[Bethesda is Evil]

 

 

Beth CAN do awesome games

 

Can they though? Name one stable, well executed, well paced, well WRITTEN game that Bethesda Game Studios has ever made.

 

I think Incompetent is the appropriate term. They have vision, but they seem to lack the technical skill to realise that vision.

[Lachdonin's RPG Rambling]

f*** Covid...

Anywho, back to work.

 

Mechanics (continued 2)

 

 

 

 

Quests & Missions

 

 

 

 

Ok, a mainstay of most RPGs are the quests, tasks, missions, assignments and jobs you do along the way. These are the mechanisms by which stories are typically delivered, and are what make up the majority of what you do while playing.

 

For the sake of specificity, i am going to divide them into categories based on their importance, and how much development they should take.

 

General

 

 

 

 

The biggest general problem with questlines and their narratives is poor pacing, and story structure. We have literary sciences for a reason, people.

 

Introduction; The Introduction to the main quest can include the tutorial sequence of a game, but is generally better as a stand alone sequence as to better allow the questline to be avoided should a player choose. The goal of the Introduction is to introduce the main players in the questline, to draw you in and get you interested, and should make up between 10 and 20% of it's total time. So, if your total questline consists of 30 individual stages, 3-6 of them should be dedicated to the Introduction.

 

Rising Action; This is where the states become established, the problem gets explored, and the tension builds. If you're going to include major twists, revelations, betrayals or a general snowballing of the problem, this is where you do it. The Rising Action should generally take up between 50 and 70% of the actual weight of the story and questline.

 

Climax; The point where everything comes to a head, and the tension is at it's highest. The major crisis hits, you confront the big-bad, or everything goes to pot. In general, the Climax hits at the peak of the Rising Action, and is relatively short-lived, usually requiring no more than 10% of the overall story time to deal with. But it's the release valve that blows off all that tension, and it's execution is what determines the overall success of the story and whether or not it is fulfilling.

 

Closing Action; The wind down after the resolution. Again, usually not requiring more than 10% of the overall focus, it's basically just there to clean up loose ends.

 

This all sounds rather basic, but it's extremely important. Pacing can make or break a story, and the execution of that pacing is what ultimately determines whether or not a narrative flows from one point to the next, or feels disjointed.

 

If you're going to include branching options, as detailed earlier do it either late in the Introduction, or early in the Rising Action. If you're going to pull a major reveal, do it midway through the Rising Action, or just before the Climax.

 

 

 

 

Main Quest

 

 

 

 

The main questline for the game. This is the focal, driving story which forms the core reason for the games existence. Stopping the Blight. Killing Alduin. Defeating The Master. Finding Ciri and stopping Eradin. You know the drill.

 

Typically the Main Quest is going to be about killing some big bad, or stopping some major event. And that's fine, there's absolutely nothing wrong with saving the world, or being the chosen one.

 

This should be the single longest questline in the game, and should be long enough to feel like a game in and of it's self. 30-50 stages, covering a minimum of 10 hours to finish. More is not always better, however, and if stretched too long a story can ruin it's own pacing. So restricting it to 10-30 hours is probably idea.

 

The main questline should have the most dramatic impact on the game world., with the end result serving as the foundation for what the 'Ending' will be. Either the actual 'End' of the game, or the state in which the Open World remains forever afterwards.

 

As an example;

 

Introduction - 5 Quests consisting of 3 Stages each. Go to locations, meet important players, learn about impending crisis.

 

Rising Action - 20 Quests, consisting of 3-5 Stages each. Pick a major side, and advance their agenda, leaning about the crisis and overlapping with the other sides. At quest 15, uncover some secret about the crisis that shifts the story towards the Climax

 

Climax - 1-3 Quests, consisting of 3-5 Stages each. Using the new information, prepare for confrontation, before resolving the crisis.

 

Closing Action - 1-2 Quests consisting of 3 Stages Each. Pick up the pieces and help everyone settle into the post-crisis world.

 

 

 

 

Major Quests

 

 

 

 

Primary Quests are the big, story driven questlines that fill out the world but are independent of the main crisis. To use Skyrim as an example, these include the Major Guilds and the Civil War.

 

They should be lengthy, and paced stories in their own right, but not so much as the Main Quest. 4-5 of them in total is reasonable, and they should range between the 5-15 hour mark in general content, and likely 10-20 actual Quests making up their runtime.

 

Because these are narrative focused questlines, they should still follow the rules for pacing. However, at their conclusion they should have less wide-spread impact than the Main Quest.

 

 

 

 

Secondary Quests

 

 

 

 

Secondary Quests cover all the shorter, but still narrative questlines that make up the world. Ranging from 1-10 hours in length, we're talking everything from the Daedric Quests of Skyrim, to the more complex story-driven Hunts of The Witcher, to the Ashes of Andrase style sidequests of Dragon Age.

 

Anything between 2 and 5 quests can fit in here, and this is where room for mutually exclusive outcomes can comfortably fit. These are events that no one is likely to remember, on a historical scale, so you can play more with options without compromising the stories.

 

 

 

 

Minor Quests

 

 

 

 

Minor Quests then fit into all the single-quest odds and sods that fill out the world. Recover an old warriors lost sword. Escort a lost priest back to town. Help an injured forester recover his things from the bear that attacked him. Not Procedurally generated, and with set characters and stories, but not long enough to really be considered a Questline.

 

Limited procedural placement of quest objectives is fine here, even if the stories and motivations are set.

 

 

 

 

Jobs

 

 

 

 

Jobs are where Procedural Generation kicks in. These are Procedurally generated activities which are used to fill out the world and what you're doing, and generally break up the more story-driven activities elsewhere. Typically used as Bounties, Guild Jobs, or just random things you pick up or encounter in the world, they are assembled from pre-designed components to create activities for the player as needed, with nothing more than the barest of story involvement.

 

With any Procedural Generation system, the more components you have the better. So, as a minimum guideline;

 

Core Activity; At least 5 core activities. Examples include Kill Creature, Collect Material, Rescue NPC, Investigate disturbance, Deliver Package.

 

Location; Near, Medium, Far.

 

Encounter Group; Dependent on the actual activity.

 

Twist; None, Betrayal, Ambush

 

The key to making Procedural Generation work is to not rely on it to tell stories, but also to make it so the first point, the Core Activity, has enough components that it keeps things feeling like there is variety. The more core activities you have, the more the secondary elements feel meaningful and the Procedural content less repetitive. An ideal system would have at least 10 Core Activities which dictate the direction of later Procedural Selections.

 

And while i don't think we're there yet, a truly robust Procedural Generation system COULD replace general storytelling.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NPC Generation

 

 

 

 

This is going to be something of a contentious point... But i am personally of the opinion that Bodies do not equate to Life. Games such as Grand Theft Auto, The Witcher, Red Dead Redemption 2 and Assassin's Creed do not have 'Living' cities, they have Full cities. Life is more than just filling a street with bodies, it's about giving those bodies a presence in the world.

 

The problem is, programming and writing 30,000 independent NPCs to populate a single city is a daunting task. But a worthwhile one.

 

In order to make a world living, it's actors need to fulfil 3 criteria. Personality, Persistence, and Interactivity. For more involved, story related characters dedicated writing is still necessary, but for the teeming masses, it SHOULD be possible to use procedural generation to fill in the gaps without leaving them as blank drones that just exist to take up space.

 

Personality

 

 

 

 

Personality comes in lots of different degrees, but at it's core it's about who a character is, what they believe, how they interact, etc. All NPCs should be able to fill in these core questions. Simple personality traits like Friendly, or Scholarly, can serve as Personality selectors that determine the use of voice lines and behaviors later in the system.

 

 

 

 

Persistence

 

 

 

 

All NPCs need to be persistent in the world. They should get up in the morning, go to work, go shopping, go to church, etc. Persistence does NOT mean that they just stand around in the same marketplace at all times, but neither does it mean they despawn at night.

 

An NPC needs places to go, and a place to live. There should be a way to track them down at any given time of the day, and they should NEVER disappear from the game without being killed, or for a very good story reason.

 

 

 

 

Interactivity

 

 

 

 

This one is simple. All NPCs should be interactive, and interact with the environment. You should be able to talk to them, kill them (if so inclined) steal from them, and they should interact with the game world on their own.

 

 

 

 

Alright, that's all well and good, but what does any of this ultimately mean, in a mechanical sense.

 

Procedural NPCs

 

 

 

 

Procedurally Generated NPCs are created by assembling components to create a shallow, but functional Character. Each stage of generation narrows the further selection field and applies new variables to the end product. At the end of the process, you should have an NPC which has a place to live, a job to go to, possibly a family, several 'interests', and a generated schedule working on a weekly cycle. Voice lines can then be drawn from a pool based on the above criteria to create an interactive character who knows where they live, what they do, the basis of their family ('Wife and kids' instead of "Wife shelly, and my two children Eric and Rachel") and can offer some bits of information about the area or world (Directions, points of interest, people etc).

 

I'll probably get into examples of this later, with some numbers to support my claims... But with this process it should be possible to create literally hundreds of thousands of characters with relatively minimal work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crafting

 

 

 

 

Ok, this is another big one. Crafting has become a major part of many games, with the Survival Genre having significantly influenced the entire industry over the last decade. These range from simplistic Recipe Driven systems, to complex systems which are basically a mini-game in and of themselves (or sometimes a full game, such as Blacksmith Simulator).

 

At it's core, Crafting should allow you to create items that are useful and relevant, without being obscenely abusable. It needs to be complex enough to allow for variability, but simple enough that it doesn't feel overwhelming to anyone looking at it.

 

In the example of TES, and in truth most Fantasy concepts, there are 3 primary types of Crafting. Item Crafting, Alchemy, and Enchanting. In Sci-Fi these are a little more varied and complicated, but i may play with those ideas later.

