Poll is obviously for members who are vocal about this issue but also for those who either feel it isn't a paramount issue, or feel openly discussing it is pointless and/or redundant.

For those who are familiar with my views, after studying Oblivion's format, I would prefer continuing to use Skyrims skill/perk system versus going back to, in my view, a grievously poor PMS similar to Oblivion's.

Thanx for your participation.

I prefer Skyrim's system. I wouldn't mind attributes back if they could implement them better. I actually really enjoy Fallout's S.P.E.C.I.A.L. but that is not perfect either. I hope they build off Skyrim and improve the perks and skills.

I prefer the TES attributes + the perk trees. The perks should be more interesting though, too many fillers to get to the good ones.

I had no problems with Attributes in previous games, except that (1) the system for increasing them (multipliers) was fundamentally broken, and (2) they were badly under-utilized in Oblivion.

SPECIAL is not fundamentally different than the Attributes in TES, but the methods for raising them (or NOT raising them in the earlier FO games) are totally different. I'd prefer to see Attributes be harder to change, something that you would set at character creation and then perhaps modify by a total of 1 point per level, not get 1-5 points in 3 different Attributes.

The concept of Perks is entirely valid, but it shouldn't be used to replace Skills or Attributes the way it was done in SR. Perks should represent "tricks", "special techniques", "quirks" or other things which set the character apart from a typical NPC of similar skill, not just do the same thing as a basic skill boost. Making it "mandatory" as was done in OB was also a problem, because it might suit one character, but be totally out of character for another. Not everyone powergames, so I shouldn't have to take a particular Perk if it's contrary to the character's concept.

"Classes" serve to identify what the character's main focus is, which can be important to determine what they can and can't handle from a quest standpoint. As a rigid set of rules (as in D & D), I am very much against it. From a "guideline" point of view, where you use it as a loose definition, starting template to modify from, and a ruler to judge relative capabilities, there's not much alternative. Many of my characters were considered "thief" class, even though they were primarily "fencers", "combat archers", or "spellswords". Since they relied more on agility than brute force, they didn't fall under the "Fighter" class. I don't want the game telling me that my character MUST take Heavy Armor perks because his weapon skill is above a certain level, or be denied the ability to take a weapon perk because the game insists that my Marksman skill means I'm a "thief" and need to take "Pickpocketing". On the other hand, having the Mages Guild decide that you'd make a perfect Arch-Mage just because you can put an arrow through a Minotaur's eye at 100 yards is ridiculous.