I think it's odd that despite gaming sessions having far more dialogue than combat - in my personal observations - the combat system designs are intended to be fair, colorful and balanced whereas dialogue gets a simple persuasion mechanic.
It's
because there's so much dialogue in a game session that we don't usually have much in the way of rules for it - every time you have to look up a rule or a chart or roll the dice, things slow down, and if you slow down the thing that makes up most of the session, people get bored.
In general, I'm in favour of rules where the player can describe what their character is trying to achieve, and then we roll the dice to see how
well they do it. It's nice to roleplay it all sometimes, but I like the rules as a backup because - well, do you really want to roleplay a seduction at a game table with those guys at the game table? Do you want to roleplay that scene of torturing the orc for information? I'm happy with some things having a "fade to black" with the roll of the dice as the soundtrack. And if you want to get into the details, well that's okay, too - the dice can tell you how well you went. Maybe that seductive or torturous move that never worked before just happens to work on this one, maybe the move that almost always works doesn't now.
In GAMERS, you have three mental and three physical stats. Grit, awareness, mind, endurance, reflexes and strength. These can act as hit points. Physical conflicts involve knocking the physical stats down. If you want to, then mental/social conflicts knock the physical stats down. You know when you get into a late night internet argument and post replies instantly, and at some point you become less coherent and can't remember basic stuff you learned years ago? You're losing a mental conflict!
I do kind of like that approach, but in playtest, players didn't, for the reasons above. So I dropped it. But it's an idea.