Quote from: S'mon;663781Pendragon looks good, but the edition I have seems focused around playing only knights, ie martial characters.

I'd obviously suggest RuneQuest 6 also, but there is this for BRP too: Merrie England

"...Revel in the mysteries of Morris Dancing, crusade against the heathen, uncover the secrets of the Masons, oppose the unjust taxes of your absent king, or simply abuse your authority over peasants and vassals. Your imagination is the only limit!"

I'm having an interesting experience running Legend of the 5 Rings.  We're going half or more of our sessions without combat, and we haven't yet had more than one a night.  And that's been player driven rather than planned by me.  In a couple of cases I've had NPCs try to start a fight and the players talked them down or went around.

Which surprised me a little, because based on the character options L5R looks like a combat focused game that happens to have some social mechanics.  I think the ingredients are:  
-combat is dangerous, giving you a sense your number's going to come up eventually if you take every opportunity for it
-human opponents.  The Clans have rivalries, sometimes strong ones, but outside of the Shadowlands there aren't really any orc equivalents to kill on sight.
-well developed characters.  Everyone has family, a lord, duties and obligations.
-my players.  As I said, this whole thing was emergent rather than planned.  I'm not sure I could have imposed this play style by fiat, and I'm not entirely sure the choice of game system is going to do it for you, though it may go a long way.
-social mechanics as an option.  I'm not actually using them as much as I maybe should; if I know an NPC I'll sometimes roleplay a scene out without stopping to roll dice.  But players have the option of saying "hey, I want to roll for this," and the game has a system to handle that.

Notice that largely overlaps, but doesn't duplicate your suggested list:

Quote from: S'mon;662646Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?

2's obviously important, but 1 is strictly optional:  L5R allows focused Courtier characters, but the players I have talking their way out of combat actually have warrior characters, and can hang when they do get in a fight.  3 I would call a subset of "deadly combat," a reasonable solution but not absolutely necessary in its own right.  4, sure, L5R is basically point buy with an overlay of rank levels.

This is not to suggest L5R specifically, as it comes with its own setting baggage.  But it does mean I follow the logic behind the suggestions of Rolemaster or Runequest.  The game that emerges at the table may not be obvious from the game book.

I also find the PCs do better long-term when they have skills that get better as they use them, not based on artificial point-buys, and if the skills nest by category.

You should be able to get something workable out of any of the universal systems, too.

Savage Worlds comes to mind, because the way the dice mechanics work allows for anyone to be one-shot by just about any opponent.

Quote from: S'mon;662646Related to the which-system-for-Game of Thrones/ASoIaF discussion, I was wondering what systems there are that support non-combat-centric play in a medievalesque fantasy environment? Are there any traditional (non-storygame) systems where a noncombatant player character is possible and viable?

Some characteristics I think would be desirable or necessary:
1. Ability to put all resources in non-combat skills/powers/abilities.
2. Ability for noncombatant PCs to be effective in play.
3. No escalating hit points.
4. Probably not level or class based?

what term is the game?  short or long term?

Quote from: LordVreeg;663878what term is the game?  short or long term?

If I run it I'd be thinking of something in the 6-12 session range (fortnightly, about 3.5 hours/session). I'm about to take a break from running one of my two 4e campaigns, toying around with ideas of what to do next. After watching this season's Game of Thrones I like the idea of an intrigue/politics game, with only occasional combat. I think I'd probably want to use a fantasy world rather than Arthurian England. I'm torn between using a regular combat-centric system like (one of the simpler versions of) D&D or Dragon Warriors, vs using a skills-based system like BRP. The versions of Runequest I have (2nd & 3rd edition) are a bit too magic-centric and combat-fiddly. I also have Stormbringer though, might dig that out. Unlike Pendragon you can use it to make a wide range of characters. I was thinking more medievalesque tone rather than Swords & Sorcery, so not sure about using the Young Kingdoms, but maybe that could be slanted easily.

I disagree with the recommendation of Pendragon for a non combat-centric game. For one thing, by default all the player characters are knights. Fighting is your role, it is what you are trained and equipped to do.

