All right then, can't believe I'm gonna do this, but I'm going to argue for just three skills.
Combat, Magic, and Stealth.
What's the point of having any more than that? Should I know how to use a sword because I use an axe a lot? Uh, yes? Combat with weapons is different, but many of the basic ideas are the same. You gain combat experience, no matter what you use. You learn to read your enemy and anticipate their moves, no matter what weapon you are holding. It then becomes more dependent on what weapon you are using when you react to your enemy. You're reaction will vary. A hand to hand fighter will dodge, while a fighter with a sword in one hand and a shield in the other will use the shield to block and then counter with the sword. You need a skill for that, when it can easily be represented in the game? Infact, it all ready is in the game. The player themselves learns that, do we need a number to show that the character does too? Perks can easily then go further in depth, showing that you learned the tricks of the trade with each and every type of weapon.
Magic. Magic is the general term used for the channeling of raw energy into effects that can be experienced in the physical world. Is there a different way to channel things to get different effects? It could be interpreted that way, but it also can easily be taken the other way as well. The magic skill would show how well you are at channeling magic in general. Before the effect can be stamped on, you have to be able to channel it. The better you are at channeling magicka, the better you will be at handling magic in general. Perks could then come into play, showing if you are better at using the destruction effect rather than the restoration. Wouldn't your knowledge with destruction magic help you get a handle on restoration spells? Both are the channeling of magic into effects that are seen and experienced in the physical world, wouldn't being good at one help in learning the other?
Stealth. Using the shadows to get where you want to go and take what you want to take. Pretty much a standalone skill as it is. Infact, it’s all ready in game, not much reason for me to explain why it can stand alone. The only thing that could be added here is speechcraft. Stealth does not only use shadows, using other things to not stand out. Clothes to help you blend in, being able to talk your way out of confrontation or how to talk in order to gain info. Perks could help you become an even better talker than being a stealthy character would give you, giving you unique dialogue options you wouldn’t have otherwise.
Now for the wildcards.
First off, why is lock-picking even a skill? Every single lock in the world is the same damn thing. Once you figure out how to pick one, you can pick every other one like it. There is no skill picking a lock, it only takes the smarts to know what it takes to pick it. If there were different locks, it could then be considered a skill. You would need to figure out on the fly which kind of lock it is, and what it takes to get past it. If you run into one you've never seen before, your skill would help you get past this new one.
But still, if locks were different, it could still be placed in the sneak skill. Scratch that, it would be all but ignored. Why you ask? In game representation. In oblivion, it wasn't the skill opening the box, it was the player. Once the player got the learning curve, it didn't matter what kind of lock it was. Now, Fallout 3 used a system that blocked those without a high enough skill to even try. That should not be used. My character vary well is going to at least try. What if he gets lucky? What should be used is a system that effects the mini-game, based on our your stealth skill. Why stealth? For one, a stealth character is going to have steady hands. They're used to staying calm in the dark, stalking their pray. That steadiness increases as the skill increases, so why should they suddenly be nervous when picking a lock?
Enchanting. The channeling of raw energy into an item, instead of the outside physical world. Channeling magicka is all ready handled with the magic skill. Why have two? Perks could easily be used to show you getting better with that specific task, such as having a better efficiency in taking the souls from the soul gems and transfusing it to the item.
Crafting? Why should that even a skill? Unless we have the ability to make our own totally unique items, while not being restricted to what the devs come up with, it shouldn’t even be considered. Armorer, smithing, and alchemy are the same. Anyone can cook if they have the directions infront of them. Some perk trees could easily handle these things. The first perk would allow you to do these odd jobs and could be taken at any time, and then the tree would branch out in the different ways one could specialize.
Athletics…are you really simply running around in game just for the sake of running around? This can easily be tied into things like strength and endurance, you’ll get stronger when fighting which increases both muscle mass and endurance which are the main parts of running, with a small perk tree which would be given automatically that would allow for simple increases such as better running form for more efficiency or speed.
Light and Heavy armor are last. They deal with combat. If you’re in heavy, you’re not going to be able to move that fast. Light helps you move a little faster, but still protects vital spots. No armor lets you be the fastest, but you don’t have anything protecting you. Perk tree's in each of these three sub-categories could easily show your specialization with them. Combat in general would help you react to an opponent, and your armor would help cover you when you slip up. The perks would show you getting better at moving in a specific armor, but the combat skill in general would show your ability to move in order to use your armor to glance blows and negate attacks that you couldn’t dodge or block yourself.
As for leveling. Each main perk tree would have a straight line down the middle of 100 stars. These one hundred stars would represent each level, from 1 to one hundred and would surve the same perpose the skills have now. These would be gained automatically as you use the skill, just like it is now, it would mearly be represented more artistically. Branches of the tree would break off at the specific level you would gain access to them. Such as an ability to swim perk branch off at level 25 for athletics. When your character themselves level up, they'd get to choose one branch perk for every 3 main skill perks they get for that skill. Get three longsword perk levels, you'd get to choose one branch perk for the longsword. Get 5 perk levels, you'd get to choose one branch perk, but then two level perks would transfur, meaning you'd only need to get 1 perk level next time to choose another branch perk.
