Toying with making RPGs in various forms since highschool, I'm astonished at how little I have to show for it, in both ideas and understanding.

It seems every "wonderful" idea I've ever had degenerates the moment I think of a counterpoint, or is simply forgotten. In the cases where I actually write something down, I'd be darned if I could remember, later on, what the crap I was talking about.

But over the years, I've settled on a few key points I'm comfortable with:

(None of this may be possible to do, but a guy can dream...right?)

Please let me know what you think.

As a player I like to have full control of my character's development. One way this is possible is by having NO master list of skills. All skills are simply pursuits that a character can reasonably spend a life-time mastering. A character sheet is predominately a list of skills appropriate to the character and a level for each one. Whatever the player decides the character is good at becomes a skill on the character sheet.

There are no attributes. Instead, all possible skills are considered in terms of their relationship to each other. If skill A is related to skill B, and character has skill A, but wishes to perform a task which requires skill B, then special considerations would exist for letting the character use his skill A at penalty, and if successful, obtain skill B at a novice level. Also, perhaps, B would level up faster than an unrelated skill until it is equal, in level, to skill A. This way a character who is skilled at running can easily learn to rock-climb (given his physical condition), and a student of biology can more easily pick up on medicine, and target marksman can easily pick up on ranged combat, etc.

Attributes should be a naturally occurring aspect of the skills system, they don't need to be superimposed. A person is strong because he's does weight-training, or is a professional cage fighter, or just a massive person. It's not because his strength is 16.

Relation works both ways. If a character is a massive bodybuilder, for instance, he would get a penalty when performing tasks which require agility. If he can focus on one thing to the exclusion of all else, he is not very observant to his surroundings. If he has a strong sense of justice and discipline, he would have little forgiveness for other people, and wouldn't make or keep friends easily.

No traditional character classes. The various skills make up the the character's class, not the other way around.

The X-stat is used in combat. X is the status of your character as it pertains to your character's ability to perform some kind of action. If it's low, your character will perform with lower odds of success. If high, then high odds. You use your X stat every time you act, for your X stat is reduced any time something happens that your character must recover from. In a way it's initiative. Damage affects your ability to recover your X stat.

Speaking of damage, there is no HP. Damage is effect-based. The purpose of damage is to reduce the X stat to 0 so that you can perform a coup de gras. In this way, you can choose to damage someone until they are weak enough to kill, or cause them to stumble or reel in pain or get the wind knocked out of them giving you a split second to finish them off. Or you can wait for them to wear themselves out and then pop them off as they struggle to regain their balance.

Actual mechanics, I think, don't really matter. If the underlying concept is solid, then flipping coins or playing rock paper scissors, dice, cards, whatever... anything should be doable.

If this all sounds like a terrible idea, please let me know. Sometimes I see things a certain way and can't find my way back to the drawing board without help.

Sounds like its got potential...

...have a look at my game FUBAR, if you want to see an example of a game system that doesn't really use traditional classes (it basically uses descriptors of what your character should know, who they associate with and what they are known for), skill lists or hit points (it applies penalty traits based on the types of injuries you've suffered; whether physical, psychological or other form of impairment).

In short I think your idea is a bit different to what I've done with FUBAR, but it could definitely. I'm just showing you what I've done to give you a couple of new ideas, or maybe help you consider things you might not have thought of.

Hi,

I'm taking it you imagine a group will then use this in some sort of play. In what what have you decided your set of rules will afftect or even limit play (well, I'm sure a weak little guy isn't going to be picking up mac trucks, so that's a limitation on the fiction generated). Or aren't you deciding how your rules effect play, your just trying to make a set of rules that seem realistic somehow and how they integrate with play is on a 'whatever happens' basis?

I believe <a href="http://www.mimgames.com/window/">The Window is done in a similar way to good effect. The principal is sound, though possibly open to abuse by selfish players.

Very innovative outlook on rules.
I'd like to see how this works.
Can you give an example of how you might setup a character?
or is this just a loose set of rules that you are wanting the people here to help flesh out?

First off, thanks for your friendly replies!

A character sheet would have three parts:
1. A description of the character to include physical appearance, mental prejudices/world view, and religion/spirituality,
2. Inventory, and
3. The Skill list. Each skill can be invented by the player and will have a level next to it, 1-5.

