Mirima Tyalie core system

[bladamson]

If you can't copyright a mechanic and you aren't patenting your invention why do you need a license?  (Especially given your views on intellectual property laws.)

To make it clear that someone can also take the text and do what they like with it, not just the mechanic.

[bladamson]

Unlike Mike, I'll be brutal.

Excellent. :)

What does your game do that a dozen other games designed along precisely the exact same lines don't? ie: Why are you proud of having reinvented the wheel?

Well, I suppose _any_ rpg is at some level a reinvention of the wheel.  And the concept behind the mechanic isn't something new.  I suppose the biggest things are the implementation of skill advancement through use and having armor coverage and damage integrated in such a way that they act mostly transparently.

I take it there are other mechanics which have done this?  Pointers please.  I've not seen them and would very much like to.

Why do you claim that character creation is driven by player vision of their character, when it is clearly NOT driven by such, but by either a point-buy system meant to inspire the mythical beast called "game balance" or random rolls of the dice?

Well, as you can see the range of possible attributes is very limited, that is, a normal person will only have attributes of 4, 5, or 6.  The mechanic is built in such a way that _skills_ are what define the character.  Sure, the actual value of the attribute may be somewhat important at a skill level of 1 or 2, but once above that, it makes little difference what the attribute is, so long as it's not on one of the extreme ends.

This reflects the fact that, even if someone has an IQ of 180, they are not in any way shape or form going to be able to passably program a computer if they've never done it before.

And the concept section is meant to make the player think about what skills the character should have.

It seems like many are suggesting that the "concept" section be heavily linked to the rest of the character creation process?  How might one go about doing this?

How does your system avoid the regular pitfalls of skill-based games and encourage the creation of realistic characters with coherent skill-sets rather than characters created with min-max effects in mind.
Or does it not attempt to encourage/discourage such at all? Does that bother you?

In my opinion, in any system the GM should have final call on if a character is sutable or not.  If a player designs a character with an unrealistic set of skills, the GM should ask for an explanation of "why".  If it's not answered sutably, disallow the character.  If the player _does_ answer it sutably, then sure, allow it.  There will always be something the player hasn't  munchkinized that can be used to knock the character down to size.

That sort of systematic abuse of a game by munchkins should be swiftly and harshly dealt with by any GM, no matter what system.

On the flip side, the GM should also work with the players during character creation, offering suggestions on how their characters might be better fit into his world.

Perhaps suggestions to that effect in the text?  Or have I missed the issue you are trying to put forth above?

Why do you claim the "XP paradigm" has been abandoned when it also has clearly not been, simply renamed to "AP" which continues to drive the exact same carrot-and-stick point-buy/min-max character building methodology utilized by D&D and does not contribute to "good role-playing" or "characterization" but instead focuses mechanical character improvement as central?

This is a good point.  I feel more and more like those nasty AP should be removed entirely.  But some other method of rewarding a player for role-playing well ought to be put in.  I'm open to any suggestions.

Why do you oppose and contrast "complex and detailed combat" with "simple storytelling"?

Well, I prefer my combats to be fairly detailed.  My SO-sometimes-GM prefers her combats to be more abstract, more like a dramatic encounter if you will.  We tried to allow the rules to scale to both.

I can't help but feel that the purpose of that question went over my head.  If so, please yell at me. :)

What is the actual use of section 1.1.1? I can completely skip this part of character creation and it has no actual effect on the end product -- note that arguments about "your character won't be realistic/have plot hooks" are not the point. Think long and hard on this: there are no mechanical rewards or reasons for a player to even bother with section 1.1.1 -- "Concept" can be ditched completely without changing game play one iota, making it fluffy, useless, wasted text.

I'm of the opinion that a player with a better developed character will be more rewarded in the playing of their character than one who has a not so well developed character.

My intent is that the GM work the character's concepts into his game such that the characters have an actual stake in the outcome of the events they engage in, rather than just being bystanders as they might be if their concept is not well developed.  The player with a well developed character will therefore feel a greater sense of accomplishment when overcoming an obstacle or obtaining a goal that relates to his character.

Think of it as "oh boy, we finally found that abandoned lab" in contrast with "Finally, we have located my poor murdered father's old labratory.  Now we can ensure that his work is not forgotten and his murderers pay for their crimes."

So no mechanical reward no, but rewards nonetheless.

