In oblivion i thought it was weird that you could be the head of the Mages Guild, Fighters Guild, Thieves Guild, Dark Brotherhood, and the Arena Grand Champion all in one playthrough.

I was wondering if anyone else agreed that in skyrim, faction quests should cancel one another out, I.E. you cant be the bring of life and death at the same time. Sure in order to experience everything/ get all of the achivements you would have to make multiple playthroughs, but whats the harm in that? Most of us do it anyway, I know I do.

Alduin is the bringer of life and death and Lorkhan is just the flipside of him and we're his avatar so...

I just felt like being a jerk...sorry. :shrug:

OP hit the nail on the head.

I liked how in Morrowind (holy crap, I just said that) with the thieves guild and fighters guild, there was a quest that would involve killing the people you got your jobs from to shut you out of the other guild's quest chain.

Lol, NBD, i didnt mean it literally, but usually in order to keep one side happy you have to piss off another. Much like fallout. That was my only point.

Eh, I like the ability to be able to do every thing with my main character if I want to.

I actually agree as long as there are real conflicts there. Actual quests that involve action against the Thieve's Guild or something or politics that get in the way. As mentioned, in MW you actually killed the quest givers.

I don't want to try to join the Mage's Guild and have someone say "Oh, you're in the Fighter's Guild, you can't join!" and that's it.

I'm split on this. Of course it makes sense, but I like having that one super character that has done everything.

I'd say I'm about 60-40 in support of questlines ending others.

I don't like arbitrary limitations to guild progression. That being said, I wish they'd replace "rank" in a guild with a simple measure of esteem or standing. I wish they'd build a matrix of guild relationships and intensity of connection, combined with a LOT more factions. For example, the Merchant guild might be neutral to the Fighters Guild but it outright hates the Bandits & Highwaymen. Doing quests for a guild should build distrust with hated/distrusted factions. Accumulation of enough distrust should restrict progression in the distrusting guild unless....

... they build repeatable quests that provide a lore friendly way to reduce distrust and gain esteem in multiple guilds. Example: Merchant's guild commissions you to convince/bribe/coerce a local bureaucrat to legalize gambling. This raises the standing/reduces distrust in both the Merchants and Thieves guild since they'll both share in the profits.

Absolutley. Also in the same vein, I don't wanna see all guilds joinable on one character

It would make sense to make an ever changing specturm on which your character fell. If you're the master of the fighters guild and you go on a mass killing spree, it could drop your standing and the appropriate members of the guild can strip you of your title.

I definitely like the ideas but I think a rank system could work with also having an esteem/distrust system. I don't think there should be arbitrary skill requirements for ranks, but the quests should be designed in a way that you need to use certain skills to complete them and move up. I shouldn't be able to become a high ranking mages guild member if I'm a fighter who never uses magic.

I do like arbitrary limitations to guild progression, as long as they don't come across as mere limitations, but rather as a neutral result from your style of playing. What I mean is: If you join multiple guilds, you're usually rewarded by a richer game experience. If we want to stop you from joining multiple guilds, we have to make sure that the limitations are just as interesting.

For example, you've already made a couple of ranks in the Fighters Guild, and now you want to join the Thieves Guild. However, the game has a limitation that stops you from doing this, as it isn't logical when they're rival factions.

• The BAD way to implement this limitation is to have the Thieves Guild say, "You're in the Fighter's Guild. We don't like you. Go away." and that's that. (Cue hardcoe RPG fans saying "that's exactly what it should be like, LIFE IS LIKE THAT BACK THEN")
  
• The GOOD way to implement it would be to really make this contradiction in your character the one defining feature in your relationship with the two guilds. For example, you could EXPLAIN to the Thieves Guild why your character has a motivation to join the Thieves Guild even though he knows they're the enemies of the Fighters Guild. Maybe he just went to the Fighters Guild for the money, and doesn't particularly care about them?! And maybe the Thieves Guild will then decide that they can't let you join without causing an uproar on both sides, but they CAN use you for some spy work in the Fighters Guild, so you occasionally get some unofficial jobs by them. Landing you with a completely unique turn of events that, while not the equal of the ability to fully join both guilds, still manages to reward you for your choice of roleplaying.

I don't feel that taking one path should "cancel" others, but I do think you should have to meet requirements to progress through the guild quests. A pure warrior character that never used a spell outside of 1 or 2 apprentice healing spells shouldn't be able to become the Archmage for instance.

For things like the Fighters/Mages/Thieves Guild quest lines your character should have to show some level or proficiency to advance, especially for the Mages Guild (perhaps less so for the others). Personally I tend to self enforce this on myself in my games, it just seems odd otherwise.



I like this, relationships between the guilds and your standing within those guilds should impact it as well.

Sure. First, wherever it's appropriate, there should be conflict between factions. That should be written into the game in ways that make sense - demonstrated by things that have to be done in order to advance in specific factions, dialogue and confrontations with characters who are important in the factions, that sort of thing. Then, as a corollary to that, there should be quest lines or at least individual quests that cancel quest lines or again at least individual quests with the opposing faction(s).

As a quick for instance, using a couple of Oblivion's lame factions - your character is a member of the fighters guild. He joins the DB. You note early on, just from dialogue that comes up, that the DB is very hostile to the fighters guild. Maybe even have a dialogue right at the beginning where you're told that your membership in the fighters guild is going to be an issue. As you progress through it, you see more and more specific evidence of that hostility. Ditto the fighters guild - as you progress through that, you see more evidence of their hostility toward the DB. A time comes when you have to make a choice - you either do a quest for the FG that's a direct assault on the DB or you do a quest for the DB that's a direct assault on the FG. And that's it - you have to make a choice, and that choice is going to have consequences.

Honestly, to do it any other way doesn't even make sense. Yes - I understand that there are people who want to be able to do everything with a single character, but that really shouldn't even matter. There are points in the game design process (many of them) at which a choice has to be made, and that choice is going to be unsatisfactory to some number of players. Those choices should ALWAYS be made based on what would benefit the game most - not just giving in to the demands of some number of players. And this is a case where, to me, the choice that should be made is an obvious one - having conflict between factions where it's reasonable to believe that it would exist can't help but add FAR more to the game than eliminating that conflict ever could.