Looking for a new system

Looking for a new system.

We have a party very fond of fantasy and D20 like systems but we have a massive variety of types. Some want to break open the system until it cries, some want to just have a super simp!e system that favours the story over the rules.

We have tried Fudge and that seemed only good for one shots, savage worlds feels a little too wiff ping in its combat and people die a little inside when I suggest GURPS.

So, we need a system that's crunchy enough for the rules lawyers but simple enough for the thespians. Am I searching in vain for a holy grail or can Veeky Forums help?

Failing that, D12 appreciation thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

virtualoptim.tumblr.com/post/148356264605/osr-a-shit-just-kidding-also-want-to-make-it
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

You might try DCC, it has weird crunch and lots of tables to roll on but still familiar to the d&d player. It's my favorite system right now. Also, leave GURPS aloneĀ”

Give Barbarians of Lemuria a read.

I think you might be focusing too much on system.

It's a bit of a myth that you can just keep going from system to system until you find something that suits everyone, or that the system really matters that much at all.

You're better off actually solving the issues your group has, instead of just hoping and praying that a new system will magically wash away those issues, rather than just masking them and giving them new names.

>and people die a little inside when I suggest GURPS

Every time.

People are scared of GURPS without having ever played it. It's as crunchy as you want it to be, you should give it a chance OP.

RuneQuest is also a valid option. It's more on the crunchy side, but once it clicks it flows very well.

If you want to remain d20, then Fantasy Craft is the best at it.

If all else fails, try giving FATE a try.

We have tried GURPS, I think the issue was that the players hated character creation. Maybe pregend would be better. FATE and Fantasy Craft, thanks.
Thanks, will check these out.
I think its more realistic to try and find a system that accommodates as many of the tastes as possible. I'm not about to say the minmaxer is an issue, nor the thespian or even the casual and the hardcore, it's just a matter of taste. I'm just looking for a decent compromise that fits the group I have, rather than try an uphill battle to force people to change their lifelong habits.

>system doesn't matter, only the people at the table

That's right folks, play FATAL. If you don't enjoy the experience, it's your fault, not the system's. Fix your group and then even a tedious pile of broken horseshit will be a great reason to meet up every week!

If we're talking any of the major games, we're well past the point of systems being worth complaining about. Dragging up FATAL is hardly appropriate.

Though, yes, it is true that with a good group, even FATAL can be a great game.

Do a Mutants and masterminds supervillains game. Encourage the PCs to make the most broken characters possible, then you make the most broken characters possible to oppose them and tell them to take over the world. Make sure you abuse things like devices which can create devices, telekinetics who can target any area they can sense but can't move a muscle and are kept in a bacta tank on the moon, copying powers at a touch, the ability to grant the ability to grant touch ranged power copying to allies, copying those powers to regain the power copying ability and have infinite capabilities to absorb powers permanently, as well as grant them to all their allies. Walking bomb who has cyclops force beams emanating from his body at all times while instantly regenerating all the damage.

Going mad with power is part of the fun.

If you want a holy grail, have you tried GURPS?

That actually sounds awesome.
I'm sorry, but no. Stop with this silky bait. FATAL is a warcrime.

The point is that a system colors the gameplay experience. Every rule that you use alters what you get out of it. If the system is not suited to what you want to play, you have to fight it and/or houserule it.
E.G. if you want to play a gritty game of fantasy dirtfarmers who struggle and die, 5e D&D is a terrible choice because players quickly become so powerful that it's very hard to kill them.
Picking the right system for what you intend to play is important.

>we need a system that's crunchy enough for the rules lawyers but simple enough for the thespians
Try D&D 5e.

Is it really that good?
We've not really gone back to D&D after being lukewarm on 4th ed.

Barbarians of Lemuria is great, but he said "crunchy enough for rules lawyers", which it ain't.

Eh, the common saying is that it's everybody's second favorite D&D. It manages to remind everyone of their favorite and attain a nice middle ground between all the other editions.

FATAL isn't a system, because following some of the rules means that you can't follow some of the other rules.

Maybe something in the RuneQuest / Basic Role-Playing family. RQ is on the complicated end, with BRP or something like OpenQuest being more streamlined. (Call of Cthulhu and Stormbringer are also in the same line, fyi.) They're all d% skill-based systems.

I may have to give it a look then... How does it handle the linear fighter quadratic wizard quandry?
You aren't about to tell me its balanced are you?

I don't think you've ever played 5e. Or any tabletop game ever.