 

Item Crafting

 

 

 

 

Basics

 

 

 

 

Item Crafting is what the box says. Creating physical items. This can be Smithing, Armouring, Furnature Making, whatever. The basic process remains the same regardless. Every item Type is divided into Parts. Each Part has various styles which can be swapped between, and requires you to select a viable Material. These combine to give you significant customizability both in visual appearance and in stats, without creating a system with too much complexity or uncontrolled scaling.

 

For example, a Sword;

 

Blade - Alik'r Scimitar - Ebony

Guard - Lion's Guard Qullion - Orichalum

Grip - Western Braid - Dreugh Leather

Pommel - Imperial Dragon - Gold

 

 

 

 

Item Types

 

 

 

 

Item Types are the basic component for item selection in crafting. Things like Swords, or Tables, or Shields. An Item Type determines the actual assembly of an item, and how it will ultimately behave in the world. In a technical sense, they serve as a basic framework for the item, determining the Skeleton, as well as applying base-line characteristics which can then be modified by other dynamics. It also determines what potential parts make up the end product.

 

 

 

 

Parts

 

 

 

 

Item Parts are the individual components that make up the item. These are offer both room for Model changes, as well as Stat variability. Swapping out the style of Blade on a sword, or the paneling on a Dresser, or the decorations on a Helmet. At it's core, this is as much about visual variables as it is about changes in stats.

 

Each Part has a material cost associated with it, which tells you how much of the desired material you need to construct it. This is applied to the end products material cost, so the more complicated the parts, the higher the material costs.

 

 

 

 

Materials

 

 

 

 

Materials used in Item Crafting have 6 qualities which are represented by numerical values. These qualities are attached to the end product to create the actual stats of the final item, while the Material has an associated Texture which it applies to the parts of the item that material covers.

 

These qualities are;

 

Strength; Influence the Damage or AC of an item

Toughness; Influences the Durability of an item

Conductivity; Influences the Enchantability of an item

Insulation; Influences the magical resistance of an item

Value; Influences the value of an item

Weight; Influences the total weight of an item.

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

 

 

 

So, when creating an item, you follow the steps.

 

Pick an Item Type. This determines the skeleton which the item will use, and how it behaves for the sake of the game. It also sets it's basic stats.

 

Select Parts. This allows you to customize the appearance of the item you are making, as well as it's function to a degree. All the parts will still work within the skeleton of the Item Type, so this is predominantly about visual style and tweaking stats rather than significantly changing behaviour. This also determines exactly what the material cost of the final item will be.

Select Materials. This is the main Stat-focused part of the process. Selecting the materials you want the item to be made of in order to determine it's end stats. The Material will have a visual impact due to the texturing, but this is mostly about the numbers.

 

Once you've fulfilled all those steps, you can pay the total cost of the materials you've selected, and create the item. Or, you can save the Recipe as is for quick-crafting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alchemy

 

 

 

 

Alchemy in most games is, frankly, not very interesting. The standard process is, pay the material cost, make a potion of a set quality (or one that scales with skill) and just move on. It's boring, it lacks precision, and it frankly feels nothing like Chemistry or it's conceptual predecessor.

 

Basics

 

 

 

 

For the basics of an improved Chemistry system, you first have to define the TYPES of concoctions you can produce. For instance, Potions, Elixers, Poisons, etc. What you are making depends on the Solvent you use as a base. You then add various reagents to it to strengthen or eliminate effects, to create a final product.

 

 

 

 

Solvents

 

 

 

 

Solvents are the first component to a concoction, and determine it's baseline behaviour. For instance

 

Water - Slow Release Potion, effect takes place over 1-3 minutes

Alcohol - Quick Acting Potion, Effect takes place over 5-10 seconds, but also can get you drunk (soft restrictor)

Ether - Elixer, long duration (10-60 minutes) buffing effect

Tar - Poison, quick acting damage

Oil - Grenades, throwable alchemical weapons

 

You can apply different grades of these Solvents to increase the variability as well. For instance, Murky Water - Clear Water - Distilled Water - Pure Water - Elemental Water. The better the Solvent, the higher the base modifier to the effects will be.

 

 

 

 

Ingredients

 

 

 

 

This works as you'd expect of an Elder Scrolls game. Each potential Reagent has several different effects, and you combine effects to increase their potency. To increase the variability of the system, however, each effect has a Potency value as well. So some ingredients may be better than others.

 

Potency is an exponential figure. Restore Health II is twice as potent as Restore Health I, while Restore Health III is twice as potent as Restore Health II. To, to make truly powerful concoctions, you'll need the best ingredients. Or, you'll need to distill your own.

 

 

 

 

Distillations

 

 

 

 

In order to maximise the potency of your ingredients, you may need to render out the qualities you want to increase their potency. Creating a Distillation is simple, you combine two ingredients with like effects, to create a more potent Distillation that serves as it's own ingredient.

 

So, for instance, if Bread and Eggs both have Restore Stamina I, you can combined them to create a Restore Stamina II Distillation. This serves as it's own Ingredient for later use, allowing you to render down lower quality ingredients into higher ones, at the cost of volume and versatility.

 

 

 

 

Equipment

 

 

 

 

A lamented loss in Skyrim was the removal of some Alchemical equipment. While this makes a lot of sense, as these things are fragile and not something you're going to carry around with you while spelunking, they do offer a layer of variability to Alchemy that shouldn't be ignored. While the process it's self should be Station Driven, you should be able to upgrade that station and thus include these sorts of apparatus in the process. For instance, including an Alembic can allow you to create Distillates, while having a Calcinator can allow you to extract specific Effects from raw materials (eliminating the risk of having unwanted effects included).

 

 

 

 

Summary

 

 

 

 

So, the end result of this process is something approximate like this.

 

You want to create a concoction. First, you select your Solvent; Pure Water, for a slow-acting potion of mid range quality. You then select your ingredients. You have Jerky and Bread which offer Restore Stamina I, as well as a Troll Heart with Restore Stamina II. Since you have to combine like-effects, you decide to create a Restore Stamina II Distillate first, by rendering down the Jerky and Bread using the Alembic you have installed into your Alchemy Lab. Now, you can combine the Restore Stamina II Distillate with the Troll Heart to create a Restore Stamina Potion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bethesda is Evil]

As others have said, you've got a really low bar for what qualifies as Evil.

[Homosexuality in Skyrim]

Wow, homophobic theadomancy. That's one of the rarest of the dark arts.

[Why you should side with the Stormcloaks]

If the Nords crush the empire than the Thalmor win?

 

Nord DragonBorn: Defeat the WorldEater, defeat previous DragonBorn(Also Nord), Found and destroyed who stole his sweetroll.

 

Nord Dragonborn: Am i joke or something?

 

Yes, because not only does that line of thinking totally discount the equal chance that the Dragonborn sides with the Empire, but anyone who thinks the Dragonborn is going to persist in Skyrim after the end of the game is delusional. Heroes disappear for one reason or another

once their job is done.

 

 

 

Furthermore, I don't think there is another town that has more non-humanoids living there than Windhelm?Prove me wrong!

 

I also don't think there's another town with a greater degree of racial segregation. Prove ME wrong!

 

 

being that I play as a True Son of Skyrim.

 

So you mod the game to play as a Falmer?

[Why do Dwemer automatons have soul gems?]

In that case, why do they have dwarven oil?

 

Because the Soul Gem serves as a heating coil of sorts.

 

There is a journal in Skyrim (i can't remember what it's called) which details an examination of a Dwemer spider. It postulates that the stones are powered by some remote source, which is why Dwemer automatons tend to shut down when taken away from the ruins. The Gem heats the oil, which drives the automatons actions.

[female]

Marry someone, sleep in the same house as them, get Lovers Boon, and you're done. You don't need to have sex mods installed to simulate a sex life in game.

[Why you should side with the Stormcloaks]

Ok, first off... Issues of provincial succession. Blackmarsh and Elsweyr succeeded first, under the reign of High Chancellor Ocato. Who was frankly one of the worst leaders we have ever seen in TES, and was either a Thalmor agent himself, or just outright incompetent. Summerset and Valenwood succeeded during the consolidating period at the start of the Mede Dynasty, and then until the Great War, the Empire managed to maintain control of ALL OF THE PROVINCES. 130 YEARS of preventing further succession. So you can't just discount their ability to hold territory, when they did so for more than a century. Especially considering that no one really liked the Septim Empire, save Cyrodiil and Skyrim. Under the Septims themselves, interprovincial wars and outright revolts were common place, with provinces trying to rebel against the Empire as early as Tiber's reign.

 

Holding onto the territory, without a divine claim to back you up, for more than a century isn't a feat to just dismiss out of hand.

 

Second, Morrowind. Morrowind is not uninhabitable, and based on information from the Dragonborn expansion, is well on it's way to it's former glory. It's status as an Imperial Province is still nebulous, however, as Morrowind seems to view it's self as independent, while the Empire views it as a province, and that relationship has yet to actually be tested.

 

Third, Highrock. Yes, for most of it's history, it has been a loose collection of feudal powers with no real allegiance to anyone but themselves. However, this changed with the Warp in the West, which resulted in the consolidation of it's territories into a few far more stable kingdoms, all of which were loyal to the Empire. And we've been given no indication that this situation has changed.

 

Fourth, you're very much oversimplifying the overall situation here, so i'm going to try to bring up a few counterpoints.

 

The Empire, as you state, had to commit to trying to keep Skyrim in the fold, because it was either commit resources to holding Skyrim, or lose all the resources Skyrim offered. As with anything, it is an investment gamble. However, the actual investment of resources in Skyrim seems minor. Multiple Legates note that the main body of the Legion is still in Cyrodiil, on the border. Rikke notes that they have been forced to recruit locally because the Empire doesn't want to commit a proper legion to the rebellion. Even Ulfric acknowledges that if the Empire brought it's true might to Skyrim, he would lose (dialogue relating to Emperor Mede's presence in Skyrim). The Empire basically sent a bunch of commanding officers to muster forces WITHIN Skyrim to deal with the Rebellion. That's why it's called the Civil War. It's not Empire vs Skyrim, it's Loyalist Skyrim vs Rebellious Skyrim.

