What are RPGs?
By definition, RPGs are games in which you role play. A character, in the case of The Elder Scrolls.
What constitutes role playing? Acting as your character would.
Now, are stats necessarily synonymous with role playing? Kinda. Do they have to be? More or less.
Player control is what makes the game a game, versus, say, movie.
If the player had no control, the character would do as the character believes.

Regardless of the world a game takes place in, a few basic principles remain the same. A shotgun to the head, at point blank range will kill most humanoids. Why? High powered shells penetrate your skull, destroying your brain, leaving you dead. Not taking magic into consideration, it's impossible for anyone to withstand that, regardless of experience. To the person not on the operating end of the weapon, regardless of skill with the weapon, this basic principle is at work.

What if the player was 20 feet away from the target, armed with the most precise pistol ever made? The player may have the crosshair on the center mass, but, the character's aim may be a bit off, effectively shooting the target's knee cap upon pulling the trigger. With a few rare exceptions, not taking magic into consideration, of course, this would effectively disable the victim.

Unfortunately, guns don't exist in the Elder Scrolls world (save it). Because of this character skill would probably have an effect on damage inflicted. Why? Higher strength, more tension, higher arrow velocity. There would probably be a Marksman modifier, too.

Now, it really doesn't take much skill to lodge a pick axe within a man's side. If the intended target doesn't get out of your weapon of choice's way, they're hit!

Let's look at the way combat was done in the past 2 Elder Scrolls games; Morrowind and Oblivion.

Morrowind's combat consisted of mashing buttons until someone died. Your skill affected your chance of hitting (and damage done? Correct me if I'm wrong)

Oblivion's combat was more player dependant, if you logically hit something, you hit it. However, the things you wanted to hit could survive quite a few of these hits.

Which was worse? Take your pick. They leave you with the same problem.

My views in a nutshell, as unexplained by my original post:

-Characters should have believable injury threshold
-Character skill should increase precision ever so slightly, along with speed, while adding new "options" (techniques, if you will), as proposed by every combat thread to date.

In other words; murder should be easy!

Thoughts?

True, I always felt that skill with a melee weapon would amount to inflicting more damage with it rather than actually hitting your target.

Not that much damage should be required to kill something, in the first place.

Well me personally I like to take of my armour once in town for my own RPG feel. What you are saying is that the weapons should do more damage? Or that button-mashing has lost it's tounch in an RPG? Personally, the weapons could do more but in OB you ACTUALLY got to hit people with every strike (unlike MW) and with the AI blocking and using magika it made you change up your fight style somewhat. If you want more action turn up the hardness skill and start gettin' to whoopin' !

I can't help but feel as though your post is incomplete. I read it expecting some main point to be made, but finished it still waiting for that main point. Do I correctly infer that you believe that melee weapons should use player skill while ranged weapons should rely on character skill?

Hence acting as your character would. I agree. To me, role playing is all the little things. Unfortunately, combat is a big thing and that big thing just doesn't work.

Think about it. We all have the power to kill. Think of the combat like an action game's, with skill checks.

Is there a point to this? You're saying, maybe, that you want instant kill deathblows? Notice in the Elder Scrolls games, there's really no location damage. You hit your target or you don't, but you don't hit an enemies 'head'. You can't cleave their head clean off their shoulders. Are you saying you'd like location damage?

The game kind of 'simulates' location damage by having your skill (and your weapon), and your stats modify how much damage you do. You can imagine all these factors allowing you to get more skillful placement of the weapon when you hit an enemy. So, for example, with the Axe you mentioned - when your skill is low, maybe your blow mostly bounces off the enemy's armor (natural - like insects with a chitinous exeskeleton, or crafted - like your usual leather/steel/ebony/glass armors), but even in bouncing, maybe you graze his leg and cut it open with your axe, thus, a lower level of damage on the 'health' bar of the enemy. On the other hand, I very often instantly kill enemies when I hit them with my Daedric Katana enchanted with a Fire Damage effect, which does effectively simulate the skillful blow that instantly kills an enemy.

The thing is, if you add "true" location damage, it does basically become about player skills vs the character's skill. I think that's why they chose the system they have.

As for the question "What is roleplaying", I feel that tends to be less about character skill, and more about player choices - what you say to other characters, what you ask, how you treat them, how you choose to spend your time/resources developing the characters skills. What factions you choose to join or not, which quests you choose to complete or not (In Morrowind, one of my characters refused to seek further advancement in the Fighter's Guild, or do any more work with them at all, because the guild asks you, fairly early on, to go shake down some bar owner in Suran on behalf of the Camonna Tong [not sure if I spelled that correctly]). I did that quest with other characters, but I try to imagine a temperament, set of values, etc, for a character when I'm playing.

So, it becomes, what would this character, based on the personality I've invented for them, do in this situation? Fighting skills, magic, alchemy, etc just become things the character has to do in order to accomplish what is important to them, but those skills aren't the core of what the character is. (At least, to me).

