Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Take PBtA social conflict resolution. When you seduce/parley/persuade (etc) you need some kind of leverage or you need to exert force. Now you can do the latter, but you’re assuming the liability that comes with the threat of violence and you’re going to be held accountable for it. So not putting the looming escalation of violence on the table means that you’re engaging with the NPC in a protracted exchange to identify the NPC’s dramatic need (Instinct in PBtA parlance) for leverage. That will mean lots of conversation + moves triggered and made (Defying Danger, Reading a Person etc). The conversation can take lots of twists and turns as a result and the gamestate and situation (and possibly setting) will dynamically change as a result.
Same thing goes with Dogs in the Vineyard. Your dice put down as your Traits/Belongings/Relationships employed in the effort of “Just Talking” aren’t just those dice (and how you manage your dice pool with your subsequent See/Raise/Reverse the Blow etc) but also what you say. And they all plays out back and forth until the matter is settled and someone can’t go on (so they have to Fold or Escalate to Violence or Mortal…and assume that liability and be held accountable for it).
And there’s lots of other different but distantly kindred schemes.
That stuff “feels” like a vital, dynamic social exchange with things being said and attached moves being made and dice beig thrown and the gamestate responding until all matters are settled.
And I am pretty open about playing games that do things that either fall outside my preferences or handle things in a mechanical way I wouldn't normally do. The PBtA games haven't really appealed to me when I have read through them (maybe if I played them I would have a different reaction, but I haven't done so yet). Just something about them doesn't land for me and I don't know what it is (and I wouldn't say it is even their social mechanics).
I haven't played Dogs in the Vineyard so I don't know how I would react to that system
I can say what I tend to dislike is when social mechanics are: rolls, interfere with how I like to RP, or are a whole mini game unto themselves. I want what the characters say, what their motives are, etc to be the focus. Again this is why a system like Hillfolk worked for me. That is narrative. It has mechanics for handling certain aspects of exchange. But overall the mechanics are not obtrusive into the dialogue: the dialogue, character motives, and relationships seem to be given a lot of primacy.
I just prefer it to be organic and not mechanically drive.
That said I am not always opposed to this stuff. The Doctor Who RPG had a great initiative system that let "talkers" go first and that kind of gets at the bit you point to about not jumping straight into combat (it also felt organic in play). I used something like that myself in the wuxia RPG I did where there is a Talking and Analysis phase in the initiative system that occurs before combat begins (to help build up that feeling of swords about to be drawn as duelists assess one another, try to psych one another out, etc).
But at the end of the day, for me, I tend to place priority in play on the things I expressed before: handling social exchanges organically, with motivations, what is actually said and done and such being the factors that drive a lot of decision making (without having to resort to a mechanical system on top of that as well: except in maybe minor or very intuitive ways for me like asking a player to make a roll to detect a sudden change of facial expression or a person reaching for their gun: but all that is pretty ad hoc for me).