 

Next, Balgruf is not the only source indicating that continued trade and supplies from the Empire are important to Skyrim. Stentor and Saerlund Lawgiver both support that position as well. So the relationship between the Empire and Skyrim remains important to the people of the province, and yes, that does matter, because it ultimately means that a severing of that relationship is going to cause problems. If the Empire is guilty of not caring about the rights of it's people, then the Sotrmcloaks are guilty of not caring about their wellbeing.

 

The sovereignty issue is another point. The Empire does, in fact, recognise and permit the limited sovereignty of it's territories. Its a Federal-Territorial relationship. A Province governs it's self, but must still follow the Federl Laws of the country. Provinces are free to govern their own affairs so long as they do not violate the Empires laws. Which on the scale of Empires is pretty liberal. It is when the actions of the territory violate the higher laws of the Empire, or when the province encounters problems it cannot resolve on it's own, that the Empire intervenes.

 

This recognition of the autonomy of it's territories is most recently seen in the Reach. When the Reachmen rose up and took control of their lands from the Nords, the Empire, we are told, was considering granting them full vassal status. Allowing them to keep the territory and govern themselves, rather than being apart of Skyrim. Instead, the Stormcloaks did exactly what they accuse the Empire of doing, and put down a rebellion that only wanted to express their sovereignty over their own ancestral lands. And this is a big running theme with the Stormcloaks. Do as i say, not as i do.

 

Also of note. ALL LAWS ARE ARBITRARY. They are artificial social constructs designed to encourage, and enforce, particular lines of behaviour amongst large groups of individuals. None of them are inherent or natural.

 

Now, to Ulfric's advocating for independence. First, no, he did not advocate for independence at Markath, nor did he try diplomacy. He issue an ultimatum. Allow Talos worship, or we won't turn over the city. Second, based on what we are told about The Moot, he did not make demands, but rather proposed the idea, no motion was made on it nor did he actively try to sway anyone. And when it came time to try and convince the High King, Ulfric chose to make a statement and kill him instead. So i call bullshit on your reasoning here, because there is literally zero evidence that Ulfric tried to convince Torygg to side with him. Ulfric wanted to make a statement, and murdered his king to do so.

 

This is further reinforced by Ulfric's attack on Whiterun. It's an unprovoked attack on a neutral 3rd party with no strategic value, for the sole purpose of proving a point.

 

Now for the Jarls.

 

The biggest difference in Morthal is the individual motivations of the Jarls themselves. Igrod, though somewhat lost in her own visions, cares about the people of her hold and actively looks to their protection. Sorli only cares about her own enrichment.

 

Winterhold is, basically even, though Korir seems content to wallow in the cities failure while Kraldar seems at least somewhat interested in moving forward.

 

Riften is indeed Maeven one way or the other.

 

Whiterun can't be considered based on the Jarl-dialogue alone. You have to consider Vignar and Balgruf's actions outside of just sitting on the Throne. Vignar is a caustic, accusatory and bitter old man who is openly hostile to anyone with a dissenting point of view. Balgruf is a concerned leader who rushes to the aid of his people and does everything in his power to avoid having them drawn into this conflict. Balgruf shows himself to be far more concerned with the actual wellbeing of those under his leadership than any interaction with Vignar would suggest.

 

Markarth is not exactly the same. Again, you are looking only at their dialogue while sitting in the chair, which ignores the character establishment elsewhere. Thongvar is a hot-headed, aggressive individual who is honestly not that bright. He's totally unaware of his own family's dealings, and his cult-like adoration for Ulfric shows he doesn't really have much of a critical mind. Ingmund is more reserved and calm (though they share a hatred for the Foresworn) but also accepting of his mistakes. Neither are exactly shining examples of leadership, but they aren't the exact same person.

 

Dawnstar, you are totally right. Skald is a raging moron.

 

Falkreath is a difficult choice. Siddgier is a right prick, and a entitled brat. But... Dengier is problematic, because of the signs of his behaviour. His paranoia and accusatory actions, along with his growing fixation on the past, should be recognisable to anyone who has had a loved one suffer from Alzheimer's. Long story short, Siddgier could potentially get better, but Dengier WILL get worse. And a mentally unwell leader is a dangerous thing to have on a throne.

 

As for Windhelm... We've discussed the racism issue before on the Bethesda forums, but the overall point is that they are BOTH racist. You can't just discount one's racism because the other is as well. Both sides of the coin are guilty here. But i do agree that, based on what we see in Windhelm, Ulfric is the superior Jarl. If only because he actually has a degree of character developed, and motivation, whereas Brunwulf is basically just a drone.

 

As for the 2nd Great War... You sorely misunderstand how war and mobilization works, and the scale of the Great War in the first place. 30 years to recover from a major war that wiped out more than half your military forces, in a non-industrial world, is not particularly unreasonable. Especially when you realise that the Empire has had to deal with several outbreaks of violence, rebuilding infrastructure, political divisions amongst it's leadership, and compensating for the total failure of their intelligence systems.

 

The latter is particularly important, because you can't reliably fight an enemy you don't know anything about. The Empire may be back to it's pre-war strength, but that pre-war strength got it's ass handed to it. With no knowledge of the enemies capabilities, the Empire could be looking at invading a Dominion that outnumbers them 3 to 1, or worse. Or they could be invading a Dominion that still hasn't recovered from it's losses. They don't know.

 

Even then, you disregard the fact that multiple Imperial sources indicate that the Empire expects another war. It has been preparing for another war. Whether they will initiate it or not doesn't matter, because ultimately, ONLY IDIOTS WANT WAR. Peace is something to be enjoyed as long as you can hold it together.

 

And all of this is somewhat secondary to the core problem. Who is best suited to ruling Skyrim?

Well, it's not the Stormcloaks. Discounting Ulfric's tenuous political position, the core running theme amongst the Stormcloaks his hypocrisy. They fight for their sovereignty, but were founded to put down those who fought for their own. They believe in ancient tradition, and yet their leader spits in the face of the Way of the Voice, and the Pact of Chieftains. They claim to stand up for what they believe in, yet condemn those who do the same on the other side. The Stormcloaks are a hypocritical populist movement which demands privilege but refuses those same privileges to others. It is their actions which brought the Inquisitors, it is their actions which brought the Legion, and it is their action which has destabilized their country and brought suffering to Skyrim.

 

And does anyone honestly expect them to just roll over and be benevolent leaders afterwards? They check every box for an oppressive autocratic cult of personality movement in history.

 

 

"Does it matter? I am the Dragonborn. If the Thalmor attack, the side i will be fighting with, will win, regardless of being Stormcloaks or Imperials"

 

Tell that to the Nords at Red Mountain. The Thu'um isn't an 'I Win' button, and the last time it was brought to battle, it was so soundly beaten that Jurgen Windcaller had a crisis of faith.

[Quicksilver ingots? What the ...?!?!]

Stitchen, von Daniken, Foerester... All you're missing is Gardner and you've struck my rage-quartet. Any time i so much as HEAR their names on tv or youtube, i feel the beast welling in my stomach. Hell, Stitchen almost managed to ruin Mystery Inc for me, and i KNOW Scooby Doo is fiction.

[Quicksilver ingots? What the ...?!?!]

Quicksilver in Tamriel is not mercury. The leading theory is that it's just another name for Mithril in TES. It's the same issue as TES' Dragons technically being Wyverns (in British heraldry, anyway). In-universe rules come first, real-world inspiration second.

[The Ideal Magic System For Elder Scrolls 6]

The only vale i think Oblivion has is in the concept of Spellcrafting. Beyond that, it's magic system is basically rubbish and shouldn't even be considered.

 

It's late, and i don't really want to type it out, but the concept i've been playing with in terms of mechanics can be found Here, under Mechanics. It creates a foundation upon which you can fit in basically any sort of spell type you want, allowing you to cover the traditional Guild Schools, as well as a wide range of non-Guild magics such as Reachman Blood Magic, to Geomancy, to even some older spells like Passwall.

 

Now, building magical constructs is something else entirely... But Automaton for Fallout 4 has already given us the basic mechanical tools to see what can be done there, so i don't think it would be too complicated an idea.

[Why does it seem that there are more Thalmor fans or fans of Elven and Argonian/Khajiit Races as compared to Human Races (100% respectful)]

... Oblivion isn't a bad game though and is widely praised though...

 

Not by me it isn't. In fact, i think it's the worst game Bethesda has ever made, and is almost insultingly poorly slapped together and lazy.

 

It is totally devoid of any individual character, lacks any sort of cultural identity for the Cyrods, is an artistic vacuum, is ugly as sin, has some of the worst writing i have experienced outside of an Obsidian game, and lacks a single interesting character.

 

And that's without even delving into it's atrocious gameplay mechanics.

[Why does it seem that there are more Thalmor fans or fans of Elven and Argonian/Khajiit Races as compared to Human Races (100% respectful)]

They absolutely do, but so far, they've been handled in a less boring manner. For the most part. ESO's take on the Green Pact is terribly boring, to the point where i've gone from loving the Bosmer, to just wanting to burn Valenwood down and pretending it never existed...

 

But the Khajiit, Argonians and Dunmer? Fantastic, each is leagues ahead of anything we've gotten about Nords, Redguard, Bretons and Imperials combined. Though, i will admit, Oblivion being so absurdly bad definitely weighs down that group.

