How about this: Either (A) make it impossible for NPCs to attack each other, or (B) remove their ability to attack unless first attacked by the player. (B) svcks. (A) isn't a bad idea, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say. Personally, I think a little realism is needed. I think whoever said it earlier had a good idea, that NPCs shouldn't be required for quests, that there should be an alternative to completing it. There should be an alternative, yes. I'd like to see more outcomes for quests, dependent upon how you completed it, and who you completed it with. That would be nice.

If you were concerned about cutting off potential quests, then you shouldn't have been killing in the first place, should you? It should be part of the event of murder to consider the potential implications of that murder. And if consequences arise out of it, then so be it. Does a murderer in real life get a quest popup to notify them that their intended victim might be of use to them later on in life?


Well, the first step towards a more coherent AI system is to give guards the ability to take NPCs to jail. That way, petty theft doesn't get punished by death, and punishment by death doesn't lead to factional revolt against impossible odds.

The second is to incorporate some form of desire versus consequences scale for actions, with numeric thresholds determined by AI personality settings to decide when certain actions are taken and certain actions aren't. For example, City-Swimmer gets caught stealing bread. The nearby patrolling legionnaire attempts to take her in. City-Swimmer numerically evaluates her chances of survival by resisting arrest (guard's skills and attributes versus her own), the accuracy of which is determined by some skill/attribute based perception algorithm. Then, City-Swimmer's evaluation is compared to City-Swimmer's aggression rating. If her aggression is high enough to offset the the chances of survival (assuming the chances of survival were evaluated as low), then City-Swimmer could resist arrest and attack. The legionnaire would then pummel City-Swimmer. However, this doesn't have to mean death. The further the percent of City-Swimmer's health drops, the closer that percentage comes to overriding City-Swimmer's high aggression setting. And when it gets low enough, City-Swimmer will yield. The legionnaire will then evaluate whether or not to accept that yield based on his responsibility setting, which, for a guard, would be pretty high (meaning he'd let her live and cart her off to jail). That's the huge gaping problem with our current AI setup. It's all or nothing, and no room for in between or dynamic decision-making based on constantly-changing outside factors. But the outside factors aren't too terribly difficult to add in.

This would apply to a multitude of situations, as well. For example, Bethesda cited the residents of Bravil's skooma den as a good example of why they toned down RAI. The skooma addicts were given a desire for skooma. And there is a skooma merchant just across the way. However, the addicts have no money for skooma, yet their desire is their sole focus, so they promptly would go kill the skooma merchant to satisfy their given desire. All or nothing; fulfill at all costs. With the system above, the skooma addicts would evaluate the consequences for murder (perhaps by developers pre-assigning specific actions and parameters with numeric values to indicate severity of consequences). Then, the numeric strength of their desire for skooma would be weighed against that numeric evaluation of consequence, as well as responsibility settings. If their desire wasn't strong enough to outweigh the consequences, then they'd refrain from murder yet still retain the desire for skooma.

That's the basic form. If we added in the possibility of desire increasing as the amount of time passes that it goes unfulfilled, things would get more interesting. Not to say that all skooma addicts would reach the point of desire where murder would be justified for them, but some would (dependent upon AI personality settings) Further, if we added other options to achieve the goal of skooma, that would increase the interesting factor. Skooma addicts need money to fulfill cravings? Then allow for NPCs to find scripted freelance work around town, odd jobs and what not. Whether those jobs are the more traditional and legal sort, or the slightly questionable sort, depends on the NPC and the AI conditions for hiring. The job itself, visually, wouldn't be more complex in nature than having two or three lines of dialogue, and a few "go here" AI directions. Everything else would be happening behind the scenes. And with their newfound money, the skooma addicts could feed their habit and sink themselves back into poverty, thus necessitating the repeat of the process.

Both A & B svck, equally.
There should always be more alternatives to quest completion, more specifically the main quest itself. Whether we want them to be essential or not, many NPC's are going to be needed alive for some quests. NPC A wants you to take object x to NPC B. Of course A & B should be spared acts of random violence by the character, because you'd assume they're necessary - especially for the reward from NPC A.
It seemed like Oblivion tried to fix some of these special NPC deaths by making them unconscious only. This completely destroyed the experience. Most of the time, common sense should prevail - that voice in your head telling you that you shouldn't have killed that NPC is most likely right. But for the sake of roleplaying, and hopefully wielding concrete knowledge that you in fact don't need that NPC anymore, you should be able to declare war on 100% of the named population. These freedoms are important to make the experience feel more open.
Making it impossible for NPC's to attack each other not only doesn't make any sense, it would ruin the experience.
If the NPC is generally hostile, or just doesn't like you, he/she should be able to attack you unprovoked. What's wrong with that?

How about this: Either (A) make it impossible for NPCs to attack each other, or (B) remove their ability to attack unless first attacked by the player. (B) svcks. (A) isn't a bad idea, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say. Personally, I think a little realism is needed. I think whoever said it earlier had a good idea, that NPCs shouldn't be required for quests, that there should be an alternative to completing it. There should be an alternative, yes. I'd like to see more outcomes for quests, dependent upon how you completed it, and who you completed it with. That would be nice.

Or ( C) make it so the player can kill essential NPCs (with an "OMG you doomed the world/mage guild/temple/etc" message), but other NPCs can only knock them unconscious.