If you want to make the PCs die easier, send stronger challenges at them. It's all relative, after all.

Are you just a troll, or genuinely stupid?
I think the former, but hope the latter.

It's a system, just an objectively broken one. I used it as an example because if the game you're playing REALLY doesn't matter, then FATAL should be just as grand a time as a good system. But it's not, because the game you're playing does matter.

Nah, it's better about balance than 3e, but not as good as 4e. It kind of takes the TSR view that balance is not very important

In 5e, a "deadly" challenge means that one PC might die. You have to really work to make a TPK possible. It's just not that lethal.

The fact you can hurl a tarrasque at a party at any level doesnt alter the fact that, for example, even the hardiest fighter in a GURPS fantasy setting can be felled by a peasent, a knife and a really lucky roll. D&D Can't do that. Beyond a certain point, you are literally untouchable to a commoner.

Genuinely not up to date with D&D. Our group is a bit hidebound.
Thank you.

FUCK YOUR D20

3D6 RULES!

I prefer the way 3D6 results work myself, but as a DM I have to consider what my group wants first and foremost. A lot of them like the wildly variable results.

>D&D can't

But it does. There's a 3rd edition variant called e6 that caps most of what makes a person unkillable, and you advance in different ways. Amidst other options, like 5e (That keeps low level monsters more relevant), as well as simply having your campaign geared in the lower levels of any edition.

Basically, if you ever hear yourself trying to argue a roleplaying system can't do something, you might want to stop yourself before you inevitably say something wrong.

>3rd edition variant

This is 5e we're talking about.

And yeah, you can houserule it, but the more and deeper your houserules get, the more likely it is you'd be better off using a different system.

OK then, D&D doesn't by default without needing mitigating circumstances and obscure older rules.

Look, I get you have a hard on for D&D, but if I wanted to run a Jackie Chan film as a tabletop game, I'd use Feng Shui.

I could mangle D&D until it KINDA works for the purpose, or just use a system that works for it totally.

I immediately followed by saying how it works in 5e, or how to do it in any edition, without any need for houserules.

It seems I don't know how to explain this to you in a way where your mental defenses won't initiate, and either ignore or distort what is being said to you.

It's like you don't understand the basics of roleplaying systems, or you don't extend the same concepts that apply from one to the next, completely at the behest of some bizarre underlying, insidious motives.

But, I'll try. I'll pretend you're here for earnest discussion, and I'll explain that the various D&D systems are quite large, with a wealth of material for any tier or style of play, even without having to tap into the bottomless well of homebrew. Even a group of four PC commoners that never level up have plenty to work with, enough to last multiple campaigns.

It's not that D&D can "kinda" work for a purpose, but it can easily mold to just about any shape you try to put it into, not unlike other large systems. If what you want is a system tailored made for an idea, you really don't have to look very far, because almost all of the major systems that people play are so readily adaptable that it hardly takes any special effort to tailor them to your specific needs.

That's kind of what tailoring is all about. Go to a good tailor, have him make clothes that fit you perfectly, rather than always shopping around at random outlets and hoping for a lucky fit.

You know what? I give up.

Yeah, we get it, if you smash a square peg hard enough it will go through the round hole.

But why not just use the round peg?

We're not saying we are against tailoring or house rules, but sometimes its far easier to get a system that does what you want off the bat rather than mangle one until it sort of fits.

I don't really think that's unreasonable a stance to take nor does it make us mentally deficient. Honestly aid argue trying to make D&D fit the themes of anything from a high lethality spy game to a literal omnipotent god sim is silly.

Yes, you COULD do it, no doubt. Much like you could hammer a nail in with a screwdriver. But the hammer is right there, so why not use it?

>a literal omnipotent god sim
Didn't 3e come out 15 years ago?

Kek, but no, I meant more along the lines of something you'd do with minds eye theatre, where you play a literal all powerful pantheon who make the rules, they don't just break them open using charop forums.

There's a difference between having your shirt refitted for you, and having the tailor try to turn your shirt into pants.

>But why not just use the round peg?

Because the pegs are not rigid. They might as well be made of mattress foam. The square peg fits easily in the round hole, and in the square hole, as well as the triangular hole. That seems to be lost on you, or, it seems to be an idea you're particularly evading.

>but sometimes its far easier to get a system that does what you want off the bat rather than mangle one until it sort of fits.

And, more often than not, it's not all that difficult to use a system to match your vision without "mangling," or even going beyond its intended functions.

Hell, you're arguing about the D&D systems, with none having a strictly defined setting or style of play (as is the case of most systems near their size), and were expressly designed to allow people to mold and adapt them to fit a wide variety of playstyles and themes. This is true with even the earliest editions of the game, with Gygax running an enormous politically-themed epic fantasy that often switched between high level wizards and warriors defending the world while their far lower level servants and friends performed tasks more suitable for their abilities, with their deaths being frequent and their struggles much more human.

>I don't really think that's unreasonable a stance to take nor does it make us mentally deficient.
What's unreasonable is your insistence that there's somethings a system can't do, when it can easily do them. Some of the above arguments are like attempting to say that GURPS can't handle Asparagus, when it has an entire splatbook dedicated to it.

If I doubted you were retarded before, the fact you think GURPS Asparagus is a real book confirms it.

This guy had the right idea.

If you honestly don't understand the argument being made, you have my pity.

I'm glad you're just a troll, but it saddens me that you don't even have a sense of humor.

This guy gets it.

Thanks, man. Now you've got me wanting shirt-pants.

Throwing the legions of hell at a level 1 party doesn't change the fact that after a certain threshold, even the legions of hell become a minor inconvenience once you've reached a certain level.

That's the point, the average PC, even the wizard, will have so much HP after a certain point in the game that even a knife to the jugular won't do anything more than annoy them.

D&D is not a very deadly game, unless the DM throws OHKO traps and nigh invulnerable baddies like an off color version of "tomb of horrors," or something.

Wow, I'm surprised you're still on here after you got BTFO'd in this thread I guess retardation never knows when to quit.

It handles it a lot better than in 3.X but not nearly as well as it was handled in 4e.

>if you don't like houseruled d&d for every game, you're a troll
>this is what d&dfags actually believe

>I guess retardation never knows when to quit.

Virtualoptim still posts here, so yeah. Don't believe me, check out his blog

He's arguing against that, dude.

Link?

>he's arguing against that

learn to read nigga

>even the legions of hell become a minor inconvenience once you've reached a certain level.

You might be hypothetically right, but that "certain level" would be around 60. Perhaps 80.
Actually, even a hypothetical 80th level character, which would essentially be a god, would still find plenty of challenges in Hell, since not only do evil deities reside there, but cosmic entities stronger than gods. Strength is always relative, and regardless of how strong you become, there will always be something that can kill you in as little as a single attack, or even no attack at all.

More importantly, if you don't want to play past a certain level, you don't need to play past a certain level. There's variant ways of dealing with experience, and most campaigns don't actually go beyond 4-5 levels anyway.

If you like wizards being killed with a knife to the jugular by an unskilled peasant, you have that option.

>D&D is not a very deadly game

If you don't want it to be, no. But, if you want it to be, it can be quite deadly. Tomb of Horrors is a classic example, but it hardly need be that extreme. Even just a few monsters that hit hard are enough to make a battle turn deadly, and there's no shortage of those.

virtualoptim.tumblr.com/post/148356264605/osr-a-shit-just-kidding-also-want-to-make-it

So he is. I don't know who's trolling anymore.

You're really turning up the troll a little. It's kind of sad.

I'm actually ashamed that you think that you want people to treat you seriously anymore, when you just do nothing but repeat the same old oft-refuted lines over and over again.

Jesus H Christ Dude.

I want you to consider something.

You are claiming that there is one and only one person who dislikes D&D and wants to use a different system.

Think about that absurdity.

No, I'm saying you are a troll, who repeats ideas that were refuted ages ago.

What's absurd is you think that people haven't played the game you think you know so much about, and that you can just casually tell people they can't do what people have been doing for decades.

So, you are either a troll or an idiot.
Likely both.

And that's why I'm done talking with you. When you troll this much, it's clear that you're just stuck in a loop, and that it's pointless to even reply to you anymore.

This. Just don't go GURPS deep and the party will love it too.

>you
>repeat
>you
>you
>stuck in a loop
>you
Read this very carefully, you likely autistic man child.

There is more than one person on this site who disagrees with you.

Have you literally only ever played D&D?
You can't seriously tell me its best suited to every game type.

>If you like wizards being killed with a knife to the jugular by an unskilled peasant, you have that option.

An ordinary peasant will only be able to kill a wizard with a knife if the wizard is at level 1 and has shit CON.

