It's a bit late, but I'll make two comments:
This needed to be done, and is an excellent start.
Thank you for the suggestion. This will definitely help to standardize the skills, and make it easier to maintain them going forward for myself and other GMs. I'm almost thinking of making these part of the system and providing dropdowns for them. That way it will make it easier for the GM to build new skills, though what to do with ones the GM decides to completely over ride? I guess I could put N/A in the list and let them write it in the description. But for now I'm just putting "DL Type: Player Gambit." etc in the description which is fine for now. We want to test it out for a while I think.
Several of these use limitations don't make sense to me. Stat requisites and skill levels seem very artificial.
Which limitations don't make sense? They can be adjusted. I think though that rolling against requisites, especially wisdom in the case of mental skills, makes sense. The same is true for trials of strength, such as wrestling, or Dexterity. So when competing with another character it seems to make sense to roll vs. their Stat. Lets take a mental skill like Hypnosis... if rolling vs. the Wisdom is artificial, what do you recommend? Same question for Skill Levels.
I would suggest the following:
Some skills/powers add +1 DL per failed attempt. This represents frustration, loss of confidence, or making something worse.
Why not make that a general rule that applies to all skills unless otherwise specified? It makes sense to me.
Some skills/powers cannot be attempted again in a situation. Certain things simply fail such as lying or diplomacy. I am very biased against diplomacy rolls because they have the potential to ruin a story, and a bad roll should not destroy a great speaker and a great roll should not save a horrible speaker.
I think the number of tries rule would handle this. No? As for things like lying and diplomacy retries... I don't have a problem with it. Sometimes people lie, it sounds bad, they self correct, the other person raises an eyebrow, they lie again, this time more convincingly, the person shrugs and accepts it. That happens in real life, I've seen it. The same, I'm sure is true for Diplomacy. As for the saving or destroying the speaker... this is a really philosophical question actually, and one that is widely debated in RPG circles. Should the Player's cleverness trump the Character's requisite? Or vice versa? I tend towards the view that the Character's requisites and skills are primary. So a dumb player who is playing a Wizard does not have to figure out how to solve a particular riddle in the game for his character to figure it out. He rolls for it. "Does my Character figure it out?". Same principal for diplomacy and speeches. But again, this is a widely debated topic. I simply have my preference. Other GMs will go the other way with it. Adjudication is preferred I think.
Time can be used to limit uses. Attempting the action may take 1 minute, 10 minutes, an hour or a day.
Materials could be consumed. Cooking would be a clear example (Burnt food).
Yup. But is it necessary? Adjudication could handle this by the GM. "Hermel wants to make the ultra fancy Dragon Basket using his Weaving Skill? It will take 4 hours." Since every skill and every attempt may be variable in that regard based on conditions and circumstances, I'm ok with it be adjudicated. While I very much like the idea of standardizing the skills rules, the level of detail should be kept simple, I think, so it doesn't become completely rules focused. That is where adjudication is useful
A mystic point cost or life point cost could be used as limits. Even if using mp for skills doesn't fit with your idea of how they should be spent, another DM may want this. I can also think of interesting powers/skills that would spend life points such as Power Lift, or Death Blow.
Since Feats and Kung Fu are already our go-to skills for Mystic Points Usage (we already implemented that idea in Kung Fu Skills, and Feats), I'm not sure I want to add a "You also use up Life Points" too. Not sure. Have to think that one over. Maybe.
Ok, awesome as always! Thanks Chris!