Who says your character has to? It's up to you to make the choices and you are free to do so, or not to.

I think he's saying that his character has 0 magical ability and decides to help the mages guild and they elect him to be arch Mage. Even though he has absolutely no qualifications for the position he is placed as their leader even though he doesn't even know the basics.

No, it's just something that can happen if he decides to play that part. He is not forced to do it. If he really misses restrictions of that kind and he plays on pc, he can mod the game so that it fits his requirements. If he plays on consoles, he can just ignore the College after he got what the player needed from the librarian.

This debate will lead nowhere.

I don't think it should require restrictions so to speak. Let's look at this in a practical point of view. Your a do good adventurer and you notice the Mage guild is in need of assistance that you could play a part in so you offer aid. You have no magical experience and no desire to learn it but you feel compelled to help. You aid them till the end. Now it wouldn't be reasonable or realistic for them to give you the title of their leader and would make better since to elect someone from within their ranks. It would be reasonable for them to honor your aid though so a special title with its on perks could be awarded to you. That would be good in game roll playing design without forcing the player to A. Ignore a quest line B. create their own head Cannon or C. Need to modify the game.

Encouraging metagaming? How unlike you.


How it would have happened to me if I didn't get bored of that playthrough halfway through (this is basically Charon's post rephrased, so clearly this isn't just "one person with imaginary problems" situation):

When I start helping the College, I don't know they're going to make me Archmage, so I can't deliberately avoid it. The main quest heavily encourages joining the College (problem #1: I can't just visit the place, I need to be a member). If I have any magical affinity at all, I attend the magic lesson out of curiosity. I go to Saarthal because hello, famous ancient Nordic capital, who'd pass up this opportunity? And then I'm hooked because there's clearly something major going on if the Psijics are involved and I want to see it through.


Nowhere along the way did I become qualified to be Archmage. I did some great things, yes, but I can cast exactly 5 spells and the best of them is Apprentice level. Yet they make me their leader.


I can work around stupid design, but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist. Guilds in Skyrim are far too eager to make newcomers their leaders after a week, and far too lenient with their lack of actual relevant ability. It is a real problem that lowers my opinion of the game.

RPGs come in alot of forms... genre's are not some super specific designation, they have always been but a vague outline..



saying " isn't a REAL RPG because it doesn't have ", is like saying the Hangover isn't a comedy because it isn't exactly like It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World

That's the problem. The US food industry lobbied hard, and got their own special rules put in (instead of just upping the prices on their food/including it in the check). They pay sub-standard wages, on the assumption that there WILL be tips. Taxes are also taken out of the servers' paychecks assuming there will be tips, so if they work somewhere terrible/get terrible customers, and get no tips? They end up either getting nothing at all, or owing money for the time they worked, because the taxes/etc eat up all their "official" hourly wage. (At least, that's what I understand from the food blogs I've read in the past, like Kitchenette).

But this is going wildly off topic, so.......

Yes! Fun is also the only criteria for me.


That's why I love a great variety of types of games. From 2D platforms to grand strategy and almost everything in between.


I must say that a good story or background lore is a big plus for RPG.

This is well said (written?). It is all about the balance between disappointment and forgiveness for me.

I see what you're saying and agree to a point. But when I play different genres, I really don't care about the character in front of me. I had no connection to the Marine in Doom. I don't even know what I was in Quake. Heretic and Hexen were the same. It is only when I build a character "from scratch" the way I want to that I find a vested interest in them.

It's also not only BGS that is lowering the standards. Most AAA game makers are doing this. And selling multiple millions of copies.

This is where "head cannon" and "conflicting situations" come into play (about non-mages becoming archmage). This is exactly what I am talking about. My fighters don't go through the mages guild. But I have some thieves do so. Dual Wielding with archery and sneak thieves. My first character went through, being sent there by the Main Quest. After that first run, the CoW was forever a joke in my head. Head Cannon engaged.

The same rang true when my mage character helped defeat a Giant when coming into Whiterun for the first time. She was invited to talk to Kodlak. She became Harbinger of the Companions even though they DESPISE mages.

Now, when I create a character, I have an idea of what they are and what they will be doing in the game. I usually do not take a fighter to the CoW or Thieves Guild, or a Mage to The Companions. A Thief character may do all the guilds, or just one other than the TG. But when my novice Illusionist/alchemist Thief makes Archmage, then I have troubles. Even afterward, I'm still the errand child, NOT the Archmage, who delegates.

When the choices are "don't do" or "head cannon if you do"... This is exactly what I'm talking about. "Ignoring in order to make sense" should not be the norm in an RPG, for me. A simple method of skill checking would solve this. But that keeps some players from doing everything with one character, God forbid.

This is not a "chink" against players can accomplish this with no worries. It is a more of a "chink" in my own capabilities

PS:

Just saw your response to charon where you said "He is not forced to do it." That first time through? Yes I am. I HAVE to join the college in order to talk to the Librarian. I am now a member of the CoW. Later on, in subsequent playthroughs, I can "cheat" and just go to where I (not my character) know Septimus is hanging out, but that first time? And because my "magic hating or fearing character" can buy the spell the lady sells me AND cast it, it is too much for my head to ignore. I may not become Archmage, but I am still forced to join. I also HAVE to join the TG to get to Esbern later on.