As for the menu, You would see the three skills up at the top of your menu screen grouped together. You'd see the name, number the skill is at, and then a bar next to the number showing how long it will take till you level up again. After a small break, you would get a list of all the perk trees, spread sheet style. Same format; name, number, bar to show how much till you're next level up. You could then scroll through the perk tree names, and after clicking on a name it would switch to the heavens picture we'll be getting for Skyrim. You'd see the tree with all the stars, and you could look over what you have and what you can get. Star's that you don't have will remain dark, leaving you to wonder what they will be.
There you have it. Skills could be reduced to three, and still function. Best part is, none of this has anything to do with an rpg game in the slightest! So getting fewer, would infact not reduce your rpging experience. So using that argument is not valid, because skills have little to nothing to do with the role. Sorry for all the reading you have to do, but it needed to be done. If you read everying to this part, thanks. If you didn’t, instead just skimming to the bottom, don’t flame me or anyone else. You can disagree with me, but make it factual, and give a reason why I’m wrong. Don’t just call me stupid. All I really did was change the name from skills to perk tree's, the function itself would be the same, only allowing for more uniqueness. I also made it so a master of say longswords wouldn't be as skilled as a child when it came to using an axe, that's just silly, they'd have some idea of how to work an axe after years of fighting. At the very least they'd be able to pick up the weapon and learn how to wield it faster.
Thoughts?
Well you certainly were in depth, I will credit you that, but now on to why I disagree:
The differences between combat have been discussed in most other threads, but sufficed to say just because you can swing an axe does not make you a genuis at archery, or even swordplay.
As magic does not exist in real life (As far as I'm aware), it is hard to say "casting is the same" or not, as there's nothing to compare it to.
Stealth doesn't just include stealth, as you noted, but I felt this is where your argument really began to fall apart. Now, don't get me wrong, I've snuck around the dark a few nights, talked my way out of a situation (Or in to one, in some cases) and got pretty good at sleight of hand. Now, I am not an expert at any, but I can safely tell you they are
nothing alike. Sneaking about is more a measure of agility and your ability to land softly. Talking is obviously a matter of intellect and personality, and relies upon your ability to manipulate or appeal to your target. Stealing is about speed, coordination and above all else - timing. If you read through all that, yes I had a mispent youth.
No disrespect here, but I take it you've never picked a lock in your life. If you don't live in America, but a lock-picking set (They're very inexpensive) and try picking the lock on a tool chest. Good. Now go try your house's front door. You'll notice that in tripling the tumblers and pins, the difficulty doesn't remain static. I've picked the lock on my toolbox many, many times (As I've lost the key). I still can't do the same to my house, especially not quickly (Which would matter in the situations you'd find yourself lockpicking in). Locks are not all the same, please use some real world experience before boasting such a claim.
You make a point in that the player controls success or failure, but I think the re-introduction of real time (Such as Morrowind) would provide a use once again to lockpicking. No one wants to stand exposed for long while performing an illegal activity. Again, not the same talents as used when sneaking though.
Also brought up in the Superfluous Skills thread was the question of athletism. Grab someone who runs sprints or marathons. Got one? Good. Now, give him a sword and pit him against a fencer. You'll notice that the generally more athletic runner will get lit up by someone who's studied how to wield a weapon. Does athletism help with stamina and speed which would be used in a fight? Sure! That's why increasing your athletics increases your attributes.
As I've never worn a set of armour before, I cannot comment as to the difference's between mobility between the two, but I know that my hockey gear (Full set of equipment, covered head-to-toe) is significantly more restricting than my lacrosse gear (Helmet, a slash guard on the right arm and gloves). Hell, one can observe the differences that would make by watching a hockey fight and a lacrosse fight. You'll notice the hockey guys go slowly, and try to soak some punches to gain position. The lacrosse guys focus on speed and feints, typically trying to win before taking too many shots). With all that being said, I concede that armor seems like armour in general.
Before I continue on to the final points of your argument, you've touched on a subject which really, really irks me. This supposed "RPG's have nothing to do with stats, you just play a role." You play a role in EVERY game. In Halo you play as a supersoldier, in NFS: Most Wanted you play as an undercover cop. In GTA: IV you play as a europeen immigrant duped in to believing the american dream. Except, you know, Halo is a shooter, NFS is a racing game and GTA is a sandbox. They arn't RPG's, you know why? Because RPG's focus on the character of YOUR creation, and it's devellopment. Hence why "RPG elements" typically involve customization (The ability to make the character yours) and stats (The ability to choose it's evolution through the story). The argument that an RPG game is any game where you play a role is naive, and stupid. Period.
Now, going back to your final two points, my personal issue with the theory is that Oblivion already suffered a crisis of simplicity, and at the core of your argument, I see one of two outcomes: Either the whole thing is a name change more or less, and serves no purpose. Or, you honestly do want to group together our surviving six skills per class in to one senseless skill. I don't want less complexity, I want more. The way I see your idea, to be honest, would come across as passing me crayons in-game and telling me I'm a special boy. Hell, just throw a space soldier in it and it becomes like every other game out. Bethesda has a good thing going with the Elder Scrolls, and while small changes to refresh and update the game are fantastic, completely re-writing the formula we love is not the way to go about improving the series.
» Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:15 pm 
Why would you want the Fable system in an Elder Scrolls game? No, just no. :gun: 
