As it stands Skyrim allows for a multitude of player styles and possible builds. That in and of itself is a grand achievement. The, for myself, minutia of exploits and balance issues in no way detract from my capacity to enjoy this game. For the most part discussions like this are academic.

You're not very good at RP'ing, are you?

If its a P&P game I do fine. Its a matter of having a good GM to work with.

If the world actually allows for me to be a magically better archer by waving my hands over a piece of firewood and string, why shouldn't I? In this particular case we have a lax GM, no time constraints, no chance of failure, and an ability to create items completely better than the "standard" variant at little cost.

I think there are a lot of players who spent the last few years playing WoW and have forgotten 1) what it is like to have freedom in your toon builds, 2) that they are not competing with anyone and 2) what RPing means.

"I have to make an enchanting smithing alchemist warrior because it is the FotM build" is not RPing. RPing is making your 2hand, heavy armor, smithing, archery warrior who has taken the skills that best fit the Role they wish to Play in the Game (see how it is done).

Fortify enchants and potions aren't cheat codes. They don't require metagame knowledge to discover their use. Quite the opposite, you have to use metagame knowledge to avoid their use. Rather than looking up cheat codes and activating them, it is as if the cheat codes are turned on by default and you have to look them up and turn them off if you don't want to use them.



You can roleplay a character that lacks the aptitude for enchanting and is allergic to the reagants used in alchemy so can't brew potions (but can still drink them). The problem is, you have to have metagame knowledge to know to do that or you will find you already started enchanting/alchemy and will have to change your character concept mid-game (or reroll).

More to the point, who on earth would come up with a enchanting/alchemy warrior without reading about it online? It is a build that simply does not make sense for RPing after all how many people here genuinely came up with that build on their own from looking at the perks and sitting down with a pen and paper, or even came up with it accidentally as they thought an warrior/alchemist/enchanter would be a fun build that would work well.

Instead of upping the difficulty I leveled my smithing to 100 on my thief/mage right away. Harder to fight even with better weapons but not broken and I enjoy it. Bears can even make me use potions if I am not shooting from far enough away with my stealth. I do not one shot anything but weaker enemies. Works for me, I am happy. It balances things for me. I do not power level anything else and the higher up weapons do not give me an advantage over the fact my other skills are under leveled/points in skills.

In the real world, Enchanting, Alchemy, and Smithing wouldn't be the end all be all of combat. In fact, most warriors would not practice smithing as a warrior, not to mention Enchanting or Alchemy.

So, simply put, you don't do it as a warrior, and buy armor and weapons. That's roleplaying. You COULD roleplay your character to be a smith, enchanter, or alchemist while being a fighter, mage, or thief. It's perfectly viable. But you can't complain when you power-level it by making hundreds of daggers to max smithing. Because that's not RP'ing, that's making yourself overpowered and then getting pissed that you have the option to do that.

Then why aren't there any warriors sitting around practicing enchanting and alchemy in the world of Skyrim? You're looking at it from a Meta-Game perspective, not within the fantasy world you are playing. If nobody else is doing it, then your character is exploiting a mechanic that is meta-universe - outside the world culture. A good role-player looks at the virtual fantasy world and tries to mimic a plausible character living in that world.

Imagine Skyrim as a RPG with an exceedingly lax GM. He can't tell the player "No."

Also, its entirely reasonable, natural, and appropriate for a character's role to change over the course of play. To remain static "Yar, I am Lograhm from the frigid northlands, and I care not for your witchcraft" is silly when it turns out that magic is actually quite stable, controlable, and exists in most corners of life (for some reason all our characters can heal and cast flame). Eventually, it stands to reason, the character may be convinced that such things are OK.

Also, forcing ineptitude/allergies seems kind of a forced mechanic. People don't actually tie their hands behind their back when they fight.