I'm not trying to pinpoint any one game or anything. It has gone to Skyrim for examples, though, so I see where you get that. I am also not saying "Game X is an RPG. Game F is not." The title is "Evaluate", meaning how I rate them as RPGs for me

You are confusing "do anything" with "do everything." They are not the same.

I like to do everything possible with one character, but even I don't like that it's so easy for novice mages (or even non-mages) to become Archmage in Skyrim. I really liked how Morrowind did it where characters needed to have skills at certain levels in order to advance in a faction or guild. In fact, I thought those skill requirements in Morrowind were too low. I liked having the option to do everything in Morrowind, but I still believed that the head of the Mage's Guild needed to be an extremely powerful mage in order to get there.

In Skyrim, not only was it super easy for someone with no magic to become Archmage, but the College questline was extremely short, so it really did seem like only a week between arriving as a beginning student to becoming the leader. Very silly.

I'm not seeing the difference. Sorry about that...

I wish Bethesda remembered this more often.

Isn't this how everyone evaluates everything? We all start with a mental model, and we gain positive or negative thoughts of whatever it is we are evaluating based on everything that happens which strays from that model. We may not realise we are doing it, but I'm fairly confident that it's the case. I mean there may be some things that people chose to adjust their mental model to fit, such as when we want to like someone (usually romantically but it can be family, even celebrities that we allow to get away with things), or when there is evidence that proves or disproves a theory that we want to believe (it is disappointing when people move their mental model in this circumstance but it is very common). But yes, with a static mental model, that's exactly how everybody evaluates everything.

For me, I never bought the "become leader without any skills" complaint, since it seems like that issue wouldn't come up for people that were roleplaying. Not sure how you can roleplay just being a helpful adventurer, either, since each faction makes a big deal out of you formally joining and becoming a member (except for the College, funny enough, if you visit them as a Dragonborn searching for the Elder Scroll they'll say you're welcome to just be a student and go to Tolfdir's lesson... I wish becoming a student at a real college was that casual.).

The quests themselves ask us to use specific skills, too, although they can arguably do more... but arbitrary "you must have 75 in two of these skills to proceed" limitations are dumb. (in fairness, I didn't think the skill requirements on the master-spell quests at the college were arbitrary, since their premise was "is there anything left to learn?")

I would hope so, but I sometimes wonder

I think my biggest issue with game's that allow you to "do everything", is that there is no consequence to your choices; or a lack of alternative choices to compensate for possible consequences.

That is the current trade-off. The more a game can allow freedom of choice , the less it's going to care about those choices.


But one can easily imagine how complicated it can be to track all those variables. That's the classic Game Master dilemma - no matter how you plan a session the players will surprise you (in my current group, it's almost half the fun is trying to throw our GM for a loop.)


In tabletop role playing the GM can adjust and react to unexpected choices. In a video game you have to program as many variables as possible and hope for the best.

True, but as far as quests go it shouldn't be much harder to impliment a few branching variables if the quest line is designed with it in mind to begin with.


For example the Mage guild delima. How hard would it have been for the guild to "notice" your magical talents or lack there of and make two possible outcomes based on that. If your magically gifted your elected to be the guild leader because of your feats. If your not then the title is handed to someone more fitting of that roll but you are honored by them instead. I really don't think it would have been that hard to impliment if it were a design choice from the start. But I guess it's easier to hand you a trophy for participating rather than tell you if you want it then you need to earn it.

I wonder if anyone's ever going to do anything interesting in regards to emergent, or even procedural, roleplaying opportunities. When I play something like Crusader Kings 2, for example - that game is basically just a succession simulator; but it does a great job of tracking a ton of (essentially) NPCs that are each following their own motives and agendas within the confines of the game's rules. And those interconnecting actions generally keep the game interesting and provide for plenty of opportunities to make meaningful choices. It strikes me that you could possibly apply something like to a roleplaying game on some level - just the idea of a world that runs independent of you, with NPCs advancing their own agendas and your character interacting with those choices and modifying outcomes through their actions.

Something like Mount and Blade comes somewhat close to that, really - there's tons of impactful roleplaying on a more meta level, beyond the generic quests given out. If someone could find a way to make those choices on a more micro level somewhat, that could potentially be very interesting.

My dream-game is a mix between Daggerfall, Fallout 4, and Mount&Blade. Just go traipsing around a procedurally generated world with various groups taking territory dynamically... and destroy/build up your own communities within that setting.

Well said!

Consequences from the game (not my imagination) is what makes a good roleplay for me

Sounds like Life is Feudal.

RPGs with few restrictions can be fun in the role-playing department. That said, it's a slippery slope. Remove too many restrictions and enforced systems and the game becomes more of a sandbox than a game. This is fine if you want a sandbox to play in rather than a game that has rules and systems. It annoys me when I think I'm buying a game and it turns out to be a sandbox in which I need to make up and enforce my own rules in order to be challenged or experience a sense of accomplishment.