Why I love Skyrim

[Crni Vuk]

Pretending is the very definition of roleplaying. You just gain assistance for the story.

No, no no no no and again no! Pretending to do something, is NOT role playing! To be somewhat anal here, but if you really want to get to the botton of it, then you have to look at where 'role playing' comes from, the kind of stuff adults do, I am not talking about children 'pretending' to be cowboys and indians. I am talking for example about Dungeons & Dragons and various other table top games. What is it, that creates a 'role playing' here? It's the context of the setting. A Paladin or Druid is only as much worth, like the environment recognizing his role. You can give both characters the exact same issue, but both will deal very differently and thus create two different outcomes obviously in a 'real' game the dungeon master can react on it on the fly, but games try to show this trough different endings and consequences, if possible.

When you decide to role play a certain character then you also decide for a frame and to stay within this frame and make decisions based on this character. Darth Vader would certainly do things in a different manner compared to James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, and playing ALL of those roles, doesn't make much sense.

In Skyrim you role play one and only one role, the adventurer. That's the problem that I have with the game when it comes to role playing. It doesn't matter to the world if you're good, evil, a mage or a thief. Everything pretty much reacts in the same way to you and almost EVERY quests in the game world, leaves you with only one choice.

 

[therealyesman]

Skyrim had the exact same problem as Fallout 4, though the difference is that Skyrim had a lot more content in it. Here is the problems with Skyrim:

- Too many fucking bandits. I mean, is this supposed to be civilized? I get it's war, but there shouldn't be that many bandits, even close to huge cities in huge fucking castles.

- Lack of RPG elements. Yep. Remember a quest where you had more than one choice? No?

- Leveling system.... yeah fuck that.

- The Beth lovin' of being the Holy Emperor of EVERYTHING. I MEAN YOU ARE THE KING OF THE THIEVES, AN ASSASSIN AND WHATEVER CUCKS. STOP. MAKING. ME. A. LEADER. OF. EVERY. FACTION. YOU. DICK.

- The combat system. It was really weird and clunky, and people just went all in on bows, which even was bad.

- Overhype. Not an exact fault of Bethesda, but god did that game get unnecessary hype. It wasn't that good.

- Companions just carried your burdens and were annoying as fuck.

- Bugs. A 5 year old game with bugs. Fuck. Off.

- The 'war'. It wasn't even a war, just a few people hating eachother. There were no battles, and the storyline for the factions were tiresome and not rewarding at all. Your choices didn't even matter, and you couldn't betray anyone. The faction storyline was pretty much a few radiant quests labelled as 'war'. There are almost a thousand mods that makes the game a little more about war, than it actually is.

- Dragons. The Deathclaws of Skyrim. Just as how Deathclaws failed in Fallout 4, the dragons did the same in Skyrim. Easy to kill, and the boss was just pathetic as fuck.

- Lore in general. At least make some of it appealing, in stead of having to read books to know of the lore. THERE ARE NPCS. MAKE USE OF THEM.

- The 'magic' wow. I can spell? Fun.

Yeah, loving Skyrim is fine, but that also means you have no taste in RPG's or any decent games. If Skyrim wasn't as well recieved as it was, you wouldn't love it that much. It isn't a good game, and I tried forcing myself to play it, and I just couldn't, and I love RPGS.

 

[CT Phipps]

No, no no no no and again no! Pretending to do something, is NOT role playing! To be somewhat anal here, but if you really want to get to the botton of it, then you have to look at where 'role playing' comes from, the kind of stuff adults do, I am not talking about children 'pretending' to be cowboys and indians. I am talking for example about Dungeons & Dragons and various other table top games. What is it, that creates a 'role playing' here? It's the context of the setting. A Paladin or Druid is only as much worth, like the environment recognizing his role. You can give both characters the exact same issue, but both will deal very differently and thus create two different outcomes obviously in a 'real' game the dungeon master can react on it on the fly, but games try to show this trough different endings and consequences, if possible.

When you decide to role play a certain character then you also decide for a frame and to stay within this frame and make decisions based on this character. Darth Vader would certainly do things in a different manner compared to James Bond or Sherlock Holmes, and playing ALL of those roles, doesn't make much sense.