The game reads like D&D-cum-Harn. Why would I play this specific game over Harn? Or the other dozen games that handle things exactly the way this game does?

Please point me to these games.

I'll be less of a bastard in my next post, I promise! Please try not to be defensive about the above questions and implied judgements, my honest point is to get you thinking about your design. If you like your design and you are proud of it, that's cool, but it may not be doing what you think it is doing.

Hah.  Go ahead and be a bastard.  I'm rather dense and might miss the point otherwise.  I appreciate the input.

Defintely read "Fantasy Heartbreakers" by Ron Edwards and "More Fantasy Heartbreakers" as well. No, your game isn't "Fantasy" or you don't intend it to be...no matter what the genre is, it is definitely a "Heartbreaker."

Once again I feel like I might be missing the point...  So please clarify if I am.

I feel that it doesn't fit the "Fantasy Heartbreaker" definition for the following reasons; please let me know if my logic is faulty:
1). The book is not meant to be sold for profit, at least by itself.  Perhaps a print version alongside some sort of content in the future, but the licensing scheme and indeed the shortness of the work make it seem not financially feasable to try.
2). It's not meant to be something "new" or "revolutionary".  Just a marked improvement over the subpar mechanics that are circulating out there (d20 with it's linear progression, or [any multitude of roll XdY and add stat+skill mechanics] with it's fixed bell curve).  There's the argument that the mechanic doesn't make the game, which I agree with.  But a good mechanic can't hurt.
3). The license is such that the text can be taken by anyone and "fixed" if you will.  And then incorporated into whatever they want, so long as any changes they make are also freely redistributable.  While on this topic, I will express my dissatisfaction with the OGL and it's faulty claim of openness and point everyone here: http://www.freeroleplay.org/faq.php#NonFreeLicenses

[bladamson]

Good points Garbanzo, I will definitely take them into consideration.  It _does_ smell too much like fantasy.

1) A lot is missing, which I assumed would be addressed in later 'supplements'.  2) There's lots of things that you could include, but then again...  3) A clear vision of what you want the game to be?

My advice to #3:  Plant tongue firmly in cheek and run with it.  Refer to my previous 'favorite armor type' comment.  Play that up.

Hmm.. My initial answer I thought to give was:  Mulled cider is. . . warm and smooth.  Spiced ale is sharp. . . and well it's grog.  You down it by the pewter mug full, whereas a mulled cider can be sipped and appreciated.  But I think the more pertinent answer is to the last question: 'Can you tell me more... ?'

Yes.  Problem is, and I mean this, my answer will just blend into the background noise of the other questions here.  You've mentioned so far all that you are trying not to have your RPG be, or rather portray, yet when you come right down to it fantasy is basically pseudo-medieval settings with magic.  Hard to make a fantasy RPG without those elements.

Even if you set it in the Bronze Age, people will still call it a 'medieval' kind of game.  And for good reason, the combat is essentially the same, only the implements and types of weapons change.  Marginally so.

That said I'd ask you this:

Do you want your game to be sword and sorcery?

Think carefully.  You may be tempted to say you want your game to fit any potential setting.  Problem with that tact is that it's not the 'game' but rather the 'game rules' that really provide the impetus for how the setting functions.  Game rules are the physics of your game reality.

Grab a sheet of paper and ask yourself this:

"What physics do I want present in my game?"

Think about your answer.  Make a list.  If you want magic, write that down.  If you don't, write it with a line through it.  When done look at your list.  What you will have are a list of in game properties that will need rules to address how they operate.  Thus, if you include hand grenades, you'll need rules for how to toss them, how they explode, yada yada yada.

Hope that helps.

Ok.  Thanks, very helpful.

There's a guy in quebec who's working on a fantasy game using the system.  Perhaps it would be best to remove ch. 3 and put it into his document when it's done.

The problem being, it would still be useful to have the magic system around for things like modern supernatural games and have the psionics around for wierd sci-fi stuff.  So maybe it should be kept in the core.  I dunno.

I think I have a pretty good idea of what I want my game to be (not to be confused with the MT mechanic).  Postman-esque (the book, not the movie) with some wierdness would perhaps be the most concise way to put it.  The initial goal is to get a nice mechanic built though, and use that for the eventual creation of the game.

I was initially expecting feedback on the mechanic itself, interesting that so much so far has been genre related.  Not sure what to think about that.