Level 1- you have a tremendous amount of knowledge on the subject, but no practical skills
Level 2- you are a hobbyist, or a student of the discipline
Level 3- you are a fresh graduate in the subject, versed in practical application
Level 4- you are a seasoned professional who can make an easy living off your skills
Level 5- you are among the very best, truly elite, or gifted individuals

A starting character will only have so much experience, so he can put all into one skill or spread it around to several.

I imagine when the character performs a task, the level of the associated skill determines the number or degree of dice used. or number of cards drawn. or something like that. If the character has no skill, then a related skill can be used at penalty. If no related skill exists, then automatic failure, or slim chance of success...

Horomancer; I'm checking out the window too. Should have some good ideas... I'll post what I find useful.
I'll be looking at FUBAR for the classlessness too.

I want to stay away from as many "rules" as possible, and make it a game about fair and obvious "rulings".

I like simple games, like the Japanese game "Go", which has only one real rule: a stone or group of stones surrounded by the opposing color gets removed from the board. Such a simple rule, but it yields such a fantastic strategy game.

Or the computer game Galcon. the larger the planet, the more ships it produces. You simply move ships to an enemy planet, trade casualties one-for-one, and if you destroy all the ships on that planet, it starts producing ships for you. This very simple game has the most exquisite multiplayer gameplay I've ever seen.

I wish someone could design the 'Go' of table top rpgs. A handful of simple rules, and anything is possible.

Yeah, that's kinda what I'm after. Any ideas?

Perhaps I shouldn't assume but I assume that this game would have a GM that would provide setting and plot like most rpgs?
If so then would that GM set a target number to reach with your dice rolling?

Example: if I made a character using your system and gave Him "Problem solving (level 4)"
Lets say that gives him 4 Chances to roll a d20 Vs a Difficulty (set from 1=easy to 20=neary impossible) which would be set by the GM. 
Or maybe or 4d6 or 4d8 -- and a similar Difficulty system.

As a GM I would see potential problems with adversaries.
At some point during a game there is going to be a conflict.
Be it physical or Social or anything else.
Would it be a roll off?
Ex:
Bob gets angry at Betty because she wants to see the new Twilight Film and he wants to see something that doesn't utterly suck. (no pun intended)
there is a dispute - how is that settled?
Bob uses his "Compromise (level 1)" Skill [sub]level 1 - haha get it?[/sub]
Betty uses "Bully (level 3)" skill and takes a penalty while trying to "seduce" Bob..

Bobby rolls (1) 20-sider and scores a "9"
Betty Rolls (2) [sub][3 - 1 for penalty][/sub] 20-siders and keeps the best one -- a "19" and wins the argument.
[sub]I suppose if Betty was trying for something less related to "Bullying" than seduce she might take another penalty and get only 1 20-sider[/sub]

all these game designy folks here would just say "Conflict resolution"
But I saw a chance to wench-slap Necrophilia and took it. (sleeping with the dead - even vampires IS necromancy)
Talking about putting the "romance" in NECromance. (sorry for being extremely corny today)

So I guess my longwinded question is...
How would you handle conflict resolution?

Hope I helped at all.

etothepowerofx wrote: I like simple games, like the Japanese game "Go", which has only one real rule: a stone or group of stones surrounded by the opposing color gets removed from the board. Such a simple rule, but it yields such a fantastic strategy game.

Or the computer game Galcon. the larger the planet, the more ships it produces. You simply move ships to an enemy planet, trade casualties one-for-one, and if you destroy all the ships on that planet, it starts producing ships for you. This very simple game has the most exquisite multiplayer gameplay I've ever seen.

I wish someone could design the 'Go' of table top rpgs. A handful of simple rules, and anything is possible.

Crap I got carried away with my examples (as I nearly always do)
and forgot what I was going to point out.

as a GM I see a problems with adversaries.
As a Gm I would find it a little daunting to have to give a bunch of "skill" and skill levels to
various NPCs - Being that that is how that would interact with one another (roleplaying aside)

of course I guess After time I would get used to the system enough to only write down
what skills would probably come up during play though.
ex: "well this guy is going to provoke a fight out of the characters by trying to rob them. They might try to negotiate also but I won't give him something to protect him from that. Like 'Plead' -- but maybe something like 'intimidate'

So maybe my point is Moot. But something to think about.