In Skyrim you role play one and only one role, the adventurer. That's the problem that I have with the game when it comes to role playing. It doesn't matter to the world if you're good, evil, a mage or a thief. Everything pretty much reacts in the same way to you and almost EVERY quests in the game world, leaves you with only one choice.

I've played Dungeons and Dragons since, let's see, 5th grade. Role-playing is about assuming a role in a game and playing it out.

It's in the name.

I also tend to prefer diceless RPGing now.

 

[joevonzombie]

Pretending is the very definition of roleplaying. You just gain assistance for the story.

Nope. When you roleplay, you don't make the rules the same way you do when you pretend. Good RPGS have actual C&C and systems in place that are reactive to what you do. Skyrim doesn't have anything like this that isn't superficial.

 

[CT Phipps]

Nope. When you roleplay, you don't make the rules the same way you do when you pretend. Good RPGS have actual C&C and systems in place that are reactive to what you do. Skyrim doesn't have anything like this that isn't superficial.

I'd find this more believable if I hadn't written roleplaying games.

Generally, I think the rules should always take a secondary place to

But then again, I understand what you're saying. I do generally prefer a more free form and less rules-heavy kind of roleplaying, though. Skyrim was really good for me versus the more restrictive D&D system.

 

[therealyesman]

I've played Dungeons and Dragons since, let's see, 5th grade. Role-playing is about assuming a role in a game and playing it out.

It's in the name.

I also tend to prefer diceless RPGing now.

That... doesn't work. You have to do good in Skyrim, and you cannot 'pretend otherwise'.

So I just helped this random mook.... (but in SECRET I AM EVIL!!!!!!!!)

It cannot be roleplayed, because there is no satisfaction in being evil, and helping everyone. THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

The only way your idea of roleplay work, is if it's a sandbox, where you can do whatever you want. This isn't true.

To be evil, you have to have the choice to be it. There is no other way. I can't be a farmer, because i'm an adventurer. I can't be a dungeon hunter, because I am the Dragonborn. My story is set.

 

[therealyesman]

I'd find this more believable if I hadn't written roleplaying games.

Generally, I think the rules should always take a secondary place to

But then again, I understand what you're saying. I do generally prefer a more free form and less rules-heavy kind of roleplaying, though. Skyrim was really good for me versus the more restrictive D&D system.

You aren't more intelligent about RPGs because you've written one. This is really pathetic advertisement for your book, and it shouldn't be used in an argument. Tell us why he is wrong, and not use a third party.

 

[CT Phipps]

You aren't more intelligent about RPGs because you've written one. This is really pathetic advertisement for your book, and it shouldn't be used in an argument. Tell us why he is wrong, and not use a third party.

I wrote that book like ten years ago and wouldn't recommend people buy it since it was for 2nd Edition Mutants of Masterminds. It's now past 3rd and a Revised. I am, however, making a point of saying that roleplaying games are something I've played my entire life and what qualifies as one can be extremely varied. For me, you need to be able to assume the role of a character of your creation and decide his or her actions.

Which actually really hurts Geralt's role in all that.

 

[therealyesman]

I wrote that book like ten years ago and wouldn't recommend people buy it since it was for 2nd Edition Mutants of Masterminds. It's now past 3rd and a Revised. I am, however, making a point of saying that roleplaying games are something I've played my entire life and what qualifies as one can be extremely varied. For me, you need to be able to assume the role of a character of your creation and decide his or her actions.

Which actually really hurts Geralt's role in all that.

Geralt from the Witcher? You do realize, that the game is telling you up front that this is the main character, and this is his story, but you can change it.

There is different types of RPG's, and Skyrim's is 'choose your own adventure' and holy crap does it fail.

 

[joevonzombie]

I'd find this more believable if I hadn't written roleplaying games.

Generally, I think the rules should always take a secondary place to

But then again, I understand what you're saying. I do generally prefer a more free form and less rules-heavy kind of roleplaying, though. Skyrim was really good for me versus the more restrictive D&D system.

Based on your tastes and your lack of understanding of what roleplaying is, I honestly wouldn't play anything you've designed. There is a difference between player freedom and player choice and why there has to be a balance. You (and Bethesda) don't understand that or you don't care.

