I was discussing matters with my partner in crime for game design a week or so ago when I arrived at something of a revelation.  We're currently adapting a sci-fi setting to a system, and I'm doing about 70% of the work regarding the adaption (not a gripe, it just seems like I'm doing more work).  I was poring over the rules I was coming up with, and the game seems to be moving players towards fourish roles, in a manner vaguely reminiscent of D&D 4th's four combat roles, except that the four roles in our game are more for the whole game and not just the combat.

Those four roles are basically thus:
Training (military, specifically, but really all physical/athletic endeavors)
Tech (anything involving computers, physics, chemistry . . . the hard sciences, with a fair amount of mechanical stuff thrown in)
Social (just about everything communication-wise, but also intrigue of many varieties)
Mystical (people seem to like to mix the trappings of 'magic' into sci-fi, so this role is for them)

I was poring over how these roles would work in the game for writing up the systems chapter, and I realized the thing's a little lop-sided.  'Combat' is a stupefyingly huge section of the chapter -- 96% of it, if Office's word-count function is to be believed.  It occurs to me that makes the game sound a little combat-heavy in presentation, and I want my final product to encourage and have stuff for all kinds of play, giving a significant if not exactly equal amount of screen time to characters who may not necessarily be combat wombats.

So I was working on new subsystems to make things a little more equitable for the nonfighting-focused classes, and I specifically came up with a somewhat complex system for handling 'hacking.'  ('Hacking' here defined as 'computer hacking,' a very important thing in the setting.)  So, I've got this proto-idea for how to handle 'hacking' and I bring it to my partner and begin telling him about it.  He makes a sour face pretty quick, and says to me "I don't think this needs to be this complicated.  Why can't it be an opposed Intelligence or Wits + Computers roll?"

I realized, as soon as he made the sour face, that this question was coming.  I'm far from the most nimble-witted soul, so I was back on my haunches and thinking about it, but I came up with what I imagine is a fairly decent counter-argument "Well, then, why not have combat be a contested Dexterity + Fighting roll and whoever loses dies?"

Well, my partner had no rebuttal for that.

My joy at having won a debate for once in my life aside, I feel I arrived at a kernel of enlightenment in my counterargument.  Combat is a very small facet of most people's existence, indeed, even of the existences of simulated realities that we see in book or film.  Why is it given such a disproportionately huge amount of attention in the rules of RPGs?  Because we want to get it right.  It's a high-stress situation with serious consequences.  Players love a good combat scene, if it's done well and it's dramatic and adds to the game.  I think it is my responsibility as a game designer to provide players and GMs with the tools to do something similar with all aspects of the game, not just the combat.  Hence why I stand behind my computer hacking subsystem idea.  I have even expanded it since to involve even PCs that don't particularly specialize in using computers -- even the dumbest computer-incompetent meathead can participate in hacking in a small way.

So, after that explanation, here's the meat -- I'm trying to find a happy medium between roll-playing and role-playing.  The setting places an emphasis on social interaction and understanding people's motivations and trading favors, so I think a robust social interaction system is necessary.

Ergo, I'm trying to think of a new subsystem for politicking and the like.  Specifically, I'm trying to come up with one that doesn't necessarily leave unskilled characters in the dust.  I think it's great when one player really shines at a thing, but the other players assisted him in bringing things together.  A victory becomes everyone's victory.  Trouble is, I can't think of a good subsystem that might do this.  I think I may have taxed my own brain out of ideas by hitting on that hacking nugget.  Does anyone know of any systems I might look to for inspiration?  Don't just bring up RPGs, any game (functioning at least partially on six-sided dice) is a welcome suggestion.

I think its a good idea to give activities the same balance in the rules text as you want them to have in the game, as much as this is possible. Beef up other things, cut back combat, and kudos.... but thats just generalized advice. I would have to know more to give you anything solid.

Lying is a good skill for politics.  Any social character can find his niche there.  Intimidation is a good skill too.  I'm certain your combat character can be good for that.  Tech people can dig up dirt on a political opponent.  Misdirection and propaganda are hallmarks of politics.  What better man for that position than your mystical character?

I am given to understand that Burning Wheel has an excellent system in place for social conflicts.

You may also wish to take a look at the system used in Dogs in the Vineyard.