Lephys

Haha... I'm a failure at examples sometimes (and by "sometimes," I mean "always." ). @Jarmo: You are absolutely right, although you misunderstood me. Er... what you say is absolutely true, but I simply wasn't intending to argue against it. My example was only a hypothetical "this is the simplest thing I can whip out of my mind, for example's sake" thing, and was not intended to be some well-thought out thing that I'm trying to suggest is how a game should be. "Dammit! The whole GAME better be defending towns from bands of orcs!" Haha. So, again, I do apologize for lacking the skill to think up examples that don't spark perfectly understandable sentiments. 8P @Ninjerk: I only meant to clarify my point. I wasn't meaning to imply "So deal with it!" or anything. Again, despite my shaky example, my only point was that P:E will have conflict within its fundamental structure. We can only pray it'll be more involved conflict than orcs and wailing peasants.

I fear my Fallout Water Chip example was severely misunderstood. I wasn't attributing importance to HOW you got the chip. I was attributing importance to the fact that you had to get the chip. I mean, sure, you've completed whatever you did thus far, if you failed to get the chip in time, but you could hardly say you "completed the game, but just with some dire consequences." You ended the game, all right, heh. But I wouldn't really use the word "completed." So, yeah, point clarification: The chip is, metaphorically, the hostile sentient creatures in P:E. A water chip can't refuse to return to the Vault until you quit being a pacifist, but an intelligent, sentient being can refuse to allow you to accomplish your goal until you quit being a pacifist. That even ties into my espionage comparisons. Shutting down a weapons facility and obtaining classified document don't inherently require violence/killing. Hostiles are merely obstacles. However, if an army of orcs is assaulting a town, and the game can't proceed unless that town remains unrazed (I know, cliche example is cliche), then you can't just "get past" the orc army and accomplish your goal. Your goal directly involves fighting. The point being that, the very nature of P:E is going to directly involve fighting, even though oodles of portions of it won't require fighting, even if it can be used in those portions.

Sooo. I thought you were arguing for a gradual discovery of the character's past over the course of the entire game, including retroactive stat modification. But it seems, you're really arguing for a prologue or starting area, wherein parts of your stats are defined, while the rest would be defined at a classical "character creation" menu on startup. Did I get it right? If so, I'd be fine with that idea, even though I don't really see much gained compared to classical character creation. Unless you really want to drag it out for a longer time than just a prologue, against which I have some reservations that I already described above. This is NOT to say that I'm totally against stat/skill boosts to happen at certain times in the game, either through dialogue or other means, but not to such an extent that it (re)defines your entire character. And of course we seem to agree that simple story elements that you learn about your character's past over the course of the game are ok, nay, it's a good thing if your past is getting constructed as you go. Well, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. I was kinda hoping for both. I was only clarifying that, IF you were going to allow "Background - soldier" (for example) to grant a +1 to STR, you couldn't wait 'til halfway through the game to finalize that and actually give the character the STR bonus. It doesn't make any sense in several ways, heh. So, broad choices (without the details) like that would have to be made pretty early on (basically, at-or-before the first opportunity to actively utilize that stat/skill), but all the details could be learned/chosen as you go. It's just kind of nice, I think. Instead of choosing, at character creation, between "My character totally knows this guy named Steve who was a tavern owner in Grandale" or "My character totally knows this alchemist in the forest," if both contacts are part of slightly different "Soldier" background details (if you allow more than a single specific background for each background type/category, which I excessively believe you should), you could kind of get a feel for the game thus far, and all the nuances of the story and characters, and sort of decide with a lot more contextual information SPECIFICALLY what kind of Soldier background you had. Again, whenever the first opportunity arises in the game for you to, in this example, reference and/or visit some person from your past, exclusive to your background. Those types of things could be done far later in the game (Who's to say exactly when you'll need to go see Steve, your old soldier buddy?)