P.S. I do kind of see the argument that even a not very skilled character, with a lousy weapon, should still have a chance to get a critical hit which basically instantly kills the enemy. The thing is, though, if you apply that to the player character, then you're going to die a lot, especially at first, because your enemies can also penetrate your skull with any old rusty axe and instantly kill you. I think part of the point, with roleplaying games, is to give players the chance to be able to do something, to react to the situation, and prevent their death, so they can get a sense of their characters skill allowing them to survive.

It's kind of like how in movies, the 'hero' never just gets shot in the head and instantly dies. If they even *do* get hit (which they usually don't), it's always a wound that won't kill them. That would make a pretty svcky movie, wouldn't it, though, if the goons of the hired minions which were shooting at the hero did hit and killed him before he/she could finish their 'quest'?

One final thought - not everything you are fighting is human. Are you sure the same rules apply to a Daedroth as to a human or alligator?

P.P.S. One more thing about 'role' playing - you get lots of choices in Elder Scrolls games. For example, in Morrowind, the same character which refused to shake down the bar keeper in Suran also refused to kill any of the Dreamers who attacked him. I figured my character decided that A) he could run away from and avoid those fights, so he didn't really *need* to kill them, and B) they weren't acting of their own free will, but had become thralls of Dagoth Ur, so I just sought to finish the main quest, to 'free' the Dreamers. I was actually very pleasantly surprised to find that after I had completed the quest up to a certain point, I was able to awaken the Dreamers without killing them. How cool is that, that gamesas considered that roleplay possibility, and allowed me to make that choice?

That's true but the AI have skill checks also. Maybe more levels in Heavy Armour then in say Blunt. Your character has more leves in Blade then he and in Light Armour. Yet you Acrobatics is alot higher then his so you are able to dodge most blows(MW style). If you take that and reverse it dont you think a big brally guy could swing a bigger weapon? Yes. The small agile guy can just side-step and miss it. The skills do help in more then just weapons but I see your point if you do happen to hi the little guys you should be able to atleast handicap him or at least take out a leg!

Besides, once you've picked up the big hammer, it serves as its own power generator. If it falls, it gains speed and... well... OFF WITH THEIR FEET!
As for armor skills. I'm a bit puzzled by this, myself. Unarmored makes sense. Your ability to absorb blows. Sure. I can live with that. A sword would probably hurt you badly though. :shrug:
As for Light, Medium and Heavy armor, I suppose it could affect your ability to move in them, but, at the end of the day, it will be of equal protection.

In the new TES they should use the VATS system (hear me out) Not in the sense that you can plan your attack but that each boot, glove and pauldron has it own HP but is totaled in the armours HP. Think MW on this the armour was put in twos (gloves boots ect.) but bring then together in the one suit. Say you come across a Deadroth. One swipe could (if at lower levels) tear off a chunck of your right shoulder armour, but if you use your shield he could only damage the slightly (depends on skill). But without a shield he could do more damage if he broke through your armour hence always take a shield with you, if thats not your style have a Shield spell ready. Also being that I like using bows if you could get a good hit on thier fighting arm it should render it unusable.

I think we should have locational damage, as well as player skill, but with an overriding factor of in-game skill. You say that in-game skill can replace locational damage, ie, if your skill is high, damage is high, making your attack seem as if it were directed at a vital area. What if the purpose of the attack is not lethal? What if you wish to disable your opponent by say, striking the leg? You (out of game) would aim for the leg. Your characters skill would determine (1) whether you hit the leg, foot, torso, or miss, and (2) how much damage is done. If (out of game) you hold the weapon back all the way, depending on your skill (in game) you may miss, or hit with full force.

Locational damage is something that has long been missed in the Elderscrolls, and much of that has to do with game mechanics and the standard of RPGs. Rest assured, regardless of player skill, if you have a high character skill and a good weapon, and aim at the center of mass, you will probably kill your opponent.

However, I would like to see armor act realistically, locational damage, and more importantly quests that require more than outright lethality, such as bringing someone in for interrogation/incarceration, wounding someone as a warning, or perhaps fighting a duel to scare a crowd, where the goriest fight would be the most successful, ie, lopping off an arm before decapitating your opponent. Whether or not the game will have dismemberment is up for debate, but I would like to see much more realistic blood then we've seen in the past, not just one squirt animation for every type of wound. I don't want a small laceration to squirt like a jugular, and I don't want a deathblow to be relatively dry.

Here Here!

That's another thing. Good vs. Bad weapons.
In my games, "good weapons" (glass, dwemer, daedric) is just "exotic".
I think the "better weapons" should only be slightly better, damage wise.
:shrug:

What about wounding weapons? A huge gash on the forearm would be devastating. Even with a Heal skill it would have to take bandages and some herbs to fully heal it. not just a few *poofs* of fairy dust. But the again this a world where anything is possible.