Your advice about cutting down the rules is good.  I shall definitely endeavor to do so.

So, here's my question.  The "mideval-fantasy tone", is it reflected just in the tone of the writing and examples given, or does it pervade the mechanic?  The former can be fixed with simple editing, but the latter is more problematic.

If the latter, is the basic skill-test mechanic and it's associated mechanic for gaining skill ok, is it just the "optional" crap that lends the bad taste?  And if so, if you wouldn't mind doing the research, please give some examples of what of the optional crap lends the bad taste.

It's hard to see these things from this side of the glass, if you know what I mean.

Thanks!

[Mike Holmes]

Unlike Mike, I'll be brutal.

Excellent. :)

Thanks Raven, I get to be the bad cop too often. Bladamson, you've comported yourself well. Congratulations.

Well, I suppose _any_ rpg is at some level a reinvention of the wheel.  And the concept behind the mechanic isn't something new.  I suppose the biggest things are the implementation of skill advancement through use and having armor coverage and damage integrated in such a way that they act mostly transparently.

I take it there are other mechanics which have done this?  Pointers please.  I've not seen them and would very much like to.

You're lack of knowledge about existing games earns you Mike's Standard rant #1: Designers Know Your Hobby!

Skill advancement through use was invented in 1979 by the BRP (Runequest) system. Parital Armor, Aftermath!, 1981. Armor and Damage integrated, holy cats, what system these days doesn't have that?

It seems painfuly obvious that you are designing ccompletely in the shadow of D20. Your statements above are somewhat akin to saying something like, "I'm designing a new car for 2004, and its got Seat Belts!"

Sorry.

This reflects the fact that, even if someone has an IQ of 180, they are not in any way shape or form going to be able to passably program a computer if they've never done it before.

A goal of designers all over since, GURPS in 1986.

And the concept section is meant to make the player think about what skills the character should have.

How so? Other systems have much more mechanically enforced methods of doing this. See Traveller, 1977.

In my opinion, in any system the GM should have final call on if a character is sutable or not.  If a player designs a character with an unrealistic set of skills, the GM should ask for an explanation of "why".  If it's not answered sutably, disallow the character.  If the player _does_ answer it sutably, then sure, allow it.  There will always be something the player hasn't  munchkinized that can be used to knock the character down to size.

Mucnchkinized. Cute. How about creating a system that the player won't want to "munchkinize"? Lot's of good systems do.

That sort of systematic abuse of a game by munchkins should be swiftly and harshly dealt with by any GM, no matter what system.

Sure. But first the system should make it unneccessary.

On the flip side, the GM should also work with the players during character creation, offering suggestions on how their characters might be better fit into his world.

I belive that text is copy/pasted to evey RPG yet created.

This is a good point.  I feel more and more like those nasty AP should be removed entirely.  But some other method of rewarding a player for role-playing well ought to be put in.  I'm open to any suggestions.

As Shreyas points out, why not reward them with something that expands their RP opportunities. Can it be that you've not seen th zillion games out there with metagame mechanics labeled various things like "hero points" and "Story points"? Not to say that this is a suggestion, but it's a starting point down whole new avenues of role-playing design.

Well, I prefer my combats to be fairly detailed.  My SO-sometimes-GM prefers her combats to be more abstract, more like a dramatic encounter if you will.  We tried to allow the rules to scale to both.

I can't help but feel that the purpose of that question went over my head.  If so, please yell at me. :)

What Raven's getting at is that you just might have some left-over problems with prioritization from having a system so close to d20.

I'm of the opinion that a player with a better developed character will be more rewarded in the playing of their character than one who has a not so well developed character.

My intent is that the GM work the character's concepts into his game such that the characters have an actual stake in the outcome of the events they engage in, rather than just being bystanders as they might be if their concept is not well developed.  The player with a well developed character will therefore feel a greater sense of accomplishment when overcoming an obstacle or obtaining a goal that relates to his character.

OK. Then why not make it a mechanical part of the game. Which many designs do so successfully. For a recant example, see TROS (The Riddle of Steel) which can be cound in the Independent Games page here.

Mechanical rewards indicate to the player that this is what the game is all about. Any other reward distracts from that.

Please point me to these games.

Harnmaster? 1986? Try www.google.com. A search of Harn will bring up about a metric buzillon pages related to the game.