I don't know if your Wizard's strength will be high enough for him to swing your Fighter at the enemy. o_o

Sorry for the multi-post. I had to catch up a little on the thread, and I didn't want to post too much one of my single already-way-too-long posts, heh. I'm with Pintash on this. If you chose PRIOR to gaining familiarity, and maybe gained a gradually-increasing bonus, that would be pretty cool. And maybe you're limited to just one "branch" of possible familiarity "specializations" with each weapon. You could switch, but then, after hitting that first milestone, you'd gain +1 to the new specialization, and simultaneously lose +1 with the old (representative of the fact that your brain can only retain so much at once). *shrug* Also, almost everything you mentioned, JFSOCC, should probably go with physical weapon customization (at a forge/craftsperson.) Those things would fit very well in there. Obviously, now, there's balancing to consider if you do both (familiarization specializations AND physical customizations that can both achieve the same effects). So, maybe they could have slightly different sets of effects? I like to think of familiarity more affecting actions performed with the weapon rather than the passive effects of the weapon itself. In other words, it seems cleaner to think of the "7 damage" on a weapon as the abstracted effectiveness of that weapon's passive traits/characteristics (sharpness, weight, possible swing leverage -- 2-handed weapons, for example -- etc.), and the manner in which that weapon is effectively actively used as attributed to character attributes/skill (which familiarity basically enhances, for all practical purposes). If you swing faster, or miss less (attack roll bonuses), or score critical hits more often, or parry better, etc... Those are the things it might be nice to section off for Familiarity to deal with, directly. +2 Piercing damage on that weapon? Weapon customization. +2 to-hit? Familiarity. Even some things that can be influenced by both should probably be kept separate. Example: Physically rebalancing a sword would allow people to swing it faster/more easily, but the individual to-hit/attack-speed bonuses would not be the same from person-to-person. So, ideally, the weapon's weight/balance should be its own thing, being a factor together with a given character's skill/familarity/stats to determine the actual attack speed or accuracy bonus. *shrug*

Can. If the actual reason for the cap is pure mechanical balance, then you're simply making up a "reason" for the cap in the context of the lore. "It's really tough to do that type of enchantment." Why is that? What makes that enchantment different from other enchantments? That's the kind of explanation the lore demands, for it to be served as well. That's all I'm trying to point out. It looks like you agree that, ideally, both the lore AND the mechanics are served by the design of the game. So, I'm in favor of seeking alternatives to decisions that are perfect for mechanics and balance, but are purely arbitrary within the lore (i.e. "That particular enchantment just so happens to be tougher than all the others, for no real reason that I can explain.") My interest is only in clarifying my seemingly misunderstood perspective. I don't see that as a severe detriment to the game or anything. It's just not ideal is all. What else? I really don't see why X is more "valid" or better than Y, when both are arbitrary. Both aren't arbitrary. Not any more than the lack of everything you leave out of a world is arbitrary, at least. "This world ARBITRARILY doesn't have giant talking eyeballs in it!" True, because anything could go into a fictional world. What else, you ask? Let me make this example: P:E's world has only a trickle of magical healing. So, it makes sense that, with enchantments basically being magic permanently stored within items, there won't be very many magical items that heal. Or, if they do, they'll be very weak. For magical healing to be so weak is an arbitrary decision, really, but it's consistent throughout the entire lore. Living things have states health, and magic can do things otherwise done by non-magic, but it apparently can't heal living things very well. Cool. So, that Blade of Vivification probably is going to heal you a trickle (if it even exists... it's an example item, for this example), passively. No matter who you are. That's just how it works in this world. Now, imagine you had a race (let's say orcs, just for kicks) who already were really physically tough and had more health than other races. So, mechanically, you feel that any amount of passive healing boosts to them would be overkill, so you need to balance that. So, you say "that Blade of Vivification doesn't work on orcs." Okay, but it still works on everyone else? Well, now that's an arbitrary decision, as far as the lore's concerned. It serves the mechanics perfectly. "My orcs aren't overpowered now by healing their extraordinary health pools all day! YAY!" But, in the lore, you have to forcefully, arbitrarily make up some explanation as to why that is. In other words, the very existence of a reason for orcs to work differently from other races in regard to healing, within the lore, is arbitrary. The ONLY reason there's even a difference there is for the sake of the mechanics. Hopefully that makes more sense. I like the ideas you're dancing with, here, Pintash! 8D I'd have to consider the whole "permanently lose an ability to put it into a weapon" thing a bit more. BUT, you made me think of some other slight tweaks to what you've said. What if familiarization severely lessened the monetary cost of enchantments? Or, what if it were, at the very least, directly tied to magical item improvements? I mean, it would probably still be separate from the ones you find that are already enchanted, and, like you said, those would have to reach some kind of happy medium, IF items were allowed to be enchanted via 2 different souls at the same time. But, you'd essentially have better equipment (because of physical forging/crafting/material quality) that helps out and kinda scales through the game with your progression (you get access to better stuff as you go, whether because of the locations you reach, the people you know, the reputations you gain, the things you slay, the money you earn, etc.). Then, you'd always have progression with an individual weapon (or maybe even non-weapon equipment, *shrug*... although it makes the most sense with weapons). Maybe you even get unique abilities/effects from imprinting your soul into an item than you do from any other process in the game. Maybe it's only a single form of enchantment, but other enchantments are lesser and/or different. If there were going to be things gained from soul-imbuing, I'd like to see them be unique/different, to kind of be worth the time and effort of doing so. Also, it sort of feels like putting one of your actual abilities into a weapon is like wishing for unlimited wishes with a genie. Heh. AND, as cool as that type of decision/option is in an RPG (I'm not really against it, in theory, but am rather evaluating unintended consequences in the scheme of things), if you switched weapons AFTER doing that, you'd lose that ability forever, would you not? And if you didn't, then it's really not the same decision/doesn't have the same impact. And if you never had to worry about that, then the physical quality of weapons probably isn't balanced very well to the point of almost complete insignificance (in the face of the ever-available option of pouring awesome abilities into your piddly weapon). *shrug* There is much though to be had on this. TO THE THOUGHT CAVE! *whoooosh*

