It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I was looking at doing a Lady Blackbird hack and saw how it handles Traits and Tags: 1 die for an applicable Trait and you get a die for each Tag underneath that Trait that you can justify.
This makes intuitive sense, and plenty of systems use it. In practice I find it leads to aspect grubbing--looking to ram those square-shaped Aspects into the round hole of the conflict's context. I'm not asking for a stick to use on players--I think it's always reasonable to look for ways to be effective. I'm noodling on ways to avert this so that players don't feel the need to cast about desperately for effectiveness.
In an unpublished design I turned the Trait/Tag thing a bit "inside out." That is, if you have Soldier (4), you've got 4 tags beneath it, and they are the ones you may not add to your roll. Fate points could buy you tags under your other Traits. This is cute, however it makes chargen somewhat tricky--you strategize by selecting things under a Trait such that they're only tangentially relevant. To show a degenerate case, a two-Trait character could have Soldier (2): Making do with what's there, Sleep whenever; Cook (2): Handy with a rolling pin, Commanding voice. I don't think it's broken but I'm not in love with it either.
Diaspora has the idea of "scopes" where an Aspect can only be used once under any scope--your character, a target character, an ally, the scene, etc. And, of course, it doesn't try to mash Skills and Aspects together as Lady Blackbird does, which gets you a good ways out of that problem, since Aspects (or Traits, whatevah) aren't your only source of effectiveness.
Anyone know other design tricks to tackle this issue?