Time for ideas on TES VI

[Lachdonin]

I'm not against Chosen One questlines, personally. In fact, I vastly prefer them to 'Average Joe' ones, becaus e they mark characters as expressly different. 'Average Joe' stories are part of the 'everyone is special' or ' you can do anything you set your mind to' mentality, which is a boring, repreated bit social insulation nonsense. Unless you are born with an advantage over everyone else, Alduin will eat you alive, and NOTHING you do will ever let you win. Yes, the hero becomes a special snowflake, but the alternative is that EVERYONE is a special snowflake.

 

Prophecy also has a special place in the world building of TES that can't be ignored. The turning if the Wheel is foretold, and the axis upon which it turns is always predicted. By engaging in that story, you are stepping into prophecy, and that forms a major element of the metaphysics of the setting.

 

That doesn't mean it has to be as in-your-face as it was in Skyrim, or especially Oblivion (you can't even get out of the tutorial dungeon without being told the world rests on your shoulders). Morrowind and Dark Souls, for instance, are Chosen One stories, but keep things veiled enough that for most of the gas you aren't sure who you're chosen by, whether the prophecy is right, or even whats going on. THATS the right way to do a Chosen One story.

 

Skyrim was an improvement in some areas, but a step backwards in others. The problem with designing these stories is that you can't really just make everything isolated and self contained, otherwise you end up with something like Oblivion where, despite the world ending, every guild is more interested in personal politics than armies of Daedra sacking major cities. But, if you go too far in the opposite direction, you end up forcing people to engage in questlines they might not otherwise do.

 

Putting a little more thought into when to drop major revelations, and how various stories interconnect, would solve most of the issues... But do so so, you have to make things longer ans less abrupt to allow for better transitions.

[Boombro]

 

which is a boring, repreated bit social insulation nonsense.

I agree very much. But let be real here. The pc of TES is always is average joe that can do whatever he want,

 

A leader of guild that helped it rose to success with job/quests hardly anyone could do. The smart spell caster, the bandit slayer, the clearer of dungeons and the hoarder of godly tier gear, the maker of holy potions and mass murderer of npcs.

And that impossible, if you can't do it, the quest stage won't advance and that means you can't, and if you complete the stage that mean you can.

 

And no, Skyrim is the same. You are dragonborn and yes you can shout and eat dragon souls. But you are not gifted with anything other than that whatsoever and even your shouts need to be stronger.

 

 

Prophecy also has a special place in the world building of TES that can't be ignored.

Doesn't mean I have to the prophecies chosen one. Oblivion did that very well. This also help so the writers can make the story makes more sense.

 

 

 

Skyrim was an improvement in some areas, but a step backwards in others. The problem with designing these stories is that you can't really just make everything isolated and self contained, otherwise you end up with something like Oblivion where, despite the world ending, every guild is more interested in personal politics than armies of Daedra sacking major cities. But, if you go too far in the opposite direction, you end up forcing people to engage in questlines they might not otherwise do.

I was thinking about factions and the main quests.

 

What do you think about the factions having two questline, one for the factions and one for the main quest?

In fo4, the factions you joined have the part in the main quest. I personally think it makes sense for the faction to help someway that suits their role/goals/skills.

I mean in Skyrim, you join a band of fighter wishing to make Skyrim safe, why I can't let them help me kill dragons? Safe for the collage students, they can help look up the elder scroll. I think it really cool.

[Lachdonin]

 

I agree very much. But let be real here. The pc of TES is always is average joe that can do whatever he want,

 

 

Yes and no... We play the 'Average Joe' in so far as we engage in those sorts of stories. You are only the 'Average Joe' so long as you don't engage in stories that state otherwise. If you do everything... well, you're a special mother f*****, but that's part of the Role Playing in Role Playing Game. When you engage in one of the pre-set stories, you accept a certain identity that is associated with that story. It's a limitation of the medium, and can't really be avoided...

 

By accepting and engaging in the Main Quest, you are instantly accepting that you are NOT and 'Average Joe'. Its sort of an unspoken contract, but the key to it is that it's not mandatory. We aren't talking Dark Souls, where you're the Chosen Undead whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

Doesn't mean I have to the prophecies chosen one. Oblivion did that very well. This also help so the writers can make the story makes more sense.

 

You're still the Chosen One in Oblivion. One of them, anyway. The PC and Martin are basically 2 heads of the same beast... It's actually kind of scary how the Emperor spells out the entire Main Quest line in one line of dialogue...

