The last two characters we've gotten to play, the Nerevarine and Champion of Cyrodiil, are legenday figures, masters of dozens of guilds and factions, slayers of gods... pretty much the most powerful figure in the respective states. And yet there are few times when all this power comes in useful, usually to progress the main plot. I do remember one questline where the player's choices had some memorable consequences; the Raven Rock questline of Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon. For those who don't remember, or didn't play it, the player was a new supervisor of sorts in the East Empire Company, responsible for assisting the development of a new mining colony. Over the course of the questline Raven Rock grew substantially, and the player had to make a few menial choices on which buildings to construct, who to recruit for the town watch, yada yada. But you also chose which member of the company to throw your weight behind, and the result was two memorable questlines instead of one, probably my favorite out of a great expansion pack.

Now Skyrim sounds like it has the trappings of a great game; an empire in decline, a king dead... why shouldn't the player be able to decide at least part of Skyrim's future? Perhaps the player decides to throw his weight behind an empire in need of a champion, or perhaps decides he should be king himself!

I understand that this would make continuity more of a challenge, but consider that the deeds done by the player in the previous games have been rendered inconsequential anyway, either by banishing the character to Akavir, or moving the timeline forward a couple centuries, so I think that shouldn't be a concern.

i want to get all the powah!! then invite all my rivals to dinner spike there drinks and profit/ rule the skyrim!

Continuity is the biggest issue.

Not only continuity, but also the IRTEHGOD sort of thing that Oblivion had going on. I played a spellsword and the first guild line I completed was the Thieves' Guild. Then I did the Dark Brotherhood. Then the Mages' Guild. And finally the Fighters' guild. Then I completed every other quest in the game (including the main quest). The problem here is that the Mages' and Fighters' guilds are less than friendly. Same for Thieves' and everyone else. And the Dark Brotherhood and everyone else. The amount of ACHIEVABLE content for a role-playing character was sooooo low. If you decide to be the righteous fighter type then there are only about 100 good hours you can get out of that without mods. Same for every archetype/moral ideal. Adding in a political approach to playing would mean creating ANOTHER way to play the game for roleplayers. This is good. But it would also mean diverting resources from existing guild-type questlines. Or, worse yet, general quests that may be attributed to any RP style.

I think that rather than increasing the overall replay value of the game, including another lengthy quest line (even in conjunction with the main quest) which results in becoming King of Skyrim would hurt (casual) RPers. And again the continuity and the fact that it would be utter lore-[censored] to have someone unrelated to the previous king ascend the throne.

it is a possibility at the end of skyrims main quest, being proclaimed as the king of skyrim after alduin is banished/destroyed, npcs telling the player character "yes your majesty?" and many more features of being king

I think it should be an option, but it won't be easy. Make very difficult quests that are all about putting yourself at the top, there's no way someone nonrelated to the throne is going to get there peacefully. So maybe you have quests where you attend parties and get people to vote people, or you spike the drinks of people standing in your way. Possibly quests making you look better than any other candidate so you'd be an obvious choice for the throne. All of this could be randomly generated by radiant story aswell, so then it'd never be the same way to become king every time. You would make friends an enemies along the way. With all this, rpers would be happy, as it actually made sense and is completely optional, so you dont have too.

This isn't fable 3. The whole point is that you are a solo legend, not a king.

Remember that the gameplay needs to be made so that not too many final results are availble so the lore can continue in the next game flawlessly, bethesda had a heavy headache from this when they made morrowind or daggerfall (i don't remember which, i think morrowind) where they had to creatively put together all the possible endings of the previous game and make it look like each one had happened in the next game. thats friggin hard if you ask me. so i bet bethesda will be very very careful about things like this.


But i hope that we'll have at least some deciding power, like a president has the power to say NO!!!!!!!!, or say Ok, but in addition to that i want some people to disagree with you so everytime you'll say no to some political decision you'll have to work hard for it.

