While it has been mentioned that the game and/or DMs sometimes fail to reward non-combat solutions I think this kinda sidesteps the main issue: that for many characters the main form of advancement is getting better killing things and that for all characters advancement means de facto getting better at killing things. And in D&D and Pathfinder at least any class that lacks plentiful skills or magic is going to be extremely sub-optimal in a game with minimal violence. Violence is baked into these systems from top to bottom; they are designed for it.
If by "these systems" you mean D&D and Pathfinder, then mostly yes. Though at various points in the last four decades, some people have worked, within those systems, in other directions. Scholar or diplomat as a playable class, for example.
5E D&D recognizes combat as one of three pillars. Combat is the pillar with the most, and most detailed, mechanical support. In 5E, a character who gains levels necessarily gains HP, which are strongly relevant in combat, and (almost?) exclusively in combat. (I cannot think off-hand of non-combat situations in which a character with 12 HP does better than a character with 11 HP; but for all I know, such cases may exist.) When I look at the charts in the Player's Handbook, summarizing what features each class gains at each level, they're mostly combat-oriented abilities.
That said, there are spells and magic items which have little or no combat utility. Rogues and lore bards get Expertise. I've seen players apply Expertise to Stealth and/or Athletics, and use that in combat frequently; I've seen players apply Expertise to Persuasion, and use it only out of combat. There's a range, of how players act within the system. Some players go along with the built-in bias towards "My character's main abilities are their combat abilities", and some players swim upstream.
In my experience of Call of Cthulhu, it doesn't take much reductionism to sort PCs into "investigation and lore" characters, who locate the monsters, and "shotguns and dynamite" characters, who then slay the monsters. One can write an "investigation and lore" PC which also has interesting, useful things to do during a fight scene; and one can write a "shotguns and dynamite" character who also has things to say, questions to raise, during the lead-in towards the fight scene; a party benefits from a mix of both. That said, most Call of Cthulhu scenarios are written to end in violence. If the guy with shotguns and dynamite never fires the shotgun, and uses the dynamite to collapse the old abandoned mine, leaving the subterranean reptoids to live out their lives but blocked from interaction with humanity, that's interesting because it's *not* the usual ending.
In Hero System, a player has options along a sliding scale, when allocating character build points. A player, when writing a PC, can spend ALL the build points on abilities usable only in combat (eg Combat Skill Levels); a player can allocate some points towards abilities which have significant utility both in and out of combat (most of the primary stats, Overall Skill Levels, and so forth); a player can allocate points towards abilities usable mainly outside combat (I can't think of an ability which has *no* possible use in combat). One of my favorite Fantasy Hero characters, played in a four-month weekly campaign, was built on 150 points, with maybe 50 points invested in non-combat skills. She was a traveling merchant with enough combat prowess to handle poorly-armed bandits, and a LOT of expertise on dealing with people all along multiple trade routes. This expertise was useful to the party, in its main quest, because the GM had planned a story involving a long overland journey passing through multiple nations. The GM took the story deeper - that is, zoomed in - on aspects of the story which engaged PC expertise, so my choice to play a character who spoke multiple languages, probably motivated the GM to write scenes in which linguistic ability became useful. Another player built her PC almost entirely for combat. We each had fun, playing to our various interests. In combat scenes, we both had things to do, my character mostly using hit-and-run, her character more often choosing frontal assault; in non-combat scenes, she could talk in character just as much as I could, but she didn't have a lot of options along the lines of "I apply a skill, does that help?" or "what does my PC know about this, beyond what I as a player already see?".
Other games with build points, rather than levels, have similar flexibility, to invest a higher or lower percentage of build points into combat readiness. This includes Shadowrun; also White Wolf's Orpheus, and to some extent Mage. Are there level-driven systems with anywhere near that degree of player choice, in how much PC creation tilts the game towards which pillar?