There's a tricky aspect to damage output that should always be considered, which is the fact that increased damage output does not always result in enemies going down more quickly. Against any given enemy, it will take a number of damage-inflicting actions (which each take a certain amount of time) to reduce the target's Stamina to 0. Even using dead average damage rolls, there will be many cases where increased damage will not result in the enemy being dropped in fewer actions.
E.g. let's say the enemy has 100 Stamina. Each attack you make does 15 Damage on average, and for convenient math let's assume no DT on the enemy. It will take seven attacks to make that enemy go down. But let's say you get a 10% bonus to damage. It will still take seven attacks to make the enemy go down. Or let's say the enemy has 50 Stamina and you do 18 Damage on average. It will take 3 attacks. With a 20% bonus to damage, it will still take 3 attacks. With a 35% bonus, it will still take 3 attacks. Only when you get to about 40%+ does it actually result in fewer actions/less time to drop that target.
Currently, 8 points of Might is worth 16% additional damage. It can certainly make a difference, but it is not an overwhelming advantage and there are a lot of situations where it that margin does not actually make the battle end more quickly. Interrupts do need more work to make their mechanics more transparent and obviously beneficial, but that's just something to consider.
I think part of the problem here is that game design in general has become way to intellectualized. The quote above is from a person who has become completely obsessed with systems and game design efficiency as if efficiency of design were a worthwhile goal in and of itself. It feels like a person who wants everybody to know how smart he is as he over analyzes the entire process and forgets the purpose of games in the first place. He seems more interested in designing an elegant system than providing an interesting and granular world to explore.
The reason looking at games in this manner is not fun is because it makes the player too aware he is playing a game at every moment. He wants to ask at each moment WHAT ARE YOU REALLY DOING!!!???
For instance when you are having a RPG battle. He breaks it down into its little isolated parts and ultimately can only come to the realization that you are just pressing a button and engaging in a time sink. Basically he has analyzed RPG systems to such a degree that he is constantly experiencing an existential crises by being overly aware of each action he is taking when playing any game. Anybody who analyzed games in this manner might come to have this same crises at some point.
As an example of where this type of thinking can lead I think one need not look any further than the hit/miss debate that has come about over the last 10-20 years. People like Josh over think the situation and come to this logical sounding ( but ultimately not very fun) outcome:
'Why do we have misses in RPG's? Since a miss and a hit can be averaged into two lower damage hits or even broken down into damage per second why use the miss mechanic since it only seems to frustrate new players and hurt their feelings'
Averaging everything out creates less differences in each result which promotes blandness, but more than that to over think each mechanical process simply saps the fun out of playing the game in the first place. Josh is experiencing being too involved, knowledgeable and aware of gaming systems and I think in a way he is wondering if playing games is really just a waste of time and ultimately pointless. It feels like perhaps he wants us to become aware of this fact as well? I am not sure, but I think it is possible a 12 year old boy with no PHD in game systems might be able to design something that is ultimately more fun than some of the systems modern balanced obsessed professionals would. I know for myself that D&D is still the most fun system I have played in a RPG to date, but supposedly D&D sucks I hear.
This feels somewhat similar to the clash of design principles that happens in board games between slick, refined and ultimately sort of bland euro game design philosophies and the more detailed, granular and unbalanced systems preferred by many war gamers etc.. I always tend to side with the more complex systems, even if when you break them down they are 'pointless'.
IMO the ultimate game designer would be able to take many very unbalanced and chaotic systems, mechanics, items and powers etc..and then combine them into a world or game that was ultimately challenging and engaging as an entire entity. Each system, class or mechanic need not (and IMO SHOULD not) be balanced between themselves, that is boring. I think maybe they are trying to balance the wrong things?
.