Hah.  Go ahead and be a bastard.  I'm rather dense and might miss the point otherwise.  I appreciate the input.

I'm glad to see that you're open minded. This is intended to help, even if it does sound harsh.

1). The book is not meant to be sold for profit, at least by itself.  Perhaps a print version alongside some sort of content in the future, but the licensing scheme and indeed the shortness of the work make it seem not financially feasable to try.

Cool. Good goal. And actually, you know what? I'm an optimist who thinks that you have all the moxie it takes to get your goal. You just need to study...

2). It's not meant to be something "new" or "revolutionary".  Just a marked improvement over the subpar mechanics that are circulating out there (d20 with it's linear progression, or [any multitude of roll XdY and add stat+skill mechanics] with it's fixed bell curve).  There's the argument that the mechanic doesn't make the game, which I agree with.  But a good mechanic can't hurt.

Good mechanics are a start. But "fixing" D20, is exactly what makes it a heartbreaker. D20 is waaaaay behind the times. It's like you've just said, "I can build a better Ford Pinto!" Um, so? Almost everyone here has, and has moved past that to bigger and better things.

3). The license is such that the text can be taken by anyone and "fixed" if you will.  And then incorporated into whatever they want, so long as any changes they make are also freely redistributable.  

That's great. Doesn't make it not a heartbreaker. Just makes the heartbreak even more poigniant.

While on this topic, I will express my dissatisfaction with the OGL and it's faulty claim of openness and point everyone here:

Heh, I think that most of us here are failrly well aware of how it works. Many have actually published under the OGL. Yes, you're game may improve over that. But the reason that people play d20 as much as they do is not so much because it's a good system. It's because it's what they're aware of, what they know.

All you've done is to make a slightly better version of that same system. The real problem is that there are litterally hundreds of free systems that one can take to make their own game. And that's assuming that you want such a copycat system. Why not use something more modern?

Take a look at FUDGE and Action! both of which are published open systems, and tell us how your game improves on either of them. Heck with competing with D20, first you have to get by all the little guys trying for their shot at the 400lb. Gorrilla.

Mike

[greyorm]

Excellent. :)

I commend you for your excellent attitude, sir!

I suppose the biggest things are the implementation of skill advancement through use and having armor coverage and damage integrated in such a way that they act mostly transparently. I take it there are other mechanics which have done this?  Pointers please.  I've not seen them and would very much like to.

Off hand I would list the following for skill Advancement through use: Harn, At Swordpoint (friend's unpublished game I've helped playtest), Oroborous has similar rules (you can only buy up skills you've used during a session, or you can train them), Hack & Slash (based on FUDGE), and a famous game I can't now recall.

Armor & damage...well, um, what game doesn't? Besides D&D and its various clones, I mean? This is a very common "fix" for D&D-style games, and one I've even used in my own D&D games in the past (as much as 10 years and more ago, when I developed my D&D ripoff called "Nth Edition").

I think a good place to start looking at a huge number of the various games already out there and their various mechanics is here: John Kim's Free RPGs on the Web

The mechanic is built in such a way that _skills_ are what define the character. And the concept section is meant to make the player think about what skills the character should have.

Right! And what I'm saying is that it should DO that, then.

And now I present the question: if skills are the important, defining factor in the game, do you really need attributes?

It seems like many are suggesting that the "concept" section be heavily linked to the rest of the character creation process?  How might one go about doing this?

This is really a design decision on your part, but I suggest checking out games like Hero Wars, Paladin, OtherKind and so forth for ideas.

Check out the Forge's Resource Library via the link at the top of any Forge page for more games to study.

In my opinion, in any system the GM should have final call on if a character is sutable or not.

That's not a good answer, though it is an unfortunately common one in design -- ie: if the system doesn't work, then override it -- the point being that there shouldn't be anyplace where you need to override the system. A big part of Forge philosophy is that the system should support the desired style of play, without the GM needing to intervene.

On the flip side, the GM should also work with the players during character creation, offering suggestions on how their characters might be better fit into his world. Perhaps suggestions to that effect in the text?

Definitely. And then try to make the rules support it.
For example, check out Sorcerer.

This is a good point.  I feel more and more like those nasty AP should be removed entirely.  But some other method of rewarding a player for role-playing well ought to be put in.  I'm open to any suggestions.

Replace it with metagame mechanics. What sort of mechanics and what they do/effect will be dependent upon the style of play you envision.

