Why do so many TTRPGs have stupidly complex combat subsystems but nothing for solving conflicts non-verbally?

Why do so many TTRPGs have stupidly complex combat subsystems but nothing for solving conflicts non-verbally?

I thought most combat was non-verbal.

>nothing for solving conflicts non-verbally?
Well, D&D refined combat almost to the point where you don't need to say anything and just roll the dice. Perhaps the next edition will actually perfect it.

if you check many modules, they usually have a character interaction chart, as a guideline for how to act

also because people enjoy combat a lot, so it makes sense to put the majority of the rules there, unless you are playing a combat-light system which are outnumbered by more combat-centric games

Non-violently.

>implying this is a good thing
all it does is take away power from the GM and force him to follow the numbers and rules rather than having free reign. Any half decent GM can do a better job with rules-lite combat than with rules heavy.

The point of combat systems is to A) model something you can't do at the table and B) be FUN as a minigame.

Most systems have basic social interaction rules. These usually allow you very much to solve situations non-violently, but they usually aren't as elaborate. The reason is both tradition and what most people want out of a game. Most games already have a detailed conflic system in Combat and adding a second one for talking would bog down the game heavily. You could flip it around and resolve combat with a single roll and do long, drawn-out rules for social interactions. Thing is, to most people this would feel weird. Hell, it's a hot topic for some people wether or not you should have any social rules whatsoever.
In addition to that: You talk a shitton more than you fight. If you codify social interactions heavily, that means these rules should by all means come into play a lot. That's why it's practical to have simple and quick rules for social interactions: If you just want to quickly resolve an interaction just do one roll. If you want it to be more complicated and drawn out, just let the character roll several times.

It's not inherently good or bad. Different people prefer different kinds of games.

Infinity has plenty of non-lethal weaponry, in fact you can build lists where every single model has a nonlethal weapon and you just stun/immobilize/convert every enemy

any fag can talk, fight'n is hard!

Conversely, any moron can throw a punch but only a leader can inspire a change.

Conversely conversely any moron can speak with his fists, but it takes a genius to fight with his mouth.

Conversely conversely conversely, any dumb-dumb can talk mouth words but only a real winner hits someone really hard until they admit defeat.

Because it would require a level of GM control over the PCs that most players don't find fun. Players can accept that someone might be able to kill their character against their will. They can't accept that someone might talk them into a course of action that they as players don't want to do, effectively turning their PCs into NPCs.

And anyway, there's a limit to what you can accomplish with rhetoric alone. Rhetoric can't change the material factors that are the ultimate source of our opinions on things. Only force of one kind or another can do that.

Because shit had to get dumbed down for people who will throw massive temper tantrums because they're too autistic/retarded to come up with a convincing argument.

>solving conflicts non-verbally

You mean sign language? What do you think "thieves' cant" is supposed to be?

Pretty much this.
People forget that you've got to be good at rolepayaing to GM, since you've supposed to step into the role of all the npcs.

If you can't formulate a request that sounds reasonable to the players, then you probably shouldn't be GMing.

>Mouth-to-fist style! How'd ya like it?

Because they don't require mechanical abstraction to run. All other rolls are generally done for RNG (e.g. motivations)

e.g. DM rolls a wandering encounter, 1d6 knolls. Rolls 1d12 to see hostility - they are cautious. PC tries to speak in common. Rolls 1d6 for each gnoll to see if they speak common (say, on 1 or 2). 1 does. Now player talks to gnoll - at this point, mechanical abstraction or random rolls are unnecessary. You don't need to roll "for persuasion," the DM role-plays the gnoll (perhaps rolling for personality, personal hostility, etc) and the Player role-plays his character, the natural results happen of the conversation. The conversation itself can happen entirely at the table in a way that combat cannot. Either the PC is plausible and convincing with reasonable demands given the situation or he's not. Why require a subsystem? WotC decided to, but it's pointless cancer.

The long and short of it is that nobody has designed a good argument simulator. At least one that's A) not broken and B) fun.

What's the point of Charisma stats then? What if I want to play a charismatic character but am not personally very persuasive?

>that image
nigga that's Khrushchev Cat

Because players have no idea how 1 on1 combat works with magic, swords, and guns, but should have a general idea on how to talk to someone. [Spoiler] emphasis on should [/spoiler]

What if I want to play a talkative character but I'm mute?

>You don't.

>What's the point of Charisma stats then?
When a player speechifies, the DM decides if the player's efforts definitely will work, definitely won't work, or might work. Whenever you're in the latter category, which happens all the damn time, you roll a Cha-based skill check.

>What if I want to play a charismatic character but am not personally very persuasive?
The challenge is to identify and address the obstacle in the encounter rather than use any sort of actual persuasive or rhetorical trickery. It's a test of your attentiveness instead of your real-life charisma.

What if I want to play an athletic warrior but I'm an obese neckbeard?
>You don't.

Didn't you know fantasy roleplaying was meant to emulate reality.

You mean there are TTRPGs besides D&D and Pathfinder?

Because talking away someone's social hit points is video gamey as fuck.

Shadowrun is full of conflicts like trying to sneak dangerous stuff past security guards, gather information, or retrieve valuable data. The game gives dozens of ways to accomplish objecives like that without resorting to violence.

Your charisma effects how much information is presented to you in order to make your roleplay choices.

>take away power from the GM
Why is that a bad thing. Traditional systems tend to give GM too much power anyways, so shifting some of it away is just good.

B-But muh rule 0

Rule 0 is as outdated of an idea, than the whole "roleplaying is about GM telling a story for players" -bullshit.
Write a book if you want to be a storyteller.

CHA represents ability to lead, not beauty or ability to talk or whatever.

The idea of the GM as storyteller is actually relatively speaking, recent. They were originally just referees whose purpose was to provide a world in which for players to fuck around in, and adventures were predominantly about exploration and looting.

Which works fine if the only thing the players want is dungeon crawl style games.

If players want a big fantasy setting and plot you have to give the GM some control.

Relative to what though? Gary Gygax, pretty much the progenitor of the hobby, kind of invented the storytelling thing out of necessity, as people get bored of Dungeon crawling, and looting and so on.

If you seriously don't think that player driven stories are a thing, then you should broaden your horizons.
You do know that there are GMless games. And most of those are not dungeon crawling. (Not sure if there even is any GMless dungeon crawling games, but all things considered, there probably is.)