 

"In your face I behold the Sun's Companion. The dawn of Akatosh's bright glory may banish the coming darkness"

 

Which roughly translates to 'You do all my Son's work, and he'll turn into a Dragon and banish Mehrunes Dagon'. You are established as a crucial element in the process, a Chosen One alongside Martin. Neither exists without the other.

 

In fact, both Morrowind and Oblivion establish you as Chosen before the game really even starts. Whereas Skyrim doesn't establish your nature until 3 quests in.

 

Where they diverge, however, is Oblivion and Morrowind don't constantly remind you of that nature once it's discovered. They bring it up occasionally, with the Lost Prophesies or Martin's final farewell, but Skyrim constantly reminds you about being Dragonborn. It's better in that they wait longer to announce it, but then they won't let it drop.

 

 

 

I was thinking about factions and the main quests.

 

What do you think about the factions having two questline, one for the factions and one for the main quest?

In fo4, the factions you joined have the part in the main quest. I personally think it makes sense for the faction to help someway that suits their role/goals/skills.

I mean in Skyrim, you join a band of fighter wishing to make Skyrim safe, why I can't let them help me kill dragons? Safe for the collage students, they can help look up the elder scroll. I think it really cool.

 

I've been thinking about the same thing... and i think it would depend on what's going on. Tying the College, Companions, Theives Guild and Brotherhood into Alduin and the Dragons wouldn't make sense, as, frankly, not many people actually know what the score is. In all of Skyrim, there's maybe 20 people who know the worlds about to end, and none of them are affiliated with the main factions. And that's not the type of information you really want to be spreading around too much... tends to make the peasants panic.

 

Now, tying them all into the Civil War quest-line? THAT would have made some sense. In this regard, i think ESO's factions were exceptionally well done, especially the Fighters Guild. They have their own internal story, and the main context is relatively limited in scope and influence to the Guild its self, but it ties into the main story of Molag Bal as a peripheral.

[Boombro]

 

Yes and no... We play the 'Average Joe' in so far as we engage in those sorts of stories. You are only the 'Average Joe' so long as you don't engage in stories that state otherwise. If you do everything... well, you're a special mother f*****, but that's part of the Role Playing in Role Playing Game. When you engage in one of the pre-set stories, you accept a certain identity that is associated with that story. It's a limitation of the medium, and can't really be avoided...

By accepting and engaging in the Main Quest, you are instantly accepting that you are NOT and 'Average Joe'. Its sort of an unspoken contract, but the key to it is that it's not mandatory. We aren't talking Dark Souls, where you're the Chosen Undead whether you like it or not.

Umm, that is what I meant, but I guess my wording is bad.

 

 

You're still the Chosen One in Oblivion. One of them, anyway. The PC and Martin are basically 2 heads of the same beast... It's actually kind of scary how the Emperor spells out the entire Main Quest line in one line of dialogue...

"In your face I behold the Sun's Companion. The dawn of Akatosh's bright glory may banish the coming darkness"

Which roughly translates to 'You do all my Son's work, and he'll turn into a Dragon and banish Mehrunes Dagon'. You are established as a crucial element in the process, a Chosen One alongside Martin. Neither exists without the other.

In fact, both Morrowind and Oblivion establish you as Chosen before the game really even starts. Whereas Skyrim doesn't establish your nature until 3 quests in.

Where they diverge, however, is Oblivion and Morrowind don't constantly remind you of that nature once it's discovered. They bring it up occasionally, with the Lost Prophesies or Martin's final farewell, but Skyrim constantly reminds you about being Dragonborn. It's better in that they wait longer to announce it, but then they won't let it drop.

Wow, had no idea and you get a point. But I'm still not martin, I'm not a hero because my mother/grandmother/great GM had sex with (type name here.) I don't have a power I was born with or an ability no one other than me have (you know what I mean.) I'm just a hard working, bright, strong, talented dude/gal.

 

 

I've been thinking about the same thing... and i think it would depend on what's going on. Tying the College, Companions, Theives Guild and Brotherhood into Alduin and the Dragons wouldn't make sense, as, frankly, not many people actually know what the score is. In all of Skyrim, there's maybe 20 people who know the worlds about to end, and none of them are affiliated with the main factions. And that's not the type of information you really want to be spreading around too much... tends to make the peasants panic.

