I didn’t vote because I cant finish the pole as the subsequent questions assume I voted “yes” to the first.

The Theives guild may not know you're in the DB. Once again, these are suggestions which hinder the roleplaying experience because of a lack of freedom. Creativity is what roleplaying is about, not set systems of realism.

trumpets?sunset? naaa i think more on the lines of still having fun.How is the main char dieing original? Look consequences are different in different area's lets be honest.U want meaning behind the death or story of ur character laid out buy the story of the game.U climb a mountian and its a challenge to get to the top and u get there in the end and u feel like u did something great and u say to ur self man im awesome.the end,Unless u want to keep on climbing the mountian.

Yes, when you limit an option it hinders RPing freedom. You don't want more choices, You want more restrictions based on those choices. This makes the game more linear. I want more options and no doors to close because I've chosen said options. If you don't want to take advantage of said options than...don't. How is that not even more fair?

The hero dying at the end of the storyline is as generic as them surviving and riding off into the sunset.

The standard endings to most of these games is actually far more original than most - having to continue on and live life in a world that barely survived rather than the character and story just abruptly ending.

I'm with you one the fast travel. My entire time here, I've always been trying to get ways to implement fast travel into the game. I don't want to get rid of that.

But in the same sense, couldn't you see a possible death an okay thing? I agree it shouldn't be forced. I agree that playing after the main quest is a good thing. But, isn't forcing the character to live is the same as forcing the character to die?

I agree. It's exactly the same as fast travel. You join a conversation offering calmly that it should be an option rather than compulsory, and you end up being told by people that by offering more choices, you are completely negating their freedom. :huh:

Seriously, mate, calm down a sec' and think on it. Nobody is asking here that you should die for sure : just that it should be a possibility among many in the ending. Just like I have seen nobody ask for the complete removal of fast travel - it was argued that it should be possible to disable it. Hell, you want to join all guilds ? I'm ready to take the opinion that since we discussed elsewhere the possibility of an hardcoe mode, the default mode should allow you to do so.

In short, more choices, a way for everybody to get what they need from the game : can't we try and meet each other halfway ?

They happen to know when I kill someone on assignment, how would they not know I meet with groups of ruthless murderers?

Role playing is not about freedom to do what you want. It's about doing what you want within the bounds of the world. And indeed, some of the best role playing scenerios can come as a result of being locked out of options. Imagine playing a rogue mage out for revenge against the Mages Guild because they wouldn't accept you. Or being marked for death by the Dark Brotherhood because you broke their rules and got kicked out, resulting in you retaliating in a crusade against them? Or a paladin who loses faith because the Imperial Cult was uncomfortable having you as a member. There's a whole world of options that are only available after losing other options.

In this instance I get what Swat is saying. You could just rp that, and not touch that guild anyway. But at the same time, it will be interesting to see how factions act to you. Untill I know how factions act, I dont know which way is better really. Both are valid opinions.

But you can die anytime you want already. Why force me to consider it after I've beaten the main quest? It breaks immersion and forces a "quest" upon me that makes no sense. There are no other missions where I'm asked by the game if I died during it, I just die. It's forced on me because it's not optional. I can't opt out of the main quest. It's pointless and immersion breaking. What is the point? So I could be the winner and have the option to sacrifice myself for no reason because I already won or I could live because I already won? Did I win? Yes. Then why am I sacrificing myself? Did I lose and not sacrifice myself? Then the world is destroyed. Did I win and not sacrifice myself? Then what was so heroic about being able to sacrifice myself? No point.

It's just like stories, really. If all heroes were omnipotent beings who could do just about anything without meeting any barrier nor difficulties, nobody would go past page 10. There's some interest, there's some story when there's a clash between a hero with qualities, vices and his world. That's where questions arise - what's next ? How is it going to end ? But maybe the reader can close his eyes and imagine all that, really. I mean, what a lack of creativity not to leave it up to the author.

Pretty much the same thing in-game. I'll try to join another guild... will I get away with it or will they kick me out on sight ? Thing with Oblivion, you knew. 2 hours told you you would never have that kind of twist.

Of course I can RP it. Like I can stand in the wilderness, spot a wolf and RP that I'm shooting at it with a crossbow. I wonder why Bethesda has bothered implementing dual-wielding. Could have totally imagined it. :huh:

I don't want my characters forced into the kind of endings you described above. I want them to be able to do other quests or whatever they want. They shouldn't be forced into a "penalty ending" of the main quest in order to avoid a default ending in my PCs death.