I'd like to add that upon thinking about it.
This would be a great great game to play a light heart goofy adventure with some of my friends.
I could see them making up characters that have so few usefull skills that they shouldn't leave the house.
but they'd be masters at "cheese-grating" or "catching flies with chopsticks"
you know.. a much of stupid fun crap.

which leads to another thought.. and question..
is there a limit to what you can choose?
GM approval?
I could see "x-ray vision" popping up.
or "rocketpack powered flight"

Honestly though .. your system has my imagination fired up. Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to try and use it to get some spells hammered  out for my system ;D

etothepowerofx wrote:
I wish someone could design the 'Go' of table top rpgs. A handful of simple rules, and anything is possible.

Yeah, that's kinda what I'm after. Any ideas?

On your hypothetical character sheet, you say there's a spot for a character's inventory. Answer me this: in the game you imagine, if another player says their character has something that isn't on that list, and tries to use it to get ahead, do you (or does anyone else in the game) have a right to be upset?
[/quote

Maybe I am reading this wrong but, I think the character inventory He (or she) is talking about is what items are on the character. Examples: 20 feet of Rope - a whistle, first aid kit. etc.

If a character claimed to have Rope to climb down a mountain but didn't have it in the inventory - I think people would only get upset [sub](and would be right to do so)[/sub] if the GM let them use this imaginary rope.

But I admit that I don't think I understand what you meant.

Callan; Your point is well taken such that if possibilities = ∞ then rules = 0.

Necro, titular puns aside, you've brought up some fine points.

I would assume that players would be allowed to choose setting appropriate skills, and perhaps skills limited to the sort you would consider a 'life's persuit". Cheese grating would then become the practical and boring skill "culinary arts". "catching flies with chopsticks" might be labeled as some flavor of clairvoyance or precognition. The original titles could be included in parentheses as "specialties"... That might be cool.

Like Astrophysicist with a special ability in deep space telemetry.
or a street performer with a specialty in pulling large objects from his rear.

just a thought.

As for conflict, what you said makes sense... a roll off.
but there is more to conflict than just who's better at what they're trying to do.

I think the ultimate factor in determining success is time.
Logically, if you know how to do something, and that something is possible to do, given enough time, you'll perform it perfectly.

The question then becomes, who can perform their action first? Whoever can beat his opponent to the punch is the victor of the conflict.

Every action also has a difficulty associated with it. Hitting something two feet away with an axe is not difficult, but a moving target is. Your difficulty would be equal to the target's ability to avoid being hit. If instead the target is not trying to avoid being hit, say he wants to hit you first instead, and interrupt your attack, then your difficulty will be equal to his ability to attack you first.

Also, positioning is important. The person who can put himself in a position to attack his opponent before his opponent can put HIM such a position, well, then he has some sort of advantage, yeah? This works especially well for ranged combat.

I imagine it looking like this:
check to see who can put themselves in a position to attack the other first.
check to see if the attack is greater than the defense.
check to see how much damage was done in the attack.

etc.

I'm actually playing a game that a friend developed that has a similar agenda.
when you make a character you pick a general thing you are good at (being strong, or smart or what ever)
that's a 4
then you pick a field that you do (science, cooking, kung-fu)
that's a 5
then you pick a particular thing that you specialize in (Lego art, knife throwing, pediatrics)
and that's a 6
Everything else is a 3

Then you roll 3d6 add the highest 2 together, then multiply by your number for that action. Everything in the game is handle like this and all rolls are opposed rolls from the GM, even by static things which make for some wacky outcomes at times. Good for light hearted play (Setting is goofy over the top anime/kung-fu movie)

I support the notion. I imagen how you leverage the the skill numbers into the game will effect the feel, and i would discourage using multipliers since things can get out of hand quick with them.

As silly as Some of the things I (and others) have said
I think you have the potential to a pretty sweet game.
Be it light hearted and goofy or serious as all hell.
a sort of common sense reigns - rules light game with a lot of potential to
easily swing in favor of what the people here at [font=ariel]The Forge[/font] call Narrativist play
(my personal favorite of the gamist/simulationist/narrativist school of thought)

For the game I am trying to develop [A Time of Steel & Staves] I tried for a little while to
add tactics to the mix but I found that the players or at least a extremely knowledgeable GM would need to understand tactics to
really utilize them. At least for more advanced tactics.
[sub]Hopefully anyone could see that attacking from behind or from higher ground is advantageous[/sub]

So I guess what I am saying is Be careful with advanced tactics. It is sure to muddy up (which is fancy speak for slow down and complicate) the Quick and easy method you seem to have going.

btw - you like how I extended your quote a bit? wheres that damn edit button. ;)

Hello and welcome to the Forge! Can I call you Reuben? Calling you e[sup]x[/sup] is a bit awkward.