Now, tying them all into the Civil War quest-line? THAT would have made some sense. In this regard, i think ESO's factions were exceptionally well done, especially the Fighters Guild. They have their own internal story, and the main context is relatively limited in scope and influence to the Guild its self, but it ties into the main story of Molag Bal as a peripheral.

That not what I meant. I was not suggesting a plot where every faction is invalided ( a plot about it would be cool though.) and that was an example.

 

I meant that in the main quest line, you can involve your own faction to help if own wants to as an extra faction main questline or a main questline optional. It only logical one will ask his friends or seek the aid of his peers.

Edited December 7, 2015 by Boombro

[Lachdonin]

That not what I meant. I was not suggesting a plot where every faction is invalided ( a plot about it would be cool though.) and that was an example.

 

I meant that in the main quest line, you can involve your own faction to help if own wants to as an extra faction main questline or a main questline optional. It only logical one will ask his friends or seek the aid of his peers.

 

So something like, in Oblivion, being able to call on the Fighters Guild or Mages Guild to help in the Battle of Bruma? I could definately dig that.

 

On thing that I have become increasingly positive towards is the Dialogue Wheel. I was absolutely certain that it would ruin Fallout 4, and while it does.have some problems (caused more by Bethesda's choices than the system its self) it may be the best system we have ever had in TES.

 

It is easily expanded (This is already used to a limited extent with Companions, though exemplified in Dragon Age:Inquisition) uses simple button-click interface, easily facilitates categorical divisions but most importantly... It facilitates movement throughout the conversation.

 

This last point, I think, can't be stressed enough. While it's not used to the best effect in Fallout 4, the system they use already shows the ability to freely disengage from conversation without having to use a set dialogue option (IE Goodbye) but also the ability to move about (to a limite degree) during a conversation. This opens up a bunch of new opportunities, from disposition reactions, to pre-fight positioning, to (potentially, if I can figure out the controller issue) in-combat dialogue (imagine being able to to actually apologize instead of relying on that silly 'put your weapon away' dynamic).

 

To acomplish the same range with the traditional Menu system requires either a huge interface (that can display up to 10 dialogue options at once) an inordinate amount of commands (IE button pressing) or an absurdly convoluted control scheme. Yes, the Wheel has a lower tolerance for options, it's still well beyond the average number of dialogue options available, and higher than the most options I've ever seen (it can easily be expanded to 16 choices without excessive branching and bloat).

 

It's use by Bethesda is somewhat sloppy, and it's hampered by poor writing decisions, but it could he the best thing to happen to the joint series. IF it's developed.

[Boombro]

 

So something like, in Oblivion, being able to call on the Fighters Guild or Mages Guild to help in the Battle of Bruma? I could definately dig that.

Yup, that what I meant, it also adds a lot of the faction and makes the world more alive.

 

 

On thing that I have become increasingly positive towards is the Dialogue Wheel. I was absolutely certain that it would ruin Fallout 4, and while it does.have some problems (caused more by Bethesda's choices than the system its self) it may be the best system we have ever had in TES.

It is easily expanded (This is already used to a limited extent with Companions, though exemplified in Dragon Age:Inquisition) uses simple button-click interface, easily facilitates categorical divisions but most importantly... It facilitates movement throughout the conversation.

 

o acomplish the same range with the traditional Menu system requires either a huge interface (that can display up to 10 dialogue options at once) an inordinate amount of commands (IE button pressing) or an absurdly convoluted control scheme. Yes, the Wheel has a lower tolerance for options, it's still well beyond the average number of dialogue options available, and higher than the most options I've ever seen (it can easily be expanded to 16 choices without excessive branching and bloat).

 

That right, it easier to control and faster than the normal system and more options can easily be added. The only fault is that full lines look odd on a wheel system, but I highly doubt the fans will hate it fully.

 

 

This last point, I think, can't be stressed enough. While it's not used to the best effect in Fallout 4, the system they use already shows the ability to freely disengage from conversation without having to use a set dialogue option (IE Goodbye) but also the ability to move about (to a limite degree) during a conversation. This opens up a bunch of new opportunities, from disposition reactions, to pre-fight positioning, to (potentially, if I can figure out the controller issue) in-combat dialogue (imagine being able to to actually apologize instead of relying on that silly 'put your weapon away' dynamic).

Putting your weapon away is already in game, it just needs to be improved. Talking with someone mid combat seems messy.

[Lachdonin]

Putting your weapon away is already in game, it just needs to be improved. Talking with someone mid combat seems messy.