That's the problem. A 2hand, heavy armor warrior who slays dragons is going to rely on enchanted gear and potions to stay alive. Thus, the skills that best fit the Role I wish to Play in the Game are 2H, HA, smithing, enchanting and alchemy. In order to stay in character and avoid those skills I have to come up with a reason why my character would choose not to use those skills. Unless your character is an idiot, suicidally-insane, or incapable of using smithing/enchanting/alchemy, any warrior dragon slayer would take the time to become adept at those skills. If you could hire some to enchant your gear, that might be another matter.

Now, this wouldn't have been a problem if I had visited the forums before I started playing (and it won't be a problem if decide to reroll). Unfortunately, I had already used the forge in Riverwood, and the alchemy and enchanting tables in Whiterun before I discovered this. Now I have to deliberately ignore in-game knowledge possessed by my character in order to avoid breaking the game.

And you're some authority on RPing to tell people what's correct and wrong way to RP a character? Also, not everyone RPs in roleplaying games. In fact, a lot of us play games in this genre because of engaging stories, npcs, sidequest, and often also fun and challenging combat - unless devs break it with bad game balance.

Ugh... Im sorry but since when it was declared that single player games do not need balancing???

Its cute to see the self-discipline of some people, avoiding whats overpowered and all but at the end of the day this is a video game with lots of options to consider that are delivered by developers, if my alch/smith/enchant/onehanded warrior is doing godly but my destruction mage is struggling to kill one enemy, its fine because any imbalance can be fixed through self-gimping?

It reminds me of the invincible-tanking abilities of the shield spell of Dragon Age: Origins, it was patched and everyone threw a fit because it was a singleplayer game. Why? Why suddenly balance is only taken into account if I am playing against another player? It makes no sense! Destruction svcks but Conjuration is great, and thats all fine right? Of course it isnt.

You are only trying to accomplish what the developers should have delivered: to balance the game. If something is too overpowered, it needs fixing, the same if it is underpowered, it doesnt matter if its single or multiplayer, if we get by the principle that balance thrown away because the game is singleplayer, then god help the singleplayers RPGs.

The moment that its necessary to limit ourselves in order to balance the game, it just means that the developers failed in balancing the game, its not brilliant or open-ended or "role-playing", its just a flaw in the game`s design. And dont blame WoW for this, the desire for balancing comes from since games were games, being it multiplayer or single. At least we have mods to change that but even so, bethesda needs to review their goals and try to make some balancing patch once in a while.

I have to add that this is the reason why major, minor and misc skills worked so well in Morrowind. Since you were limited on what you could start out as, there was no temptation to become a jack-of-all-trades. This is why I still believe that class-based systems are better than "play how you want" based systems - they force you to focus your character more.

When you're given "YOU CAN DO IT ALL!!!!" on a silver platter, it's near impossible to avoid becoming "it all". You saw this problem creeping into Oblivion when just about everyone became "spellswords" - a guy who wields a sword, uses restoration, and shoots fireballs.

So yes, I think the PRIMARY culprit in this thread can be nailed down to the amount of freedom in skill achievement. A major/minor/misc skill system would probably fix this entire issue completely. Nobody's going to waste their time on enchanting if it's a misc skill and takes you 10 hours to raise it 1 point.

No one ever declared that single player games do not need balancing -- not in this thread anyway. But consider the game: 10 races, 3 attributes, a multitude of skill perks, a multitude of equipment and load outs and the ever inventive gamer. I'm surprised the game is as balanced as it is.

The bottom line is that if a game can be broken gamers will break it. Is this game more easily broken than the usual? I don't believe so. It's very apparent when using some of these skills that they have a significant impact on the game world (as they should); it remains the responsibility of the gamer to use the system provided wisely.

Of course not. They live in the real world where you can hire someone else to make the highest quality camo suit, gun, and ammo. If the hunters you know lived in Skyrim, they wouldn't be able to do that, so they would consider learning how to make their own deer urine lotion, because they wouldn't be able to buy a better lotion than they can make. Also, if they are hunting prey that can kill them (like dragons) they woudl be a lot more concerned with the best equipment.



