...with one character?

Probably the major appeal about TES is the open world structure and huge amount of content. For me, pne of the things that lets this down is Bethesda's apparrent assumption each character is going to be Master Of All Things when the format should, IMO, be accomodating towards the freedom the format is supposed to be about.

One major issue is the done-to-death lack of real choice of lack of consequences for your actions. Next comes the lack of meaning to what race you choose (I'd love it if they had one quest specific to each race or at least more race based dialogue instead of guards e.g. telling my scrupulously honest character they're a "sneak thief" because they have a high sneak skill or psychically divining the fact they've added a few points to enchantment by learning a few enchantments but never actually used the skill). But something further that bugs me a bit is this apparent belief you're not going to want to select which bits of the vast game a character does.

I'm not massive on roleplay, but I do like to give my characters a broad outline. Having been playing spellsword types, I've created an Orc which I intend to be a pure warrior, zero magic use. That means they'll naturally avoid the College of Winterhold because it as no purpose for them. By doing that, that means they're basically locked out of completing a totally unrelated quest you can trigger in a couple of ways out in the world you have to start the College questline to complete as the relevant dungeon is locked out until you do so. If memory serves, you have to go there for the MQ anyway, which again basically means signing up to get in there. Essentially the game basically forces you to initiate a questline (which the game tells you is massively urgent) which is going to culminate in you becoming archmage even if you're playing a character that hates magic, hasn't skilled up in it in any way, never uses it and wants nothing to do with it.
Additionally, certain word walls are impossible to access unless you follow certain questlines. Though you don't have to, the game seriously nudges you towards joining the Thieve's Guild and won't let you destroy them and you can only destroy the Dark brotherhood after performing the introductory task which is rather out of character for any character who wouldn't want to join them anyway (that particular quest is lame beyond belief IMO - I wish there was an option to take a certain highly irritating child straight back to a certain institution and leave him there in the care of a certain lady).

It just strikes me in their game design that it doesn't occur to Bethesda that you might want to choose to neglect certain quest chains with certain characters for roleplay/character reasons. It's fine that they let you do everything, but it seems like they expect you to want to do everything. Personally, I rather like ignoring whole guild questlines with certain characters as it makes the game seem fresh when I do with them a different character which adds to replayability. But I keep feeling the game pushing me to do stuff that's out of character for certain characters I'm playing. Weirdly, it seems the game doesn't lend itself well to scrupulously moral, good guy characters - it seems that playing an amoral character actually fits the content better.

Hmm... it almost sounds like you're saying that there are consequences for your character choosing not to use magic .... Also, I believe that it is possible to enter the college without joining.

Well, actually, the open world freedom of choice is why you can choose to do anything or nothing. Bethesda leaves the choice up to the player rather than trying to force specific paths. Therefore, if you do not feel that a character would do certain actions, do not do them. Bethesda developers should not be making choices about what characters would or would not do. Such choices should be left up to players, and that's what Beth does.

As for Skyrim in particular and the issue of "morality," the fact is that circumstances are almost always grey rather than black and white. There is no such thing as a "good character" or "evil character" but rather only a matter of perception. Is the Empire good in its present day state in Skyrim? Only from a certain perspective (and probably not from the view of the PC who is about to be executed for no crime other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time). Are Necromancers evil? Only from a certain viewpoint.

I doubt they intended it like that. They were probably just trying to make it easy for people having a hard time finding, or doing things to to join guilds and do quests easier. But I see what you meen. Especially about lack of consequences.

Its just because they are still using the same general game formula since morrowind, just more streamlined. The Elder Scrolls needs to me remade from the ground up before it becomes the CoD of Roleplaying games. My $0.02.

You have just learned a valuable lesson:

"Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should".

This is roleplaying:

"I am an Orc and a Warrior therefore I have no interest in the College of Winterhold".

So don't.

You can look forwards to "re-play value" on subsequent playthroughs that allow you to explore more character types.