It's in the game, yes, but it's awkward and unreliable. It also leaves you unnecessarily exposed, particularly if the NPC doesn't stop attacking you.

 

I was thinking less in regards to full on conversation, and more like quick-snap dialogue. Threats, insults, apologies, that sort of thing. Depending on the AI reaction, you could bark a warning to a bunch of bandits, and weaker enemies may run or surrender.

 

The notion also first well with a more natural disposition system, being able to quickly interact with people in minor ways without having to enter a full conversation with them. Saying hello as you pass, apologizing if you bump into them, insulting Nazeem as you walk by. Take the imagineation out of the RP, and make it a functioning game-system which opens opportunities for you.

[Boombro]

Nah, you need a voiced pc for that.

Maybe a gesture of some sort?

[Lachdonin]

Weeeelll... After doing som reading in voice modulation and copying... I actually think if Bethesda were crafty (frankly, no one is even trying it right now...) They could make voice PC's as much under the players control as their physical appearance... Tweak a few audio variables and you can generate some pretty diverse voices out of a single actor.

 

But I agree, the system would be more out of place without a voiced PC. Which is why I was thinking about it as a future potential of the Wheel interface, rather than a particular advantage it offers now.

 

 

 

Regarding the Armour issue from the other thread... Here's the issues as I see them.

 

First, visually. The scale used is based entirely on weight, not on pliability, armour behaviour or even construction. You end up with an awkward scale of gear on both ends that ultimately end in Plate armours (Glass and Ebony). But the issue here is... These two armours are constructed, articulated and behave the same way. It doesn't matter if a suit of plate is made of Aluminium or Steel, all the material effects is the weight, look and durability.

 

Which brings us to problem 2... Because of this disconnect between types of armour, and their 'class', we get a severely limited defensive model. You can't represent the strengths and weaknesses of particular techniques of armouring, because those types of armour exist on both sides of the equation. Making Glass suffer from the same weaknesses as Leather would be silly. So instead, all we get is a flat Armour Value, instead of being able to highlight particular forms of damage and attack. This impacts weapons as well, making everything simply do Damage, instead of allowing for variables like Slashing and Blunt.

 

And then you have the mobility issue. Mobility, regardless of the armour used, is a factor of weight and coverage. The more you wear, the more it impairs your movement. Some types of armour are designed to mitigate this (such as Plate, which actually impairs you less than probably any other type). As it stands, the system used makes Light Armour impair you less than Heavy Armour, despite the logical issues that presents because of the above. But this is further an issue because... Well, that movement effect is insignificant at best. And your movement shouldn't be governed that extensively by what you're wearing. Someone who knows how to wear plate isn't going to be handicapped in Leather either, as all armour basically follows the same rules.

 

So, the divided Armour skills limit the representation of armour behaviour, damage types, movement behaviour and, in the end doesn't offer any meaningful elements to character identity or behaviour. They both do the sake thing, mitigate flat damage, and restrict movement to different degrees in an effort to make them relevant. Like Axe, Blade and Blunt in Morrowind, they are basically an aesthetic choice and cutting the distinction while making movement impairment entirel Weight related would probably add more definition than we get now.

 

But that wouldn't actually fix comhat... To do that, we'd need to take a harder look at paradigms, gameplay elements, and what constitutes good skill design...

 

But, more on that later, I'm getting tired of writing an essay on my phone.

Edited December 14, 2015 by Lachdonin

[Lachdonin]

Ok, time for yammer pt.2... Sorry about the eyes, by the way. This was formulated over more than 7 pages of discussion on the Bethesda Forums. Condensing it into one post is... Long.

 

Here's the biggest issue with how armour skills work in TES. They don't have a significant impact on how you play. They offer you protection, but don't overly change the skills you think to use, the way you approach a situation or the mechanics you employ in combat. They are basically just an aesthetic variation that determines what you are going to wear.

 

They both impair your stealth to a degree, but the primary influence there is your Sneak skill (as it should be). They shouldn't impact your physique or your speed or your ability to dodge, those are variables that should be primarily linked to Athletics (more on that later). Its not even significantly different wearing different types of armour, and traditionally 'Lighter' armour can in fact restrict you more than heavier (Maille is typically classed as a Medium armour in games, but is the most restrictive type of armour historically). All armour does is offer passive protection against hits that manage to get through your active defenses. It is a passive defensive system divided more by the techniquest used to make the Armour than by how much it weighs.

