Forum

I had a thought the other day about this thing with people needing more than twelve skills. Since Fria Ligan has a history of using talents as a way of morphing skills in different ways, why not keep that going and keep the skillcount low?

For example Command: in it's normal form it's just about ordering your teammates around to give them extra die if they follow your instructions. Then you choose the talent Leadership and it allows you to command armies or the talent Animal Handler wich lets you tame wild animals. You don't lose the old way of using the skill though, you just modify your character to fit your playstyle.
In the past Fria Ligan-games there has also been the talents that exchange the base attribute for certain skills. How about using that for expanding the skill list instead of adding more skills? So you want to make someone obey you. Do you intimidate them? Strength + Persuasion. Convince them that you're in the right? Wits + Persuasion. Charm them? Sense/Charisma + Persuasion. I see this being used for Crafts as well (Smithing (Strength), Healing (Wits), Leatherworking/Tailoring (Dexterity)). And so on and so forth. What do you think?
Also Melee Specializations (Close Combat), Modes of Transportation (Move) and a plethora of the other skills.

I'm all for keeping the general skill count down just for simplicity, but still allowing character to give more detail and focus if needed,
My idea on this would allow characters a blank sheet to fill in as they wish (within the limits of the related skill) and be open ended for description,
Simply, functional, balanced, with or without the detail, 

Twelve, Sixteen - either is good and around my sweetspot

Twelve, Sixteen - either is good and around my sweetspot

For "general skills" that's enough, but if you want to define those loose areas, say be a sword master, you can't without also being a master of every other weapon,
You know you could go the other way, and just have one single skill called..."SKILL" that let's you do everything and just modify that with talents, lots of them,
Because we don't need lots of skills, just tons more talents instead,
(Joke)

Twelve, Sixteen - either is good and around my sweetspot

For "general skills" that's enough, but if you want to define those loose areas, say be a sword master, you can't without also being a master of every other weapon,
You know you could go the other way, and just have one single skill called..."SKILL" that let's you do everything and just modify that with talents, lots of them,
Because we don't need lots of skills, just tons more talents instead,
(Joke)

Well, there has to be a balance, of course, but as i stated in the lower part of my post, a bloated list of skills could be replaced by a more clever approach to combining a slimmer skillset with different attributes instead of having each skill bound to one attribute only.
Also, talents aren't that rare, they are just as easy to get as a single skillpoint and there is no limit to how many talents you can have, at least not if they keep the rules from previous games. To me, it's a more flavourful way of designing your character than saying that he/she is now 1 point better at actions defined by a very broad skilldefinition. It's a bit drab and boring, at least to me.

Twelve, Sixteen - either is good and around my sweetspot

For "general skills" that's enough, but if you want to define those loose areas, say be a sword master, you can't without also being a master of every other weapon,
You know you could go the other way, and just have one single skill called..."SKILL" that let's you do everything and just modify that with talents, lots of them,
Because we don't need lots of skills, just tons more talents instead,
(Joke)

Well, there has to be a balance, of course, but as i stated in the lower part of my post, a bloated list of skills could be replaced by a more clever approach to combining a slimmer skillset with different attributes instead of having each skill bound to one attribute only.
Also, talents aren't that rare, they are just as easy to get as a single skillpoint and there is no limit to how many talents you can have, at least not if they keep the rules from previous games. To me, it's a more flavourful way of designing your character than saying that he/she is now 1 point better at actions defined by a very broad skilldefinition. It's a bit drab and boring, at least to me.

Yes, I'd rather have skills used with multiple attributes, 
But a list of talents, is just as bad as a list of skills,
The idea I've given doesn't need a list of skills, it's up to the player to choose, the player creates the related skill focus, it's not listed, it's a blank sheet, no long lists of skills,
Just needs to be covered under the skill, so if melee combat was a skill, you could have "swords" or "axes" 
but not "camel riding" or "cooking" common sense, and has to be GM approved,
And because the focus costs half the normal skill you would only want to raise one focus, because two would be the same price,
You would not be limited to just one point extra, you could max out to five, 

For "general skills" that's enough, but if you want to define those loose areas, say be a sword master, you can't without also being a master of every other weapon,
You know you could go the other way, and just have one single skill called..."SKILL" that let's you do everything and just modify that with talents, lots of them,
Because we don't need lots of skills, just tons more talents instead,
(Joke)

Well, there has to be a balance, of course, but as i stated in the lower part of my post, a bloated list of skills could be replaced by a more clever approach to combining a slimmer skillset with different attributes instead of having each skill bound to one attribute only.
Also, talents aren't that rare, they are just as easy to get as a single skillpoint and there is no limit to how many talents you can have, at least not if they keep the rules from previous games. To me, it's a more flavourful way of designing your character than saying that he/she is now 1 point better at actions defined by a very broad skilldefinition. It's a bit drab and boring, at least to me.

Yes, I'd rather have skills used with multiple attributes, 
But a list of talents, is just as bad as a list of skills,
The idea I've given doesn't need a list of skills, it's up to the player to choose, the player creates the related skill focus, it's not listed, it's a blank sheet, no long lists of skills,
Just needs to be covered under the skill, so if melee combat was a skill, you could have "swords" or "axes" 
but not "camel riding" or "cooking" common sense, and has to be GM approved,
And because the focus costs half the normal skill you would only want to raise one focus, because two would be the same price,
You would not be limited to just one point extra, you could max out to five, 

But isn't a list of foci just as bad? And mathematically could you then get 5(attribute)+5(skill)+5(focus) for your roll, in which case it might be considered overpowering or is the skill replaced by the focus, in which case you are basically gimping yourself instead of specializing. And talents are not necessarily +1, they can give more or modify skills in other ways, so you get crits easier for example.