I do like having optional endings with the possibility of self sacrifice for the good of all. Some of the characters I create might go that route, but that should not be forced upon anyone.

Peace, +Petrose

Imagine that you're trying to unite the guilds in order to fight the oblivion crisis. Locking out options is just a way to say "screw creativity, I want realism". Roleplaying is playing a role. Your roles are more restrictive than mine, that's fine. Don't, however, suggest that limiting options in order to make your game the way you want it is somehow going to enhance everyones game. It isn't, you're just limiting everyone elses choices.

It wouldn't really be an authentic experience, though. If I'm just going to imagine everything in my head, what do I need the game for?

An open world RPG is the furthest thing from a book that you can find which still includes a story. Books are COMPLETELY LINEAR. What if you're RPing a VERY powerful being? Take Gandolf for instance, or Emperor Palpatine or many other robe clad powerful dudes in the world of fiction, what if you dropped them into TES? Powerful being don't have to always limit themselves to one guild or another, or one set of morals over another. Sometimes powerfull beings do many contradictory things in order to get MORE power. Perhaps a thief Khajiit wouldn't join the fighters guild AND the theives guild but maybe someone more along the lines of Batman or Robin hood would do both. In a RP the games story is secondary to your own. That's why there is that level of freedom in oblivion, because people play differently and it's an open world game with options up the wazoo.

The last question is biased. So I won't be answering you poll.
Short answer, No.

The game is just a playset filled with action figures with AI, the roleplaying is the main quest, the rest is just environment.

Locking out options does not mean a lack of creativility. It would be much more creative to have intertwining guild quests lines, where results of one guild quest can ripple out into others, and have a noticeable effect (for better or worse). Saying that a certain acitivity doesn't affect your standing within a guild, when it should, that shows a lack of creativility.


No matter what you do, choices are going to be limited. If you allow everyone to do everything, you limit the choices of those who want interfaction warfare, or those who want to be scorned by various guilds. They couldn't get those choices if they weren't locked out.

But the AI wouldn't respond properly if it's not programmed to handle the scenarios.

Yes, I know ! *crouches* ...I was giving an example where twists and difficulty make things interesting.

But it's not so far fetched an example, though. RPing does imply to write a story for your character. It's just that it's up to you to play the rest, according to the personality you designed in your outline.


Then play them in God Mode, or even better, push your character 'till the limitations of the game don't apply to you anymore. You are also free to do so. If I remember correctly (not sure, never did it in one char), you could join all guilds in Morrowind : the skill requirements just made it harder.


Okay, an hypothetical.

Let's say I'm someone who abhors fights. I mean really. Even lowest on the difficulty slider pisses me off. In fact, I want fewer enemies, and they should go down in one blow.

Now I suspect you like a decent fight, don't you ? They offer you a challenge, and you feel great after winning a tough one ? But aren't you locking the hypothetical-me out of her choice of not having to fight at all ? She could argue to you that you only have to imagine there's a fight, that an open-ended world should impose no such limitation of freedom of movement.

Just trying to suggest one thing : that it is limitations - rules and difficulty - that can make a game fun ; and I'm sure that if there weren't for instance fights, you wouldn't be playing at all. Limitation force you to think and puts you to a challenge. Why do we bother with those irritating set moves of chess, and not simply advance in straight line 'till we knock down the king ?

Okay... For the sake of peace, and of my 5AM migraine, let's say that in the best of world there should be a default mode where there's absolute choice and no consequence, and a hardcoe mode adding - among other things - rules and limitations and reactions to the NPC's AI. All right ?

I don't want to see permanent character death, but rather alternate endings that involve the character dying and then somehow coming back to life.

for example, lets say a necromancer doesn't believe that you can defeat Alduin, so he offers you a quest to gain necromantic power that will bring you back to life after death, and give you a temporary boost of power, i.e the power wears off after you die, come back, and defeat Alduin. you could also choose to go with another quest that leads to the final battle, maybe, say, going on a quest to make a massive army that distracts Alduin while you come in for a rogue-like kill, or do the opposite, going in alone and defeating Alduin on your own (if you chose the necromancy quest, then there would be a scripted death, but if you go with straight up stab Alduin in the face, it is a good ole fashion boss fight, these final quest lines could get pretty intricate...)