Keep in mind, this is against a wizard, the weakest member of the party in terms of health, against any martial character with even average AC, that peasant is just never going to hit or never going to kill before the martial gets their attack roll and instantly gibs the fuck outta them.

>If you don't want it to be, no. But, if you want it to be, it can be quite deadly.

In general, D&D hasn't been deadly since 2e.

If you're a character with a d8 HD, invest in a 14 CON, and wear light armor, you're still more than capable of surviving most blows that would fell the average peasant just because of the way that HP and shit works.

Like I said, unless you throw OHKO traps at people, or just throw so many hard hitting enemies that it becomes a game of attrition, you will never kill a PC ever.

And even if you do, you only did so because you stacked the deck so hard against them that their death was practically a foregone conclusion.

*clap* *clap* *clap* congratulations, you won D&D. I hope you're happy because your friends sure aren't.

This dude doesn't even play D&D.

> some people die a little bit inside when I suggest GURPS
Step 1: Get a better group.
Step 2: Play Legend of the Five Rings

Step Q: Seriously, who actually things GURPS is complcated? It's 3d6, roll-under. The end. That's like 90% of the gameplay right there. Other games have extensive lists of perks and spells, other games have in-depth secondary stat calculations, so why is it that GURPS gets the shit-end of the meme stick on being "complicated" and a "master of none" game?

Because it was always compared to D&D and 3aboos hate being compared to other games.

Hush little autist don't say a word.

>It's 3d6, roll-under. The end. That's like 90% of the gameplay right there.

You could say basically the same thing for D&D 3e or Shadowrun. Pointing at the core resolution mechanic and going "lol you just roll some dice and read the numbers" is a non-starter.

You can play one of the many variants, including the ones that cap HP. I'm certain this was explained earlier. Also, you seem to be talking about 3rd edition specifically, which isn't every D&D, and more importantly even 3rd edition still has a variety of ways for you to get your weird "I want my PCs to be killed by a random peasant" fixation satisfied.

>Like I said, unless you throw OHKO traps at people, or just throw so many hard hitting enemies that it becomes a game of attrition, you will never kill a PC ever.

It's almost like you've got a rulebook in front of you, but you've never actually played the game.
I think I'm done arguing with you, because If you want to tell me that killing PCs is ever a challenge, I don't even know what kind of games you've played.

>*clap* *clap* *clap* congratulations, you won D&D. I hope you're happy because your friends sure aren't.

Oh, I get it. You're that kind of person. Glad I stopped taking you seriously, because you think you know how all other people play and what their preferences are, even if your hypothetical is needlessly absurd.

It was my own mistake, I started them off with an infitie worlds you can do or be anything campaign. The transition from "pick a feat" to "choose everything" was too much at once. This was admittedly several years ago, so perhaps we can do better with pre written characters.

You already said like seven though.

Drink Bleach you fuckwit or stay out of threads that trigger you.

I mistook you for the other guy. Stop talking to him, he is retarded.

But you're just a troll. Why should anyone ever take you seriously, when all you can do is act like a child who's been spanked too hard too many times?

> being this obtuse
GURPS has no additional mechanics though. It's 100% your skills list, as modified by your advantages/disadvantages. There's no mandatory side-systems or additional mechanics. That is THE mechanic in GURPS. You track your stats and you roll-under with 3d6 and that is the whole fucking game.

>Also, you seem to be talking about 3rd edition specifically, which isn't every D&D,

HP bloat has always been an issue since 3.X though.

It's because you get so much more HP from having a decent CON than you did in OD&D.

>It's almost like you've got a rulebook in front of you, but you've never actually played the game.
>Glad I stopped taking you seriously, because you think you know how all other people play and what their preferences are, even if your hypothetical is needlessly absurd.

>He's dissing my favorite system, it must be because he's misinformed. Whew, at one point I thought I would have to acknowledge the system's faults or something.

People like you are why fans of D&D get a bad rep among the tabletop community.

Not op or anyone else the thread yet, but it is character creation. It's intimidating, especially when the gm does not cut anything down to fit the game. I don't even know what that really means since I have made 3 gurps characters but never with anyone restricting what I can do.

I don't know. I mean I know that the games I played were with inexperienced GM's and I never got a fair shake with the system. Maybe I don't have the proper perspective to comment.

Yes user, D&D is always perfect for every game, every genre and every group, never let yourself be told otherwise.

Its not as though other systems don't have different dice mechanics to simulate different themes, nah, D&D is always best for every theme too.