I similarly love the combo effects in Mass Effect 3. But, yeah, I like a lot of the ideas Guild Wars 2 implemented, regarding abilities and combat.

New Element Types: Dairy - Behold, the power of cheese! (Seriously, though)... Light - What if you could actually manipulate light itself? As if it were water? Throw up a barrier around some enemies, and it's pitch-black within. Or maybe you have to physically create/block light sources, then draw from the pool of shadow/light in order to evoke effects. *shrug* Metal - Maybe it could be separate from Earth, or just a branch within it? You could rip that torch-sconce off the wall and form it into a hawk, having it swipe literally razor-sharp talons at your foes for several minutes (or until they cease your channeling). OR, draw ores from the rocks to erect barriers to provide your party cover from ranged attackers. Portal - You can link surfaces and spaces, to an extent. You could teleport some foes into a field of traps, or have their arrows -- coming at you -- end up striking those who fired them. Etc. Drop people through the floor/ground, and into a pit of lava 30 feet to the west.

... Out of a cannon... into the sun? o_O? That should be a Ranger soul-bility! "Shoot Self: Assume the form of an extremely potent magical arrow, firing yourself from your own bow (which is anchored in mid-air by soul-power, obviously, u_u)"

I just don't see any consequences shy of "You can't actually finish the game," or "the main story is crap." There are certain people in the world who simply cannot be affected by anything other than violence. And that's WITHOUT magical relics and soul powers and whatnot. So, an actual pacifist run will always run you into 2 walls: 1) You just skip around all the threats that can only be removed/affected via force, thereby not really having much of a story. It's like saying "Well, you can 'beat' the game." Like failing to get the water chip in time in Fallout 1. You COULD say that was the "anti-water chip run." But, really, you just lost the game. You played it for a time, and now it's over because you failed at something that's the whole point of the game's story. 2) You just never have anything in the world/story that ever is bad enough to REQUIRE force to overcome, again leaving you with a pretty diluted story. That's exactly why it works particularly well in espionage-type stealth games, and NOT in full-world fantasy epics. In stealth games, your objective almost never has anything directly to do with harming living things. Living things (usually people) are generally just obstacles to your actual objective. It's all context. You're not the guy they send to wipe out people. You're the guy they send to fix problems when they can't send in a big group of people to wipe out people. You find documents and info, and you "neutralize" threats (maybe you just sabotage weapons facilities?). The few times your objective DOES directly involve "neutralizing" a person, you can generally shoot them in the knees and take them in for questioning. People can be de-threatenized by disabling their motor functions without killing them. Granted, that's still violence, if not killing, so "pacifist" is a slippery term to use. But, it also kinda refers to the game from a mechanic/gameplay standpoint, in which you chose the non-killing option, as opposed to the killing option. So, in a different sense of the word, it still holds true. But, yeah... You can't shoot a psycho necromancer in the knees to stop him from leeching your lifeforce and raising an army with it. Hell... he might just shed his enfeebled body and shove his essence into some giant corpse-construct. So, yeah, there's not really any "Oh, this guys trying to kill every living thing in existence, and stop the soul-rebirth process in this world? LET'S JUST SNEAK PAST HIM!" So, yeah... I'm just not seeing an actual pacifist run in P:E. I'm not even seeing the "I only killed 10 things in 60 hours of gameplay!" run, either. I dunno what the exact number would be, and that isn't the point, but I just see combat being more necessary than that. Otherwise, the game wouldn't be the game that it is. It would be something different. You can't just have both. It doesn't work that way. Either a certain amount of stuff in the game world requires force to overcome, or it doesn't.

