Fuck yeah. The very problem with "non-gamey" systems is that if I want to actually play the game to the best of my ability - use my systemic understanding to make good, strategic decisions in the character system - I'm forced to play fighters with 3 in all mental stats or whatever.
*complains about "non-gamey" systems*
*uses situation where mental stats have no impact whatsoever unless you're a caster as an example of "non-gaminess"*
It's always a choice between LARPing (ie giving the fighter 15 int because that's how I "feel" about my character), or do the munchkin: abort all immersion in the character system to feel that I have made the best possible strategic choices.
At the end of the day, the realist-crowd's arguments are empty, hypothetical and void. The best realistic system in existance - GURPS - is insanely gamist at the same time. All systems are equally structured from the same universal mechanics and all somewhat equally useful to spent points in.
So gamist is now simulationist and anything not hilariously broken is now gamist because :Grunker:.
Why the fuck do I even bother?
Systems are flowing abstractions.
Yes.
Anything that empowers the user to make meaningful choices framed in the fiction is a good thing.
Ummm... Yes?
Arguing for arbitrary, subjective standards of realism is the most basic of internet-grognardism. Something we did when we were 15 and argued how to make one of the most contrived systems ever - AD&D - more "realistic."
Contrived doesn't equal realistic or good. It's usually the sign that fundamental design is fucked up requiring progressively more contrived workarounds to work or make any sense, while it should've been scrapped instead.
It is only logical for strength to let you put more force behind a blow. The amount of force behind for example a sword thrust could be the difference between causing a light wound or driving the sword through the monster's body.
You don't need to be a fucking superman to run someone through with a sword.
If you can do this already, what will extra str do? Will you push crossguard through the guy as well? Whole arm? Dive whole into the fucking wound creating massive tear as wide as your manly shoulders?
Once you have enough STR to use weapon with no penalties, that's it.
That's why you shouldn't have STR based damage bonus, but weapon based penalties for not meeting its stat requirements.
Not only is this logical, but it's the way these stats have worked since the beginning of time.
That's not logical. That's merely traditional and doesn't mean it isn't shit.
I don't think the problem is the damage bonus that comes from intellect (though I'd still prefer "Intellect" to be renamed) it's the fact that strength has nothing to do with damage. It doesn't make sense.
I like your typo.
Anyway, I would object to INT based damage bonus in directly controlled solo RT FPP RPG, because it gives you fine enough control for smart fighting to not be abstractable, but in a game that gives you a bunch of sprirtes or models performing token fighting animations viewed zoomed out from above it's totally OK with me.
You know people, I think you're oversimplifying the INT thing. INT's bonuses are likely to be tied to an abstraction of more fighting techniques learned. Or battlefield manipulation.
Or opponent manipulation.
Intellect is there as an auxiliary in the creation of swashbucklery characters. Those whose greatest strenght in melee is their wit. The issue you're looking for is that there's a dissonance between what you see (characters hitting each other) and the actual narrative behind that. Its not much unlike the idea that you see characters trading blows even if one of them critically missed -- the rules and the roles tell a story independent of the game's visual cues.
Except that here you've got a character that seemingly fights in a straightforward manner but doesn't. He's using his smarts in order to outwit his enemies in a way that isn't really exclusive to him, but is his specialty. What he's doing is misleading the enemies' blows to make them drop their defenses, manipulating the battlefield; assessing the enemies' strenghts and weaknesses and, maybe, he knows where to hit for massive damage a la Zelda. Essentially, this character doesn't, necessarily, have a 'strong punch'. He's not magically stronger because he's smart, though he may also be a strong guy.
To some, sucha visual dissonance is an issue. To me, not particularly, no. As I said, tactical games are rife with them. But it does take some getting used to them.
Thats an archtype dude. A nobel prize in psychology has a better chance of spliting a brick in half with his punch than an orc? what.the.fuck.
Its not visual disonance, assesing the enemy, misleading him, thats combat training, or knowledge, or w/e, there are already perks and shit youll be getting that will prove how good you are at doing that. sheer power behind a fist is in no way related to intelligence.
Attempting to explain it is really... well, dumb. There is no possible explanation as to why bob the scientist can hit a wall harder than jack the boxer because of smarts and purely because of smarts, with no tools.
Guys, did you know that in Wizardry 8 both close combat and ranged combat skills are governed by INT and SEN?
If instead of armor class it was called Defense Value, then no one would say a thing.
No because it would still suffer from the issues highlighted by my monk VS knight example.
No matter how you name it conflating active dodging with passive armor is asking for trouble.