This thread is for ideas and suggestions for future Elder Scrolls games, and to keep all the discussion in one series of threads.

We have a long way to go before we get another ES game. In the meantime, similar topics will be closed and referred to this one.

Note there is a separate thread specifically for http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1589318-tes-vi-location-and-setting-speculation-29/ suggestions for future games. Please keep discussion of Skyrim in the correct forums.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1591546-official-beyond-skyrim-tes-vi-73/

We were on the subject of the main story. Let's have the "Start as a prisoner." discussion! Should we start as a prisoner or should Beth scrap it and come up with a different way for us to start out?

Personally I love the prisoner beginnings. I see them as kind of a shared joke between developers and players, almost like a running gag. I would be tremendously disappointed if they scrapped it for TES VI.

The Prisoner thing is saturated with theme and mysticism in TES, and is very important to the core nature of the protagonists. It also has the advantage of being extremely vague about the character by imposing no history, personality or relationships. It's the easiest Blank-Slate mechanic from which to launch your character, and is a signature of the series.


Not only is it probably the only thing sacred in the franchise, it's also so damned useful I wouldn't argue against it.



As for the self determination thing... You do.have it. You, as the 'Hero', can choose to ignore Destiny. Normal people can't. Ulfic couldn't decide NOT to kill Torygg any more than Torygg could avoid his death. But a Hero can choose to walk away. If they embrace their destiny, however, it comes in full. You don't pick and choose what and how. You accept a role and act out the part.

I agree with you both. It's perfect for allowing us to truly "invent" our characters.

Can you (the player character) ignore it, though? Only in the sense of it being a game, can you (the player) ignore it. Another way to look at it is, if you had no notion of it being a game that requires you to trigger advancement of the quests, and the events automatically continued down its logical path based on what people in the world decided to do during the time it took to happen, could your character ignore it?

Ignore, cave under the pressure, outright hasten the appclypse. Yes.

Well it depends on the game. Morrowind you could drop the packet you were supposed to give Caius into the ocean and never do the Main Quest. I thought the pacing was way to fast in Oblivion, yes you could hold off from going to Jauffrey but I always had in the back of my mind "gotta go see Jauffrey. The fate of the world depends on it.", and then of course if you just stumbled across Kvatch, that made things look even more dire. I thought Skyrim was ok. You could hold off going to Dragonsreach, or even Riverwood without feeling like you are neglecting something.

And in that case, what motivation would they have to continue doing anything? If they've caved under the pressure of saving the world and know the end is coming, or even want the world to end, what would motivate them to continue doing anything of note? Would be nice for the game to work with more character types than just nihilists or fatalists (or psychopaths).

You could, sure, but few character types would realistically do that. Same as you can ignore the Emperor's dire warning or the call of the Greybeards in the face of the dragon threat. My point isn't that the game gives you no options, it's that you'd have to break character to avoid the MQ for the majority of character types.

Yeah, but then when you did get to Riverwood, Whiterun, and Dragonsreach, and witness the scripted scenes play out just like the beginning events just happened, it really shows how the game intended you to do those things much earlier.

Trying to cheat death, hoping someone else solves the problem, frusteration in their own failing, even deluding themselves that their being 'Chosen' was wrong.


It's worth noting, also, that I don't see a normal mortal overcomming the odds and rising to meet a challenge as heroic. It just mutes the threat in the first place. If ANYONE can stop something by simply being determined, then it's not really a big deal. The only risk is apathy or indifference to the issue (IE, Climate Change). Rising to challenge something that anyone can do is shallow to me, like giving medals out just for showing up.

Well in the case of Morrowind, you were basically told by the census and excise Captain to take the package to Caius in Balmora. That was it. No explanation or anything just the old "Get moving!". Maybe I'm weird but I found that pretty easy to ignore, usually spending a few in game days in Seyda Neen before even starting to head *towards* Balmora. I think it really depends on how much they tell you at the beginning of the game. I will admit however, that Morrowind had the most chill character creation process of any of the more recent TES games, and that may have added to the nonchalant attitude I developed towards getting that package to Caius pronto.