Yeah, it's been a while since I played the first 2 Fallouts, heh. I hadn't really factored in the option to simply not-do the stuff that requires violence (rather than simply circumventing the violence while still "doing" the task at hand). So, good point. Also, I agree. with the context of the rest of P:E's design, a pacifist run doesn't make very much sense. It would be like Kratos making a pacifist run through one of the God of War games, heh. Though, not quite THAT extreme,

No worries. I do not always explain in the best way possible, as my brain is a bit weird. I'll try to clarify: Say you start the game, and there's probably some form of story-presenting cutscene, and everything feels quite prologuey, and you're doing some traveling into some little village (or even a big city), and you're talking, and you're walking, and BOOM! Conflict. The conflict might not START with you. It might be something that happens, and you happen to be there. So, you're lounging in the inn, having a pint, and you hear a commotion outside. Then, someone bursts into the common room, shouting "Orcs!" or some such (I know there are apparently no orcs in P:E... just making a generic RPG example). Okay, NOW you've got to fight your way out, whether you help other people or not. So, maybe someone in that common room immediately starts trying to organize a plan. And they say "You, person I know who is really strong, bar the door!" to some fellow they know who is really strong, and maybe they tell someone else to start making room in the cellar for non-combatants or something, I dunno... then, you get a "You there! What's your name?", to which you can respond however you'd like, most likely, followed by a "well, we need this list of stuff accomplished if we're going to survive this. What can you do?!" He assesses you to figure out what you're going to do. So, even if you're a Fighter (so you probably already have basic Fighter gear), you could be a fast/agile Fighter (maybe you served as a scout as a soldier?), or a big burly fighter (maybe you served on the frontlines, or as someone's main bodyguard?), or an extremely intelligent, tactical fighter (maybe you led a squad of soldiers in the past?). So, up until this point in the game, you're background didn't matter. The details of your background weren't relevant, until now. So, whereas you probably needed to go ahead and get the stat boosts at actual character creation (otherwise, the game would need to restrict the Prologue to zero stat-dependent choices/checks in order to not screw you out of the abilities you WOULD'VE had AFTER simultaneously selecting and discovering your background), maybe now you get your skill boosts (kind of like your three tagged skills in Fallout)? If you have burly/brute-force soldiering experience (you pick that from the list of responses), you probably get told to help barricade the door, and fight the orcs directly once they break in. If you were a reconnaisance/scouty fellow, then maybe you get sent out the back window, and/or get to climb onto the roof of the tavern in order to survey the area or get a message to another group (like the town guard). If you were a squad leader, then maybe the guy asks YOU what other people should be doing in the room, and you pretty much get to pick what you do? Of course, staying true to the regular rules of dialogue, you could still just demand to do the task you wanted to, regardless of your background choice, and/or you could be really vague about your background details (so that the player knows what he picked, but you don't reveal as much, like specific places or organization names, etc.), and you could be a ****, or forceful, or peaceful, or you could not even be a Fighter/combat-heavy person, and maybe you help calm everyone down, and get extra resources out of panicky people who were frightened into that "No way... I'm keeping this stuff/knowledge to myself, so that I can make a run for it and survive if this goes badly" mentality. Etc. The point is, you could even do this BEFORE that orc assault, with non-combat aspects of your background. First chance to haggle? Maybe you pick your trade-related background (or maybe it's more general... just combat/non-combat skills/attributes?). But, done correctly, you could actually not get the stat boosts until you picked. You would just have to get to pick earlier, and skill/stat checking opportunities would have to be restricted to only AFTER you were allowed to pick the applicable portion of your background. Basically, it would be stupid to have you spend 15 minutes in town performing oodles of optional, non-combat tasks that required certain levels of stats/skills, THEN have you pick your background that awards those bonuses, just as it would be stupid to have you fight a bunch of things, THEN determine what kind of combat background you had. Meh, I don't think it's sketchy, really. Not inherently. It COULD be sketchy, based on how it's done, I suppose. And, I openly admit, the method comes with a lot of care in designing what is essentially the game's prologue. But, I don't at all think it's completely out-of-the-question or anything. Yeah. That's really the meat-and-potatoes of the idea. I know a game isn't a book, but the narrative aspect of an RPG is VERY MUCH like a book that you're playing through. I think in many ways it's much more interesting to not know EVERYTHING about your character from the get-go, but to still know all the mechanic-pertinent things at any point in the game at which it would detriment the character not to know them. But, it's just like how, in a book, by about halfway through, you might know practically everything there is to know about the main character. But, at the beginning, you don't get a giant 15-page dissertation on all the knowledge and past events of that character. You might know a good bit about them, as it pertains to the "present" of the beginning of the book. "They're shy... they think about this a lot... they like cheetohs... They're not very good at science...". Then, later in the book, you might actually find out more details about past things that influenced these present truths. To put it one more way, think of it like this: You can decide "my character has a phobia of water," without picking WHY they have a phobia of water. It's more fun to sort of discover the why, even if you're basically picking the past, at some point in the story when the why of the past is actually pertinent to the present. At least, I think so. *shrug* It's not going to hurt me if they just have us pick the whole background bit at character creation, and/or simply play through a whole "1 year ago" segment as to how our character arrived at the "Now, the start of P:E's actual story" segment.

Agreed on the resource-management bit. Perhaps there could be a sort of charisma "stamina"? You know, you can only influence someone SO well in a given amount of time. It would require a pretty big reworking of the dialogue system and introduction of additional mechanics (such as some form of indicator as to the need for more potent gestures/wordings rather than lesser ones, with the effectiveness of the indicator based partly on a skill, maybe... etc.). But, I definitely see the potential for something involving resources with your charisma/speech, from a mechanical standpoint.

I could've sworn combat was required in Fallout 1 & 2, as well. But, I could be wrong. Basically, going through the game killing 50% fewer things (Because you outsmart them/talk them down, instead?), sure. Going through the game without ever killing ANYthing? That would mean that absolutely nothing in the whole game world was a big enough conflict to not-be outsmarted/talked-down/stopped via a means other than killing, which would dilute the quality of the world and its potential conflicts, a bit, I would think. In a purely stealth/espionage game, this makes a lot more sense. But, even then, you typically have to kill SOMEone.

I get your meaning. I will say, though, that really, the only difference would be that you choose such things later. And there'd have to be care taken on when/how to implement the choice. Example: If you create your character, then start the game, it really doesn't matter what combat skill bonus you get from a background (or anything of that nature) until you actually need to combat something for the first time in the game. Granted, I will say that my suggested style of handling things wouldn't just automagically work for whatever you so chose, and whatever implementation you chose. It would have to be done a certain way, and not everything could be done that way without causing problems (like Stats, as you mentioned.) Perhaps, though, you could choose a very generalized choice that justifies the initial stat difference, and you'd go ahead and get your stat bonuses/differences from your general background, THEN go on to choose the specifics of that background as you arrive at points in the early story that reveal it. For example, you might choose something that boosts your character's Strength. Then, LATER, you determine whether or not that was from working a forge, being a soldier, laboring in a mine, being forced to fight in an underground slaver organization for betting/sport, etc. But, as for simple choices? Yes, I'd love to get to a point in the game at which people say "we've got to get out of here, but where should we go?!", to which you have 3 options to respond, maybe based on background choices you've already made (like I said above, very general choices that simply determine differences in stats and such): 1) "I know a man who leads a mercenary band near Edonvar, about 10 miles west of here. We fought together in the siege of Sethris, years ago. We can trust him." 2) "There's an old mage in the Vrathenwood. She took me in, for a time, back when I had nowhere else to go. She will help us with this." 3) "An old contact of mine runs the Frothy Fox in Arathdale. He'll know what to do." People could clearly write better options than that, haha (with more detail as to your actual background nature), but I would rather choose stuff like that than choose 73 details about my past at a character-creation screen. And, again, if that's the first situation in which you even have the OPTION of pointing the group in the direction of someone from your past, then needn't have chosen who you know and where they were BEFORE that point in the game (which, again, should probably be pretty early on).