Best counter-argument I"ve seen, but it fails. First, it isn't true. I've been in dungeons where I killed warriors in rooms that had alchemy and enchanting stations, suggesting they do use them.

Second, you have to acknowledge that you aren't roleplaying a commoner, you are roleplaying a dragonborn. Most warriors probably lack the aptitude for enchanting, but most warriors can't absorb the souls of dragons, so it isn't surprising your hero can enchant. Most enchanters probably spend their life learning new enchants and alchemists learning recipes. Your hero has an ability to absorb knowledge of enchanting by examining the work of others and can learn recipes merely by tasting ingredients. The question isn't whether other warriors are practicing enchanting and alchemy, the question is "if they had the abilities of the dragonborn and could practice enchanting and alchemy and still fight well, would they?"

Third, it is too restricting. Should I not be adept at multiple schools of magic because NPCs only use one or two? Should I not learn smithing at all because the only NPCs I see smithing are full-time smiths?

I have to agree with the comparison to the mmo players. You are telling me that rping three masters of 3 skills at their max or close to max abilities is breaking your rp? lol i call bs. It takes me about 15mins to turn a rail road spike into a cheap knife at the forge, that's not counting the 45mins to get the coals the way i need them to be nor the time cutting the wood with a chainsaw. It takes a life time to become a master smith and you are telling me that you are rping being a master at three skills is breaking your rp? Are you rping giving 75% of everything you make to the owner of the forge? Last time i looked you couldn't buy one in game. lol when you rp how does having "fast food" enchanting and alchemy tables placed in the public free to use work for you. lol how does the bulk, not the weight of the items you are carrying around work?
I can go on, but what it boils down to is that there is lazy rpers out there. I know how to rp...28years dnd, NwN 1 and 2 in ALFA " a land far away", where once i was accused of powergaming because i made level 7 in 3 months...till they discovered i was just a disabled vet who rped 8-12hrs a day for 3 months. lol then i was accused of "to much rping".
This game can be as easy or hard in terms of rping and playing as you make it. If you can't get it to work for you in a game like this then may i suggest wizard 101 ....it's right up your alley.

Sorry, zamm...but i came up with that combo on my own, and before i ever visited the forum.
Not because i sat down and planned it and not accidently either. Simply because it seemd the quite natural way to build a strong and survivable character. which is what you DO in an RPG, right ?
See, i don't agree with the "self restraint" philosophy.
I do not want to "build a weaker char" to have a balanced game experience. I want to build the strongest char possible and STILL have the game challenge me.
Because i'm unreasonable ?
No, but because this is my experience from the majority of RPGs i played.
I'm not griping or whining or whatever word is the flavor of the day.
I'll adopt and continue to enjoy Skyrim.
But i fully support Cozar's reasoning in this thread.

That doesn't mean that they are using them as exploits. It likely means that they dabbled a few times in it, but decided to become warriors instead. Perhaps there is a mage roaming around that uses it as well that you didn't see.



First of all, you don't have to follow the main quest once you leave the initial tutorial dungeon. The main character NEVER has to know he is Dragonborn at all.

Secondly, just because your character can become dragonborn doesn't mean that he understands meta-game exploits since he is living INSIDE a world that doesn't do that. What you're doing is expecting your character to become exceptionally different from everyone else, even though nobody in his world has told him or shown him that he can do that. If he did, he would be going greatly against what is acceptable and normal in mainstream Skyrim culture.



Yes! Consider the real world. How many people do you know that are just incredible at everything? That just doesn't happen, nor do people even aspire to be that when they start looking at careers. The same situation appears to have taken place in the world of Skyrim. There's no "in-character" reason for your character to break that norm.

Conversely, the game does not allow you to "play how you want to play" because not every build works at all. I tried playing a Destruction Mage in Heavy Armor. Big mistake.

Every build works in this game. Even complete H2H builds work.

Fan boy thread.

"If you want the game to be challenging, just don't level up, or equip weapons, or use a bunch of skills and tools Bethseda have implemented"

What rubbish. The difficulty slider in Oblivion was much harder than master in Skyrim. Why should players need to miss out on half the game content in order to find a challenge?