I'm all for slightly forgiving dismemberment. Axe > Arm? Arm > Floor!
Of course, certain people might be able to grow you a new one. For a fee...

Ha then their skill could come into play if they charge a small fee and say they are the best you could be bed ridden with a horrible infection or a slight decrease in your ability to swing your weapon or hold a shield right.

I saw something like this in another thread.
character skill = x

MW- x--> base hit% with variable y damage
OB- x--> base damage% with variable(player input) y hit set to 100%

TESV- x-->base hit% with variable x% base damage.
MW weapon stats, min and max damage can be achieved by anyone, but at lv 50 66% of the swings would hit to do average(OB) damage. Throw this on a bell curve. And add animations.
This way a hit is decided by the world and swing is decided by the player. But with paralysis, cornering, surrounding, fortified attack, or a "charged" attack, the normal world rules can be manipulated to force a high attack or an automatic hit. Makes for smart playing.

Did I write that?

No I did j.k.

That does seem like a good way to do it.

I give credit to whom ever claims it.

Edit: so, basically, I have no idea.

The only issue that I have with it being entirely on player skill, is that a single arrow can take down the mightiest of warriors.

That wood elven archer on top of the hill shoots you on the top of the head? You're dead, even if it's in the dead of night, and you never saw it coming.

How often if you were actually killed by those shots would you get a "Game Over" message without knowing what happened?
Very often.

Fallout 3 takes your skill in a weapon, and also applies locational damage. Shooting somebody in the arm hurts them less than shooting them in the head. If you get shot in the head, you take significant damage and have a concussion. If you get shot in the leg, you limp. If you get shot in the arm and it's crippled, your drop your weapon. If you get crippled in the torso, you're much more vulnerable.

If you snipe somebody in the head a few times, they're dead. If you snipe somebody in the arm a few times they get pissed and pull out a Missile Launcher.

Bethesda's made strides, we can't exclude that.

Good point, I guess Bethesda can take the credit.

On the one hand, I can see how player skill shouldn't matter as much as character skill, but on the other hand, the systems used for morrowind or oblivion were quite tedious.

The compromise I propose is have the character's skill with the weapon affect the accuracy, speed, and (partially) damage of the attack, but have more lethal and realistic combat with locational damage. If you had a low Long Blade and you aimed to swipe at someone's neck with a sword:

your character would take a second to actually attack. He would sort of broadcast the swing he's about to make during the second from click to attack, and have the swing slightly slower. If the AI was better, your opponent could more easily step out of the way or block. As the character's skill gets better, the swing would come sooner after your click and it would swing faster. Think a real life fist fight; a UFC fighter's quick and sudden but still powerful hook, as opposed to a drunken guy's huge windup for his haymaker.

if your opponent didn't manage to dodge or block, and the swing landed, it might not actually hit his neck, where you aimed. It might hit his arm or his chest. The higher the character's skill, the more likely it is that you'll hit exactly what you were aiming for, and the more the possible error distance would decrease.

if you hit your opponent in the arm, with a low skill, there is a fair chance that the arm would become useless, and a fair chance that the arm's speed of swinging a sword or raising a shield will decrease. The higher the character's skill, the more likely the arm will become useless, or the more severely the arm's functionality decreases.
if you hit your opponent in the chest, with a low skill, there is a fair chance of your opponent dying, and a fair chance of his fatigue, speed, strength, and agility will decrease. The higher the character skill, the more likely it is that the opponent will die, or the more severely his fatigue, strength, speed, and agility will decrease.
if you hot your opponent in the neck, he will die.
-----
Obviously these different variables' values would change with different weapon types. A dagger swing would be faster and more accurate, but the chance of crippling or killing an opponent with a body, arm, or leg hit would be drastically reduced and injuries would be less severe. Inversely, a warhammer swing would be slower and less accurate, but would have a drastically improved chance of crippling or killing an opponent with a body, arm, or leg hit, and injuries would be more severe..
-----
Same thing for marksman; at a low skill it takes a while to load your bow, and your accuracy will be quite bad. At a low skill you would have to get closer to your target before you shoot and aim at the center of mass of your opponent. When your skill gets high, then you can start picking heads from a mile away.
-----
Armor would reduce the chances of being crippled or killing, and reduce the severity of injuries.
-----
Someone said something about suddenly getting shot in the head, and how annoying this would get randomly dying while walking along. To fix this:
1 you could learn to save very often.
2 the game could have autosaving every time you enter a different area.
3 have it so NPCs can't get headshots on the player. You can get shot twice in the chest and die, but then you at least have a few seconds to react.
-----
In my opinion, a fairly decent way to compromise with player skill/fun and character skill/rpg elements. Essentially, make it make sense and make it easier for your opponent to block or dodge. And when you do actually hit your opponent, the intended death blow might only injure them.

That one arrow slays the mightiest of warriors. I'm all for it.