So you think it's Bethesda's intention that characters that avoid the MQ should do so because of these reasons?

Rising to a challenge you're destined to overcome is what feels shallow to me, and a world-ending threat shouldn't hinge on one person (sometimes it may come down to one person making the right call at the right time, but that's very different from a nobody rising up to single-handedly take out the big bad). Rather than being given a medal for showing up, you're given a medal because you're you. You're not given a medal due to your own inner strength to overcome adversity and accomplish a difficult task, because destiny would have you win regardless of what you tried to do. If it's impossible to fail, is there any meaning in success?

The reason I like Daggerfall's MQ most is because it's not a world ending threat. It's a political power struggle that you can get embroiled in. But it doesn't make you out to be a nobody doing every day work, either. Adventuring is not a common profession, and a successful, seasoned adventurer is even more rare. I get to see and do things most people in the world couldn't dream of. I travel all across the land, I delve deep into long-forgotten ruins, I uncover artifacts of legend, I talk with gods, I kill monsters, I may even become a monster (figuratively and literally). Given that these games are designed around exploration and adventuring, playing these aspects up would be a positive thing, and it need not fall back on you being the special unique person who alone holds the fate of the world in their hands to make you stand out.

You were told it was a condition of your release, which was ordered by the Emperor himself, that you must take the package to Caius and do what he says. When you get to Caius and give him the package, he basically tells you (as the head spymaster in Vvardenfell with you as a new recruit) to treat his orders as if they come directly from the Emperor. Ignoring the MQ up to this point is tantamount to treason. When you get things settled from him, he tells you to go off, get a cover identity and some experience, then come back. So yeah, you can take a break from the MQ, but if you don't come back as he says, you're effectively AWOL.

They'll stick with the prisoner opening, and there's tons of ways to add a twist to that to keep it interesting. I think Skyrim did it best - it introduced you to the main quest at the outset, but it didn't setup your role in the story until after you escape. Compared to Oblivion or Morrowind, where you're already given orders by the time you're released into the world. Once you leave Helgen, it's just "my relative in Riverwood can give us a hand" - you don't know you're Dragonborn yet, you don't have to care about the dragons, just get the hell out of Helgen. For my part, I want to be on a Thalmor Prison ship, and then get shipwrecked.

I think the problem then is the sense of urgency that sticks with the main quest once it finally gets rolling. But then, I still want the main quest to be interesting. I'm not going to hold it against them if they have a really solid story, but it still feels weird to step away from it for hundreds of hours of side-questing and then jump back in like nothing happened; at this point it's almost a given quirk of their games, I'm not sure it's a big deal. I just want their stories to be good. For all the crap Fallout 3 and 4 get, their storylines at least get me engaged emotionally, make me care about what's going on. Morrowind had a few moments like that, particularly with Caius Cosades leaving and rescuing Mehra Milo, Oblivion only really had the end of the questline with Martin.

That is a good point. It's been too long since I've had a conversation with the good folk at the Seyda Neen Census and Excise office, I just didn't remember the dialogue from the captain being worded like that. You are right, characters wanting to honor the terms of the release wouldn't ignore the Morrowind MQ. Still, it is easier (IMO) for a roguish type character or a character who hates the empire or just being bossed around in general, to ignore the main quest in Morrowind because you aren't dealing with impending doom right out of the gate. To me this is harder in Oblivion. In Skyrim (just saw your edit to your second to last post) I admit, I haven't tried but two paths getting to Dragonsreach, both of which involved going to Riverwood first. Does the conversation at the Whiterun gate play out differently if you never talk to Alvor or Gerdur?

Why should the character be loyal to the Empire?A lot of characters would do it .Or infact tell Caius that they don't want to work for him(you can).

And?Why should a Khajiit thief care?It's not that he has any reason to be grateful to the Empire or the Emperor.

