Are you talking about a page 42 approach where the player describes something cool and the DM adjudicates using ability checks as the base? You may be right, the DM is supposed to have a little more control of the game and maybe this is what they meant.
It seems a little nebulous to me, but I like tax forms in my game.
No, that is how this thing usually gets tried, but I think they are going for something both more ambitious and more robust. What will necessarily come out of this, unlike something like page 42, is that at least some of the options will have strange interactions, or even be mutually exclusive. In fact, part of the point is that you
want there to be strange interactions, for different playstyles.
Something like page 42 could be one of those options on the list. So you might have a list something like this, for how to reconcile skill checks:
- Ability score check, some fairly consistent and narrow guidelines on how the DM adjudicates.
- Same thing, but more leeway in adjudication (e.g. use Int for Intimidate if it fits the niche occasion).
- Add "Skills" which are bonuses to these rolls, engrained--note, often more powerful than the above straight.
- Have adjudicated bonuses or such "skills"--now skills are only more powerful in that they "lock in" the bonus, but you can still work for it otherwise.
- Let such bonuses stack--back to "skills" option being more powerful.
- Have equipment bonuses, but don't let it stack with either adjudication or "skills" (kind of an odd option for a "diminishing returns, limited results" feel).
- Have equipment bonuses, but they do stack--add an explicit resource dimension.
- Ban all spells that do "skills" (by some kind of keyword).
- Ban all spells that "replace skills" (e.g. traditional knock), but not ones that buff skills (some hypothetical spell that gives boost to an existing skill roll).
- Go crazy with spells that "replace skills," but restrict them in all kinds of interesting ways too numerous to mention here.
- Certain classes, themes, feats, etc. grant abilities, powers, etc. that "break the normal rules" of skills. The canonical example is a "reroll" ability.
- Getting more afield, using what they have discussed with labeling different DCs and having "apprentice, journeyman, expert, master, etc." ranks, change what having the ability/skill means. The closest example is the 3E "track" feat changing the operation of "Wilderness Survival" skill, but they can get a lot more interesting than that, without necessarily cutting off options.
- Ultra grit - some extended skill checks systematically risk hit points. This is an extension of the risks you run when climbing, forced marches, etc. as a mean to more naturally restrict "retries" and make every skill check matter. Getting down on the floor in the dirty dungeon and checking every inch for secret doors is probably about as risky as the skill climber going over that 15 foot high, rough stone wall--but the risk isn't zero.
- Narrative reasons to not retry skills--something like the Burning Wheel "Let it Ride"--you get one chance, and that chance either works or it doesn't. On the bright side, if it works, the DM doesn't ask you for a new roll every few minutes. For a big climb, you roll once. You either climb it, fall, or back off in exhaustion.
- (Default) - mechanics say that there is no reason why you can't retry skills, but we generally don't, because we don't want to use any of the options that make it a no-brainer.
There are many more. You note running through all of this is the idea that no matter how you mix and match these options, you make a d20 roll based on an ability, and apply the options. No matter which options you pick, there is a way for a person to climb a wall, and that way is spelled out--if only, "DM adjudicates, and this time decides that you make a Str or Dex check."
Now I don't know this, but from what I've observed in other systems, I'm going to bet that the one thing you will not be able to easily change is removing that ability score core framework. Oh, you could eventually replace it with something--a house-ruled, more involved direct skill system, for example--but it would be a lot of work. Because every character is going to have those ability scores and "ability to do certain skills" in the core, and that will interact with magic, combat, exploration, social, crafting--basically, the entire game.
And likewise, you can't make a new option that is incompatible with one of the existing ones, and then turn around and use it in the same game without getting funky results. (You could, of course, try--and might like the funky results.) Short of that, you can do anything that gives you results you like, including making up new options for the list.
I guess the best contrast with a point-buy framework, like GURPS, is that in the framework, they define how something like "climbing" works, and that is how it works. There may be a few optional rules to change the probabilities (for more or less grit, perhaps), but the fundamental nature of it doesn't change. You can push such system to let you do crazy stuff with incredible rolls, or add fumble results on the other end, but these tend to break down in practice. The systems aren't designed to handle those kind of extremes, but rather to make important distinctions between Felipe the Burglar with his Climb +7 and Mack the Soldier with his Climb +4. If Mack wants more climbing, he can buy some (at the expense of other thing he could have bought). Meanwhile, Felipe can go nuts and pump that Climb up where he practically can't fail for anything but outlandish things (at great expense).
Whereas, in the kind of system I think they are doing, the options aren't touching the numbers as much as they are changing what the numbers (and the labels)
mean. It's a very different meaning of "skill" if equipment stacks with ability, instead of not stacking. And then later down in the list, I edged into what happens when you start redefining failure and success.