There should not be any possibility of the player dying at the end of the MQ, because that has never been what TES has been about.

It's one of the things I disliked slightly about New Vegas. It closed doors on the player when he did things a certain way without ANY indication whatsoever. While that is realistic, I don't play video games because they're realistic. I play them because I want to enter this world and tell a story.

New Vegas Spoiler


You can easily roleplay a character in Oblivion as the player exits the Imperial Prison, hating the world, joins the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood, completes those questlines, gets remoreseful, completes Knights of the Nine, does FG and MG, does the MQ, does SI. If you don't feel your character wants to play that way, that's fine. But it's unfair to close doors without clearly warning people of the consequences.

In Morrowind, you CAN be the head of the Fighters Guild and Thieves Guild.

Morrowind does have the Great Houses, but let's be frank, deep down at their core, there's nothing to be lost by doing only one. You get a fast-tracked part of the end of the MQ (assuming you do it early), a place to store your loot, etc. There is no strategic advantage to one over the other.

But Elder Scrolls has never been about ending the game after the Main Quest. That has never been a feature of any game since Daggerfall (Redguard and Battlespire and the Travels not counted, since they're spin-offs designed to tell a very specific story). A large part of the game is the factions, side quests, etc. It wouldn't be a good design decision.

And learn to write unbiased polls. If you have an opinion, express it, but don't belittle other people when they have opinions that are just as valid as yours. That's why they're called opinions. I'm sorry if my desire to have a perfect good ending is "irrational", and I'm sorry you can't RP past doors that are left open for people who don't want them closed. If you want a game that has consequences for every action, that's fine. There will never be a game that will truly pleases you. For example, in Dragon Age, you can't just say "screw it, I'm walking away, Ferelden can die". You CAN, it's just called not playing the game. Likewise, if you want to roleplay your death at the end of the Skyrim MQ, kill yourself once it's over and say you sacrificed yourself. That's fine and dandy. But don't try and impose your will on other people because you don't have the willpower to say "I don't think the Thieves Guild suits my current character, I'm just going to ignore it", and then belittle people when they don't agree with your opinion.

I'd like the option to die if you, well, svck. Sort of like in Mass Effect 2;

You can, but it doesn't make logical sense. The Thieves Guild doesn't deal with murderers, neither does the Fighters Guild. Being that you were in the Dark Brotherhood, you were a murderer, so neither of those guilds should let you join(*). Even if your character became remorseful seeking redemption, why should the guilds believe you? Perhaps you could do something to show your sincerity, but that would imply breaking your oath to the DB, getting kicked out and likely gaining their wrath (also, you'd be locked out of proving your sincerity if you weren't first a DB member; you'd just join right away).

(*) With the Fighters Guild, you could slide with the reasoning that they wouldn't know you're with the DB, which I could accept.. as long as your don't become publically known as a member. Thieves Guild is a bit different, since they apparently like spying on you.

Maybe it doesn't make logical sense. That said, there is the problem with video games. In real-life, whenever you close a door, an equal number open. The "game" doesn't end until you die.

In a video game, especially an open-world video game, the game doesn't end until there's nothing left to do. Establishing a death ending, locking players out of questlines when they do certain things, all this encourages a CERTAIN playstyle, a certain playthrough, to get the maximum amount of gameplay. To get a certain ending. In the end, all you do is have a bunch of players gaming the system. And that's not what ES is about.

The glory of the Elder Scrolls is that you can do anything in whatever order you do, and you won't punish yourself unduly. If a player wants to keep doing new things, closing doors on him will turn him away. In the end, all you do is have a certain playthrough that's considered the "right" playthrough, the "right" order of quests, and all you do is unnecessarily hinder your players because they want to do everything they can in one game. Maybe that's fine with the hard-core RPers, who want massive consequences and a definitive end, but that's not fine with 99% of Elder Scrolls gamers.

I agree. There should be consequences- but only if there are ways around those consequences, or if there are clear, undeniable, "hit me over the head with a baseball bat" warnings before they do it. Do NOT punish players when they have no idea of the consequences. Maybe it's not unrealistic, but this is a game, not real life. People (including me) don't play for that. We play to play the character we want to play, and placing limits on that hinders OUR role playing experience.