 

[CT Phipps]

That... doesn't work. You have to do good in Skyrim, and you cannot 'pretend otherwise'.

So I just helped this random mook.... (but in SECRET I AM EVIL!!!!!!!!)

It cannot be roleplayed, because there is no satisfaction in being evil, and helping everyone. THERE IS NO OTHER CHOICE.

The only way your idea of roleplay work, is if it's a sandbox, where you can do whatever you want. This isn't true.

To be evil, you have to have the choice to be it. There is no other way. I can't be a farmer, because i'm an adventurer. I can't be a dungeon hunter, because I am the Dragonborn. My story is set.

It's weird you bring that up because Skyrim is pretty good about allowing you to do a lot of stuff which isn't adventuring based and various kinds of content. You can farm, blacksmith, and so on in Skyrim. You can also follow any of the other questlines as your primary story without trying to do them all.

You can be a wizard, a thief, a assassin, or a Bard.

Being an adventurer is assumed but not mandatory as I spent the best parts of my Skyrim experience as a explorer who was just trying to take the entirety of the world in. I admit, though, I was a bit annoyed there was no Priestly questline.

This game really needed a chance to play a Scion of Talos.

Geralt from the Witcher? You do realize, that the game is telling you up front that this is the main character, and this is his story, but you can change it.

There is different types of RPG's, and Skyrim's is 'choose your own adventure' and holy crap does it fail.

That's a fair rebuttal.

Based on your tastes and your lack of understanding of what roleplaying is, I honestly wouldn't play anything you've designed. There is a difference between player freedom and player choice and why there has to be a balance. You (and Bethesda) don't understand that or you don't care.

Eh, your loss.

 

[Black Angel]

There's a clear difference between "role-playing" and LARPing in video games and RPGs, mate.

@Crni Vuk explained it clearly how LARPing is something akin to 'pretending' to be a medieval knight or time-traveler using only knife in CoD, yet you keep insisting that's still 'role-playing', and you've played DnD, too? Jeez. You should've known that, unlike in DnD (and PnPs in general) where everything could easily be manipulated by GMs/DMs to react to your choices, Skyrim barely recognize your (extremely pointless, futile) effort of LARPing. Why bother? There are tons of better games out there in terms of reactivity, and here you're wasting your time pretending to think a game recognizes your choices.

I, for one, think that no one would truly be able to ask a question such as, "What is an RPG?" unless they're really, really old like Crni, or until they've been exposed to RPG Codex

Generally, I think the rules should always take a secondary place to

What?! No, no no no no no no no.

Video games, and to an extent, just about any other form of 'games', requires rules and system to work in the first place. This is why newer, so-called AAA video games these days were crap and shit because they've programmed and designed an extremely restricted systems and mechanics to their game so they can bloat their high budget into marketing and flashy cinematic.

Without rules and system, games won't be games.

But then again, I understand what you're saying. I do generally prefer a more free form and less rules-heavy kind of roleplaying, though. Skyrim was really good for me versus the more restrictive D&D system.

Are you fucking kidding me

I'm starting to doubt whether you've played DnD at all.

In no way D&D system more restrictive than Skyrim. If anything, the system were much more robust, and the fact there's a GM/DM (especially if they were very creative) means the system can be utilized to infinity and beyond. I remembered someone (maybe @Dr Fallout) told us in this forum how one of their PnP session went so chaotic and extremely fun thanks to a highly creative player playing around the rules.

Skyrim, on the other hand, barely make use of any of the skills/perks in the dialogues and environmental interaction aside from Speech.

Especially with the direction they are going with FO4, with the voiced protagonist, restricted 4-dialogue choices in which every choices were practically the same and you can't actually say "NO!" without actual consequences, what would you think of the next iteration of TES will be?

 

[therealyesman]

It's weird you bring that up because Skyrim is pretty good about allowing you to do a lot of stuff which isn't adventuring based and various kinds of content. You can farm, blacksmith, and so on in Skyrim. You can also follow any of the other questlines as your primary story without trying to do them all.

You can be a wizard, a thief, a assassin, or a Bard.

