I didn't read Plucky's post, but here are some suggestions, including your originals:

Fist/Foot
Brass knuckles
Claw
Cestus
Katar
Hand axe
Double-edged axe
Double Axe
War Axe
Pikeaxe
Halberd
Pitchfork
Trident
Spear
Knife
Dagger
Short Sword
Broadsword
Bästard Sword <-- DAMN YOU, CENSORSHIP!
Two-handed Sword
Claymore
Rapier
Cutlass
Sabre
Falchion
Dai-katana
No-dachi
Club
Staff
Bo
Nunchaku
Whip
Flail
Morning Star
Swordbreaker
Bow
Longbow
Hand Crossbow
Crossbow
Automatic crossbow
Arbalest
Throwing axe
Throwing dagger
Shuriken
Grenade
Alchemist's Water
Bolas
Chakram

That's all I can think of right now, I'm afraid.

Regarding getting better weapons early on;

What about if the player has to go on an optional sidequest to get the weapon (which would only offer something like a 10% improvement, and you can buy that weapon later on for the rest of your party anyway) ? This would give the player a nice incentive to do it (remember, games are about having fun, not just getting big weapons), and a nice little reward to boot if he's successful.

I think you guys talk different magnitudes here.

Graham says he wants to hide a better weapon in the early regions of the game. This weapon will give one party member a light advantage for the next couple of levels.

It's not a balancebreaking uberwaffe we're talking about here.

Anyway... I think if the player takes the time to search the environment, he should get a goodie.

To ensure that it's not used as a fun killer ("You can find a good weapon here") have several places the weapon could be. Even better, use different kinds of weapons and different locations at random.
The locations should be wide spread, so power games searching all possible locations won't like it - ane maybe consider it "not worth the effort"

Those interested in searching the environment will like it (as long as the places are all general interesting as well... have some stuff happen even at places without the weapon).

How do you know that the number of party members will go down to 1 or 2?
It's Grahamn's game... and while you might have a fluctuating number of members, that doesn't mean that the same is true in his game.

And even if he the single party member fights alone - all he has is a slightly better weapon. If using that weapons eats energy (tech points, mana, what ever) using it has a limit, esp. since lower level chars normally have less mana / tech points.

And even if not... it won't be that unbalancing.
Assume your normal combat situation: hero against several foes. Let's say 3.

Normally he'll need 3 hits to kill one of the baddies. No he might do it with 2 if he rolls good. Even if he has a rare chance of a single hit kill, it wouldn't make a big difference.

He would still get danage from the other foes. The battle will be out sooner, so he get's less damage. He'll level up faster.
But then he'll find himself in an area with monsters which are weaker than him -> slower level progression.

The worst thing that could happen is that the player rushes the start of the game.
But: Since he's more the explorer type anyway (that's how he found that weapon in the first place) it doesn't matter.

If the power gamer found the weapon in the second pass, it doesn't matter either, since his goal is to get to the real stuff as fast as possible.
He might get bored by the fights in the beginning of the game (the power game might not be the biggest fan of your normal RPG story line either. While I don't consider myself a munchkin, I think to much text is disturbing. Some talks in town giving me some bg info is ok. Cutscenes at the major turning points: Great. But pages of text I have to scroll through... yikes. If you do this, you have to be a very good writer. If you can create texts on par with planescape:tourment go on. If not, stick with the normal, short texts. Please)

Piccolo: Sorry, my bad.

Korval: What Spellcaster said.

Spellcaster: Exactly.

X-G: Yup. Ooh, nice weapon list, too.

Yeah, let's not be non-linear, and let's send the player on a new and innovative quest that will yield him exactly nothing in the end.

*cough*FFIX*cough*Steiner*cough*

I didn't beat Neverwinter Nights to see all the items I had collected. I beat Neverwinter Nights to find out what happened at the end. I felt that I had a personal score to settle, and I wanted to settle it.

The last non-linear RPG I played was more of an adventure game (StarControl2). Granted, I don't play too many computer RPG's. Besides, non-linear game development is very difficult; it's hard to keep a good plot going when the user is allowed to change it.

So, explain why finding arbiturary equipment in arbiturary places is fun?

But they were never in arbiturary places.