Also, in the world of Pendragon, fighting means so much more than just than the application of force. As a knight you want to prove your valour, you want to serve your lord in battle. This isn't a pansy 'violence is the last resort of incompetent' culture.

Even more telling, in Pendragon, to get to truth in a dispute you don't bother with petty things like gathering evidence and questioning witnesses, you have duel. Whoever wins the duel clearly has God's favour and therefore is the innocent party.

So maybe you are not going to go room to room clearing orcs, but I can see how combat would not be central to Pendragon.

Quote from: S'mon;663900If I run it I'd be thinking of something in the 6-12 session range (fortnightly, about 3.5 hours/session). I'm about to take a break from running one of my two 4e campaigns, toying around with ideas of what to do next. After watching this season's Game of Thrones I like the idea of an intrigue/politics game, with only occasional combat. I think I'd probably want to use a fantasy world rather than Arthurian England. I'm torn between using a regular combat-centric system like (one of the simpler versions of) D&D or Dragon Warriors, vs using a skills-based system like BRP. The versions of Runequest I have (2nd & 3rd edition) are a bit too magic-centric and combat-fiddly. I also have Stormbringer though, might dig that out. Unlike Pendragon you can use it to make a wide range of characters. I was thinking more medievalesque tone rather than Swords & Sorcery, so not sure about using the Young Kingdoms, but maybe that could be slanted easily.

How much magic?  how common in the setting?
Do you want them to be able to play artists and bards and councilors and assassins?

Quote from: LordVreeg;663908How much magic?  how common in the setting?
Do you want them to be able to play artists and bards and councilors and assassins?

I was thinking low-magic, more Stormbringer than Runequest, and the PCs as mostly members of a noble family, maybe with some PC retainers.

Quote from: S'mon;663929I was thinking low-magic, more Stormbringer than Runequest, and the PCs as mostly members of a noble family, maybe with some PC retainers.

I like systems with lots of mundane and non-combat magic for these.

Blood/evil magic a possibility?

I think Stormbringer may be a good match, especially with the time frame you plan.

Quote from: LordVreeg;663955I like systems with lots of mundane and non-combat magic for these.

Blood/evil magic a possibility?

I think Stormbringer may be a good match, especially with the time frame you plan.

I hadn't thought at all about using Stormbringer before this thread, but I do like the idea of the PCs as the ruling House of one of the Young Kingdoms - perhaps set it right after the fall of Melnibone, with the PCs inheriting rule from their fathers who've perished to dragonfire after the sack.

Quote from: S'mon;663977I hadn't thought at all about using Stormbringer before this thread, but I do like the idea of the PCs as the ruling House of one of the Young Kingdoms - perhaps set it right after the fall of Melnibone, with the PCs inheriting rule from their fathers who've perished to dragonfire after the sack.

Not a bad idea, though I always found everyone wanting to play Melniboneans.  the world of Elric was always too fantastic for my tastes (Pan Tang and the city of the screaming statues comes to mind), and you have to deal with the law/chaos issues.  Will those be difficult?

Legend/RQ6 are setting neutral, and they aren't magic orientated in character mechanics - magic is an option.

Space Master separates scientists in to two categories of three each, Research Scientists and Field Scientists.  So, six scientist professions.  Actually, of the fourteen professions in the first edition only the three Astronaut professions are expected to be experienced in combat, and of those only the Armsman is specific to it. There are a great many skills, research, exploration and strategic game advice throughout.  

That bit about Space Master out of the way, I've played many sessions of any of my favored role-play games without direct conflict.  I have also had sessions of games that are not inclined to combat with plenty.  I recall a friend's constant outburst of combat in his Mage the Accession campaign.

Edit: To add some specific to a middle ages inspired setting, one of my favorite different combinations that tends toward a strategic game is the pairing of the Chaosium edition of Thieves World with Traveller.  Generally, I find Middle-earth to tend toward fairly limited amount of combat.  Middle-earth is a model of how to develop a campaign with Rolemaster.

Quote from: S'mon;663929I was thinking low-magic, more Stormbringer than Runequest, and the PCs as mostly members of a noble family, maybe with some PC retainers.

Use Amber, cos you just described it.