Forum

As for skills, I'd like to see skill like the attributes generally broad, but with the option to focus,
Example: Fighting 1 [Axes 3], or Marksmanship 2 [Spear 3] 

I would let the players have whatever they wanted as long as it related to a listed skill, they could make up any focused specialisation they liked, a simple way to customise their characters without breaking the system, what you gain in narrow function you loose in broad function, it's inherently balanced, 

Best part is you can have the the broad and general attributes and skills for fast play and npc's and the detailed focus for the players, or important npc,
It's optional either way, it doesn't disrupt the system,

No need to change the system so drastically, when that's exactly how Talents are intended to work - give more specialised bonuses to the broader skills.

You want to specialise in Axes, so you can get an extra die when using one? Take a weapon specialisation Talent.

You want to specialise in rural prowling, take the relevant Talent giving a bonus to Stealth when in the countryside, rather than Stealth 2 (Rural 3).

You are missing the point, you would need a very long list of talents to cover everything, 
But this option makes it very easy and simple to free up customisation and let the players have the skills they want without a massive list of talents, (and what if there isn't a talent they need?)
Keep the talents as talents, (not skills) 

One thing we should remember, is that not everyone will come to this game with English as the first language. In fact this game has Swedish origins. 

So when we pick attributes, it is not just how efficient they maybe for English Speakers (Vitality, Grace, Reason, Presence is a great list), but how easy they are to translate to other languages. 

Some words like STRENGTH, AGILITY, INTELLIGENCE and EMOTION translate much better than others across multiple languages. 

So Fria Ligan should focus on that, and we, the English speakers, should accept that the words that translate more readily to other languages should be our goal, not perfect English words only. 

You don't need a direct translation, in Sanskrit there are many words that don't have an English equivalent, so you approximate as much as possible,
Let each translation have their own version, as long as they do the same thing, that's the only thing that matters,
The choice of words is just colour, 

As for skills, I'd like to see skill like the attributes generally broad, but with the option to focus,
Example: Fighting 1 [Axes 3], or Marksmanship 2 [Spear 3] 

I would let the players have whatever they wanted as long as it related to a listed skill, they could make up any focused specialisation they liked, a simple way to customise their characters without breaking the system, what you gain in narrow function you loose in broad function, 

In MYZ some talents give bonus to skills when using the skill in a more narrow way. I don't think they would skip that, probably expand it instead.

A never ending list of talents is not the best way to expand the system, better to have a small simple sub system to cover any choice, 
The freedom for character creation would be massive, a vast return on such a simple option, 

Great discussions in here, we're listening to your thoughts even if we don't respond to everything.

As for skills, I'd like to see skill like the attributes generally broad, but with the option to focus,
Example: Fighting 1 [Axes 3], or Marksmanship 2 [Spear 3] 

I would let the players have whatever they wanted as long as it related to a listed skill, they could make up any focused specialisation they liked, a simple way to customise their characters without breaking the system, what you gain in narrow function you loose in broad function, 

In MYZ some talents give bonus to skills when using the skill in a more narrow way. I don't think they would skip that, probably expand it instead.

A never ending list of talents is not the best way to expand the system, better to have a small simple sub system to cover any choice, 
The freedom for character creation would be massive, a vast return on such a simple option, 

I do see where you're coming from. This is essentially what Fantasy Age does. Attributes with player-defined skills. Personally, I prefer a tight list of skills plus talents, as you can control the nature of your game better, and also prevent some player abuse by choosing vague skill names ("hunting" - could cover tracking, perception and notice). It's harder to get the right balance in your approach and requires a GM to be really on the ball with refereeing.

In MYZ some talents give bonus to skills when using the skill in a more narrow way. I don't think they would skip that, probably expand it instead.

A never ending list of talents is not the best way to expand the system, better to have a small simple sub system to cover any choice, 
The freedom for character creation would be massive, a vast return on such a simple option, 

I do see where you're coming from. This is essentially what Fantasy Age does. Attributes with player-defined skills. Personally, I prefer a tight list of skills plus talents, as you can control the nature of your game better, and also prevent some player abuse by choosing vague skill names ("hunting"  - could cover tracking, perception and notice). It's harder to get the right balance in your approach and requires a GM to be really on the ball with refereeing.

This would not be a problem for this option, firstly this only works with the skills already listed, and secondly the focus chosen would be a narrower version of the related skill, it can't be abused, (because the broader skill would already cover it) 
There is no issue of balance, it's self regulating, and inherently balanced,
You don't create new "skills" only the "focus" related to those skills, 
 (So if you had a skill called "Marksmanship", it would cover any type of check involved in aiming right?, so you could focus on Bows, Spears, Knives, or Sling etc, not hunting,)
You can't break this sub system, test it and see, 

Sorry, Harper, I don't see it as being any simpler than the existing system.

I really don't like 2 layers in Attributes AND Skills. This nested system works in Fantasy Age because there's only one free-form element (Skills) master under one other (Attributes). But you're proposing 4 elements and this just strikes me as inelegant.

Also, I don't see it as a problem having a long list of Talents defined. These can be very deliberate chosen, not to encompassed every little nuance of every skill, but rather to help set the tone / flavour of the entire game.

Healing 2 (Surgery 4) could be possible in your system, but what if Fria Ligan want healing to be gritty and dangerous? Their choice of Talents can help define this in the setting, whereas an open playing field for specialisations could dilute the setting.

I actually have been heavily influenced by Blades in the Dark recently. That game has one set of 12 Actions (skills), which are deliberately kept vague, and a small list of Talents for each playbook (Class). The result is a very focused game with classes that really pop and ooze flavour.

Something similar could apply here. Slightly more vague, all-encompassing Skills, and a very good, flavourful list of Talents.

Wow, sorry for that wall of text. I just reread it and realise that I come across very (overly) critical of your idea, Harper. I don't mean to, I just really like the engine the way it is.

Sorry, Harper, I don't see it as being any simpler than the existing system.  

I really don't like 2 layers in Attributes AND Skills. This nested system works in Fantasy Age because there's only one free-form element (Skills) master under one other (Attributes). But you're proposing 4 elements and this just strikes me as inelegant.

Also, I don't see it as a problem having a long list of Talents defined. These can be very deliberate chosen, not to encompassed every little nuance of every skill, but rather to help set the tone / flavour of the entire game.

Healing 2 (Surgery 4) could be possible in your system, but what if Fria Ligan want healing to be gritty and dangerous? Their choice of Talents can help define this in the setting, whereas an open playing field for specialisations could dilute the setting.

I actually have been heavily influenced by Blades in the Dark recently. That game has one set of 12 Actions (skills), which are deliberately kept vague, and a small list of Talents for each playbook (Class). The result is a very focused game with classes that really pop and ooze flavour.

Something similar could apply here. Slightly more vague, all-encompassing Skills, and a very good, flavourful list of Talents.

You seem to be bringing baggage from another game, and you don't seem to understand what this option is and does, for starters it's optional, the game can be played with half your players using this option and the other half not, without effecting game balance,
This option also streamlines the system, reducing the bulk you would need to have talents try to do a similar job, it is elegant and simple, while encompassing a lot of freedom and definition, 
Your example of healing 2 (surgery 4) is a poor example, and makes no sense, you would have the same ability for surgery at healing 4, (but that would also rise all other related healing abilities with it,) 

I don't think you understand, your argument makes no sense, 
Forget fantasy age, it seems to be colouring your thinking, 

I can't keep trying to explain this, it's very simple, 

Harper, I'm sorry. For whatever reason, your system isn't clicking with me, let's leave it at that and move on.