FF3e did it. There was a part where Gerad's gang looted a dungeon before you got there.

Who says I didn't? WildArms did it, and it's my 3rd favorite RPG. Chrono Trigger did it too, and it's my 2nd favorite. FF2e did not, but it is my #1.

You may have missed this, but I never mentioned "mana points" or any name of that kind. I said, "resources," which is a more abstract term.

A resource is something that is consumed. That could be FF-style Magic Points, D&D-style spell slots, life-energy, or any arbiturary thing. Resources, also, include Cure potions, magic-restoring potions, or any other consumable item.

The point I was making is that Wizards, as a general rule, require some form of resource in order to be useful. Fighters, as a general rule, do not. But, this is why Wizards get brutally powerful spells that can target multiple enemies, and Fighters do not.

This is one of the places FF3e failed utterly. Take Sabin, for example. He was a strong fighter with just the Fight command. However, he gained spell-like abilities with is Blitz attacks. These attacks consumed no resourses. Because of that, there was little purpose of using a resource-limited effect like Magic when you had him around. A number of Fighter-type characters cause this problem; because they have spell-level powers but no resource limitations, they over-power actual spell-casters (until you get Ultima).

From a combat point-of-view, a character (let's say he's a Mage) who can deal 500 points of damage to each of 4 monsters 8-times per day is obviously weaker than a character (a Warrior) who can deal 500 points to each of 4 monsters at will. How much that Warrior's damage has to drop before the Mage is put on an even keel depends on a number of factors.

If the only way the Mage can get his spells back is rest (D&D-style), then the Warrior has to be significnatly weaker. Probably on the order of 100 points to each of 2 monsters or even less. If there are cheap potions available that can get the Mage back to casting this spell, thus turning the spells-per-day resource into the how-many-potions-you-can-afford resource, then the Warrior can do more damage to be even.

That the effect doing damage is a spell rather than some nifty sword-move is immaterial; the point is X damage over Y creatures is done via action Z. If action Z takes resources, then the user must manage those resources. If it does not require resources, then the effect should not be on par with effects that do require resources.

Resource management is part of the game; it is part of the combat system. And, fundamentally, it's what makes Wizards interesting (and one of the things that made FF2 my #1 pick).

If both Fighters and Wizards use resources, and use the same resources (like Chrono Trigger, all Tech skills use MP), then there is really no difference between an actual Wizard or a Fighter. You treat them the exact same way.

That's a pretty hefty assumption. I've not seen a non-table-top RPG that pulled this off well. FF Tactics was atrocious at it. Neverwinter Nights was OK, but the actual combat mechanics were awful.

Besides, if you don't allow this, then you can actually use the character's class, etc, as plot points.

This is a really bad idea. It is vital for the user to see a number. They can see other things that clue them in to the fact that the character is "fatigued", but they really need a number. The reason for this is so that the player can make an informed choice: "Can I use ability X without depeleting resource Y too far?" This is the fundamental question of resource management.

Korval:

Quote: "But that does not necessitate "weapon". It could just as easily be a magical pendant, a new piece of armor, etc."

Oh, I quite agree that it doesn't have to be a weapon, it could be armour, potions, spell scrolls, a load of currency. Whatever.

Quote: "Also, I tend to dislike the standard RPG conventions of random stuff hidden in random places (crates, etc) for no apparent reason. If there's armor to be found, it should be found either on a dead body or in someone's dwelling."

I don't like leaving stuff just around, either. I wasn't advocating just sprinkling daggers and swords around like they were hundreds & thousands. It's obviously far more atmospheric if you find something near a corpse or hidden in a chest in a locked room, or hidden at a location that's specified in a scroll somewhere.

That, of course, doesn't change the fundamental point of my statement: the fun doesn't have to be in "getting the goods." Enjoyment can be found in other parts of the gameplay.

I prefer to use actual, concrete examples rather than generalities.

Are you even paying attention to the conversation? Let's review:

You made a poor assumption; namely that I had not played an RPG with such a system. I called you on it, pointing out that, not only had I played such games, I had enjoyed some of them quite well. However, I also pointed out that my favorite game of the genre did not take this route, thus supporting my position (at least, for my tastes).

In short, what I said was, "Yes, I have played many such games, and even enjoyed them. However, I did so in spite of their using these systems, not because of them."