I can't help but feel that the purpose of that question went over my head.  If so, please yell at me. :)

Consider yourself yelled at! My meaning is that detailed combat and story-focused drama are not at odds. An example of this is the game The Riddle of Steel (whose discussion forum you can find right here on the Forge).

I'm of the opinion that a player with a better developed character will be more rewarded in the playing of their character than one who has a not so well developed character.

Not if I just want to smash stuff, kill things, and roll dice. Your system provides absolutely nothing to prevent this, other than the stated GM fiat "I won't allow it!" -- which is why, I hope, you can see I decry the method of GM fiat as a viable tool for a game.

My intent is that the GM work the character's concepts into his game such that the characters have an actual stake in the outcome of the events they engage in, rather than just being bystanders as they might be if their concept is not well developed.  The player with a well developed character will therefore feel a greater sense of accomplishment when overcoming an obstacle or obtaining a goal that relates to his character.

Make this a mechanic! This is the coolest sounding text you've written so far about what your desires for actual play of the game are. Now make your game support it by mechanics that highlight the stakes

Use something like a Kicker (from Sorcerer), but centralize it as a mechanical entity that affects the results of play!

So no mechanical reward no, but rewards nonetheless.

I am of the opinion that in talking about role-playing games, a mechanical reward is necessary to guide play in the proper direction. Elsewise, one can simply work on a collaborative novel or join an improvisational acting group to get the same rewards.

Once again I feel like I might be missing the point...

Mike covered that pretty well. Basically, it is a Heartbreaker because it is a creator-touted "exciting new development" of something developed last decade -- a "fix" of an existing game, rather than a game in and of itself. That is, it "fixes" the supposed "problems" of the original without really grasping why those items are in the original in the first place, and that they aren't problems, except as they relate to style of play: the answer is a new game, not a fix to the other game to force it in-line with a style it isn't meant to support anyways.

BTW, I really hope none of this is discouraging you! Your current game is obviously one that took a great deal of thought and work, and I commend you for producing it! It is well written and the layout and ideas are good ones.

My first designs were much humbler and less coherent than this, and were quite obvious rip-offs of D&D and Storyteller/Immortal. But of course, like you, I had no exposure to the wide variety of other systems and design possibilities out there at the time I wrote them.

I'd write more, but my wife is calling, and I've the feeling that may be enough for you to digest at the moment. Any questions on anything, feel free to ask and I will attempt to expound.

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings greyorm,

Just passing through.

And now I present the question: if skills are the important, defining factor in the game, do you really need attributes?

I'd expand that statement to ask you (the original poster) think about what TYPE of attributes might be needed for the game.

Why think about it?

Because there are games that have dozens and dozens of attributes, yet beyond character generation what are they really used for?

Crypt Fiend has a whopping three attributes!  But they are pertinent to the milieu of the setting and game environment.

My point?

Think about what you are putting into the game, otherwise the rules will become an albatross around the GM and players necks.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[Kester Pelagius]

Greetings bladamson,

I think I have a pretty good idea of what I want my game to be (not to be confused with the MT mechanic).  Postman-esque (the book, not the movie) with some wierdness would perhaps be the most concise way to put it.  The initial goal is to get a nice mechanic built though, and use that for the eventual creation of the game.

Think and know are two different things.

But you're in the right place to brainstorm and get ideas!

I was initially expecting feedback on the mechanic itself, interesting that so much so far has been genre related.  Not sure what to think about that.

Yes, the members of the Forge often do go above and beyond in their efforts to answer questions.  Even if some of us answer your questions with more questions, don't think of us too harshly.  We're inquistive creatures whose treasure type is knowledge.  ;)

So, here's my question.  The "mideval-fantasy tone", is it reflected just in the tone of the writing and examples given, or does it pervade the mechanic?

Yes.

It's hard to see these things from this side of the glass, if you know what I mean.

Ah, looking through the glass darkly, gets ya everytime!

Sounds like you know what you want.  Go with it.  Don't try to write a system you "think others might like" write a system to fit the idea for the game you have in your head.

Unless you're like me and tend to have two or three similar game ideas in different stages of development at any given time.  Just be aware that approach tends to take forever and a eternity.


Kind Regards,

Kester Pelagius

[bladamson]

Hmm, ok.

What's worth keeping then?

