So I was thinking about previous RPG games and thinking about what Bethesda said about Radiant story, and I have come up with a scenario that could be in the game. Here are my postulates:

Bethesda says that depending on what you do and if you have faced a dragon recently, that could affect where/when they spawn. They also champion the radiant story to be able to send you to different locations that you haven't been to for quest. OK please don't read the next sentence if you haven't played ME2 before.....
In, ME2 if you wait too long to go after you shipmates in the relay mission, they could end up dead.

Bethesda could punish you for being a hermit. In that if you decide to wood cut your way through life and you already know that you are the chosen one to stop the dragons, dragons could start scorching small random villages off the map each month or two of game time you wait.

This could motivate you to pursue the main quest if you have personal ties to small towns. And besides, the end of the world shouldn't wait for you to decide to get up and do something right? Anyway I think it would be a nice feature as it would introduce more unpredictability in the game. And maybe if you were really bad in the game and took so many years to tackle the problem, then there would be nothing to save..

Would anyone appreaciate main quest inactions having some negative effects?

Personally not for me, and this won't be in the game (although dragons do attack towns etc.) But interesting opinion nonetheless. :icecream:

Some people don't even bother with the main quest till 100s of hours in the game so I that would be a bad idea and what if I did the main quest on 1 character and I didn't want to do it again on another and I just want to chop wood with my 2nd character, I would be forced into the main quest

im actually against this. obliivions main quest was .......meh at best. and if your not on PC there wouldnt be a way to mod it so that you can ignore it.

i wouldnt mind parts of the quest having time limits such as you open up some tomb with an artifact but it will only work for a few hours and you have to find all 8 crystals and get out or you will be sealed in forever. something like that would be fun. but as for the overall quest its better to leave that to the player.

i hope that your choices actually changed the world though. dragons attack two villages nearby but you only have time to save one of them so you have to decide which villagers die or live. that is something that really needs to be in the game. oblivion never felt dangerous because no npcs or cities outside of kvatch were ever in any danger. since dragons are mobile i hope that some npcs end up dying at some point. it helps increase the tension in the atmosphere and gives a real meaning to the danger.

I'd appreciate this, im tired of the game waiting hand and knee on my actions, last I checked the King was killed, a civil war began and Dragons returned INDEPENDENT of the player so why does all that advancement stop? I'd rather after a point in time in the Mainquest its made pretty clear that if you go off and do what ever you want, there will be consequences to the world at large.

this will make it easier for me and motivate me to go about the Fortress mod I plan on making for Skyrim.

using all the resources features in Skyrim, gather npc's they work, get the fortress up and running, save towns, bring survivors to the fortress, make your last stand against the Dragons, or atleast a base of ops where you can get servies, goods, and continue vanilla quests albiet more difficult and have at it for the Main quest.

I really dislike quest timers with consequences. It does add a little bit more realism as it gives you a sense of the world not revolving on your actions, but discourages side quests and exploration.

Didn't like it in ME2, and it would be especially worse in TES as the it is much less linear and should be encouraging exploration rather than punishing you for it.

Only in specific cases, where they make sure you're aware of it. (Like the ME2 example you gave; or the timed "destroy the siege engine" quest in Oblivion).

Certainly wouldn't want it to be commonly used.

Yeah, it may not make sense to http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeYourTime, but I don't really play these games for a linear "rush through the MQ avoiding all else" experience.

Yeah, this would kind of 'force' some kind of main quest action. I don't see how one can chop wood all the time when towns are burning all around. It is like being removed from 'reality'. But I can see lazing back after the main threat is taken care off and taking some time off to pursue other interests would be fine too in moderation.

Interesting notion. I wouldn't necessarily mind it, but I doubt you'll hear much agreement on this board--folks here tend to think the only good main quest is an untouched main quest. They don't want to be hurried.

A lot of people don't get into the main quest for a long time in some playthroughs. This would kill roleplaying also, because alot of people completely ignore the MQ when there roleplaying. Personally, I wouldn't like this.

I barely play these games for the main quest. I love just going around interacting with NPCs and helping them out. I usually do about one main quest max per session, many times I dont even do a main quest in a few sessions. I remember in Fallout 3 at one point literally thinking "I should probably go back to the main quest before I complete all these side quests."

Personally I HATE the thought of being rushed to take care of progressing a particular quest. Especially when it's the main thread.

I'd be fine with, at a certain stage of a quest, there was something I had to immediately do, and if I chose to ignore it and go somewhere else, understandably bad things might happen. But if I'm out there exploring, with no quest at any stage that needs me immediately; I hate knowing there is a countdown clock invisibly over my head wanting me to do something before it expires.

Personally I'd really like something like this, but only if various sidequests did too. But as you can see I'm in a minority. You'd have to at the very least add an option to turn it off but soi many people would do so that it's not worth adding in.

this,
i like the no rush and commend you idea =]

No, The last thing im going to do is the main quest.

I wouldn't mind if parts of the main quest were like that but not the entire main quest, and especially not the very first mission.

I would not want to be forced to complete the main quest under a specific limit, unless it creates a new scenario (ie. they actually take over the world and instead of just preventing them from doing it, we would have to strategically plan how to either overthrow him, klll him, defeat the enemy stronghold, etc)

But if it only prevents you from going to areas then no, it is a bad thing.

