Violence is always an option - a look at player interactions

Sometimes when you play a tabletop RPG, your character may want another character to do or not do something they are dead set on. How do you convince that character to follow your preferred course of action? If you were just playing a pure simulation game, you'd be able to convince them socially, devise some sort of intellectual scheme for them to see your way, or physically stop them. However, many games and players shun the social and mental approaches - "I don't want my character to be mind controlled", "you should roleplay social interactions", "the system doesn't have a roll for making someone change their mind", etc. This, however, leaves you with one approach that will always work. Violence is always an option...

Now of course, threatening another player's character physically is usually seen as bad form, but at the same time if no other option is available to you, a physically stronger character will have better odds of getting their way, whether that means beating another character up, restraining them, or outright killing them. You just need to establish yourself as a credible threat - even if an orc barbarian fails their intimidation roll, it doesn't mean they won't follow through with their threats later. Heck, in one of our old Exalted game of Princes of the Universe, we had a player character (Killer Queen) that on multiple occasions has threatened the party with a button that would release a demon they used as their personal Evangelion to rampage through our city. Luckily it never came to that, but the PCs did fear what Killer Queen could do to us if we crossed her... It was fun!

Killer Queen, in a nutshell ;)

This puts non-combat characters at a disadvantage. If you are a social character and you can't do "social attacks" on other characters, you can't do much. If you are an intellectual character and you can't devise things to match what other characters are doing (build a player-killer mech, enact a convoluted scheme to get your way, etc.), you can't do much. Combat characters always have the option of using violence.

We had a situation like that happen in our recent Godbound game of Evicting Epistle. One of our PCs, Matiel the Pirate Queen, decided to arm a group of NPCs not aligned with our factions with Godwalker Jaegers. Another PC, Thaa, was very much opposed to that. However, while Thaa had a lot of influence as the Godbound of nature and networks, she was physically the weakest of the party and could not match up to Matiel. Since the game of Godbound has zero rules for "social combat" or any sort of mental influence that is not straight up mind control (which the other PC could shrug off almost effortlessly), there was no way for Thaa to stop Matiel. When the NPCs ended up being antagonistic towards us after getting the Jaegers and causing our game to end, Thaa's player asked our GM to always remind her to play a combat character in games like these, so she'd always be able to get her way. Of course, that was meant jokingly, but it's not untrue...

Unfortunately, there isn't much that can be done about the situation unless the RPGs themselves accommodate non-combat player conflict resolutions and players embrace these outcomes as binding. Exalted did have an interesting mechanic for that in form of Intimacies. Those were things and relationships the characters cared about that could be altered by other characters. While you might not be able to use them to stop someone right there and then, you could make them care about things that were important to you and thus making them align with you in the long run. It would also take the buy-in from other players to play into the Intimacies and not just dismiss them as "my character wouldn't care about that", "don't mind control me" or "whatever, I'll do what I want anyway", etc.

Alternatively, you could introduce a PC v PC conflict resolution engine that's entirely flat - you wouldn't get an advantage on it whether you're strong, smart or charismatic, and it would abstract various ways PCs could sway one another in their respective fields. This would only apply when PCs are in conflict with one another. This would be fair to the players, but perhaps not to the characters.

Conclusions

There will always be conflict between characters at the party, and if one kind of conflict is more useful / stronger / more acceptable, whichever character dominates that field will be able to get away with a lot if left unchecked. It would be nice for systems to have a robust conflict resolution method that could be used by any sort of character in the system without a significant disadvantage...