"Troll" is not some magic word that allows you to escape criticism being lobbied against you.

At some point, you're going to have to acknowledge that other people's opinions matter just as much as yours.

Legend of the 5 Rings.

Shadowrun

Maybe Dark Heresy/Only War/Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e.

If your players are too impatient to make a simple character sheet, then just have them describe to you what kind of a character they want, then you translate it into a character sheet. Then you explain what you did and how it works to them once you show them their sheets. Easy. Just don't make it a habit.

It wasn't impatience, it was more like an overload of choices compared to pick class and a few feats.

>HP bloat

Man, get over it. You don't understand what HP is, so you have no right to complain about it.

Hell, all of your complaints are literally just you not understanding a system. It's not even my favorite set of systems, but I've at least bothered to read the rulebooks and play a few games before deciding something as ludicrous as the idea that heroic heroes not dying to peasants was a problem rather than a feature.

Hell, there's variant rules with wound systems in every D&D up to 3rd edition, if HP really is just beyond your scope of understanding.

And, the topic isn't what flaws may or may not be in a game, or whether or not they are features. It's whether you can adjust a system to suit your needs, and that doesn't even need to be argued, since it is proven every single day by thousands of groups all playing wildly different games by modifying systems to suit themselves, all to great effect and to great satisfaction. It's not something you can really argue against without relying on needlessly limiting a system in a way that it's not really limited to, or arguing that there's only one way to use a system followed by some bizarre hyperbole.

Man, look at those goalposts hustle!

>There's no mandatory side-systems or additional mechanics
>no mandatory
>mandatory

Of course, because as GURPS fags love to point out, everything is optional. That doesn't mean you get to pretend all that shit doesn't exist and there's nothing to GURPS but a dice mechanic whenever someone says GURPS is complicated.

No one said it was a problem you autistic fuckwit, we are saying that some systems work better for a given type of game than others.

And no one has ever said a system can't be adjusted to suit your needs.

But you seem to be in denial that some systems don't NEED tweaking to be perfect for what you want to run.

True, but he's a troll. There's not no point in arguing with or even addressing him, or validating the idea that his opinions matter. His criticisms are weak, his argument flaccid, and his goals are transparent, pathetic, and frankly idiotic.

He's only here to act like a child, so let him be treated like one.

If they were patient they would be able to learn. If you were smart you would have guided them through it, one on one.

I want to have a different success and failure mechanic that doesn't have a one in twenty super success or super fail.
I want classless, points based and skill driven with no levels.
Can D&D do that easily?
No.
But GURPS can by default.

Forgive me sensei, I will do better at my play pretend game in future... Fucking hell, anything to feel superior...

>If you don't like GURPS it's a personal failing

Again with this fantasy that there is only one person or a small conspiracy making these threads.

Character creation is not that arduous. Don't get nasty just because I suggest that they were turned off because maybe you didn't handle it very well.

I'm just trying to be helpful. People are all too quick to dismiss the system for bogus reasons.

>I've at least bothered to read the rulebooks and play a few games before deciding something as ludicrous as the idea that heroic heroes not dying to peasants was a problem rather than a feature.

Nobody said that that it was a problem, just that it's not something that's suited for a game where the PCs are expected to be less tanky.

In a high fantasy setting where the PCs are heroes who can go toes to toe with demons and horrors, it's fine for what it is.

For a game where PC's are dirt farmers who are expected to somehow survive against these same monsters, it's something that's best left to games where either wounds are more serious, harder to get rid of, in less supply, or a combination thereof.

>It's whether you can adjust a system to suit your needs, and that doesn't even need to be argued, since it is proven every single day by thousands of groups all playing wildly different games by modifying systems to suit themselves, all to great effect and to great satisfaction.

There are also people who have the creativity to convert a pair of denim jeans into a denim vest and a pair of underwear into a lanyard, it doesn't mean that people should be expected to go through the trouble when there are already plenty of places that sell vests and lanyards at affordable prices.

In an age where there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of systems that vary in tone, setting, and mechanics, it's a bit silly to expect one system to perform everything when it was never designed to handle that much of a load.

For a group whose second system ever was GURPS after nothing but D20 you can't see how it would be daunting...?
OK, if you say so.

Try 5e, OP. Just try it; you don't have to keep using it if you don't want to. Even if you don't think it's a keeper, you'll probably find something somewhere that you think is really nice. Its design can be summed up as "A little something for everyone." You have my 99% guarantee that everyone in your group will have something they like about the system, unless somebody in your group just hates all D&D including old editions.