One thing that I would like to see incorporated into the next TES game would be the ability to bypass locked doors and chests without the use of the Security skill. It can be quite frustrating, especially from a roleplaying standpoint, to play as a combat oriented character, and faced with the obstacle of locked doors and gates that cannot be overcome by any other means than a lockpick or an equivalent spell. Of course, neither do I wish to see the Security skill completely lose its place within the game, nor do I feel it has to.
...
In conclusion: I love to smash me up some doors.

In TES5 you should have following options if you need to get a lock open, or enter a locked place:

Security: lockpicking and disarming traps
Weapon skills: bashing open chests etc, preferrably with blunt weapons to avoid damage on blades
Hand-to-Hand: kicking in doors
Alchemy: using acid to silently destroy locks
Alteration: casting open (and lock!) spells
Destruction: well... destroying the damn doors!
Pickpocket: getting your hands on the keys NPCs have on them
Speechcraft: lie or debate to get in places, like private homes in the middle of the night (knock first!)

Well it isnt real life, its a game and im sure most ppl would agree that it would very annoying to have to start a whole new character for 1 quest. You could be on the last part of the MQ and u cant complete it because the guy is dead. Personally i dont have a problem with essential NPCs dying. Realism is important but sometimes its better not to make things exactly like real life.

One thing that I would like to see incorporated into the next TES game would be the ability to bypass locked doors and chests without the use of the Security skill. It can be quite frustrating, especially from a roleplaying standpoint, to play as a combat oriented character, and faced with the obstacle of locked doors and gates that cannot be overcome by any other means than a lockpick or an equivalent spell. Of course, neither do I wish to see the Security skill completely lose its place within the game, nor do I feel it has to.

Perhaps, Bethesda could implement a system where characters with a particularly high strength, say, 75 or higher, are able to physically force open some doors and chests. This would add a potential roleplaying element as well, because a high strength would equate to more than simply high melee damage or carrying capacity. However, to keep Security as a viable skill, there would be certain chests and doors that could not be opened without using a lockpick, and perhaps more importantly, the consideration of stealth. The act of physically forcing a door open could result in a great deal of noise, attracting additional enemies than one normally would, even through combat. Lockipicking said door, of course, would not have this unpleasant effect. An entire host of traps could also be put in place, that would not be triggered by a stealthy approach, but would be set off by forcing a lock.

I suggest this idea, because I have always found it irritating to have a character that is supposedly as strong as a mortal can be, and yet find myself hindered by a lock on a weather beaten, wooden door. I feel this would allow for greater flexibility in class design as well, as opposed to forcing warriors to either take up Security or find magical means of opening locked doors. It would also maintain Security as a desirable skill for stealth based characters, for the various advantages associated with that skill.

In conclusion: I love to smash me up some doors.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yeah, they let you bash open locked doors in Daggerfall (unless it was magically held). I don't know why they took this out of Morrowind/Oblivion.

Well, I agree that they both svck, but you missed my point. And you took out of context what I said. If an NPC has a high hostility level, they might attack YOU, but restrict them from doing so to other NPCs. I said they should be restricted from attacking NPCs, not the player. If YOU piss them off, you'll have to deal with them. But leaving a hostile NPC to randomly attack other NPCs should not even be considered. This could reduce the random deaths.

Nuff said.

I just wish you would return to your Classic RPG style. Much like Morrowind and Daggerfall. I would love it if you went back to text instead of voice acting, because its more immersive. In Oblivion, I hated the scaled leveling system. There was no feel of fear of getting hurt. Oblivion was my least favorite of the series. Good game, but I just wish it were GREAT like Daggerfall and Morrowind.

I just wish you would go back to your original and true-to-form RPG style, it was better, harder, and you actually felt the need to stay alive and out of the cold. To carry backup weapons and cheap scrolls for desperate measures. Limping back to town, to find an inn. Only to be awoken by a thief in mid-sleep (stats not recovered much), stealing your stuff, then he tries to kill you. Bearing with the stats you have, trying to use your last potions to stay alive during the attack. Thats what I want to see! The lands were more dangerous in Morrowind, and that is a BIG plus side in an RPG.

And ESPECIALLY, keep the Hit and Miss "Dice Roll" with the game, just like Morrowind, and Daggerfall, where your fatigue really mattered if you could block and hit and dodge effectively. Definately the best way to keep you on your toes.

We can only hope that the next game will be like this, and if not, then I fear that the Elder Scrolls wont be highly enjoyed by the Classic and Hard-Core RPG fans out there.

Wow most of what was said in this post is the opposite of what I want. If it turned out like this I would have my doubts about whether to buy it. :shakehead:

Really? I agree with almost all the concepts in that post. I mean, text dialogue aside, the root of the complaint (I'm assuming) is that voice dialogue is so accursedly limited. People can't say your name, people can only have a scant handful of actual dialogue topics, people seem more like billboard cardboard-cutout voiceboxes with that small number of topics, etc, etc. Morrowind had 20 times the size of the dialogue system that Oblivion had. While I really appreciated Oblivion giving every NPC a unique line of dialogue, I value the overall scheme of things Morrowind's dialogue system represented: NPCs who actually could be asked about a huge variety of things; NPCs who actually had something to say about their world.

Wow most of what was said in this post is the opposite of what I want. If it turned out like this I would have my doubts about whether to buy it. :shakehead: