Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

...I think we're talking at cross-purposes somehow? What I said was that the entire point is that Westly and Inigo don't have Off Hand Weapon Training - they use their off hand to intentionally handicap themselves (until they decide to shed the limitation and go all-out).

(Also, shouldn't really plug the superseded and deficient Off-Hand Weapon Training technique. It was mispriced compared to Ambidextrous, and replaced by a perk that fully buys off the penalty.)
Again completely at cross-purposes. Some things being cheaper in 3e is irrelevant to this.

I thought there was a thing where the price per point of skills could scale exponentially without limit? But that might be some nonsense I confabulated, my signature disclaimer about 3e ignorance is still mostly accurate.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Yes, the OHW technique was just really odd. One of the reasons why they had to get rid of it though was the Perk of Technique Mastery, as someone could have legally taken Technique Mastery and raised OHW to Skill+4 for an extra 4 CP (meaning that they could have effectively gained 16 CP of value for 10 CP of investment). Since they could have also taken Technique Master for Ground Fighting, and therefore Ground Fighting to Skill+4, you could have ended up with a character that attacked and defended better with their offhand while lying down than with their dominant hand while standing up.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

That's pretty much what you'll find for any game that isn't D&D or D&D-derived. But there are fans of all kinds of systems out there if you look for them.

It sounds to me like you're looking for a fairly cinematic, low-ish powered game. Dungeon Fantasy might be too high-powered for your tastes. The D&D tropes in DF are intentionally very strong, and starting DF characters are already superheroes.

I suggest a game where characters start at around 125 points or so, where bonus character points are easily earned by accomplishing adventuring goals, and where lots of cinematic options are used. Most exotic and supernatural traits are only allowed in racial templates, but Magery and Power Investiture should be available. Keep the disadvantage limit fairly low, maybe a maximum of 25 or 30 points or so. This should keep the character sheets fairly simple and to the point. And remember only to roll for things that matter.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

YES! This is what I am working towards doing. I like it.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Yeah, I was about to say that.

If it's not a dangerous, climactic, or other serious situation, there's no need to get serious about the roll and its mods. Or even roll at all.

Like saddling up for a little ride. It's a quiet moment; the party's making dinner and inventorying their stuff. The knight says "I'm going to ride over to that ridge and see what's there." There's no raging battle, no bandit ambush, no flying lava bombs, just a bored knight and a grazing palfrey.

All the GM needs to do (if anything) is note that the knight's spent a point and has a Riding skill of 12: clearly, she's been in the saddle plenty of times and can handle a mount competently. "Okay, you ride up there without incident. You see . . ."

Dice can still happen, if the table's in the mood to play around. Someone - the knight's player, or the GM, or another player looking to get some banter going – might call for a quick skill roll for the fun of it. No mods, no complications, just a roll.

The GM can respond to success with "Looking smooth!", or describe "failure" as "Whoa, a little shaky on the mount there, but you're fine." Even a crit fail on this zero-stress action might mean "Oops, you needed a second try to get up there. Be careful!". That gets followed by some expected ribbing from the party thief, which earns a comeback of "Yeah? How you doing with the stew there? Let's see a Cooking roll, buddy . . ."

This sort of stuff happens all the time. In short: If it's not serious business, don't bother with serious mechanics; just eyeball the stat, or give it a simple roll, and make up something appropriate. (That falls under the official "Roll and Shout" rule of play, I believe. Though in practice, it's often "Roll and Make Jokes". : )

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Why no backstories for the characters though?

Some backstory which explains why the characters are adventuring together can help make roleplaying easier for characters even if (hypothetically) the characters are forced together and forward by some narrative.

F.ex. one character being the twin sister of the other, and that character having fought in a war alongside another older character. Perhaps the twins are driven by dreams of future greatness, while the older soldier is trying to keep them safe, but also interested in seeing where it all leads.

That sort of thing creates more natural-feeling party-dynamics than the typical "An elf, a dwarf, and a bard sat at an inn", in my experience.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Your example qualifies as "or in the least the backstory will be minimal" and that is about all of a starting backstory required (in my games of course - to each their own). The characters can fill in a little more detail after they experience the world a little more and to be honest, but that time most players don't really care about a detailed backstory anymore.

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

Actually, what I should have said here is that most exotic traits are only allowed in racial templates, mundane traits are feely available, and the GM will decide which supernatural traits are available.

That way, the GM can decide players can choose to do things like Channeling spirits or having a Higher Purpose without them being part of a racial template, but can exclude effects not desired ("Sorry, Dominance doesn't exist in this setting").

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

This is one of the most important things, so I want to call it out and toss my weight behind it. I realize that some players will insist on rolling, so it's useful to have the right passage handy:"Utterly trivial tasks" even gets a canonical definition on p. B345: The roll is at +10 or better. Don't forget that you can reach +10 easily! "Most mundane tasks" are at +4 or +5, so if there's also lots of time available – enough to get the +5 for that on p. B346 – you'll typically be at +10. In short, if a task offers no sense of adventure (+5 for difficulty) and you can just quietly fiddle around until you get it right (+5 for time), you don't roll; it's like "taking 20." Since most skill rolls take just a few seconds, even at 30× the usual time, you're only talking about a minute or two.

Also be on the lookout for places where no roll is needed! Mounting Up (p. B396) calls for no roll to mount a horse normally – only if you want to "leap astride" in one turn of combat time. Lots of specific tasks work this way, and it's important to note that the specific always trumps the general (e.g., a skill description, which is as general as it comes).

Re: Skills - maybe this game isn't what I'm looking for
 

You make it sound like there has been some strange cultural swing towards players not caring about backstories. I have no idea where you are getting this from.

This is just me personally, but I wouldn't permit a player to sit at my table for anything but the most mindless of dungeon delving unless they can come up with at least a basic backstory that sounds slightly interesting. I have no interest in being the GM for Adventurer McDude who just materialized in an adventuring party one day to kick goblins and solve death-trap puzzles.