Basically, this is my idea of how abstract combat can work. This focuses a lot on storytelling and working towards a "minimum viable product" or the negotiation we typically have with an End User when we do the Requirements Analysis.
As I get older, and having the disillusion regarding the Law, and Certainty, and how its this Feedback loop with people that really makes small wins snowball into big changes I find myself streamlining my mental models into these kinds of concepts.
I realize there is a STRONG similarity between the Ideation of a Minimum-Viable-Product (MVP) or Agile Output/Deliverable and the Feedback loop of Players before a Roll. In Good-Faith we settle on an Outcome - having negotiated Trade-offs given the Circumstance, so much like what has happened in an Agile Project - we work out an MVP. If a GM or Player (in a GMless Game) can harness this you can have a very "Light" but satisfying system.
I'll try to make it "Qualitative" So that its more "Any Game System".