(basically it needs to be semi-extremely dynamic (to change the main questline's goals)


Edit: I also think that it depends on the specific quest that you are on (as an example: You have to close a gate + stop the enemies from constantly breaking through, if you do nothing they will keep coming and will continuously invade and progressively get more numerous + more of a threat)

But again, it needs to be something that alters the main-questline's quests (ie. if you failed to seal the gate and the world is now overthrown by invaders, the questline has changed [the path to the end] and now you must reach the end differently)

A lot of poeple say, "I am not doing the main quest". I understand some people's arguments but we are not sure of the specifics of the MQ and what is expected of us. If not knowing doesn't make you get itchy feet to complete it then at least the thrill of battling dragons and finding out my heritage one step at a time should strike everyone's curiousities and intrests.

think of it not as a time limit but a

if you don't complete this, things are gonna get bad


you can still try to complete it...but just know its a tad harder.

Absolutely not, I like many, many others don't usually even bother with the main quest.

That would totally ruin the TES experience.

The main quest shouldn't start until you are ready to start it. Having dragons destroying towns before you even have a chance to save them, by your choice of waiting on the main quest, would be totally disastourous.

I truely hope Todd and the dev. team have enough sense to know that is a VERY BAD idea.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1211274-will-skyrim-suffer-from-oblivion-syndrome-can-it-be-avvoided/page__st__160__p__18239776__hl__will+skyrim+suffer+oblivion+syndrome%3F__fromsearch__1#entry18239776

Here's a similar topic that might answer some questions.

I'd want it to have heavy consequences if the palyer ignores the main quest. Dragons appear whether the player does the MQ or not. The main quests dragon side should progress whether the player does the MQ or not and they shouldnt wait for the player to do stuff. The MQ should start slow though and dragons shouldnt immediatly appear and force the player the do the MQ. Only after a while the MQ should become extremely urgent.

I am both for and against this.

The reason why I am for:

It shows that the world exists beyond just you and your actions. For instance, in Oblivion, it didn't seem to make sense that after the Mythic Dawn assassinated the Emperor, and I escaped the jail, that the world just went on it's merry little way. Now sure, I made little roleplay justifications. For instance, when I first escaped the sewers, I spent some time questing in the Imperial City. Did some dungeon crawling (my character had objectives of his own that he wanted to accomplish as well). I didn't find Jaufre immediately. And when I finally get to it, Oblivion gates have opened, and the city of Kvatch is in ruins. That would have happened regardless of my gameplay decisions, but from a role play, story perspective, I can justify it as "if I had gone to find Jaufre immediately, Kvatch possibly could have been saved".

It makes no sense that Jaufre and Martin send me off on these urgent quests to gather allies for Bruma, and other such stuff, and to "hurry back or there will be dire consequences", and then I can go off and do Mage's Guild quests and Dark Brotherhood contracts in the meantime. I like the idea that the threat continues with or without your involvement. It makes the world more real, more alive.

The reason why I am against it:

One of the entire foundations of Elder Scrolls is "Live another life, in another world" and "there is no wrong way to play". Some people want to play the game without ever touching the main quest, and that should be a valid gameplay choice. But having Oblivion gates open up and destroy cities, or having dragons swoop in and destroy cities, kind of force the player into the main quest. By doing so, you are forcing the player into a specific playstyle, and that goes against the foundation of Elder Scrolls. I know it goes against what I fell in love with Elder Scrolls for.

I think there should be a middle ground. And, save for technological limitations preventing true consequences, Oblivion had the right idea.

Oblivion gates don't open until you reach a certain point in the main quest. At that point, Oblivion gates pop up all over the map. Now, that might not be an active "threat", but at least figuratively, the threat of Oblivion becomes a constant part of the world once you advance to a certain part in the main quest.

And perhaps that's how it should be. If you choose never to embark upon the main quest, there will be no "main quest" consequences for not doing things in a timely manner. Cities won't be destroyed, NPC's won't be killed, etc... But... if you begin the main quest, and advance to a certain part of it, then urgency becomes a factor, and if you piddle around thieving in the night, or trying to advance through the Mage's Guild, there will be a threat to the world at large, and there will be consequences to you deciding to take your time.

Those consequences shouldn't be immediate. People should have the capability of pursuing other ventures in the process of completing the main quest. But there can be a sense of urgency to certain quest lines in the main quest. If Jaufre sends you off to get allies for Bruma, then maybe you need to get out there to the other towns and get those allies, because the forces of Oblivion are working to open the Great Oblivion Gate in front of Bruma, and if you take too long Bruma truly will be at risk.

I think both sides of this discussion are valid in a game like Elder Scrolls. I think both methods have a truly legitimate place in the game. So thus, I think there should be some middle ground. That way people can wait until a hundred hours of gameplay in to start the main quest with no consequences, and people who do start the main quest will actually have a sense of urgency to go and do it.

Morrowind was the easiest, because to my recollection of the Morrowind story, there was no immediate threat from Dagoth Ur, in terms of overtaking cities and settlements. But in cases like Oblivion, or returns of dragons, there's a greater sense of urgency, and I think it's valid to reflect that in the game world.

There will be some penalty for ignoring the main quest for a long time.

You will probably encounter far less dragons, if any, and you will not get rewards that are specific for main quest-line, until you actually earn them.