I'm curious, because it seems to me that this would require some houseruling here and there. (Or maybe, I would just prefer it, having played and run other systems.) What bumps have you run into, and how do you address them? (Like, I would change the skill list, for starters...especially the social skills.) Happy to be pointed at previous posts, too. 60+ pages is a lot to scroll through.
Well, I don’t change the skill list, but I do change my thinking about how skills are used. The flow of the conversation in my games is that first I describe the environment or scenario, with an eye towards things for the players to react to, investigate, or otherwise interact with. I think of this as “asking the players ‘what do you do’
about something,” but you might think of it as a rough analogue to an MC Move. It’s not a perfect analogy because when I ask “what do you do (about)?” it isn’t necessarily always presenting a source of dramatic conflict that demands an immediate response. It might just be presenting one or more interesting environmental features. But the idea is still to give the players something to respond to, something to spur action. I ask that the players describe their actions in terms of what they want to accomplish (the goal) and how their character attempts to do it (the approach), and I evaluate whether the approach has a meaningful chance of succeeding at bringing about the goal, a meaningful chance of failing to bring about the goal, and a meaningful cost for the attempt or consequence for failure. If it has all three of those things, I call for an ability check, not a skill check. The player than has the opportunity to suggest a Proficiency they think might help them achieve their goal. This could be a skill proficiency, a tool proficiency, a language, or even a weapon or armor proficiency if they think it will help. I will assess whether I think the offered proficiency is applicable, erring on the side of being permissive, and if it is, they can add their Proficiency bonus.
So, yeah, one consequence of this process is that rolls are only called for when there are immediate consequences. Trying to sneak up to the unwary guard or whatever, you don’t have to make a check just to become hidden - if you meet the requirements to hide in the first place, there’s really no meaningful chance of failure. But when you try to sneak up to get the drop on him, that’s something that might succeed, might fail, and has meaningful consequences. That’s the time to make the check.
Now, if the guard is aware of your presence and you’re trying to lose him, that’s a different story. Becoming hidden is less certain, and there are more immediacy consequences in that case. But the point is, roll when it’s relevant, not before.