Being an adventurer is assumed but not mandatory as I spent the best parts of my Skyrim experience as a explorer who was just trying to take the entirety of the world in. I admit, though, I was a bit annoyed there was no Priestly questline.

This game really needed a chance to play a Scion of Talos.

But you are still the Dragonborn, the saviour of everyone and everything.

This is hypocritical, I do realize, because i'm a huge fan of Fallout 1 and 2, which both have the same 'defeat the evil boss' but at least in those games, all the settlements and every npc can be mess with, morally. Whatever you/your character finds right can be DONE. EVERYTHING. It's a great freedom.

The games (1&2) gives you moral choices, and not those 'fetch that', 'kill that', 'some mystery fix that', and you actually feel like you are making a difference.

What I think of your review is that you are taking personal matters and other irrelevant things in to perspective, that really can't be approved for a review. (I know it wasn't a review, but many reviewers are doing this, not saying you are, but anyway).

Yes you can be a wizard, a theif, an assassin, BUT YOU CAN BE ALL THOSE AT THE SAME TIMES, AND YOU HAVE NO FUCKING WAY OF SAYING NO BESIDES LOSING A BUNCH OF CONTENT.

It's NUKA WORLD all over again.

 

[therealyesman]

There's a clear difference between "role-playing" and LARPing in video games and RPGs, mate.

Especially with the direction they are going with FO4, with the voiced protagonist, restricted 4-dialogue choices in which every choices were practically the same and you can't actually say "NO!" without an actual consequences, what would you think of the next iteration of TES will be?

It will be Emojis.

 

[CT Phipps]

I think we're talking past one another @Black Angel. I host a Star Wars game where I ST three days a week and no video game will have that kind of freedom and versatility to it. However, rules wise, I think previous editions of D&D got bogged down in number crunching versus Skyrim's perk and experience system.

The height of a good roleplaying game is ultimately about being able to do what you want and respond as how you might.

Even if it's just the bare minimum of the "good versus evil" choice.

Yes you can be a wizard, a theif, an assassin, BUT YOU CAN BE ALL THOSE AT THE SAME TIMES, AND YOU HAVE NO FUCKING WAY OF SAYING NO BESIDES LOSING A BUNCH OF CONTENT.

It's NUKA WORLD all over again.

I don't actually disagree with what you're saying there. In fact, it was kind of weird that some of my biggest complaints about Skyrim are the following.

1. No option to side with the Silver Hand versus the Companions.
2. No option to side with the Thalmor (why would I? Killing elves is fun!)
3. All the Daedric quests require you to be evil versus thwarting them save a few minor ones
4. The destroy the Dark Brotherhood quest is a token effort at best
5. There's NO option to help Mjoll the Lioness take down the Thieves Guild

 

[Crni Vuk]

Please, please for the love of god I wish you would stop to call freedom = role playing.

I wrote that book like ten years ago and wouldn't recommend people buy it since it was for 2nd Edition Mutants of Masterminds. It's now past 3rd and a Revised. I am, however, making a point of saying that roleplaying games are something I've played my entire life and what qualifies as one can be extremely varied. For me, you need to be able to assume the role of a character of your creation and decide his or her actions.

Which actually really hurts Geralt's role in all that.

And I have eaten my whole live, that doesn't mean I am a master chef. I am not trying to insult you here, but considering some of the arguments you make ... it just doesn't seem like you really played a lot of role playing games. I don't know anyone who's serious about role playing and thinks that 'pretending' is already already role playing.

I mean, yes, look on a very very crude level? ALL kinds of role playing, are 'pretending', be it from acting on a stage as Mc Beth, a rightous Paladin in a D&D game or as super-dragon-born hero in Skyrim. You always have to assume the role of someone here, even if you're playing the doomguy in Doom. But there are better and worse ways to do it. Doom isn't usually considered 'roleplaying' just because you playas the Doomguy a space marine. And in Skyrim it simply isn't role playing if you 'pretend' to be evil, because the game doesn't give you any chance to do it. And on top of that, in Skyrim everyone can do everything. You can be the Dragonborn hero, that's a master thief, head of the mages guild and super strong werwolf leader of the companions ... that's living a power fantasy, nothing more nothing less. But as I already said, role playing is about to deal with limitations.