I like the statistical properties of the Xd10 (or d12 or d20) equal to or lower than a stat to produce successes.  Gives a nice bell curve that is stretched logarithmically when skill increases.  Higher or lower stats bend the curve to either side.

I guess what I'm asking is, would it be best to throw it all out and start over, or to try to fix what I've got?  I'd rather not throw out all that work, but if it is doomed to never be useful to anyone I suppose I might as well.

Well, I shouldn't say throw out, maybe instead finish right quick and move on to something else.

[greyorm]

Ah, yes, I was going to comment on that.
The game isn't bad, the mechanics don't "suck," and the style it (and you) appear to be shooting for are just fine. Honestly, it's all good. Is it all good for the current game? That's a different question!

The only real "problem" with the game is the Incoherency in the mechanics: create Coherency by tweaking the rules to support the desires you've already expressed (ie: what you want the Concept to do; the desire for meaningful play that involves the characters; etc) and you'll have yourself an excellent game.

In fact, the items we've already discussed are probably good places to start: here's what my plan of action would be to first read, alot. Meaning, "Read alot of other games." Read them for their systems and their game goals.

Then I would go about doing these three things (in no particular order):

Making Concept central to who the character is mechanically (if you stick with skills, and there's no reason not to, this would entail having Concept define the skills the character could/would have...there are, of course, many other ways to do this).

Tackle the AP issue and decide if you want them as a metagame mechanic, and in what form? If not, then drop them, or redesign the rules to reflect characterization (or whatever you decide "good role-playing" concretely means) as the priority.

Figure out how to make those plot hooks you mention (ex: "My father's laboratory has been ransacked! We must find the thieves!") mean something mechanically so as to pursue the goal of meaningful charcter-centered play.

And most of all, give it time! You have a good, solid foundation you can build on -- or you may find the construction doesn't support your ideas well enough. Either way, you'll have made a great deal of progress in your design.

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, personally, I'd be torn at this point. You have a lot of good stuff, so I'd be tempted to work it out. Then again, I've said before that everyone ought to do a heartbreaker. That is, you've already passed one initiation if you kust keep this game as it is. And you could move on to something else.

I guess it comes down to whether this particular game still gets your blood rushing. Does the idea of it complete as you envision it still get you going. If so, I'd rework it until it's better. If, OTOH, there's some other idea that you have brewing that's really firing the old neurons thinking about it, I'd tuck this game away, and start work on the next project.

But that's me. You'll have to decide for yourself. Is there enough in your current game to work off of? I think there is. You'll just have a ways to go. Starting with all the things that Raven mentioned.

Mike

[Valamir]

My intent is that the GM work the character's concepts into his game such that the characters have an actual stake in the outcome of the events they engage in, rather than just being bystanders as they might be if their concept is not well developed. The player with a well developed character will therefore feel a greater sense of accomplishment when overcoming an obstacle or obtaining a goal that relates to his character.

Make this a mechanic! This is the coolest sounding text you've written so far about what your desires for actual play of the game are. Now make your game support it by mechanics that highlight the stakes

Use something like a Kicker (from Sorcerer), but centralize it as a mechanical entity that affects the results of play!

I think Clinton's game Shadows of Yesterday being discussed elsewhere in this very forum does a highly effective job of mechanically integrating exactly this sentiment.

[Thomas Tamblyn]

A couple of suggestions to steer the game in the direction you want

As already pointed out, whilst you have a section of the character creation process devoted to character concept, it doesn't mean anything in play.  Here's a suggestion.

You want to use the skills to define the character, yes?  Why not have a short description after each one describing why they have this skill.  For example, for a high archery skill you could say "Slew a fierce troll with a shot through the eye" or for a character with a mediocre leadership skill "laed hunting parties back in his home village".

If you do that you have soemthing on the character sheet that tells you what the character is like and FORCES the player to think about what their character is.

In order to make the player put some effort into these, give a mechanical reward based on them.  Say - the character acts as if the skill was one level higher when you can draw a direct parralele between the description and the task at hand.

For example, the archer might get the +1 when aiming at vary small targets and the character with leadership might get it when dealing with rustic folk.  Of course exactly what they apply to isn't very clear cut, which means it is the player's responsibility to explain why its so important.  This a good thing, for example:

"I shot that troll through the eye while my companions distracted it.  I waited patiently for the perfect shot" to explain why they would get the bonus during an ambush situation.