Lots of good suggestions here. I've also had fun with Feng Shui, which is entirely skill based (but has "splat" packages that only affect your starting character).

The middle ground of Earthdawn gets my vote, where the "classes" are in-world secret societies, but advancement is skill/talent based. The 4th edition simplifies the resolution system (gets rid of the success level charts), so might be worth checking out again.

Quote from: woodsmoke;828685Are there any conventional high fantasy games or setting-agnostic systems what take a more or less purely skill-based approach?

Among the most popular skill-based systems:
- RuneQuest and other BRP variants
- GURPS (GURPS Fantasy is a popular line)
- HERO System (Fantasy HERO)
- Savage Worlds
- FATE
- Burning Wheel

I'm playing in a GURPS Fantasy campaign now.

One common issue I have a problem with is disconnected (or "cherry-picked") skills.  Players are encouraged to take skills that are most useful, so everyone picks up some stealth, a single weapon skill, and so forth. Then again, this is also true of many class-based systems.

Iron Gauntlets by Precis Intermedia is skill based.

For fantasy, I'd go with Runequest or Stormbringer (depending on what tone/genre I wanted).

Another non-level based game you might look at would be Barbarians of Lemuria. It is on the lighter side rules-wise and is career based not skill based, but the careers effectively act like a bundle of skills. Honor+Intrigue is based on BoL, but with a greatly expanded dueling system suitable for swashbuckling action. But H+I doesn't have a high fantasy magic system. PCs aren't really expected to use much real magic - though they may use charlatanry or alchemy. BoL would probably work better for a game with PC-MUs.

I'd go for Openquest, or Stormbringer (either 1st, 2nd or 5th edition).
Otherwise Barbarians of Lemuria if you want to go for Rules-Lite.

I have rarely seen a game that is more skill based than Rolemaster, but I think Runequest might be closer to what the OP is looking for, somehow. I like Runequest 3 personally.

Regarding which version of Runequest I'd use.

Well actually, I didn't play or run Runequest in it's pure form that much.
I ran Stormbringer/Elric from 1st edition, right through to 5th Edition with Chaosium.
Later I picked up the Elric RPG with Mongoose, which used MRQ1 and MRQ2 and the cleaned up rules of Legend with Mongoose.  

I probably had the most fun running Stormbringer 1st to 3rd Edition.
It had the crazy summoning demons into weapons and armor and stuff.
It was way fun, but very OP and very dangerous to the summoner as well.

4th/5th Edition with Chaoisium and the MRQ2 editions were probably truer to Moorcock's Elric stories though.

If I were to run it again, I'd try to get an old 3rd edition Stormbringer (which came with the companion). As it moves really fast and is just good fun.

Failing that, then 5th Edition Stormbringer, which I still own and also runs very well, meaning fast and realistic enough for what I need in an RPG.

I'm a bit bummed out with Legend and RQ6. They are more realistic and so on, but just too much of a hassle and fiddly bits to manage when running the game.

Quote from: woodsmoke;828685My DM wants to try to cook up a homebrew system for us to use in our game once the current campaign wraps up. I'll admit I'm not particularly keen on the idea; I've wanted to get away from the moar bigger numbers style of Pathfinder for a while now, but I just wanted to sub it out for Earthdawn, not put in all the time and effort of hammering out a whole new ruleset. Which I understand is a conversation I need to have with her and not something you lot can help me with, but in the meantime studying up on some games what handle the genre differently and mining them for ideas hopefully will help a bit, whether in finding a system we like better that we can just tweak to suit our needs or making the homebrew process easier by removing some of the mental heavy lifting.

I know most high fantasy RPGs (or what seems like most) are generally built around D&D's class-and-level paradigm, often for no better reason than Because Tradition. Earthdawn gets away from this to an extent by using sort of a weird class-and-skill hybrid, which I feel works remarkably well for what it is but still carries the baggage of AD&D. Are there any conventional high fantasy games or setting-agnostic systems what take a more or less purely skill-based approach?