ItWas daggerfall and the dragon break

Fargoth will most likely somehow end up as the ultimate political power in Skyrim, so who cares?

Fargoth, Glarthir, and the Adoring Fan as an unstoppable trio.

In morrowind, when you finished the main quest, all NPCs go crazzy about you, like they where a bunch of adoring fans. I hope this won't happen again.

I think it would be interesting, but I don't want to get my hopes up too high for the game (yet). But even if Bethesda doesn't include this in the game someone might make a mod for it.

There have been plenty of these threads, but I'll say once more that I do not want to be king at the end of Skyrim. It'll end up like being the guildmaster: the only change is the way people greet you. That's about it.

On top of that, I think it's ridiculous to make someone your king just because they saved the country. Just because Dovahkiin is one helluva hero doesn't mean he has what it takes to be king.

I like the fact that the heroes in the Elder Scrolls games have always remained mysterious. If our players did actually make big decisions then they would either have to be canonical (very limited, or all ending in the same result) or it would be like the ending of Daggerfall with the Warp in the West, which was somewhat clever, but has already been done.

I prefer to leave the mystery and the ambiguity to our characters.

Press ~ click on NPC, type kill and press enter. Find the NPC code and you can even bring him back to life. You have the power of a God to give and take life a your pleasure

The new Triumvirate for the Empire?

Why do people automatically think "KING!" when they hear political power? I REALLY don't want that kind of responsibility. I think max should be Baron or Teyrn or whatever title Skyrim gives to a semi major political landlord.

But anyway I wouldn't want it, Gimme a nice cabin with a huge library of books, and a few of my most cherished trophies on a cupboard, inside the fall forest shown in the trailer and I'll be happy.

Agreed.

That would be good but I reckon the system would need to be more intelligent. In OB, it was really frustrating that you might be the lauded "Hero of Kvatch" but the dialogue options never reflected your status. The system I think you are proposing would require that NPCs took into account your character's political views and actions. That would be awesome if they did that, but it would be a mission! And they are apparently not having much in the way of dialogue for non-important NPC's. I always thought one of OB's few shortcomings was the comparative lack of voice acting and dialogue options. Would love to see loads more of that (even if it means the price of the game is higher than for most games).

why even mention fable 3?
are you aware that team fables great idea was not an original one?
many games have messed with this idea and NEVER got it right. managing factions and controlling territory are a rare sight in crpgs. and who better than bethesda to show the world how its done.

quote by me from another topic
"scale has only been an issue with this topic because people don't want it compared to certain other games [fable 3]
even though the idea has been around since before fable was conceived. becoming king, emperor etc.
i have no problem becoming king but only if its realistically presented, is optional to the plot, and hard to achieve...im thinking harder than the main quest at the very least.
maybe there can be different routs to achieve the throne, military renown, political persuasion, wealth and or nobility [proving your bloodline or falsifying it with gold XD] "

Fable 3 was a great idea with horrible implementation.
On Topic: Like most things, if done right it could be cool. But as the absolute king, meh. Maybe a behind the scenes adviser or even straight up blackmail artist. Id personally like to have more to do with the guilds myself but I'm all for new stuff to do in ES.

As I've explained before, being a king or any kind of major management position would require a COMPLETELY different gameplay style which has nothing to do with most of the game. New complex politics simulator, complete change of what you can and can't do, important duties to attend to, armies and wars to manage yourself, it is so vastly different from the whole style of gameplay that it would require them another 2 years to add.

It doesn't need to be either everything or none at all. They could find the middle ground with a "major management position". They did this in Baldur's Gate 2 somewhat, and it was pretty fun for a bit.

Nothing too complex... just fun and rewarding.

There would be no reason to do most of the quests in the game because you would have almost limitless money and resources for your personal use. Also, you'd by a pretty [censored] king if you spent your time questing instead of managing and running a country. So you can be a crap king or a bored king. And they still have to dramatically extend the release date.