[Why does it seem that there are more Thalmor fans or fans of Elven and Argonian/Khajiit Races as compared to Human Races (100% respectful)]

For my part, it's simply the fact i don't like any of the Human cultures. They're all the same boring psudo-European analogues with nothing to really make them interesting. Had they followed the PGE1 a bit closer in the creation of Cyrodiil and Skyrim, maybe there'd be something to spark some interest there, but as it stands... They're all just so dreadfully boring.

 

I'd rather an interesting evil group over a boring good group any day.

[Lachdonin's RPG Rambling]

Mechanics (continued)

 

 

 

 

Combat

 

 

 

 

Combat is one of, if not THE primary component of the gameplay loop of most games. It's importance to the general flow of a game cannot be overstated, and it is the cornerstone upon which gaming as a whole is built (like it or not). As such, thought needs to be put into combat systems, and they need to be executed in such a way that complements the other aspects of the game, but at the same time are able to stand on their own.

 

This is further complemented by the Split Perspective issues talked about before. First Person and Third Person each come with their own pros and cons when it comes to combat systems, and there is a need for whatever is chosen to work well from both perspectives. This limits a lot of options and requires a reliance on fundamental ideas rather than overly refined execution.

 

Principles

 

 

 

 

The principles of combat i'm going to be working off here i will call Control, Variability and Versatility.

 

Control is all about giving the Player the direct influence over the Character, and ensuring that they make the second to second decisions and the gameplay reacts accordingly. This is really the difference between the Character doing exactly what you want, when you want, and having to 'game' the system with tricks like Animation Canceling and Cycle-Resets. For many, this is probably a leaning on raw Player Skill, but hopefully the overall flow of things will balance the idea out.

 

Variability is the notion that everything in the system should allow for as many potential variables as possible, so long as they don't convolute the interaction. Attacks, for instance, should be executed in such a way that allows them to facilitate Damage Types and Modifiers on Weapons, rather than just a one-dimensional Damage stat. The more variability, the better, and this allows for more representation of Character Skill and equipment.

 

Versatility is to Variability what Precision is to Accuracy. They are related, but distinct, and intended to complement eachother to create a superior whole. The system needs to be mechanically versatile, allowing for the customization of play styles and accommodating different approaches to the concept of 'Kill Everything'. A system based around 'Beat it till it stops moving' isn't going to offer that sort of versatility, so while that option should be available, there needs to be enough actual mechanical choices to allow players to experience a range of combat dynamics.

 

 

 

 

Mechanical Breakdown

 

 

 

 

Alright, nitty gritty time. How does combat work?

 

Attacks

 

 

 

 

There are two types of Attacks. Standard Attacks, and Techniques.

 

Standard Attacks come in two forms, Thrust and Swing. These are controlled through your normal attack inputs, such as Left Mouse and Right Mouse (governing the hand or direction of the attack) and differentiated between the standard Click and Hold variables. Left-Click thrusts with the Left Hand. Left-Hold swings with the Left Hand. Simple as that. This is the same across ALL MELEE WEAPONS. Doesn't matter if you're using a hammer or a sword, a spear or a pair of claws. You have direct control over the type of attack you use at all times.

 

Techniques are special attacks which replace both Power Attack, and Attack Cycle style options. Things like 'Power Attack', 'Twin Strike', 'Whirlwind' etc. These are controlled through a secondary input, such as Alt or Tab, using Click and Hold variables to differentiate between quick-use and pulling up a Radial Menu to select from your prepared options. This allows you to include a wider range of specialized movesets without compromising control, and the use of the Radial Menu allows for quick and easy selection on the fly (hotkey compatible, of course). The basic Techniques which everyone should start with are Overhead Chop (Power Attack) and Kick (you just kick someone).

 

 

 

 

Blocking and Parrying

 

 

 

 

Controversial idea, but ONLY Shields can Block. This is done through the Hold option of whatever hand is holding the Shield. The Click option is used for a bash, allowing you to more easily use your Shield as an impromptu weapon than in Skyrim. So, if you have a Shield equipped, it's Click-Bash, Hold-Block.

 

The alternative Active Defense option for weapons is to Parry, which for those unfamiliar is to ward off or redirect and attack with one of your own. This is done through simple timing, making an attack during your enemies attack to 'clash' and parry it. This sort of behaviour is already present in other games, such as Chivalry and Halo, and even Minecraft, so we know it's possible. Because it is time sensitive, faster attacks (such as Thrusts) are going to be more reliable at parrying, fostering a particular sort of playstyle around this defensive option (using a Parrying Dagger, for instance).

 

 

 

 

Stagger

 

 

 

 

Staggering should not be an all or nothing thing. Instead, it should be a spectrum of influences that 'stack' to create a range of interactions. Different actions have different 'levels' of Stagger, and it is possible to gain resistance to Stagger from various sources, meaning different enemies and encounters are going to have to be approached differently depending on the circumstances. The higher your Stagger, the worse the effects, ranging from a Recoil (interupt) to a Stumble (the recognizable Stagger) to a Knockdown (self explanatory)

 

For the sake of example;

1. Loss of 20% of your health in a single hit gives 1 Stagger
2. A Kick gives 1 Stagger
3. A Shield Bash gives 1 Stagger
4. A Parry gives 1 Stagger
5. Loss of 50% of your health in a single hit gives 2 Stagger

At base, you have 1 Stagger Resistance, meaning you must take 2 Stagger effects in short succession (say, 1.5 seconds) before you suffer any ill effects. This goes for enemies as well (depending on the enemy, of course, a rat probably wouldn't have any Stagger Resistance). So, against a normal enemy, you could Parry for 1 Stagger, Bash for a second, Kick for a third, and a second Bash to knock them straight to the ground. In principle, it should allow for a range of combat interactions that better allow you to control a room, while also leaving space for creating encounters that require quicker thinking (a build focused on Staggering enemies may not work so well when you encounter a Giant, for instance).

 

Bear in mind, this particular idea is entirely conceptual. While i have mechanically played around with the flow of keybindings, i don't know of any such system in gaming and have not been able to practically test it out beyond pressing dead keys to see how the interaction and timing works out.

 

 

 

 

Resources

 

 

 

 

While your Skills, Perks and Equipment dictate how well you can fight, your Resources dictate how long you can. Whether it's getting beaten down, or exhausted, your Resources and how you spend them should be a bit part of the strategy of combat. There is almost always 3 types of Resources, and they go by many names, but in TES at least they are Health, Stamina and Magicka.

 

Health is the main limiting resource in the game. Health hits 0, you die. In principle, any way. I think it's gotten a little... Confused as to what Health actually represents. I won't go into the long-winded concept here, but i think Health should be divided into 2 things. Health, and Trauma. Simple enough to implement, Health is your normal regenerating bar that drops every time you take a hit. Trauma is handled like Fallout 4's Radiation, serving to decrease your maximum Health. The more Trauma you take, the easier it is for you to do down.

 

Stamina is the currency you pay to act. Every action you make costs Stamina, and managing that resource should be important. Similar to Health, i think Stamina should be divided between Stamina, and Fatigue. Just like Health, i think Fallout 4's Radiation mechanic fits perfectly here, with your Fatigue increasing every time you deplete your Stamina, but Stamina regenerating naturally. So, the more you push your self, the faster you'll tire, but if you can successfully pace yourself you can go for a very long time.

 

Magicka is a tougher nut to crack. It's the resource you spend to use Magic, yes, but it doesn't easily allow the same sort of division as Health and Stamina. It should be a more finite resource that needs to be rationed, rather than paced, so keeping regeneration to a minimum is probably the baseline solution, but there is still room for the Radiation Mechanic. Maintenance costs for active spells, such as Summons and Shields, a dynamic that actually already exists in Elder Scrolls Online.

 

 

 

 

Death & Defeat

 

 

 

 

As you take damage, your health drops, and your Trauma increases. But, unlike in most cases where if your Health hits 0, you die, i think more options can be included if death is not automatic. It still needs to be controlled and predictable, to a degree, but i think the division of Health and Trauma can open up a lot of opportunity, both in interaction and in equipment behaviors (more on that later). If your health ever hits 0, you are rendered unconscious and suffer an amount of Trauma depending on the situation. Being beaten down by a pack of hungry wolves is going to result in more Trauma than if you're knocked out by some bandits who just want your money and equipment, for instance. So long as this does not push your Trauma up to a certain threshold (say, start at 70%, and have Perks that allow that value to shift) the Radiant Storytelling system kicks in, and you suffer a fate that creates a new scenario for you. Maybe you wake up injured in the woods, or naked by the side of the road, or locked up in some Bandit Camp and have to escape. Death is still The End, but this way we can create a little more fuzzy a line between life and death.

 

This sort of interaction applies to Enemies as well. If you manage to reduce an enemies Health to 0, without causing too much Trauma, they are rendered unconscious and you can interact with them as you please. This opens up the possibility for Living Bounties, Enemies surviving encounters and coming back with a grudge, or the ability to haul friendly NPCs out of combat and save them. Lots of juicy options to be had.

 

 

 

 

Damage and Armour

 

 

 

 

How weapons deal damage, and how armour reacts to it, would have course have to change along with these sorts of alterations. First off, different types of weapons should do different types of damage, and different types of armour should offer greater or lesser protection against different types of damage. Second, you should be able to reasonably ascertain what sort of damage is going to be best against an opponent by looking at them. An exposed, fleshy enemy is going to be vulnerable to cutting, whereas a heavily armoured one is going to require some more blunt force trauma.

 

Every Weapon has 2 attack characteristics (Thurst and Swing) and each does one of 3 Damage Types; Cut, Crush, Pierce. So, your average Sword would do Pierce on a Thrust, and Cut on a Swing. Each Technique has their own special requirements and Damage Type associated with it.

 

Armour has 3 Armour Ratings, one for each Damage Type. In the past, Armour has been calculated through various formula, but the use of Health and Trauma allows us to get rid of all that. Armour is a flat value (modified by Perks of course) which prevents that amount of Trauma, converting it into pure Health damage.