It's weird you bring that up because Skyrim is pretty good about allowing you to do a lot of stuff which isn't adventuring based and various kinds of content. You can farm, blacksmith, and so on in Skyrim. You can also follow any of the other questlines as your primary story without trying to do them all.

You can be a wizard, a thief, a assassin, or a Bard.

Being an adventurer is assumed but not mandatory as I spent the best parts of my Skyrim experience as a explorer who was just trying to take the entirety of the world in. I admit, though, I was a bit annoyed there was no Priestly questline.

I don't understand this ... you tell us how the adventurer is not mandatory ... but yet this is exactly what you did ... but you just called it the 'explorer' ... Besides from the roles you mentioned the Bard is not one that you can play in the game. Don't you find it strange that one person, can assume ALL of those roles in one playtrough by the way? That you can literaly become the most powerfull assasin-thief wizard the world has ever seen? How is that role playing, if you simply assume all the roles at the same time. And on top of it, the role of assasin and thief are, considering the lore, even contradicting! Remember that the Thief guild had always a rivalry with certain groups, do to different philosophys and practises.

 

[Black Angel]

 

[therealyesman]

Great shitpost m8

 

[Crni Vuk]

Without rules and system, games won't be games.

Very well said. Gameplay as the name says, is key to video games. Why? Because historcally what came first ... was the gameplay. What is the story behind Pong? Tetris? Pac Man? Many games out there barely even have a story and can still be extremly entertaining. A well crafted story can put some meat onto the bones, granted I do enjoy games more if they have a good story. But some of the games I like the the most, don't have much of it, like Jagged Alliance, the game has just enough story in it, to be considered a narrative and yet it is one of the best strategy games I ever played, why? Because I love the turn based combat it has. Same for games like Commandos. The story is something that can be replaced here, what matters are the mechanics.

This guy, makes also some great points about why mechanics matter a lot in RPGs:


I can pretty much recomend all of his videos about games.

 

[CT Phipps]

Please, please for the love of god I wish you would stop to call freedom = role playing.

If it pleases you, I should clarify that a better word than "pretending" would probably be roleplaying is interactive storytelling. It's basically collaborating between the player and the storyteller to create a spoken story or mental novel where there is a beginning, middle, and end. I consider it to basically be a cousin to writing and certainly the skills which help in one help with the other.

I disagree with you about freedom, though. I think that's an essential part of the RPGing experience. The Legend of Zelda was a great told fantasy story to my 5 year old mind but it was all essentially preset. Link WILL free Zelda and save the land unless you fail and that's not the way things are supposed to turn about. To me, choice is an essential part of it being an RPG.

Otherwise, it's just a story you're experiencing. Which there's room for as well. It's the difference between watching a movie and writing the screenplay for one, though.

I don't understand this ... you tell us how the adventurer is not mandatory ... but yet this is exactly what you did ... but you just called it the 'explorer' ... Besides from the roles you mentioned the Bard is not one that you can play in the game. Don't you find it strange that one person, can assume ALL of those roles in one playtrough by the way? That you can literaly become the most powerfull assasin-thief wizard the world has ever seen? How is that role playing, if you simply assume all the roles at the same time. And on top of it, the role of assasin and thief are, considering the lore, even contradicting! Remember that the Thief guild had always a rivalry with certain groups, do to different philosophys and practises.

There's actually a Bardic questline in the game (in Solitude) which a lot of players in Skyrim missed because it wasn't nearly as "dramatic" as the others. Basically, you go to the college, volunteer to be a bard and do a little dungeon delving but mostly just hang out with the locals. It's a rather subdued questline but one of my favorites just because the people there aren't wanting to save the World--just teach you about singing.

As for the "The Dragonborn is everything" role, I actually appreciated that in Skyrim whereas I *HATED* it in Oblivion because I don't necessarily mind stories where you can ascend to be a godlike being. Baldur's Gate had you reach the point where you could become a literal god and in Dragonborn, you have the excuse to be "the guy who is good at EVERYTHING" because you are a literal demigod.

A lot of players HATE that kind of storytelling, though, for the same reason the Wheel of Time rubbed some people the wrong way--albeit Rand al'Thor paid for his goodness at everything with his sanity.