In fact, where in 4e the fact that many skills were relegated to fairly niche uses was a bit problematic, I think it is a lot less so in Story Now kind of play.
Well, personally, I didn’t think 4e had much in the way of problems with its skill set up.
In 4e noncombat conflict resolution and stunting, there are only a few relevant parts to action resolution and micro-story-progression when it comes to characters:
1) Can this PC realize their archetype through play (conflict framing > action resolution > story output)?
2) Through the realization of that archetype, can the PC meaningfully and with reasonable parity contribute to overcoming obstacles and the ultimate propulsion of story.
Without a doubt, the answer to those two questions are yes.
The three primary pieces of machinery that make this possible are:
* Each class getting their archetypal schtick as standard issue (eg Arcana for Wizards, Athletics for Fighters) and these being broadly applicable. These are the abilities that are going to be deployed the most for each archetype.
* Most other skills being broad-descriptor.
* The system maths, conflict resolution framework, and GMing directives (eg interesting decision points > action declaration & resolution > change the situation & Fail Forward).
Once you can answer yes to 1 and 2, you’re basically massaging fringe cases that you aren’t happy with (eg making Religion Wis because Clerics, giving Fighters another Skill, bundling non-archetypal skills that aren’t turning out to be broad enough for your table.
As far as other Story Now games go, the designs are versatile and robust that they can handle a few open descriptor PC abilities with broad application (Cortex+) to tightly focused playbooks (PBtA) but broad resolution mechanics to focused PC dice pool adds but broad pools (Dogs and the like) to games with very, very narrow skills or skills where PCs suck (but get used a lot). A lot of that is the games general premise (your PC is going to be miserable mostly), reward cycle paradigm (PC progression via resolution failure and or fallout), other adds to increase prospects of success (typically in exchange for some cost/risk/fallout - Devils Bargain in Blades) or GMing directives.
Does that engage with your question I. The way you were looking for?
Sorry, I haven’t read your thread. I’ll try to catch up on it here in the next few weeks. Looks interesting!