Well, there has to be a balance, of course, but as i stated in the lower part of my post, a bloated list of skills could be replaced by a more clever approach to combining a slimmer skillset with different attributes instead of having each skill bound to one attribute only.
Also, talents aren't that rare, they are just as easy to get as a single skillpoint and there is no limit to how many talents you can have, at least not if they keep the rules from previous games. To me, it's a more flavourful way of designing your character than saying that he/she is now 1 point better at actions defined by a very broad skilldefinition. It's a bit drab and boring, at least to me.

Yes, I'd rather have skills used with multiple attributes, 
But a list of talents, is just as bad as a list of skills,
The idea I've given doesn't need a list of skills, it's up to the player to choose, the player creates the related skill focus, it's not listed, it's a blank sheet, no long lists of skills,
Just needs to be covered under the skill, so if melee combat was a skill, you could have "swords" or "axes" 
but not "camel riding" or "cooking" common sense, and has to be GM approved,
And because the focus costs half the normal skill you would only want to raise one focus, because two would be the same price,
You would not be limited to just one point extra, you could max out to five, 

But isn't a list of foci just as bad? And mathematically could you then get 5(attribute)+5(skill)+5(focus) for your roll, in which case it might be considered overpowering or is the skill replaced by the focus, in which case you are basically gimping yourself instead of specializing. And talents are not necessarily +1, they can give more or modify skills in other ways, so you get crits easier for example.

No, you don't have a list of focus sub skills, you get to make your own, it's a blank sheet, you can choose anything just has long that it relates to the skill and gm approval,
Yes you could get 5+5+5 but it would cost a lot, the rest of your character sheet would suffer, remember you don't get anymore or less character points to build this with,
doable yes, desirable no, 
It's the character building that keeps this in check, it's balanced, not over powered, you trade in board skill, for narrow skill focus, you gain with one hand, lose with the other,
.
So you have the same limited points to buy this,
A trade in broader skill for a more restrictive skill focus.
And you have a balanced economy that makes it impractical to buy more than one focus,
And lastly you need gm approval, (common sense)

Ok, after reading the last update there will be 16 skills, four under each of the four attributes (Strength, Agility, Wits, Charisma). Only the name o of the skills aren’t yet decided

Apologies for going off-topic, but I feel the need to defend myself against some unfriendly and unfair comments directed my way.

But Endurance does? Lol

I don't appreciate being laughed at or mocked, especially in such a patronising way. Please stop.

As for Endurance, it's a skill in MYZ (Endure), so sure, why not? They've already got the mechanics in place for it. My own hack will remove it because I prefer to handle it very differently.

Btw, why do I need to explain everything to you?, it looks like you are just trying to criticise me personally,

Your post made no sense in the context and I asking you what you meant, it wasn't personal.

Dude? What? after criticising me on Wisdom, you put up "Sagacity"? (Even under the description it says "Wise")

Again, please stop with the patronising. I didn't criticise you, I said "Wisdom under Charisma feels even more out of place than Insight under Charisma." Just stating my opinion on "Wisdom" in the context of the conversation you commented on.

As for Sagacity, if you actually read my post, I didn't recommend it, preferring Insight.

Apologies for going off-topic, but I feel the need to defend myself against some unfriendly and unfair comments directed my way.

But Endurance does? Lol

I don't appreciate being laughed at or mocked, especially in such a patronising way. Please stop.

As for Endurance, it's a skill in MYZ (Endure), so sure, why not? They've already got the mechanics in place for it. My own hack will remove it because I prefer to handle it very differently.

Btw, why do I need to explain everything to you?, it looks like you are just trying to criticise me personally,

Your post made no sense in the context and I asking you what you meant, it wasn't personal.

Dude? What? after criticising me on Wisdom, you put up "Sagacity"? (Even under the description it says "Wise")

Again, please stop with the patronising. I didn't criticise you, I said "Wisdom under Charisma feels even more out of place than Insight under Charisma." Just stating my opinion on "Wisdom" in the context of the conversation you commented on.

As for Sagacity, if you actually read my post, I didn't recommend it, preferring Insight.

Dude, you argue like a psychopath, (literally, the very same tactics, you get caught in doing something wrong and then try to make out you are the victim,)
I pointed out that YZ uses what would be considered attributes as skills, I stayed consistent within that precedence in putting forward the idea of using Wisdom (likewise with the same trend of using attribute like skills within the system) the choice of wisdom was based on the the fact that it was the root of insight, so could incorporate that, and more as its broader in scope, it also sounds more fantasy)
And again, you try to steer away from the facts, you do constantly criticise my comment, I wouldn't mind if there was some validity to it, but none of your comment related to my posts have any validity, you constantly try to under mine, then like a hypocrite post the same thing, if that's not enough evidence to prove your unhealthy agenda ( it's not like you are going to be open with your agenda because you know it's wrong, so instead try to play people, another psychopathic trait btw as psychopaths are expert manipulators, and spend their lives trying manipulate people)
I've stayed professional in trying to ignore your petty attacks and stay focused on trying to help the game, You have not, I was hoping you would stop, but you obviously didn't, 
If you have a problem with my posts, block them, don't try to drag the rest of the forum down with your crap,