OK, that's a different question to what I thought you were asking:).
I don't have the time to list examples now, but stay tuned. I'll offer several examples as soon as possible, which might be this evening;).
And it wasn't that evening, but there were reasons for being late.
Heh, ok guess I wasn't clear. I know there's many reasons you could do such a thing, I listed a bunch myself.
I was looking more towards specifics as to why you want to do that for game X and specify the value of X.
Something like..."I really like the way 2d20 handles combat with different values like Reach and Guard while still being really fast, I just want to remove the less associated Momentum generation and spending and get rid of player Doom buys"...is system specific, interesting and addressing a particular issue.
A general approach that basically is just "Ignore the crap that doesn't bother other people, only you" is far less interesting or useful, not to mention obvious, and starts to sound exactly like a retread of the "there is no difference" argument.
So if you have both types of people in a game, which game. What's the sticking point and how did you fix it other than "ignore the crap that bothers only you".
OK, let's see how I've dealt with this in the past.
First of all, my approach would differ depending on group. Some groups don't read the rules and if I explain them in associated/IC terms, they will think of them in those terms.
So the question becomes whether I can do that...
That's what I did with Sorcerer, BTW:D.
Second, we must specify that there are no players in my current group that prefer OOC mechanics. Some don't pay attention, some prefer IC mechanics only, nobody actively wants OOC. If I had such players, I'd probably have to split the group, or browbeat/blackmail them into playing what the rest of us wanted:p.
Or, you know, find other players, but who does that;)?
Third, I have the impression that some systems are meant to be of double-use, even if they're explained in purely IC or purely OOC terms. I suspect that this is the creators of the system bowing to what they think (rightly or wrongly) to be in vogue with the customers.
Call it a gut feeling, based on the fact that I've seen more than one supposedly narrative combat or social system that maps to my understanding of the dynamics of combat or persuasion better than a few supposedly simulationist systems.
Examples: Legends of the Wulin, Exalted 3, Sorcerer, Tianxia, Jadepunk, among others.
And that is also why I wanted to change them, of course. They are simulating something that I felt was overlooked in standard simulationist RPGs.
A Dirty World, for example, simulates how the attitude of a person changes him or her, much like Pendragon passions. Both are based on the fact that ''excellency is a matter of habit". So are cruelty, valour, benevolence, lust, chastity, lying, being persuasive when telling the truth, and so on.
Exalted is among the games that do "simulating the set-ups before you can pierce someone's defence with a really damaging technique" better than most games. GURPS Technical Grappling and ORC-Classic (FWTD) are close to it, too, but actually do it with more rules.
Legend of the Wulin is actually a very good simulation of martial arts combat, including looking for opportunities and adapting depending on the enemy's approach. (Tianxia and Jadepunk do pretty much the same, but not so obviously and with less rules).
Need other examples?