Because. The lore wasn't the lore until you, the creator of the fictional world, decided it was. So, if you say "Err... there's a cap to how much magic can improve someone's skill with a weapon, and it's not even based on their current skill (or lack there-of) with a weapon, but instead on the amount by which other things in the world can improve their weapon skill, so as to be nice and balanced in the quantified mechanics that only exist in abstraction outside this actual world's lore," it's a bit arbitrary, in terms of the lore. In other words, it serves ONLY the mechanics, and not the lore. Not that there wouldn't be some form of cap, in the lore, but, ideally, you'd have it based on something else. But, the mechanics-balancing (because there is a game, and human, real-world interaction with this lore) dictates that it must be based on the total amount of attack bonus you ever want a character to have, all things considered.

Well, that's quite true. They will potentially do those things. And they do tend to treat it like an insurance policy, heh. All business. "Oh, there's an army of 7,000 coming to kill us all, and you want me to be your body guard? Well, the pay no longer matters, because I won't be alive to use it. I'm afraid I'm canceling your policy, u_u..." It might actually be quite interesting if some of your more "mercenary" characters would get to certain areas in a cave and just flat out refuse to continue. "I'll wait for you guys out by the entrance, with the horses," etc. The rest of you can go on and handle the necromancer. He didn't sign up for that. BUT, at the same time, I think that somewhat emphasizes the need (in addition to characters who just remain basic muscle, like that) for more-than-rudimentary character relationships, situations, and factors. The fact is, a person is more complex than "if this doesn't get to bad, I'll stick with you for enough money." They've maybe gotten themselves to a point in life at which they're in a routine of handling things that way, but it's essentially avoiding handling things a different way. It's simplifying life, for convenience, so long as life allows. There should be times when such characters are forced to confront a more complex set of circumstances that their current protocol doesn't really handle. Of course, in spite of this, there should be characters who wrestle with a decision, only to harden themselves further and still treat things as simple/stick with what they've already decided. AND, there should be characters who truly re-evaluate things to the point of actually modifying the way in which they made decisions. This doesn't mean radical transformations (i.e. "I wanted to kill everything, but now I just want to run an orphanage and pray all day"), and it doesn't JUST apply to selfish "bad" guys reconsidering the value of lives and other factors. It also applies to those super zealous holy pacifist people, realizing that they must sometimes fight to prevent others from senselessly fighting and killing, etc.

"Oh man, I need to get me some of that Obsidian chewing gum! Welcome to the Order! ^_^"

The unique voice of Claudia Black is about the only thing that made Morrigan tolerable, heh. "We're stopping to eat food so we don't die?! THIS ISN'T SLAUGHTERING ALL MAGES AND NOT CARING ABOUT THINGS!" *-10 to Morrigan's likeytude* Not to mention that, in DA1, your peeps actually sucked worse (or, at least, missed out on awesome bonuses) if you didn't get them to like you.

I still say it would be awesome if you sort of "discovered" (chose-scovered!) the specifics of your character's past as you played through the game. You know, like you do with books. I'm aware you're not playing/controlling books, but, you often don't know the majority of the main characters' pasts until something comes up in the present that causes such things to be relevantly revealed, despite spending a lot of time inside the minds of the characters.

Yeah... *scratches head*... I honestly don't know why I used "arbitrary" where I did, there. I'm pretty sure I didn't mean to, haha. I just meant that the "because magic can't do that" balancing after the mechanic decision would be arbitrary, that's all. Well, other than for the purpose of balancing. In the lore, it would be arbitrary (only for numbers balancing, which exists outside the actual game world). Annnnywho. That IS me being overly technical, heh. I tend to do that. This I realize. I'm quite fine with either way of handling it, honestly. If it's not really that much more trouble to just allow all manner of things to provide attack bonuses, then balance it all out, then my concern shall be proven quite unfounded. That would be the only potential worthwhile benefit from my suggestion, really.