Agreed.

I believe the whole point of creating better arms and armor is to give you an unfair advantage over others. It's called an arms race, so it's not at all unrealistic for a well armed and armored blacksmith to have an edge over someone who is a better fighter but less well equipped. I doubt the Native population of the Americas were in worse shape or worse fighters than the Europeans, though they certainly suffered a disadvantage technologically. Of course a great fighter is going to be better than the best armed and armored blacksmith but I'm not convinced this isn't already the case. In any case, I wasn't aware that skilled fighters were having difficulty finding great gear by looting corpses. I certainly haven't noticed any problems in this department so the argument seems entirely moot to me.

I do find it interesting that people who complain that not all builds are created equal don't see a problem with the logic that someone who puts all of their perks into say, speech or picking pockets, should be equal in combat to someone who puts all of their skills in combat. If I was a warrior and found out that all of my combat perks had been wasted because it doesn't make me any better at beating the bad guys I'd be ticked. That's why you take them. To be better at fighting. The game cannot support equivalent builds and retain logic at the same time. To be logical, and I might add, fair, different builds must have different capabilities. Being better at fighting is your reward for spending all of your perks on combat when your parents really wanted you to become a herbalist and you wanted to become a bard. I just don't see where the dilemma is anywhere in this conversation; but then again, I don't suffer from that peculiar form of OCD that obligates me to min/max my characters. I could care less if my characters are the best they can be. Small variations in ability make 0 impact on my enjoyment of the game.

Which brings me to meta-gaming: role-playing implies acting within the reasonable limitations of the character; meta-gaming means directing your character to take actions that they wouldn't ordinarily take because you have access to outside knowledge. Even if a character thought: hey, this potion or this magic armor makes me way better at x, it doesn't necessarily follow that they would take up alchemy, smithing or enchanting. In fact, I would argue that only a minority of people would even consider it. Most would either try to find ways to buy it, loot it from dungeons, or steal it. (Weird, it's almost like the game is designed to support these sorts of behaviors....) That doesn't mean you can't believably role-play a warrior that does decide to take up alchemy, only that its fallacious to pretend that more than a small minority would really even consider it. It only seems like an obvious and logical choice if you have access to the statistics that govern the rules of the game, which you only have if you're meta-gaming. If I was a warrior in Skyrim, I doubt I would consider taking up any of these trades. I'd either take them by force or earn money and buy them. Making a radical choice like pursuing a craft is a hard stretch.

That doesn't mean that min/maxing is bad or that you're wrong to indulge in it if that's your cup of tea, but it is wrong to argue that a game that is not designed for min/maxers should have been designed for min/maxers. If you enjoy that kind of play-style, there are plenty of other games (the vast majority) that encourage it.

I personally feel that, in my opinion, you all feel too much for the TES series to give it a serious criticism. We come to expect so much from The Elder Scrolls that now we have a game that went backwards, we have no idea whatsoever about how to react to it.

It seems everyone has a different opinion, it's broken, it isn't, it's an RPG, fundamentally changed, and so on and so forth. I think that we all expected far too much and still expect far too much, this thread is essentially centered on the concept of roleplaying and how we perceive the game itself.

For example, some say maxing enchanting/smithing right off the hop is self destructive as it overpowers the player. From a different perspective, an artisan whom has spent 100 percent of their time investing in their respective trades should be rewarded with powerful equipment, they are very talented smiths, correct? But then common sense says the game should always be challenging, whereas it could be you just missing the challenge. Or a fundamentally broken mechanic/one nobody is used to is implemented, things change and everyone is looking for the answers.

Skyrim created so many questions from the previous installment, and even more from morrowind. Although, there are absolutely no proper answers. The right one would be, play the flipping game as you please, it's a single player game in a world connected through the internet.

Consumerism is self destructive, and so is anolytical breakdowns of games that you should be enjoying.. Right now.

you got my support -

and I stay away from gllitches,cheats etc- - - just play the game folks