Which has little bearing on the intension of my statement. You pointed out the tradeoff between "realism" and "fun". I asked you to explain the source of "fun" that would override the sense of realism.

In what way? Is it in some way impairing the party's ability to kill stuff (which is the fundamental purpose of loot, after all)? If it isn't, then so be it.

Also, it could be a nice running gag, for a few levels.

Yes, but there's a fine line between innovation and crap. Designing a point-based system that is balanced is very difficult. If you fail at it, you fail big-time; the game is either too easy (through the use of loop-holes, mostly) or too difficult.

Take D&D, 3rd edition, for example. There are certain combinations of feats, stats, and skills that allow a high-level Monk, in combat with multiple targets, to have upwards of 20+ attacks in one round. Clearly not the intension of the game designers. But it shows how easy it is to make the combinatorical error that leads to loop-holes and exploits.

First, D&D always allowed multiclassing. Or, at least, 2nd edition AD&D did (for non-humans. Humans had dual-classing).

Second, that is only one way to think of it. You can think of class in the FF2e fashion: Cecil is a Dark Knight; it is a fundamental part of who he is. He remains so until as such time he climbs Mount Ordeals and ascends to become a Paladin Knight. Kain is a Dragoon Knight.

Rydia is a Caller. She happens to be the last Caller on the planet. If she suddenly takes up a different hobby, she would be losing what makes her special and unique.

Also, you lose out on the ability to make a unique character. Take Rosa, for example. She is a White Mage. However, she has a unique ability: Aim. This makes her bow&arrows automatically hit their mark. In a flexible class system, you wouldn't want to have that kind of power go to any particular class. And you wouldn't want it to be a feature of the White Mage class itself. Aim is a unique feature of Rosa herself, but you could never implement it as such in a flexible class system. The potential for exploits is just too great.

Allowing the player to freely modify classes also brings the same kind of potential trouble that I mentioned before.

You're not thinking of the kind of plot points I am. For example, let's say that the main character is a soldier from the great Kingdom of X. His class is, "Soldier of X Kingdom." He uses the skills taught to him as a "Soldier of X Kingdom."

As a plot point, however, he is fated to discover that the Kingdom of X is evil, and he has to turn against it. His class remains "Soldier of X Kingdom."

If he were to suddenly drop this class in favor of, say, "Generic Fighter" or "Magus of the Dark Robes", then the whole plot point of him having to go up against his own kingdom vanishes. It becomes the story of a "Generic Fighter" or "Magus of the Dark Robes" taking up arms against Kingdom X. Sure, in this case, you might be able to work around the class changes, as his background doesn't change. But the example itself shows one of the problems with having flexible classes from a plot point of view.

What if the whole theme of your game's plot is that, when given a particular task to perform, you must take responsibility for that task, even if you don't want to perform it? That kinda flies in the face of free-multiclassing.

The point I was making is that having a fixed class is a design choice with consequences, some potentially positive, others are limiting.

Of course, assuming these skills exist.

Sure. It doesn't have to. But people like to collect stuff. Just because you preferred something else in that specific game doesn't mean you shouldn't provide the possibility to collect stuff.

If you quote converstaions, quote them right

That's what triggered my reply.
I assumed that if you had played such games, you'd know that this is not the fundamental difference.

Um. Ok. If you say so.

Ok, let's see... Monsters dropping gold would be an example. Me getting XP points would be an example.
Finding an ancient weapon is an example, since chances are pretty bad that it's yoou who will find it... in fact chances are bad that it's still there in the first place.

The whole Fantasy World is normally pretty unbalanced. You have very powerful, very intelligent monsters which don't rule the world, despite the fact that they easily could.
Dragons don't hunt down in their area.

People can still do their work despite the fact that the forrests are full of monsters. Magic seems to be common but is not commonly used (almost no mundane spells).

The king wants to talk to you. The king has no army / knights to do the job.

The HP system is another tradeoff between realism and fun. The point that you can still fight normally even if you're down to one HP is another example.
That a sword fight lasts longer than 2 rounds is another example.

All this is not realistic. But you don't play games to simulate reality. You play games to have fun.

