GURPS would fall in your description
The problem I see with Gurps is that it is bogged down with "isms" for the general public and when it comes to the established gamers, the source -read: the specialized D&Dlike game for their preferred genre and style- remains a better fit. The stats and the system Gurps uses are a modified version of what was developed for more abstract wargames -which may be a reasonably good enough fit for rpgs of the superfantasy genre- but it still fails to optimally connect to the generic casual public.
So for me, we are still not there yet.

Interestingly, you said you think that WotC should do the opposite of Paizo. But now you are advocating players look to themselves for "building of worlds" and "custom modding". If that is the opposite of anyone it is the opposite of WotC and their current "points of light" and absolute minimal prep time design philosophy for 4E.
I think it is a matter of comprehension and connection to the game system or toolset for the tabletop adventuring. Helping preparation time in terms of adventure design for gameplay is mostly welcome. 4e as a system is mostly focused on minis combat and I am not favorable of this. PoL seems to be a world style description to excuse the lifestyle of 4e PCs. Yeah, I do not think that Wotc should be trying to pass to the more open market something that focused for what tabletop rpgs are about.
Last edited: