Take a look.
The D&D Next team talks about using feats only to add breadth. Pathfinder uses them to add power and depth, building a hyper-focused specialist. Even 4e D&D does that, to a lesser degree. But Reinhart's point is basically advocating a staggered breadth/depth progression. First you focus, then you add breadth until a threshold is reached and you can focus again.
Broadening Focus in Action
I'm getting to something actually useful for GMs here, I promise!
On one hand you don't wind up with kung fu masters who can't run a ten minute mile, master negotiators who can't lie with a straight face, and crack drivers who don't know a crankshaft from a timing belt. On the other hand, you DO wind up with dilettante socialite nightclub owners who are also ASC-certified auto mechanics and competent burglars.
Not only does the FATE skill pyramid system prevent you from being a master of a few things and incompetent and way behind the curve everywhere else (the problem Reinhart identifies), it also prevents you from being a master of one thing and "pretty good" at several things (e.g. 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2; given 24 skill points).
Like a lot of point-buy stat/skill games, FATE allows any character to take any skill at any level (with the aforementioned restriction). In that sort of game, just like a class-level game, the players tend to talk with each other to make sure they have all the important adventuring skills covered. Can everyone at least survive a combat? OK. Do we have at least one guy who can win a combat? OK. What about contacts and resources? Social situations? Stealth, scouting and B&E stuff? Investigation and research? And so on...
The party will always have someone who is good at every skill. With the pyramid, it may not be a max-rated skill, but it will be one or two shy of max. GMs build scenarios with skill difficulties based on that assumption. So in a stat/skill system, a player who has invested in a minimum-level skill has basically wasted that resource. Why would I use my "Mechanics 1" when someone in the party has "Mechanics 3"? Why would I use my "Intimidate 1" when someone else has "Intimidate 5"? The problem is that players are forced to spend resources on things they will never use.
A game design solution is to keep the "broadening focus" idea bounded is described in Reinhart's blog post. Basically you bring everything up to level N before anything raises to N+1, so your focus is always better, but your other skills aren't far behind. That works for class/level systems, but for stat/skill systems, you get the FATE skill pyramid or something like it.
There are two GM solutions to the problem. I used to run a lot of World of Darkness games (and I would still, but I don't have the time). I found two reliable ways to make those low skills pay off.
The first is to allow players who have the skill at all to contribute a free die to help the best player. That is, if Sam has Investigation 4, and Bill and Tim each have "Investigation 1," they can each add a die to Sam's Investigation roll. Now you can really raise the difficulty, and the PC party can achieve some dramatic things... if they have broad talents.
The second technique is going to be the topic of a post next week. It's the most dangerous thing PCs can ever do. It's generally considered anathema to gamers, yet done well, it can be incredibly dramatic. The reviled dark ritual of which I speak is...
S p l i t t i n g t h e P a r t y