And my Dunmer wizard told him to [censored] off becasue I don't trust him.

My Nord Mercenary did not get any Orders(threw them in the swamps),nobody knows how you look or even what's your real name is how are they gonna find him?Caius doens't even knows that you're supposed to see him before you give him the Orders.For all they know I could have died 1 hour after I arrived.

I think this is the point... in order to justify ignoring the main quest in Morrowind, you have to be anti-Empire or just, well, a dike. Same kinda goes for Oblivion, too - you see the Emperor getting murdered in front of you, and he trusts you with the Amulet of Kings to find his heir and save the Empire.

Oblivion has never felt right not rushing off to do the main quest to me. In Morrowind however, only anti empire characters or jerks even have a reason to ignore the MQ. And as Huleed pointed out, it does give you a chance to take a break a few times to explore Vvardenfell.

So I guess the point of all that I'm saying is that I hope the next TES doesn't start like Oblivion and just throw us full throttle into the main quest right out of the gate.

I would like a choose your starting point, like the 'Live Another Life' mod for Skyrim. Being a prisoner should be the default choice.

I highly doubt they've put the thought into it. But that doesnt mean that the main quest is unavoidable, or somehow established in such a way that it's impossible to justify abandoning it.




I doubt we will ever agree on the subject. To me, the notion that anyone can, by their own merit, accomplish anything they set their mind to is childish pandering born of a modern culture or entitled attitudes. Some people are just different. Some are simply BETTER than others at some things. Without major medical advancement, little blind Timmy is never going to be able to comprehend the colour red. Sometimes, no matter what you WANT, no matter how hard you TRY, you simply aren't capable of success.


That's the core noting n of the Chosen One dynamic. Eve Rhone else fails by default, because they lack a key component that you can't get through study, determination or cunning. It's the ultimate failure opportunity, and ultimately emphasis the importance of the Individual. It's not what youve learned, or what motivates you it's ultimately about who you are. It's the core reason why hero stories continue to resonate across cultutees, because it's NOT something that everyone can do, and that's all the more reason to.idolize those who can.


From a game design standpoint, however, you can't just have something like that run with the PC on the peripheral. Playing a Squire to the Hero is a very different feeling, and an acquired taste. And as soon as you set up that dynamic, as soon as you make the Hero an NPC, you strip the player from being able to do so, and relegate them to a backseat role. Suddenly you might as well just be watching a movie, because you and your involvement no longer matters. Taking power away from the player can be a very useful tool, but it's far easier to run railroad into a wall with the idea and turn an interesting game-concept into total garbage.


In the end, this is where TES stands heads and shoulders above the rest. It gives both options (mostly... Skyrim was far and above the best execution of it). You can be a nobody, a normal person, or you can be the who can fix the problem. But if you take that away, you're striping out options. You're taking away the ability of the player to define their own fantasy, their own character, their own adventure.


And on top of that fundamental philosophical choice, you're basically saying 'Nah' to what makes TES stand out against the mountain of fantasies out there. You're deciding that mundane politics are more important than the metaphysical fabric of the setting, that bickering lords are of greater emphasis than the very function of the world. You might as well just make a Game of Thrones game if you aren't going to embrace the mystical core of the setting.


And, for the record, Daggerfall was far, FAR more than a mundane political struggle. Even before the Numidium was clocked up to 11, it was a murdered king holding a city in the grip of fear with an army of ghosts, a deranged Necromancer trying to become a god, and a decrepit Lich trying to take control of an unstoppable golem that could conquer the world. The politics were a backdrop for the main quest, not the core of it.

This is how I felt playing Oblivion's main quest. I felt exactly like Martin's squire. I felt that Martin was the real hero of the story, not me. I fetched his precious little artifacts for him so that he could save the day.

I despised the ending of that game. I'd been really excited, really pumped-up, about confronting Mehrunes Dagon. The inevitable showdown had been built up from the moment I first spoke with Jauffre. And then, ugh! To be forced to just stand there like an imbecile while an NPC fought the "end boss" instead of me made me absolutely furious.