 

So, if you swing a sword for 10 Cut damage, and the target has 7 Cut Armour, then they take 3 Trauma and 7 Damage. Remember, Damage regenerates, whereas Trauma does not (and requires treatment, either through magic, medicine or rest). In this way, Armour makes you less likely to die, but you still have to pay attention. Enough hits, quick enough, can still knock you out, even if you're armoured to the nines.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dialogue

 

 

 

 

The second (and some would erroneously argue most important) major interactive mechanism in most RPGs is Dialogue. How you engage with and interact with other actors is a generally important part of how you receive information. But it's also a big part of the more common methods of world building and character interaction.

 

In general, i think a good dialogue system needs to be able to do a few things. It needs to handle information delivery, conversational interaction, and be as unobtrusive as possible. I think that traditional Dialogue systems, especially the Talking Heads dynamic, fail the hardest in the last part. Controversially, i think the best system we have seen in a game, to date, is Fallout 4. Not in terms of it's execution, of course, but based on it's core behaviours and what could be done with them.

 

Interaction

 

 

 

 

Looking at an NPC within a certain radius prompts dialogue options. These are handled through secondary inputs (Arrow Keys, Num Pad, D-Pad, ABXY, ect). Looking away, these inputs resort to normal. So you can only engage in dialogue while actively looking at an NPC, but you can move seamlessly between Dialogue and general interaction. Later i will include an example of what sort of interaction should be possible with this system.

 

 

 

 

Options

 

 

 

 

The interface is simple. You use branching dialogue menus, the number of which are dependent on what inputs you are using, but with a little organization you can use topical options to make categories clear. Within a single branch, Arrow-Keys/ABXY can handle 16 possible options, and D-Pad/Num-Pad can handle a whopping 32, there is no reason to artificially limit this system.

 

If a game features a voiced PC, then the actual options (not necessarily the categories) MUST be as explicit as possible. Players should know exactly what their character is going to say before making the choice. Even Wild Hunt fails utterly at this. If the PC is silent, however, you can use more vague, categorical options and allow Players to fill in the blanks, so long as the context of the option is clear.

 

For the sake of clarity, options that have a further layer can be denoted with a symbol or different colour, while actual Dialogue Choices do not. That way you know which options progress the conversation, and which are just gateways to more options.

 

 

 

 

Disposition & Persuasion

 

 

 

 

Disposition should serve as the primary gating system for Dialogue. People are unwilling to give you information, tasks, or really even talk to you if they don't like or trust you, after all.

 

All dialogue options have a Disposition value. If your current disposition with an NPC does not meet or exceed that value, they will refuse to respond, instead saying something like "I don't feel comfortable talking about that with you". This then prompts a universal Persuasion option, allowing you to Persuade, Intimidate, Bribe or simply move on. When engaging in persuasion, the choices value is checked against their Disposition, and if it exceeds the requirement, the check is passed and you can bypass the normal value and carry on. This means that persuasion checks should be far, FAR more common than they have ever been, in any RPG to date.

 

How do you raise Disposition, though? Three primary means.

 

Repeated presence; The more often you are around, and interact with NPCs, the more they'll get to know you and like you. Something as simple as a 1-level Dialogue Option such as 'Greet' could help fulfill this world, making the PC feel more like an individual in the world, interacting with it's inhabitants.

 

Doing tasks; completing tasks for NPCs will of course make them like you more. But it should also have an overflow effect based on their relationships with other NPCs. Help out one guy, and his family will like you more, and be more willing to talk to you. But his rival down the street may be LESS likely to see you favourably. Put those Relationship options in Skyrim to good use.

 

Fame; Certain tasks should generate a sort of global modifier, whether universal or linked to factions. Not everything, of course, but big ticket deeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Character

 

 

 

 

The nitty gritty of all RPGs relate to how character stats are built and develop. Whether it's the JRPG model of structured characters that fit into niches and progress automatically, or the WRPG model of player-driven development choice, character stats, what they do, and how they progress is the core of what defines an RPG.

 

My first RPG was Heroes Quest; So you want to be a hero?, later renamed Quest for Glory 1. While i have played many, many more since then, it's Improve-by-Doing style of gameplay has always resonated more with me than the traditional EXP driven system, which is why i generally favour The Elder Scrolls' style of character development. Skyrim in particular offers one of the best RPG platforms i have ever seen, though it wasn't really used to it's full potential.

 

Attributes

 

 

 

 

Attributes are the broadest category of Character Stats. They represent major physical characteristics in a vague sense, and have wide reaching impact across multiple activities. Each point of an attribute increases the effectiveness of all Skills and Perks that relate to that Attribute. Simple enough in theory, but in practice it's a little different.

Attributes cannot be generally obtained independently. They are obtained through Perks, and this is used to represent the specificity of Attributes, rather than using them as a general catch-all. It is also through Perks that their impact is felt. A Skill that has no active Strength Perks will see no benefit from an increase in Strength.

 

Attributes have a secondary role for Perk Gating. Some Perks should require certain Attribute prerequisites. For instance, a Perk that increases your maximum Health should require sufficient points in Attributes relating to physical endurance of mental pain tolerance.

 

Hopefully this will become more clear later, but the goal here is to increase the range of Attributes versatility as a stat-block, and allow you to, in essence, 'Skip Leg Day'. So you can have different sorts of Strong Characters, different sorts of Smart Characters, instead of them all being the same.

 

 

 

 

Skills

 

 

 

 

Skill as broad Activity-Driven components to character development that cover the primary mechanisms for progression, and activity. They should be divided into groups based on like-activity, without becoming too specific. So, no Sword skill, but 1-Handed Weapon is fine.

 

They should also all be focused on active elements of gameplay, rather than passive. Increasing Skills should require a deliberate investment of time and energy, rather than be something that simply happens without consideration. So, things less like the traditional TES Athletics Skill, which just passively increases as you move around.

 

Skills serve a dual purpose. They are the main way you progress, with Skill Increases being the driving mechanism behind generating EXP. The higher your level, the more EXP you require to level. The higher the Skill level, the more EXP it generates, encouraging specialisation. The second function is as the main gating system for Perks. All Skill-Perks require a particular Skill Level before they become available.

 

Skills themselves shouldn't really do much. They're the driving leveling system, not the primary power-curve.

 

 

 

Perks

 

 

 

 

Perks are the point of specificity, and the primary mechanism for number increases when it comes to development. Level up, you get a point to invest in a Perk. This retroactively represents what you've spent the last level learning and practicing. When you buy Armsman, it's just saying you've spent the last 2 weeks practicing your swing.

 

Perks are divided into 2 groups. Skill Perks, and Non-Skill Perks.

 

Skill Perks focus on specialisation and development within a Skill Concept. This where things like Sword, Axe, and Dagger fit into a 1-Handed Weapon Skill. Each Perk has an associated Attribute, with each rank of a Perk (where applicable) increases that Attribute by 1 point.

 

Non-Skill Perks are Perks which don't fit into Skill based concepts. Things like increased Health, Damage Resistance, Luck etc. You could also fit in Racial, Faction, Pantheon and any other non-Skill related categories in here as well. In most cases they are gated by Attributes, but you could also gate them through Skill combinations as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Economy.

 

 

 

 

Ok, this is a big one. As it stands, RPGs have generally had static economies. Items are worth a flat value, and the general wealth curve is constant. In more linear RPGs, this isn't so much a problem, but in open-world, open-ended games it tends to cause wealth to spiral out of control, and quickly. The coin in your purse generally doesn't mean a lot after the first hour or two, and this is a problem. A good system remains relevant forever, or at least as long as practically possible, and money in RPGs hasn't been relevant for a very long time.

 

So how do you fix this? Just upping costs only makes early interaction more tedious, while prolonging the inevitable without injecting any new interaction to the dynamic. Decreasing gains does the exact same thing. The core problem lies in the fact it is a static, non-interactive dynamic.

 

4X games solved the Economy issue more than 20 years ago. They use direct influences to change the value of goods and resources, creating a shifting dynamic where an individual commodities value depends on the number of potential sources, compared to the demand, and can be disrupted both by destruction and obstruction of trade routes. By adopting this sort of 4X economic background, you can inject a great deal of active decision making into the gameplay, allowing you to increase some prices, create storytelling opportunities, and even layer into encounter sites and dungeons.

 

Locations

 

 

 

 

In a very simple sense, Locations are divided into 2 categories. Hostile and Friendly. Friendly locations are those populated by non-hostile entities, typically being Forts, Towns, Cities, Mines etc. Each Friendly location both Produces and Consumes Goods.

 

Hostile Locations are those that typically spawn hostile encounters. These sites generate an influence around them, dependent on the Level and Encounter Type.

 

 

 

 

Goods

 

 

 

 

Goods are grouped into categories, as general or as complex as desired. They can be as vague as Foodstuffs, or as specific as Apples, with the more specific leading to a more complex the overall economic system. ALL Items fit into a Category, with their base value being modified based on the Supply and Demand of that Category.

 

 

 

 

Trade Routes

 

 

 

 

All Friendly Locations are linked by Trade Routes. These are tracked by Land, through roads and pathways, or by Sea, which link all port cities. 'Trade' moves both ways along trade routes, with all locations having access to all active routes.

 

As an added level of complexity, you can track in-game regions, and have goods track how many regions it requires to reach a certain location. This way, goods are cheaper, closer to the source, and prices increase the further they have to travel. They always track the shortest possible route, however.

 

 

 

 

Disruptions

 

 

 

 

When a Hostile Location's Influence intersects with a Trade Route, it cuts off that line of trade. Be it because of ferocious beasts, or bandit activity, trade along that route is no longer safe, and becomes Interrupted. Trade adjusts along alternative routes, if any are available.

 

If none are available, then the trade along that route gets cut off, which can lead to Friendly locations becoming isolated.