Let me throw down an idea that you may have not considered.

There are other ways to describe a character beyond skills. Skills represent knowledge that a character has learned over time, right? If I meet you and say, "Hello! Tell me about yourself," I suspect you will not list the things you know how to do. "I am good at writing but only adequate at swimming." More likely, you will tell me about what you care about, your personal history, relationships, maybe what you do for a living, or your hobbies. I will argue that these things are more important for defining a person than a list of skills.

I understand why games use skill lists. Players want to know, "what can this character DO in this world?" A skill list is an interface between the character and the world.

You said, "As a player I like to have full control of my character's development." Development in what way? Do you think skills are the most important indicator of a person's development? What about those other things?

If you look at a game like Dogs in the Vineyard, you'll see that it has no skills at all. It has Traits and Relationships. Traits could be a skill like "Shooting" or it could be a phrase like, "I never met a man that didn't deserve shooting." Both have exactly the same mechanical use in play (if you can explain how using it makes sense, you get the dice for it), though one says something more interesting about the character. Relationships are similar. You might have "Brother Jebediah, my mentor" as a relationship and whenever that relationship is at stake, you get dice because you've stated that the relationship is important to the character.

What you're proposing doesn't sound like a terrible idea. I'm pretty sure the freeform skills thing has been done before, but I can't point to any specific example. Some things to watch for:

Can a player write down "Being Awesome" and use it to roll for every situation? Why not? How do you police this?

In a similar vein, how do you handle skill granularity? I write down Rifles, Krav Maga, Grenades, and House Clearing Tactics. Bobby writes down Combat Veteran. Can Bobby's PC do everything mine can do, and more, for 1/4 the skill cost?

Before you go too far, though, you probably should figure out what kinds of stories you want your game to support. Do you have any idea of that? In your mind, is this a game design that replaces some other game that you've played (but that leaves you wanting)?

Necromantis wrote:
Maybe I am reading this wrong but, I think the character inventory He (or she) is talking about is what items are on the character. Examples: 20 feet of Rope - a whistle, first aid kit. etc.

If a character claimed to have Rope to climb down a mountain but didn't have it in the inventory - I think people would only get upset (and would be right to do so) if the GM let them use this imaginary rope.

But I admit that I don't think I understand what you meant.

Adam wrote:
Can a player write down "Being Awesome" and use it to roll for every situation? Why not? How do you police this?

In a similar vein, how do you handle skill granularity? I write down Rifles, Krav Maga, Grenades, and House Clearing Tactics. Bobby writes down Combat Veteran. Can Bobby's PC do everything mine can do, and more, for 1/4 the skill cost?

Mike wrote: Yes, that's exactly what I meant, and your answer is pretty revealing. You seem to think that any form of gaming where players wouldn't care about this is unimaginable. Well, not only has it been imagined for many years now but it's fairly popular. With it, you can simple gaming up a whole lot - all the way to the point where the only three concepts are "players," "fiction" and "agreement" - but it's not always very compatible with more tactical gaming, for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying this to try to pull status or suggest that one sort of game is better than the other - just to throw a little light on how many and specific the few, general concepts we're talking about really are.

(And a rope that's written on your character sheet is just as imaginary as one that's not!)

Nec, I think if you communicate a rule that you can only use/invoke what is on your inventory list (with a GM fiat caveat in regards to your magic necklace example), then it does indeed matter. But without that rule - well normally with boardgamers they wouldn't assume extra resources out of thin air, but roleplay gamers are prone to do this by their culture.

But just having an inventory space doesn't really communicate any rule on the matter. Or atleast, I think there are much clearer ways of communicating a 'only use what's in your inventory space' rule than to simply draw an inventory space on the character sheet. An inventory space doesn't convey anything to me in terms of rules.

And Mike, you should realise it's not about whether players care about this or not or can imagine some wonderful non limited inventory, it's about following the rule on the matter. Just because someone can imagine having a non limited inventory doesn't mean wow, they suddenly can do that. If there is a rule saying you stick to what's written in your inventory, then you stick to it or you've broken the rule and you've ceased playing the printed game.

well normally with boardgamers they wouldn't assume extra resources out of thin air, but roleplay gamers are prone to do this by their culture.