That is one major reason why Oblivion's main quest is my least favorite main quest ever written by Bethesda (I haven't played Fallout 4 yet, though, so that may change soon).

Yep, I definitely feel it wasn't one of their best.

Mankar Camoran should have had greater prominence through out the story. Dagon or not, it was his machinations that started nearly everything that happened. He was our rival, had some unconventional if not interesting viewpoints, served as a direct foil to our character and the Blades via the Mythic Dawn, and seemed to have a genuine interest in our characters progress.

I would have been fine with Martins sacrifice had our confrontation with him been more cathartic.

OT, I do think we've been hit over the head with "Because Destiny says so" as of late, Skyrim being the most egregious out of all of them. I'd feel a lot better if our rising to the occasion more hinged on actually building something over time to help take on the big bad as opposed to just running around over the place and whacking them out once. Its kind of why I like the idea of the slowburn of Morrowind's MQ, especially when we (optionally) were advised to start striking out against the Sixth Houses strongholds in order to amass potent artifacts and weaken Ur in the process. It wasn't terribly interesting, but actively tearing down the Big Bads power structure is more fun then just confronting them when they decide to pop in and say hello.

I love a lot more the way Bethesda Game Studios makes our Player Characters (PC's) start from the beginning in a prison for a RPG video game.

It lets me while playing the video game start clean and new and write my own story.

I also like a lot when Todd Howard said it's a tradition that they want to have since The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind.

All new The Elder Scrolls video games developed and released for sale by Bethesda Game Studios needs to make the Player Characters (PC's) start as a prisoner in prison when you first start playing the video games.

Like I said, it's not that you can't justify it at all. It's that, for the majority of character types, those justifications break character. That feels out of place to me for a series that espouses the ability to play the character you want to play.

For this, I think we need to clarify the distinction between the player, the player character, the game, and the activities in the game world.


A player should be able to accomplish anything the game allows. Some things may be exclusive to each other, so a player that does one thing with a character may or may not be able to do that other thing with the same character. But the player always has the option to do something the game allows them to do even if it means making a different character.


For a character, this is where a proper skill system comes into play. A character that focuses heavily into magical and/or rogue skills shouldn't be able to become a master swordsman just because they want to. No matter how badly they want it, a character who's been studying magic all their life shouldn't have the martial skill to become head of a Guild of Fighters. A character that chooses to act against a guild, or doesn't follow the guild's philosophies, shouldn't then find that guild welcoming them with open arms.



So I agree that a character that's not set up to accomplish a task shouldn't be able to accomplish the task, but you (the player) should always have the option to make a character that can accomplish that task.

But like I said about why I like Daggerfall, simply by virtue of being an adventurer, you're doing something that not everyone can do (both in the real world and the game world). And being a good adventurer is even rarer than that. Without any story components, you're already given a character that's extraordinary, and it's up to you (the player or the character) to make what you want out of that. There's no predetermination of getting exactly what you want, and you can fail. And that's what makes it interesting. If you already know exactly what you're going to do, and you know you can't fail to do it, it's going to get old quickly.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have fantastical stories and plots. I'm totally with you in liking TES because it's unabashedly high fantasy. All I'm saying is that the world-ending plots, where only you're able to save the world because stories written centuries ago said you would, work against making things interesting to me. It diminishes my character because it's no longer about their skill and abilities or what they've done, but because some unknowable power pointed in their vague direction. You're right that Daggerfall was much more than a mundane power struggle, but my point was that everything that goes on has a logical basis, I (the player character) did things because I took the initiative to do it, I succeeded because I was good enough to succeed (and it is very much possible to fail), not because some god decreed that I would save the world.

It's the difference between studying hard for a test and risk failing the test, and then getting one of the (if not the) highest score in the class, versus trying however hard you want to and getting the highest grade of anyone in the school's history because your parents paid off the teacher last month.