 

If an encounter group is defeated and a Hostile Location cleared, it's influence resets to 0, clearing the disruption.

 

 

 

 

Value Scaling

 

 

 

 

Goods have both Demand, and Production values, depending on the number of potential sources, and the consumption of the sites along the trade routes. The more sources of Production, the less valuable goods tend to be. While Trade Routes don't shift Demand, disruptions can change supply by decreasing Production along the network, leading to an increase in prices.

 

The larger the population of a Friendly Location, the higher it's Demand tends to be. So a Capital City may have a Demand such as Foodstuff; 14. If disruptions along routes causes the Supply to drop below 14, then the value of items in the Foodstuff category will go up, as there is now a shortage.

 

 

 

 

Dynamic Interactions

 

 

 

 

This sort of model allows for more world interaction to happen automatically, as well as giving the player options on how they want to engage with the world themselves. If a Hostile Location interferes with trade, a contract to clear it out may appear in a local guild, or bounty board, giving grounded reasons for organizations like The Fighters Guild to go out and actually work. If the problem gets bad enough, the local Guard may dispatch a force to clear it out themselves, cleaning up the problem and opening the trade routes, without the players direct input. When the Hostile Location respawns, it gradually increases in threat again, and the process repeats.

 

This creates a constant ebb and flow of interactions, which serves to both integrate randomized tasks into the world, but also drive the notion that it's a living, changing thing. It's not entirely on the Player's head to keep everything running, but they have ample opportunity to engage with the dynamic. They can take missions to clear out enemies, or capitalize on disruptions by running the roads themselves as a trader, delivering goods where they're needed most.

 

More importantly, however, this creates a shifting market that changes the relevancy of money, allowing you to significantly increase the costs of some things without overburdening the player, because you've already created a dynamic that allows them to maximise their earnings while engaging with the gameplay. Paying attention to what to sell, and when, creates another mini-game within the larger game world, but one that flows naturally rather than being intrusive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

World Scaling

 

 

 

 

Any sort of open-ended game needs some way to adjust the difficulty of content to keep the player engaged as they progress in power. Relying on static worlds leads to a predictable exploration path, which isn't exactly good for open world games, as it locks you into particular paths of progress. So, some sort of scaling model that adjusts over time is necessary to ensure long-term viability of the world and the engaging experience.

 

At the same time, making the scaling totally linked to the players status doesn't work either, as it disrupts the power curve and just ends up overpopulating the world with powerful enemies, which itself can have devastating consequences. So what's needed is something in between.

 

Hostile Encounter Locations

 

 

 

 

Hostile Locations fall into 2 categories. Narrative and Random.

 

Narrative locations have a specific story or encounter set associated with them. Whether this be related to major storylines, or location-specific plots, the first time you explore these sites they are populated by set entities, determined by the stories narrative and it's Difficulty Level. Once cleared, and their narrative resolved, they become Random. In terms of the Economy, these sites either have a set Influence around them (and their threat is most likely tied to their narrative purpose) or none at all.

 

Random locations are where the game's World Scaling really kicks in. Their Encounter Group and Difficulty Level change over time, independent of the actual Character Level. As they increase in Difficulty Level, their Influence extends, until they are cleared in which case they reset until they respawn with a new Encounter Group.

 

 

 

 

Encounter Groups

 

 

 

 

Return of the Ninja Monkeys! For the most part, instead of actual entities, spawn locations in and around a site are replaced with some kind of marker, designating the specific spawn location, which includes a list of possible spawns depending on the sites active Encounter Group.

 

In essence, when a site resets, an Encounter Group is selected from the designated list for that site. This could be a pack of Wolves moving in, or a Necromancer setting up shop in a tomb, or a group of Bandits holding up in a cave. The Encounter Group determines the types of creatures you are likely to encounter at that site for now.

 

 

 

 

Difficulty Level

 

 

 

 

Simple enough. The higher the Difficulty Level, the higher the level of the entities that spawn. As time goes on, the Difficulty Level of active Random Hostile Locations increases, and their Influence increases along with it. If, for any reason, the Site is cleared (Guards, the Player, Faction involvement) then it's difficulty resets upon the conclusion of it's respawn timer (ex 1 in game week).

 

Obviously, the higher the Difficulty Level, the more dangerous the Site, but the greater the rewards.

 

 

 

So, in essence, a Site will progress in level independently of the Player, until such a time as either the Player an automatic process clears it out, at which point it resets to a lower level. So, over time, the locations around the map should constantly be shifting in their difficulty, which combined with the Economy should present a far more dynamic world to experience.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[female]

You can play Skyrim as a female, out of the box with zero mods.

[Why hate Ulfric?]

 

A days walk literally gets you anywhere from Windhelm.

 

You... you are aware that Skyrim is bigger in-universe, than it is in-game, right? It's at least the size of North Dakota, on the smallest estimates, or almost as big as Europe on the highest. A days walk gets you nowehre useful, least of all where you can survive. You might as well blame people living in the ghetto for not just leaving and moving somewhere nice.

 

Based on Skyrim's demographics, the social divide between Nords and Non-Nords is strongest in Windhelm. You don't have to to be overtly racist to identify wider socioeconomic concerns which represent wider racial schisms.

 

Does this mean the Dunmer and Argonians aren't part of the problem as well? Absolutely not. The Dunmer are extremely insular and xenophobic, and outright hostile to their neighbours in some cases.

 

But simply hand waving away racism because there are more non-Nords in Whiterun than other cities, is frankly absurd. You might as well pretend Racism in Detroit isn't a problem because it's got the highest ratio of Blacks in the country.

 

Absolute poppycock.

[Why hate Ulfric?]

I do not hate Ulfric because he is racist. There's no real evidence of that, at least no more than anyone else in Tamriel.

 

I hate Ulfric because he is a traitor, a hypocrite, and a demagogue. He betrayed the Greybeards, the Empire, and the Pact of Chieftans. He demands for his people the very thing he slaughtered others for demanding (the Reachmen). And he leads a cult of personality in a pointless civil war against his own people for the sake of his own pride and ego.

 

Ulfric is everything wrong with Populism.

 

 

Fun Fact: there is no other city that has more non-humans than Windhelm.

 

I mean... you could say the same thing about Menzoberranzan and Neverwinter. There are twice as many non-Drow in Menzoberranzan as Drow, and it's population is far more diverse than the supposed multi-cultural hub of the northern Sword Coast. Except, the overwhelming majority of those non-Drow are slaves.

 

Raw population stats don't indicate cultural or racial diversity.

[The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Immersive Edition - A Demand For Todd Howard - 100,000 Likes Petition]

 

And frankly, I'd rather see Bethesda focus it's attention on ES6 instead issuing (yet another) remaster for Skyrim.

 

 

I'd rather they focus on anything approaching good game development. I don't care if it's for Fallout, Starfield, TES or some other unnamed IP. One of Bethesda's biggest problems is their unwillingness, or inability, to spend any time polishing their design. They get it to "It works" and move on to the next thing. And the end result is, and has always been, games that are cobbled together out of half-implemented ideas that utterly fail to realize their own potential.

[The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Immersive Edition - A Demand For Todd Howard - 100,000 Likes Petition]

Todd Howard is not going to look at this, nor care. You can't even demand a well made game from him, you expect him to actually have the wherewithal to act on your personal preferences and build a more immersive game for you?

[Lachdonin's RPG Rambling]

This has been a long time in coming, and I've been trying to figure out some better format for it through different sites, but to no avail. So, back to the tried and tested.This is going to exist primarily because it's a formatting set which i know will accomplish what i want, and know how to use, so i can reference back to it from elsewhere when needed.

 

Over the last several years, I've been picking through ideas, dynamics, references and systems to create what i beleive would be the best model for not only The Elder Scrolls, but for a truely next-gen RPG. Through numerous conversations in various dark corners of the internet, ranging from the Bethesda Forums to Reddit, The Nexus to Facebook, i've tried to incorporate my own preferances and the voiced concerns and preferances of others. As such, this is not my ideal game, but rather the sort of game I think would have mass appeal, stand the test of time, and push the genre forward.

 

For the sake of clarity, I am going to divide this into 3 basic sections, each with their own contained categories. Concepts. Mechanics. Specifics. I will also do my best to colour code like-topics, so they can be more easily identified and related to one another. For instance, anything related to the Warrior paradigm will be marked in Red, with shades used for slightly differing variations. I will also be breaking things down in Spoiler tags to keep them compartmentalised and make the incoming wall of text more approachable.

 

So, without further ado...

 

Concepts

Within this section, i will explain the basic concepts and philosophies to which i have subscribed when going through this process. This will hopefully help set the framework for what follows, so everyone is able to understand why i have approached things the way i have.

 

What is an RPG?

This is something that comes up a lot in various conversations, with all kinds of different answers. What makes an RPG? What are, if any, it's inherent qualities? How do you gauge if an RPG is good or bad based on these?

As far as i am concerned, Role Playing Game is best defined as follows;

 

A game which the outcome of most actions is determined by the Characters abilities, rather than the Players.

 

That's it. No necessitating Choices in Narrative. No necessitating of particular mechanics or solutions to problems. Nothing about a changing world, or developing relationships, or even being in total control of a character's identity. The Witcher 3 is as much of an RPG as Skyrim, or Final Fantasy 14, or World of Warcraft, or Baldurs Gate, or Ultima or Quest for Glory. All an RPG needs is some measure of control over the development of your character, beyond what weapon you pick up off the ground.

 

Tradition vs Innovation

I am not a traditionalist. I never have been, and i hope to god i never become one. If I think there is a better solution to a problem, i will express it, and the traditional model be damned. This is going to come up with some of the more radical claims i am going to make, so if you happen to be the sort who subscribes to the idea that there is a 'Proper' way to make an RPG (for instance, Skyrim not being an RPG because it did away with Classes) and who holds to that religiously, then get out now. You are not going to approve of what is to follow.

