Combat is the main gameplay loop of an RPG.
Conflict is the main driving force behind storytelling, be it physical or non physical.
Its a fact. If there is no conflict, there is no story.
I think the fixation with non violence beeing declared as more mature ridiculous.
The reason Combat is the focus of RPGs is because it is the only form of conflict that Video games have managed to put into concrete systems.
Discussions basically boil down to dialogue choices or dice rolls.
to create a compelling system for "Verbal encounters", you would require much better AI than video games have right now.
Survival tends to be another very important aspect of many RPGs, tho not CRPGs, becuase surival is, yet again, a form of conflict that creates a compelling gameplay loop.
I personaly dislike how "have tons of dialogue" is somehow the "better alternative" to having lots of combat. I personally find it tiresome. Dialogue is not a gameplay loop, its a diestractin from it.
I had this problem with Shadowrun (the video game), theres just too much dialogue thats inconsequential, i dont wanna miss any of the story, but when its JUSt in the form of huge text boxes, it starts to grate on my nerves.
Likewise i dont think Telltale games are actually video games at all.
If it doesnt have a gameplay loop with proper , non predefined input, then i dont think its viable as a core feature of a game.
About freeform combat in tabletops: not a fan of it.
Why? because its too relative. I enjoy having opitons and knowing where those options lead me.
If i do freeform, im basically "mother may i"ing the entire game, wheres the fun in that? Its all up to the whim of the DM now, thats not how the world works, if i take an action, most of the time, there is a response that i can at least gauge somewhat.
If i hit someone with a sword, its gonna do athing, if i repeat that five times, its gonna do a very simmilar thing each time i do it.
Freeform doesnt work that way unless the DM keeps a logbook, which is very annoying for the DM.
