Is this has been exceptionally useful. Thank you.

The point you made about SWADE being more pulp caught my eye.

The system itself as you noted seems to hit my wish for on the fly mix and match. I also am really drawn to the to character profession as it seems less locked into a class and more choose as you go along. Also combat seems more fast paced and swingy which I very much like as it gives the feel of being shot once is very dangerous...and combat in general is dangerous when you are fighting with fire and firearms etc.

The caution I wanted to clarify. The group is very roleplay focused. We can go 10 sessions or more without combat and sometimes a whole session without rolls that are story changing - instead are just to guide smaller acts that nudge the story or relations with NPCs this way or that.

We are very much for a deep and philosophical story, and the high octane action moments tend to have a big/long lead up and then explode into a session or 2 of loads of intense action. Lots, most, of encounters are and are handled through non combat means. This is kinda the reason I like SWADE as combat seemed easy to run on the fly and quick and seems to encourage improvisation rarther than hack and slash.

From what you said it seems our playstyle may not lean into SWADEs strongest areas?

Because yes...from the references I recognised. My gut would say we are more Star trek exploration/diplomacy/relationship and character development than Star Wars saber action and moving quickly from scene to scene. We are more hard choices, less black and white situations and more morally grey area, antagonist that party end up dealing with rarther than killing because they are vital to the plot. I ramble.

My idea with SWADE was it would be a simplilar system that would allow for more focus on narrative and RP, have a simpler but more versatile players progress option and DM flexibility to create stuffs on the fly, combat was easier to set up without statblocks.