 

And that Passive element is important here. The traditional thinking on the subject is that each 'Class' should have their own type of armour. Mages, Rogues and Warriors. This is because, logically, everyone should have access to some passive defenses incase they DO get hit. The problem here is... This dynamic typically functions in a system where characters are given flat restrictions on what they can wear. Mages can't wear Medium or Heavy, Rogues can't wear Heavy, that sort of system. In TES, we don't have those restrictions. You can wear whatever you please. So without those flat restrictions, we just end up with multiple skills, once again, doing the exact same thing. Offering passive damage mitigation.

 

And that Damage is overly simplified because of the arbitrary divisions. As I said above, because of the lack of consistency in the Armours within a class and the reliance on weight, you can't represent HOW each armour behaves. You can't have Leather be vulnerable to piercing attacks, or Maille offer minimal protection against Blunt. And because you can't use diverse damage types represented by the armouring techniques, it limits what you can do with weapons. You can't differentiate between a Broadsword and a Rapier unless you have a mechanism for dealing with Cutting and Piercing, for instance.

 

Now, in the real world, Plate is just better than everything else. Leather armour (Soft, Hardened or Scaled, doesn't matter) is going to weigh about the same as an equal covering of Plate, and offer far less protection, and the articulation of Plate means that any extra pliability in Leather is more of a protection liability than a mobility benefit. But, as I said elsewhere, we dont have magic to contend with in the real world, so you can mitigate this imbalance by making Magicl protection inversely related to Physical. So Leather is good against Mages, Plate is good against physical harm, and everything else runs the gamut in in between.

 

So, by amalgamating all the Armour into a single skill you can better represent what each type is good for. This means that you are never directly hampered by your choice in armour (you can just change outfits) but adds a more strategic element to your armour choice (trying to predict the opponents you''ll have to contend with). And, by doing this, you also get to expand weapon ranges by diversifying damage types. Pierce, Cut and Blunt actually figs quite well beside Fire, Frost and Lightning,elegantly balancing out the Physical and Magical damage types.

 

But this really just eliminates a single superficial choice without addressing the wider issue of homogeneous defensive options. In fact, it just makes that problem more obvious (though not functionally worse) because you now only have one Skill.

 

And that skill simply governs flat mitigation. Armour protect you when you get hit. End of story. That's what it does, that's what it's there for... But how about not getting hit?

 

This is where paridigms, defenses, varied gameplay and meaningful choices and combinations come in. In TES (and generally in Fantasy) we have 3 core paradigms of identity. The Warrior, the Thief and the Mage. Taken in isolation, all 3 are very distinct approaches and identities, and the overwhelming majority of 'Classes' are a combination of these 3 core ideas. Paladins and Clerics are Warrior-Mages, Duelests and Rangers are Warrior-Theives, Night Blades and Illusionists are Theif-Mages. But the key here is that each core Paradigm contains the ability to function in total isolation, while allowing combinations between them.

 

So, Armour becomes a part of the Warrior Paradigm. It's about mitigating incomming damage and surviving through endurance. Taking hits and keeping going. This is supplemented by a secondary, active mitigation mechanic in Blocks and Parries, but the basic idea behind the Warrior Defensive Approach is mitigating incomming damage.

 

For the Thief, it's about avoidance. Either by being undetected (Sneak) or actively avoiding attacks (a sorely needed Dodge mechanic, most appropriately governed by a returned -and changed- Athletics) the Thief approach to defense is simply not to get hit.

 

Then the Mage approach is, functionally, a hybrid of the other two, but relying in their magical forces to do so. Shields, Wards, teleportation, becommign etherial... They utilise active abilities, Spells, to both mitigate (or, well, outright prevent) damage and to avoid their enemeies attacks, but are limited by their magical reserves. Without that, they're kinda screwed.

 

Now, dividing things up like this has some advantages. First, you can have a more pure expression of the ideas that typically get hybridized by the normal Light-Medium-Heavy dynamic. Suddenly, not only is an Unarmoured approach viable, but you have a few different ways to do it. But you also have the ability to express far more variation between the concepts. No longer do you NEED to wear Light Armour to be agile. If you wanted, you could do it in Heavier armour, with a little more work. You can have Dodge-Based characters supplemented with teleportation magic, Heavily armoured warriors further augmented by protection spells, Flying mages incased in steel etc. And that's on top of the diversity in armour and weapons that the system affords.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Lachdonin