 

With that in mind, i will generally be erring on the side of core concepts rather than traditional solutions to problems. For instance, when looking at Attributes it is less about how they are used in other games traditionally, and more about what those concepts represent, and how to better handle them moving forward. This philosophy will extend to basically everything, so be prepared for me to ramble on about the IDEA of something, and how that idea can pr should be expressed.

 

Knowledge and Referances

I am not a games designer. I am not a particularly proficent programmer. I have dabbled in modding for some games (Rimworld, BGS games) and done some scripting work for a D&D campaign through Tabletop Simulator, but i am not, nor will i ever claim to be an expert in this field.

 

As such, whenever possible i will cite other games which have executed on an idea i am borrowing from as evidence of it being possible. This is unfortunately going to be a bit derivative because of that, and lack what i would call 'True Innovation', but because of my own lack of experience regarding the craft i feel it is the best way to ensure practicality and keep things from just being a pipe dream.

 

Alright, those out of the way, we can get into more specific concepts rather than just broad overarching philosphies. The following are more relating to specifics of design rather than my own philosphies, and are the start of the actual game-concept i am presenting.

 

Paradigms

The starting point which i have used to inspire all other ideas is what i have dubbed Paradigms. These are the 3 primary approaches to gameplay, inspired by the 3 Guardian Signs of The Elder Scrolls. Warrior, Mage and Thief.

 

The Warrior is centered around direct problem solving, confrontation and physicality. They don't go around problems, they go through them, usually leaving a mess behind them.

 

The Thief is thoughtful and prepared, prefering more subtle problem solving. They prefer to go around a problem, and even when confronted with something they can't get around rely on precision and thoughtful application of force.

 

The Mage solves problems with Magic. Simple enough in principle, but application is a little different. They have a tool for every job, sometimes several, and are focused more on picking how they want to approach any given problem. But being spoilt for choice comes with it's own challenges, and they get the downside of having an entirely seperate resource to juggle amidst the fray.

 

The three Paradigms define how i approach broader concepts and gameplay dynamics. Whenever possible, i try to incorporate them into the design, with 3 distinct approaches, variables or themes running throughout many of the main systems. And i have tried to always keep them equal. if something has 3 Warrior influences, it requires 3 Thief and 3 Mage ones as well.

 

Freedom

I do not beleive in absolute freedom. I don't think it really adds to the game, and can in fact compromise it in many ways. That said, i know it's important to many, so i've tried to stifle my own personal preferances in favour of accomodating as many as possible. So in general, i will be erring on the side of as much freedom as possible, without compromising narrative integrity and functional gameplay.

 

Difficulty

I will preface this with a statement. I hate Dark Souls. I think it is fundimentally poor game design, and has no place in future development of RPGs. It is a clunky, action-driven model that is entirely dependent on Player Skill, while fundimentally mistaking Punishment for Challenge.

 

Difficulty should emphasie challging engagement, not through unforgiving punishment for mistakes, but rather through necessitating greater management and comprehension of the systems at play. Lower difficulties should allow for relatively easy, thoughtless interaction, but the more you up that slider the more each and every variable becoems important to not only manage the game's variables, but understadn what they do and when that matters.

So, expect more Civilization inspired difficulty, and little to no Dark Souls. The key is to make you have to juggle more balls, not slap you in the face while juggling them.

 

Storytelling

Simlarly to the previous, i am not fond of the trend in games for Choice Driven storytelling, Branching Narratives, or Alternate Endings. In fact, i think they inherently weaken the story, compromise characters and events, and strip the narrative of any lasting or worthwhile consequence.

As a general rule, i won't be delving too much into specific stories, but i will touch on how stories work and how they should interact with aspects of the game. So bear in mind that this will almost never include the ability to to make mutually exclusive choices that change the outcome of a story, and will always put the integrety of the narrative before player agency.

 

Good stroytelling makes you feel engaged and an active player in the story, even when it's course is ultimately written for you.

 

Gameplay

My philosophy on Gameplay is simple. A good game can stand on gameplay alone, even if it's story is garbage, but the best story can't save terrible gameplay. Gameplay should be clean, variable and directly controled. The more you automate, the more you're taking away from the moment to moment gameplay. But this is also an RPG we're talking about, and the meat is always going to be in the Stats and Variables you get to play with. So you need dynamic activity that allows for a great deal of depth.

 

At the same time, it needs to be approachable. New players shouldn't be greeted with a wall of numbers and stats right out of the gate, and while the depth needs to be accessable, it should not be forced, with the game remaining playable for the casual audience. Whenever possible, the core interaction should be clear, simple and easy to use, with the main body of depth being in secondary, optional systems.

 

A quick example of this is Armour. You don't need Morrowind's 8 Armour Slots (or more) when you can make do with Skyrim's 4. You can offload all of that customization, and more, into Crafting. You keep the basic interaction simple, but allow those who want to delve deeper plenty to play with.

 

Perspective

We engage with games in two distinct perspectives. First Person and Third Person. and both come with their own strangths and limitations. A game purely made for one or the other is always going to better emphasise the strengths of a particular perspective, and will feel better in that perspective than a hybrid.

 

That said, because of the split of opinion, picking one or the other will mean diminished potential players to enjoy. Picking both means trying to work within the limitations of each to maximise the range of people who can play, but sacrificing the refinement of a single pure perspective.

 

Personally, i am a First Person player. I find it more engaging, more viceral, more immersive and just plain more fun. But i recognise that there are many who prefer 3rd person, some of whom would actively avoid a game that did not offer 3rd person. As such, everything that follows will be taken from a Hybrid Perspective. Everything must work within both a First Person and Third Person model.

 

 

Alright, with that all out of the way, we can more onto more technical things.

Mechanics.

Simple enough in principle. How things work, and why. This is where you're liable to see the most referances to other games, but also where some things may be controvercial to those reading. I will of course endeavour to explain why i think something should be a particular way while proceding.

 

Mobility

Movement is integral to most games. Not all, granted, but most. In a very general sense, i think Skyrim has the right of things when it comes to general movement, and that should be refined rather than fundimentally changed. Precision and control are paramount, and it should not be compromised with an over-emphasis on inertia and animation cycles. That means more Skyrim or Vermintide, less The Witcher 3 or (shiver) Red Dead Redemption 2. But raw movement isn't all that's needed, and in order to push games forward, a wider range of mobility options are needed.

 

Movement

 

The general model for Movement in games is solid. Left-Analogue/WASD to move in a direction, Right-Analogue/Mouse to control facing. and Camera. Simple, clean and effective. No real changes needed.

 

Jumping & Dodging

 

I generally feel that Vermintide and Vermintide 2 have nailed this movement system. Jump (A/X/Space) behaves like a Mode, rather than a single action. Press it to jump vertically. Hold it and pick a direction to have an Acrobatic Effect. Forward is a jump forward, great for leaping over gaps. To the Sides or Back instead does a quickstep, or Dodge, in that direction. So no more silly jumping backwards, but now you have an actual Dodge function.

And no Rolls. Rolls are dumb.

 

Climbing and Parkour

 

This is something many people have brought up in conversations over the years, and it’s something that’s proven difficult to reference. Not because it doesn’t exist in gaming, but rather because there are so many approaches to it, it’s difficult to nail down which one is the most appropriate to examine.

 

In terms of Parkour, i think a simple model would be easy enough to handle. Many games have used context-sensitive ‘Jumps’ to interact with environmental objects to vault over things, pull yourself up onto things and so forth. Hold Jump as you’re moving, and you automatically interact with things you come into contact with. GTA does this, Halo does this, Thief did this. It’s been shown in a wide range of games across multiple styles.

 

Actual climbing is more difficult.

There have been 2 basic models for Climbing used in games. Free-form, and Location Specific. Ideally, Free-Form climbing offers far more versatility, but it's also more difficult to pull off. Games like Assassin's Creed and Dying Light have shown, however, that it's manageable in both First and Third Person perspectives, and Breath of the Wild allowed for even scaling of sheer surfaces. So, i think Free-Form is perfectly viable in this day and age. Control should be relatively simple, hold Jump against a surface (that you cannot otherwise jump or vault over) and if it's Climbable, you start climbing. You can gate surfaces to Skills, Perks or Equipment as desired, and regulate the activity with Stamina.

Swimming

Swimming is a tricky one, not because of it's general controls (those have been long since solidified and mastered) but because of it's need to interact reasonably with the environment. Simulating buoyancy and momentum can be difficult, and overdoing it can quickly compromise the gameplay. But under doing it leaves swimming a largely meaningless experience, and turns it into levitation with a water effect on screen.

The general control model for Swimming is fine. Use Left-Stick/Mouse to control the facing, Right-Stick/WASD to control movement. Beyond that, tweaking drift and momentum is going to be situational.

Flying

Flying generally comes in two forms, which i will call Momentum and Anti-Gravity.

Momentum based flying is like that of a bird. It requires a degree of movement in a forward direction and constant motion to work. Many games have implemented this sort of flight, from GTA's planes to Far Cry's gliders, so it's not exactly uncommon. Any sort of flying mount, or flying animal, should follow this sort of movement.

Anti-Gravity, on the other hand, is movement along the Z axis with no need for momentum. It's levitation, more or less, and tends to be more rare in games. If used at all, it should behave more like Swimming, though perhaps without the need for drifting and momentum.

Fast Travel

Honestly, i think Fast Travel, as it stands, is functionally alright. It's already set to generally take more in-game time than if you ran the distance yourself, simulating a more careful trek likely along roads instead of sprinting cross country, and the problems it causes have more to do with quest distribution than the current system it's self. I would like to see more point-to-point travel nodes, like Carriages, such as we see in Morrowind, but functionally i think the system in Skyrim is perfectly alright.

