Just realized that I've invented the Most Complicated Skill Check of All Time. Internally I'm quite used to the system in development, but the methods I've thought of implementing it have consequences.
How would you, as a player, feel if one person decided they wanted to pick a lock, or climb a wall, and it took about 1 minute of handling and re-rolling dice to resolve? How would you feel if you knew you couldn't pick a lock, but you go and get in a fight with some orcs, and come back knowing you are now prepared to pick said lock? How would you feel if a very effective strategy to prepare yourself before a dangerous fight is to seek out a substantially weaker enemy, still non-trivial enough to pose a threat to you, so that you can use your combat abilities? How would you feel if you had to accumulate 3 completely different achievements to progress: combat abilities, exploration abilities, and skill check abilities? How would you feel if a set of seemingly unrelated abilities can only be obtained in tandem?
So like Dael Kingsmill mentioned for herself, I have some dropped ideas.
This jam appears to be about original content, but I'm just curious as to where you draw the line. Oh and it might just be the way my brain works, but I vastly prefer a strict and definitive line to a fuzzy but lenient one.
Would it be fine to take an old system and just continue work on it? What if I overhaul a defining feature of the game balance, or adapt the ruleset for a different setting? What if it's a system I haven't abandoned at any point?