Cheese grating would then become the practical and boring skill "culinary arts"

Necromantis wrote: An inventory is pointless if that is the rule. Therefore by default the use of and inventory suggests that keeping track of your items is important.

I don't deny that a game designer or even the designer of a character sheet could put one on there if they wanted to but it would be Pointless none-the-less.

i see three solutions to the skills problem.

1- Create a list of skills as a sample of what sort of world the characters live in. This list will help get the ball rolling, or just iron out the theme. Players can amend the list as they create their characters.

Problem: Though it solves the issue of players going nuts with all-powerful skills, this opposes the general concept of players being able to create their own characters to their precise specs.

2- Create a system of boundaries, which determines how general, specific, or all-encompassing skills can be. Create limits on how much influence a skill can have, or how it's described.

Problem- Too rules heavy. trying to figure out precisely how long it takes to learn a particular skill to a particular degree in a particular setting is both arduous and arbitrary.

3- Leave it be. I like this idea: If a player wants to have several very specific combat abilities, he can. If a player wants his character to have a single "general combat" ability, he can. Having a single general skill as opposed to several specific skills won't be a detriment, but it won't be an advantage. The relational rule still applies. here's how:

two players in the same close quarters combat situation. One has general combat ability level 3. the other has krav maga level 3. the one with general combat skills will apply his skill at a penalty due to not being specifically appropriate to the situation. The other will apply his skills at a bonus, due to his skill being specifically suited to this situation.

Problem- There needs to be a clear, concise relational system for determining bonuses and penalties, otherwise it will degenerate into pure arbitrary narrative.

So, i like number three, now help me devise a relationship system and the system is all yours!

I tried to remedy the whole skills issue a year or so ago when I wrote my game Guerrilla Television. Everyone writes up a quick character then throws them into a random pile, before drawing a character back out. Characters are developed further in play.

It stops the min-maxers from abusing the system too much during character generation because their carefully thought out character will probably end in someone else's hands.

The games I've played with it, it's worked really well. But then again, the game is designed to be a free for all where characters are very disposable...it probably wouldn't work as well at the start of a dramatic campaign.

I did get one game where half of the players picked "Parkour" as a skill (without knowing that others had also picked it), it proved a very athletic game. I've played another game where half the players carefully crafted characters to win, while the others just created interesting characters...it was funny to see that one of the "interesting" characters ended up winning the gameshow, after the carefully crafted characters eliminated one another. When word had spread about the game at the convention where it was being played, a later game just ran as a comedy of errors because everyone designed characters to lose (knowing full well that they'd probably get someone else's character design)...it was pure awesome to watch absolute losers battling it out for the ultimate prize of fame and fortune on a lethal reality TV show.

I've deliberately tweaked the rules a bit in this regard for my later offering FUBAR, in this one everyone quickly creates two characters, then draws two randomly from the pile. One becomes your PC, while the other becomes an NPC for the game. It gives players a bit more choice in what they play...but again, this game isn't really designed for long term play.

In both games, characters are simply assumed to have what they need to perform the skills they possess...or maybe the benefits that players normally associate with skills are simply reflected through the presence of specific equipment (I now have a combat skill...why?...because I just picked up a shotgun, that gives me an edge in combat that I didn't have before). FUBAR is the more refined version of the set-up and I'm using it as the basis of a new project (but in the new project, players will design their own characters, there will be more meat to the system and things like supernatural powers will be present).

In the end, I'm basically saying that there are lots of way to look at this kind of issue. Skill and inventory lists are just the traditional method of doing it.

V

etothepowerofx wrote:
3- Leave it be. I like this idea: If a player wants to have several very specific combat abilities, he can. If a player wants his character to have a single "general combat" ability, he can. Having a single general skill as opposed to several specific skills won't be a detriment, but it won't be an advantage. The relational rule still applies. here's how:

two players in the same close quarters combat situation. One has general combat ability level 3. the other has krav maga level 3. the one with general combat skills will apply his skill at a penalty due to not being specifically appropriate to the situation. The other will apply his skills at a bonus, due to his skill being specifically suited to this situation.

Problem- There needs to be a clear, concise relational system for determining bonuses and penalties, otherwise it will degenerate into pure arbitrary narrative.

I'm thinking if it's not play to win, then player defined skills are fine - they are being an author. If they want to write a story with general overall or highly specific skills, as authors, they do that. This is what authors do. I don't even think you need a 'if anyone thinkgs it's bogus' rule - indeed, that may go against authorship.

But perhaps similar to Adam's post.

