In the system I've played, you only get check marks for successful use of the skill during a session. You can attempt all you want but if you fail, you don't get a check. Also, knowledge based skills that require training and research to learn initally have a 0% base chance. Until you've learned something through training, you can't even begin to do it successfully (most of those skills also don't have checkboxes and can only increase by research and training, somthing want to change.).

I'm not clear on the question of specialists. In this system weapons skills are checkable skills just like the others. In fact, in that game each weapon was a unique skill (broadsword was differnt from rapier was differnt from cutlass, it was a fantasy game) and you got checks on the skills you used. If you favored one weapon over another, you got better in that weapon, effectively specializing in it.

Another consideration for this revised method comes from the Ref not providing the opportunities for the player to develop their character in the way they want. For instance, all the objectives solved via military commando tactics when the player(s) really desire a RP heavy game, or a player really desires a Technologist/Agent type of character and the Ref typically sends Alien Critters hell bent on destruction. <snip>

That settles it for me - you're absolutely right.  I've played in games before where I had a strong character concept that was never allowed to grow to fruition because the Referee had a specific focus for the campaign that precluded my imagination from his grand scheme.  Bad GMing, I guess, but there it is.  But I think it's worthy of playtest. 

One other possibility is to gain proficiency by succeeding in a skill by a certain margin. Many written tests we do in the military have to be passed with a 60-80%, a 50% is not a pass to us as that means you have only retained half the knowledge that was taught. Not so good for a medic to only know half of what he should. So what if some skills only increased by getting 60% more than you require?

Say you have to hack a computer, you have a 50% chance to succeed. You roll a 55 and get in, but you don't gain anything from it as you just barely made it (10% over the requirement). If you rolled 80 (60% over the requirement), then you would gain in skill. More difficult skills would require a roll to be 80% over the requirement, in the case above you would require a roll of 90 or more to gain in skill.

The skill gain can be as simple as 1 point or .1 of a point, depending on the difficulty of the skill or even the common use of the skill to prevent a quick rise.

Then again, I did make that nifty little table back in SFman #1, page 14.  Since that's purely made up by this community and not a single word taken from any other source (and tends to lead to a 1-10 XP award) we could use that as-is, making the book come together quicker.

Also, Bill brings up a good point about our children. Most likely this game will be handed down generation after generation after gen... ok you get the point. The material, artwork and mechanics should be kid friendly, meaning at a level that can grasp *almost*. It's not a kids game, but a good GM can tailor it such. The game still needs to have enough "meat" to appeal to an adult audience.

For example: my kid is playing a merc and fires his pistol at his enemy.  His skill and ability give him a base of 45% but because of various combat modifiers (range, prone, movement, etc.) he has a 55% chance.  He rolls his dice.  He knows if he rolls 55 or less he's hit his mark... but how does he know, at a glance, whether or not he has improved his score a percent?

The easy answer is a chart, but maybe not a popular one as charts can get messy (lots of numbers and the inclusion of fractions if numbers are not rounded up, down or off).  Other than that a calculator would be the only other way I can think of in this system to get the right value.

What do you mean here?  You're for "this" system - which one?  you mean the 1-10XP system from sfman#1?  Then you're reccommending adding optional systems in the GM book?

Bill, I don't see that drawback as a concern.
A skill isn't eternal, it's limited. You can never be perfect.
<snip>

hm.. okay, well then stick with the beam/projectile/gyrojet/archaic breakdown?

The "generic" list of military skills is fine for me and for the most part you are right, a rifle is a rifle and a pistol is a pistol. The differences are such that only by going into more detail than is desired would they come out. I.E. single-action pistol vice a double-action pistol (to me a single action is quicker and more accurate, but to others the opposite is true), a 7.62mm rifle vice a .22cal (both easy to fire, but some find the 7.62 to be too much), they are the same in general design but firing them is technically very different. Just tossing that out there as I am sure technically a beam weapon would have less recoil than say a gyrojet or a slug thrower, which is why I think they were separated from one another. Again, just tossing it out there, I support the division by type vice by what they fire in order to keep things simple. It is of course possible at a later date to introduce optional weapon rules, almost like a basic and advanced version of the game.

On the specializations themselves, are they chosen at the start or can they be chosen later in life? It would present an unsual quirk where if at level 2 pistols I chose to specialize in beam and suddenly lost skill with all other pistols.

That's my line of thought.