>But you seem to be in denial that some systems don't NEED tweaking to be perfect for what you want to run.

I think I can argue that any system can be tweaked and improved, and that's not something that people should be afraid of. Ultimately, there is no "perfect" system, and that if you want to argue that there is a system out there that is absolutely "perfect" for a game you plan on running, then I can call you out on a technicality. But, in the interest of appearing earnest, I won't fault your language.

It all sounds like you largely agree with me. Some systems work better out of the box, but there's also no reason a system can't be adjusted to suit your needs. The latter part is important.

I think the argument lies partially in that you're exaggerating how difficult it is to work with a system. Adjusting a system, any system, is often just as simple as selecting parts from a list.

Don't like HP bloat? That was a big concern with 4e, which is why you can select the "Easy HP patch", which applies reduced HP and increased damage for early monsters.
Or, if you don't like it in 2e, then you can choose the "Wounds System" that applies a less abstract system.

It's really quite easy, and really don't even require formal rules if the GM doesn't particularly like them.

I don't want to sound like I'm saying to use some D&D for every kind of game if that's not your style, but what I am saying is that it's really not all that hard to do so if that happens to be your fancy. Hell, for every single obstacle you can come up with, I'm certain that you can far more easily come up with a simple solution or alternate rule, even without looking to see if there is an official variant. And, not just for D&D.

Of course, this might just me not recognizing that some people have difficulties working with systems quite so easily, but if you are here willing to argue about the merits of a system, surely you have enough ability to retool one without much difficulty, right?

Too autistic, didn't read.

You seem to be under the impression that only one person, in all of Veeky Forums, could ever possibly hate D&D.

Even in /pfg/, you would be hard pressed to find anyone there who would actually call PF (or 3.X as a whole) good systems. They'll always say something to the effect of "yeah it's shit, but we still like it" and leave it at that.

Actually, yes.
The super success or super fail rules are not official rules, for one thing.

And, aside from their being classless variants of various editions of D&D, you do need to explain what kind of game you're trying to run, and why you think it's so vital for it to be points based. Largely, points and levels are just alternate forms of restriction, not expression.

>Some systems work better out of the box
Is literally all anyone has ever said.
Now shut the fuck up.

D&D is shit and I prefer GURPS.
Can D&D be GURPS?

>93 replies
>20 posters
Shit thread

Different user here.

If they can handle 3.X's bullshit and juggle the dozen of so supplements made for it to boot, they can handle fucking GURPS.

Even if they can't, there's always GURPS lite.

Triggered retard pls go.

>For a game where PC's are dirt farmers who are expected to somehow survive against these same monsters, it's something that's best left to games where either wounds are more serious, harder to get rid of, in less supply, or a combination thereof.


Like... low level D&D?

>There are also people who have the creativity to convert a pair of denim jeans into a denim vest and a pair of underwear into a lanyard, it doesn't mean that people should be expected to go through the trouble when there are already plenty of places that sell vests and lanyards at affordable prices.

Adjusting a system is less like making underwear or a lanyard and more like sneezing. It's such a natural process, that we all do it, even unwittingly or accidentally. Even something like not using a particular option is technically adjusting the system to suit your game, and for any game longer than ten pages that is an inevitability.

Upon learning any single major system, a person with half a mind can retool the underlying mechanic to suit just about any game. That's even the philosophy behind certain games, including GURPS and D&D, and ultimately is a trend that exists in all of them to some degree.

It's kind of why AD&D saw D&D being used for science-fiction and horror (including cosmic horror), and no one thought this was a crime against humanity.

While there are games that are designed for a specific tone or have supporting mechanics, that's no need to act like it's not often many times easier to just adjust a system you like. If 3d6 suits you better than d%, do what you need to do. While it's not a bad idea to look into some small-time Sailor Moon game written by some randoms when you're planning on running a Sailor Moon campaign, it's also no great crime to stick to the system you like and work from there.

To each their own.

The idea is that statement refers to when both are evaluated "out of the box", not that the adjusted system is inferior to the unadjusted designed system.

A system tailored for a group trumps all, regardless of the starting point. And, for some groups, that means a starting point that doesn't initially match the tone of the game.

There might be a group out there that prefers using the StoryTelling system for running a Call of Cthulu game, rather than using the BRP CoC game. For them, they might just prefer the nine attributes over BRP's seven, and that's perfectly fine.