That's kind of what I was intending. The ebay reference made me think of it. People who gather up specific types of items and salvage them into like-new and/or unique items. People who repair things, then resell them. People who simply collect things, etc. You might find someone who'll give you a copper per old article of clothing or armor, or you MIGHT find someone who'll give you a decent bit for each, or just for a certain number of them, or maybe they'll just barter and give you some unique, MacGuyvered up piece of clothing or armor that they made, or some other knickknack that you can't find via looting, that someone ELSE at the bazaar/market is looking for, and will pay you for (in money or potentially even other stuff.) Or, like I said... sometimes, maybe it just starts a quest (some lost item, or someone in the midst of a situation whom you wouldn't have met if not for the market transaction, and/or some new and useful bit of information for your trouble, etc.). Loot can easily be converted into many things other than money. But, the bazaar/market thing establishes an organized system/mechanic for the majority of junk/knicknacks you find, rather than just having nothing but random people all over the world HAPPEN to want to buy random things from you. Plus, it makes sense in the lore for such types of interested parties to congregate in a market of some sort.

I never said they didn't. And I never said all arrows were recoverable. Which is why I specifically suggested, a short bit back, that you only retrieve percentages of the arrows you fired (which would improve a bit as you progress, making cleaner shots, missing less, and just-plain knowing how to re-use more of your arrows. It's still abstracted into a single value, obviously. It's a cRPG...). And all I meant by "an archer brings how many arrows he needs" is that, if you're going into organized warfare in an archery line, you're probably going to have several quivers of arrows (probably with people refilling them, even, sometimes) and not retrieve them for some time (as you're obviously not going to go sprinting down the hill to get 15 arrows back while hundreds of people are still engaging your force in combat). Whereas, if you're traveling about in a small group, as in RPGs, and fighting handfuls of bandits and other creatures, here and there, it would be more like hunting. You might bring a full quiver, plus some extras (maybe a secondary quiver? Or just another bundle to refill your quiver), but you're going to fire 10 or 15 arrows, then retrieve what you can (because you've killed everything.) You're not going to fight 7,000 arrows worth of stuff in a 10-minute span, so it doesn't really make sense that you should ever NEED to fire hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of arrows and worry that much with inventory management of arrows on a constant basis. That would be like a Fighter bringing 10 swords, in case the first 9 got dented up, just on a 3-to-4-day trip between towns/cities. Obviously, you're sometimes going to run out of arrows. If you so choose, maybe you can carry several extra bundles in your pack, but the game doesn't need to be designed to make sure you NEVER run out of arrows, ever. No one said it should, I don't think.

You say "nitpicky," I say "true but annoyingly technical to some people despite its verity." *shrug* Exactly. I don't know why you're stressing this, since I already acknowledged it. You're emphasizing the non-skill aspect of "betterment" factors. Cool. I did that, too. THEN I noted that the skill aspect simultaneously exists. They're not in two different universes or something. So, why am I being so "nitpicky"? Well, because the difference in which function an enchantment is allowed to serve is circumstantially evident. Hence the "negative weight" example that you felt the need to so belittlingly point out was obvious. If the enchantment is increasing your skill with the sword, then you still operate better with the sword (and therefore gain a mathematically quantified to-hit bonus) even with all the optimal non-skill factors already in place. The sword weighs nothing and is completely balanced and you have plenty of strength and speed of muscle fibers, yet you're magically +n better than what you were, already, with all those same factors. Whereas if enchantments can only increase those non-skill factors, you're already at the cap. Meaning, of course, that enchantments and non-enchantments (anything granting attack bonuses permanently, basically, are already governed by the same cap. If you allow enchantments to boost actual skill with the weapon, then you've got a whole separate train track of attack bonuses that you've got to balance into the rest of the system. If you still think I'm just being nitpicky, then cool. But, I'd rather make as much sense of the balancing/design process as I can, rather than arbitrarily making things convoluted for basically no gain, then capping things off for arbitrarily-invented lore reasons just so my system works. That's just my personal preference, though. Erm...no I literally have no idea what you're saying "no" to. All I did was reference what we already mentioned previously, which didn't warrant any "Erm... no" before. I don't know what has changed. *blink blink* o_o

What if there were actual markets/bazaars/squares in mid-to-large-sized towns where these collector-type folk set up at stalls and bought/bartered things, with different ones on different days/at different times that you visited? This way, if you found such an aspect of the economy interesting, you could loot broken time pieces and tarnished jewelry and other knickknacks, and they'd be worth at least something to the right people (and might even provide more than simple monetary value, like "quest" content/triggered-happenings, or introduction to a new faction or different people or new information/relationships, etc.). I think it would be prudent, though, to give some indication that it wouldn't have value at "normal" shops. Maybe an actual "knickknacks" category or something in the inventory system. *shrug*