Sailing

This is something that i have only recently come to believe is really doable, and i still have my doubts. I think some combination of Assassins' Creed; Black Flag and Sea of Thieves would be the best approach, allowing you to issue orders to NPCs to elicit simple commands (such as trim sails, fire port, repair hull etc). Mechanically, all the tools already exist, it's just a matter of getting the AI to behave how you want.

Interaction

Interaction is another big element of any game. How you interact with the game world, and what those interactions mean, drives large parts of gameplay. For the sake of not overburdening this section, i'm leaving Dialogue and Combat, both interactions in their own rights, as separate categories, because they are more involved.

Item Interaction

Pretty simple. How you interact with Items (defined as any object you can put into your inventory). These can be anything from plates, to foodstuffs, to weapons, to coins. For the sake of interaction, i think there are a few things we need to be able to do.

One, you need to be able to place an item from the game-world into your inventory. This one is simple, simply tap the necessary interaction key (such as E on the Keyboard).

Two, you need to be able to hold the item in the game world to move it. Again, simple, just hold the interaction key.

Three, ideally you should be able to throw said item, allowing for improvised weapons, environmental interactions or sound based distractions. Again, pretty simple to handle with an input combination. While holding the interaction key (E) tap an attack command (such as Mouse-1) to throw whatever you're holding.

Four, there really needs to be a more precise mechanism for placing objects in the game world. Lets face it, we all spend way too much time decorating our homes in these sorts of games, and the physics-enabled, dangling interaction nonsense does not make it easy. So, for this i propose something simple. While holding an item, press Menu (I on keyboard). This enters an Item Placement mode similar to the Settlement system found in Fallout 4 and 76, allowing you more direct control over the placement of an item.

Object Interaction

This is more about interacting with static, though mobile objects within the world. Things that are either too big to put in your inventory, or are anchored to the world in some way. Chandeliers, anchor lines, maybe even giant slingshots. Typically we're dealing with Physics Enabled objects here, and this could even include large blocks or crates that you need to drag around.

Simple controls. Tap the Interaction Key to give the thing a quick push (Strength variables could be included here) or Hold it to grab on and move it with you.

An alternative option could even be to pick up said object, which would allow this to expand to bodies as well. In which case, i think Tapping Interact would be better to lock into a 'Grab' interaction, with a second tap to release. Then Hold can be an activator for actually picking up said object, with a handful of interactions depending on it's type (drape a body over your shoulder, but instead lift up a barrel).

The overall point remains the same, however, as you're moving static objects about the world without putting them in your inventory. This opens up options for puzzles, and non-scripted environmental interactions, such as traps.

Scripted and Environmental Interactions

This pertains specifically to interactions that have a particular behavior or outcome at a particular location. Things like pulling a Lever, or lifting a heavy door for someone else to pass. Essentially, use the same model that TES currently uses for doors. Simple scripted interaction. Press Interact within range of the activatable, and go through the motions.

Using a scripted animation and positioning ensures reliability, while only sacrificing a little bit of control, and prevents any really weird interactions of problems with AI behaviours.

Similarly, there may be 'cut scene' interactions where necessary. These, likewise, will be activated upon interacting with something (a door or an object) or by reaching a certain physical location (a trigger point). Ideally, these should act out the script as necessary, WITHOUT changing the character perspective.

Stealth

Honestly, there's not much that can be said about Stealth. It's pretty garbage. Not only is is stupidly overpowered, but it's nonsensical. As it stands, the greatest stealth game (in my mind) is Thief 2. It combines sound, visual detection, and physical interaction to create the single best stealth experience in gaming. So i'm going to draw a lot of inspiration from that.

Detection States

Everyone can agree that detection states in most games are absurd. It's either all on witch hunt, or totally oblivious. While the general transition from one state to another isn't a problem, the limited number of NPC detection states are.

Calm; An NPC has no reason to believe there is a threat, and has a diminished state of awareness. For most general NPCs in town, this is probably going to be their default state.

Cautious; An NPC is actively maintaining a constant awareness of their surroundings for trouble, and has a heightened range of detection values. Guards will likely always be in this state, while certain enemies may be as well. In addition, any NPC which has actively engaged in combat will remain Cautious for several in-game hours, if not for a full 24 hours.

Alert; An NPC is either aware of, or suspects something is amiss, and is actively searching the area for the cause. Typically an NPC will enter this state after being alerted to an enemy, but losing visual track of them. An NPC that has taken damage will remain Alert for at LEAST 1 in-game hour, unless it is fleeing.

Engaged; an NPC has visual confirmation of an enemy and is actively in combat with them. If they lose visual on all enemies for more than a few minutes, they will revert to Alert and actively search for them.

Fleeing; An NPC is fleeing, either because they are a non-combatant (low aggression rating) or because they are heavily injured. They will continue to flee until they are either beyond render distance, or they have not detected a hostile entity for 1 in-game hour.

Sound

Sound is tracked through multiple variables that influence your Noise radius. These include your armour, which will have a sound rating determined by how much metal it consists of (more on that later) the surface you're moving on, your total weight, and how fast you're moving. If your Noise Radius ever intersects with an NPCs Detection Radius, they heard you and will become Alert, moving in the direction of their last detection to investigate.

Unless an NPC has some sort of echolocation ability (such as the Falmer) an NPC will never become engaged on sound alone.

In addition, moving any objects generates sound. This includes looting things off tables, with the sound being determined by the weight of the object.

Obviously, entities which have visually identified a threat can also sound an alarm, generating their own Noise Radius that activates any allies (and potentially enemies) within it's own radius.

Sight

True detection relies on visually acquiring a target. Just hearing something suspicious is not enough. All entities have a base visual range, in whatever 'units' the game uses (for the sake of argument, let's say Meters). This is the entities visual confirmation range in a well lit environment. Solid objects block line of sight, and light levels modify this distance.

So, for instance, an average Guard, with a base range of 30 meters, in low light (-60% visual range) would have to be within 12 meters of a threat to see it. Furthermore, the light level at the sight of the entity being detected is where the light gets calculated. This makes light sources interesting, as if the entity being detected were carrying a lit torch, it would be Well Lit (no negative) and the Guard could detect them 30 meters away, even if everything between them was Absolute Darkness (-100%).

There are lots of ways you can modify this range, such as various forms of cover decreasing the radius for the purposes of calculations, different modifications to equipment to make you blend in more (camouflage) or room for representing injuries and modifiers to individuals (Missing an eye, for instance).

Magic

This is going to be controversial, but i actually think Skyrim was on the right track with magic. It turned spellcasting into a gameplay model of it's own, rather than a supplementary approach like it had been in previous games. It was something you had to commit to, rather than something that you just did, on top of using a sword or bow. And i think moving forward with that philosophy is the best approach.

Casting

Just like in Skyrim, most spellcasting will be done by lining Spells to particular hands, and then using those spells like Weapons. The exact behaviors of the Spell will depend on their Type, with other variables thrown in. The exception to this being Spells which you are able to bind to your Powers Wheel, which can be activated with a tap of the Powers Button (Ctrl on Keyboard). More on that later.

Each Type of Spell has a particular casting animation, so thoughtful use of your spells may be necessary.

Composition

Where Skyrim really excelled regarding magic was the more complex behavioral composition of Magic. Rather than just using the same rolling magical orb for everything, Skyrim combines a range of scripted behaviors to create more unique spells. And i think structuring this model further is the best way forward. So, i would propose constructing all Magic based on particular categories of variables.

Type; Defines the casting animation used by a Spell, as well as it's primary transit behavior.

Behavior; Defines particular behaviors of a Spell to modify it's transit or activatable behavior.

Effect; What the Spell does when it's activated.

Modifier; End-state modifications to a spell that allow you to do things like increase it's magnitude, casting cost, duration, etc.

I will go into more detail about specific ideas regarding these later, to show how this system can be used to create familiar and unique spells.

Spell Crafting

Using the above model, i think it would be relatively easy to re-implement Spell Crafting, without the detached and clunky Spell Crafting system of yesteryear.

In essence, you combined parts on a set budget, determined by your magical knowledge (Perks) to create spells of your own. A Spell Matrix is a fragile thing, however, and you can only do so much, so for instance a Novice Spell can only have one Behavior, one Effect and one Modifier. But a Master Spell could have 3 Behaviors, 4 Effects, and 2 Modifiers. It makes for a system that is easy to expand as well.

**To be resumed**

[I have absolutely zero confidence in TES 6.]

 

I'm concerned if the game is too lazy / too mediocre

 

Almost definitely mediocre, rather than lazy. I think calling Bethesda lazy is disingenious. They put a hell of a lot of work into the games. They just aren't that good at their jobs.

[Mohammed]

Clumsy and blunt ones mostly that destroy story integrity.

 

 

Well, that's more an issue of poor storytelling and worldbuilding. Look at Star Trek as an example. Decades of hugely successful shows, and almost every episode dealt with a social, moral, political or ideological issue.

 

The problem isn't politics in games. The problem is idiot writers who can't properly conceal it.

[Serana's vampire ritual]

Lahme Bal was an unwilling participant in that, and unaware of what she had become until she slew those who took her in.

Serana, on the other hand, appears to have willingly subjected herself to whatever abuses Molag Bal required.

[Serana's vampire ritual]

Molag Bal is the King of Rape, yes, but he is also more than that. He is the Prince of Domination, God of Schemes, Lord of Brutality. His sphere of domination and subjugation goes beyond the sexual.

 

Why would he rape Serana or Valerica when they submit to him? Where is the domination in that? They were willing participants, not captives brought before him to be broken.

 

Far more likely, their abuse was in what they had to do, not what was done to them. The absolute submission to his will, and dutiful carrying out of his commands. I think murdering and eating a child is probably more in line with what they would have had to go through. Willingly submitting to his orders, no matter how terrible, rather than being forced and assaulted.