Problem- There needs to be a clear, concise relational system for determining bonuses and penalties, otherwise it will degenerate into pure arbitrary narrative.

point and point.

....back to the drawing board for me.

how about..

Having clearly defined rules for types of skills, rather than clearly defined skills and therefore restricting player choices. These "type" to be decided by the GM.

Skill types might include
Broad range Skills  (know a little about a lot type knowledge) - might take slight penalties but it encompasses more - so if you took "Healing arts" and the GM ruled it to be "broad range" then you could get the same test (skill check) at maybe -2 or -3 for stitching a wound and prescribing medicine - so the broad range skill type would be very non-specific skills with low penalties over a broad range of tests.

Standard range Skills (knowing something pretty well but not being an expert on it)  having no penalties to closely related skills (other standard range skills - decided by the GM during play)  and moderate penalties for skills that fall into either Broad range skills or Specialized skills
"Carpentry" would (in my mind) fall under standard skills - a player with carpentry might get no bonus/penalty for repairing a ships hull but get a moderate penalty (-4 or -5)  for building a catapult because its close but involves engineering -- unless of course they have some sort of engineering skills as well - thus bumping the skill type back to standard - or giving a slight bonus if they are "specialized" in siege equipment mechanics or something (see specialized skills explaination below)

Specialized Skills (being an expert at a specific task) players would get a nice bonus for a specialized skill (maybe +3-+5)
but heavier penalties for stepping outside this field at all. for instance if a player took "five finger death punch"
they might receive a decent bonus to hand to hand combat (for this skill only) where as they would get a healthy penalty if they were boxing or sword fighting. this being a narrow feild of study and easier to stray outside of.
It may be argued that if someone knows "fiver finger death punch" that naturally they would know other hand to hand combats.
well no .. not necessarily. it just means they have focused on that skill. it would make since for the player to choose a few relative skills though. such as maybe the broad range skills "hand to hand combat" or the normal skills "swordfighting". 

and example will explain this better.

EX:
Bobby chooses to play a soldier gone AWAL from the military - (the setting is basically modern times maybe 2030 for this example)
As a background - bobby's character Lieutenant Miles Sanders was asked to do things that didn't agree with his personality (kill civilians/women/children/the elderly/burn churches, etc)
he slips away and joins with a band of mercenaries under an alias Marcus Savor.
he was trained as a medical officer but showed a talent with marksmanship and leadership and so was pulled to a new rank and stationed accordingly.

the story takes place upon his joining the mercenary band "full metal jackals"
his skills include

Healing arts(broad range)
gunshot wounds (specialized)
Sniping (normal)
compound bow and arrow (specialized)
basic hand to hand combat (broad range)
Stealth (broad range)
picking locks (specialized or normal - DM discretion)
Leadership (broad range or normal)
calm under fire (normal) (bonuses added during battle?)
basic mechanics (broad range)

something like that.
the GM really plays a heavy roll but its seems fun and the freedom is appealing.

what do you think?

that sounds very appealing, but seeing as how penalties are levied against broad skills for being non-specific, and against narrow skills if the action performed isn't directly related to the specific skill...

query: if we reward a narrow skill with a bonus if the action performed is EXACTLY appropriate to the skill, then can we add a bonus to a broad skill if the action performed is exactly appropriate in that situation? Bonuses should apply any time a skill is used appropriately, not just if the skill is a narrow one, right?

what I mean is this:

As long as we're judging skills according to how appropriate they are when performing a particular task, why don't we, in the same way. take into account the specificity of that skill as part of this "appropriateness" factor?

for instance, a general skill, like "computers" when performing an action like "hacking" might get the same penalty as a specific skill like "software engineering" when performing that action.

This is because general vs specific skill is just another element of figuring out how appropriate that skill is for a particular type of action. You don't need to consider them separately.

This way the game edges closer to having only a single rule: the more appropriate the skill is to the action, the higher the probability of success.

Come to think of it, dogs in the vineyard probably had the right idea of things, why even have skill levels at all? the real challenge would be how to capitalize on your unique selection of skills in various situations.

It would simplify the mechanics while making the game more open to player option.

etothepowerofx wrote:
query: if we reward a narrow skill with a bonus if the action performed is EXACTLY appropriate to the skill, then can we add a bonus to a broad skill if the action performed is exactly appropriate in that situation? Bonuses should apply any time a skill is used appropriately, not just if the skill is a narrow one, right?