Well.  I can say I've done what he's talking about.  After houseruling D&D, back in the day,to the nth degree, i created a homebrew skill base to match the game I wanted to play, and the setting I wanted to work with.

That was 1983.  It is still  99% of my games I run.  And for a longer term game, I recommend it.  I have groups that play 150-200 sessions that get better and more competent constantly who still are scared of being one-shotted if they are silly.

So, your buddy may be trying to match the same way, setting and a play style he wants to try with system.

Quote from: Telarus;828707The middle ground of Earthdawn get my vote tho, where the "classes" are in-world secret societies, but advancement is skill/talent based. The 4th edition simplifies the resolution system (gets rid of the success level charts), so might be worth checking out again.

I don't know 4e Earthdawn but my experience with ED was a mixed bag... I loved the setting and the way the rules tied into it... but in implementation it was really kludgy. It didn't 'feel' like a skill-based game either... there are classes and levels cleverly disguised as aspects of the setting but it did feel like something solidly in the D&D camp... with extra added complexity.

I'd opt for something fast and smooth and truly skill-based, like Magic World... which is Stormbringer minus the Moorcock IP.

Quote from: Simlasa;828736I'd opt for something fast and smooth and truly skill-based, like Magic World... which is Stormbringer minus the Moorcock IP.

I've been really tempted to get Magic World, but many of the reviews talk of typos and formatting issues, so I dunno...

There's a free one in my sig.

As to Rolemaster, semi-users never have quite enough development points to really rock their specialized status.  But that's RMSS where people often complain that the development points awarded are none to generous.  Still, if you can get through the lower levels to the point where pure professions are plateauing semi-users can get scary.

I read a draft of the MW rules and helped the author with some typos, but unless they introduced a bunch of new problems in the final edition, I don't think there are any significant issues.

Aside from the (mostly excellent) suggestions that have already been given, I'll mention Talislanta. All the editions are in free PDFs these days. Up to 3e, it used a hybrid level/skill system (no "classes", but beginning characters are archetypes, which give a core cluster of skills and characteristics that can then be tweaked). In 4e and later, it went completely skill-based, but I think I prefer the earlier approach.

It's based on a pretty atypical fantasy world, but I think it could be tweaked, or elements reskinned, to make something more elf/dwarf/orc if that's your taste.

Quote from: David Johansen;828747As to Rolemaster, semi-users never have quite enough development points to really rock their specialized status.  But that's RMSS where people often complain that the development points awarded are none to generous.  Still, if you can get through the lower levels to the point where pure professions are plateauing semi-users can get scary.

I was referring to the New semi-spell users in RM2 that came in the many companions.
I banned so many of them. The Noble Warrior was crazy OP. Was that even tested at all?
I also banned the Nightblade and various other semi spell users.
In general , I though they were just too powerful, not weak.

In RMSS, I wasn't keen on the Magent. It was a skill monster and had really powerful spells as well to make it even tougher.

Quote from: danskmacabre;828742I've been really tempted to get Magic World, but many of the reviews talk of typos and formatting issues, so I dunno...

I can't say I've noticed any major issues in my readings of the book... the errata sheet that came out for it is pretty short. The biggest thing was that a description of an occupation got left out and in a few places the book refers to 'fatigue' but MW doesn't have rules for fatigue.

EDIT: It occurs to me that you might be getting that impression from the anonymous ax-grinding post on Tenkar's... which seemed like a questionabe move on that blog host's part. Plenty of folks chimed in to say they'd read the book and not seen any issues and it seemed to get outed as more a matter of someone not liking the graphical appearance of the book than any legitimate problem in how the rules are written.

Quote from: Simlasa;828756I can't say I've noticed any major issues in my readings of the book... the errata sheet that came out for it is pretty short. The biggest thing was that a description of an occupation got left out and in a few places the book refers to 'fatigue' but MW doesn't have rules for fatigue.

I'd love to review it before I buy I think in this case.
I love the idea of this RPG, but whatever, it might come out on a Humble Bundle one day and I'll just grab it then.