Yep. That's the archetype idea. It's used to explain quickly to the player who somebody is. "Caine is a Babarian Warrior", "Agathe is a Witch from the Netherwoods".

That's ok. But it's just one way to deal with things. And it's not very realistic. But it can be fun due to it's simplicity.
It's also more easy to create a character that way.
But it's not the only way, neither the best.
Please remember the path that lead us to this point. The idea was that you said that if all classes eat some sort of resources, or if no class eats resources all characters will be alike.

BTW, your answer is again nicely fitting the "I knew that already" sort of answer prototype

No. She would still be a caller. Just a caller with a different hobby.
You can't loose your talants (easily) ... unless you decide that after a certain time of not using a skill / talent it fades away.

Um... if Rosa is defined only by "white mage" + "aim ability" that would be true.
I hope she has some other traits as well. Maybe she even has some sort of background story, motivations?

On the engine level the question should be why she's the only white mage with that ability. How did she get it? Why did she get it?

If it's just there because it is, I'd say that this ability was just a hack to increase her usefulness in the game.
This is normally done if you have a simple system (and not a full blown system of talents / feats / skills, etc).

In fact, if you create each character individually, chances are good your characters have even more personality.

Rosa might be something special within the game, but if you can create your own characters, Rosa could be one-of-her-kind, since everybody will level her up differently.

And even if you have an open, skill based system you can use archetypes, which are simply pre-made characters with a certain amount of points spend already.

I was talking about a skill based system, not a class based one
But even within a class based system you should be able to choose different paths, like the school of magic one prefers most, if one likes to fight if one or two weapons, ranged or melee weapons, prefers stealth or brute force, etc.

You can't loose that class idea, uh?

Anyway. Assume your SoldierX discovers that X is evil. He doesn't want to work for X any longer. Since he's not working for X any longer, he is not a Soldier of X Kingdom any longer.
He still has all the abilities, skills, etc. But soldier of X was his profession. It's no longer his profession.
But if he is a "good" type of guy he will want to fight the Kingdom X now.

BTW, he can't drop his class in favour of a different class, since he had no fix class to begin with.

Even in a mult-class engine, he'd still be a "Soldier of X" (if one decided that classes are bound to countries. I'd think that his class is "soldier" and that soldiers from X can choose from a limited amount of skills / traits) - but if he decided to take another class, say "Magus of the Dark Robes", he'd be a SoldierX(12)/MagusDR(1). Again I'd think that his class should be ( Soldier(12)/Magus(1), and that these specialisations should only influence the skills / feats/ boni he gets).

What you do is to hardcode quests / subquests based on certain classes.
That's not very realistic. But it might be fun.

Of course you can get the same effect without classes.

Good point. But IMO these skill make the difference between Strategy games with cut scenes and rpg. Because Intelligence and Charisma based skills really make up your character

It's also realistic to break your bones when you jump too far, and it's realistic to have your gun jam if you don't do proper maintenance or swim around a lot with it - it's also realistic to be able to sustain about one goot sword slash before you are incapacitated and mortally wounded, et cetera ...

The point is, people do not want realism - they want fun. If realism is required for the fun, then fair enough - but more often than not the realism comes in the way of fun when you try to impose too much of it.

Let's not forget the fact that RPG characters never have to eat, sleep, go to the bathroom, etc ...

Why?
Ogres use clubs only because they are considered wild. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to upgrade to warhammers, esp. if they get hit with them all the time. Or ogres using swords, etc.

Where do Ogres have their homes BTW? In a realistic setting they should have their own villages. And there should be lots of them. If you only have a small Ogre villages, chances are good that these villages would have been destroyed by humans already.

The point is: Your typical fantasy world is off-balance. You have lots of of very powerful creatures, who don't use their powers if they are not faced by the hero

Evil Wizards rule whole countries... and then some deus ex machina explains why they can't use the power if the hero attacks.

Dragons should be the dominant species.
Humans should live in caves (wooden houses are no good idea if Dragons are around).
In fact, humanity might not even play an important role, since there others, more powerful intelligent species around.

For a realistic world you have to consider the way the world has evolved. Not only the way it is now. Your normal hi-fantasy world is pretty, even if you consider dragons and magic to be "real" in the world.

But it doesn't matter. As long as the player has fun