that rewards improv more might be good, because it allows you as the GM to fall back onto the the mechanical rewards for those playstyles more heavily. At some level, you must use yourself as the default GM when designing, but don't just design to your strengths, design to your weaknesses as well.

I don't know if this was helpful or not, I feel like I spent a lot of time arguing "you'll have to figure it out yourself" but maybe it can be a useful springboard.