To be fair thanks to the media we are pre-disposed to an "I want it all and I want it now" mentality but try to resist!

Az

Because Todd thinks so. When playing Skyrim for the first time, you can easily complete all guilds and nearly all quests and locations because they're so shallow and short. Therefore there's hardly any replay value in Skyrim... because you can well... be EVEYTHING, like TH has repeatedly said.

Edited.

The game is designed to be played through on multiple characters but supports one character completion.

I must admit I also hate the faction specific Stones, Walls and the quest you mentioned.

All my characters are heavily role-played. Out of the 10 characters I've retired only two did the Thieves guild quests. It was by choice, but the other eight were role-played in such a way that the character would never join the Thieves Guild. In fact half of them would have loved the opportunity to help the Lioness wipe them out (like the other not to be named in a non-spoiler section can be). What's crazy is that even my Thieves will never get all the stones since they would never join the other factions needed to find them all.

I have found that in Skyrim Bethesda seems to have forced a lot of things on the characters. Maybe it is so that more of the game can be shown off? Like the major issue I and several others have with the Companion quest line, maybe Bethesda was afraid that no one would try out that thing that can not be mentioned in a non-spoiler section unless it was forced on you? I hate it, I really do. I haven't role-played a character yet that thought it was cool or a great idea, but any warrior I play that wants to join the only warrior faction in the game is forced into it.

I've gotten to the point now that my current character just won't join any faction. I'll just do whatever that characters goals are and move on.

Consequences would be your decisions having a real impact - changing the outcome of quests or meaningful changes in how NPCs react to you - i.e. not being able to still become Thane of Riften for being a wonderful helpful person the population apparently adores after acting as protectioin racket enforcer for the TG - dsomething the Jarl mysteriously doesn't seem to hear about.

The point is the game doesn't want me to make my own choices. i can't avoid joining the College if I want to do the MQ the game is built around or another quest that has, in and of itself, absolutely nothing to do with the College - that is not consequences, it's ralroading the player on the assumption you're going to want to join all the guilds anyway. It's not 'consequences' if you're locked out of key content if you choose not to be a mage. The game is basically telling you you are going to be a mage whether you like it or not.

i was not, however, aware of being able to enter without joining. Even if so, that still ticks me off. Like the game holds your hand to a large degree, but leaves you to work out for yourself you don't have to start the TG questline. The game is built on the assumption your character is going to be a thieving, assassinating, warrior mage noble thane champion of the people. Who also kills dragons.

It's pretty much there already, but I concur with your evaluation.

Ah, but can you play from beginning to end without being killed; and if killed, start over? Try that, and you may find the game is not so easy to "beat".

With "Oblivion" they gave people a complex skeleton and some imaginations simply starved and failed to put the meat on the bones.

We're paying the price for this in "Skyrim" where too many of the quests appear to be over-written to the point that you feel constrained.

I prefer the "Oblivion" set up since you could have dramatically different experiences with different characters depending on their motivations.

Az

Ah, but have you tried playing with one hand while jumping on one foot and playing Twister with your spare foot and hand?

Aw, good one. Now that you mention it, I do remember Oblivion being more character friendly.

I think they've got preoccupied with "look at how much content there is! Look at all the things you can do! You can become boss of every guild and thane of every hold \and save the world!" with realising a big chunk of their fanbase like roleplaying games.

There is a way to do the main quest without joining the College. It just requires foreknowledge about the location of the Elder Scroll and how to obtain it.

So that basically means you can't in terms of playing the game as it is intended to be played.

If you are unable to go through all the questlines, there would be an outcry of 'why do I have to build a new character from the ground up just to do this questline?'

You are never forced to do them all, the choice is left to you. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Its the balance that is struck to please everyone. I didn't have anything to do with the DB on my first playthrough (other than killing the numerous fools they sent after me) as it felt out of character. I quite happily joined with my new altmer on my latest playthrough.

However, I can imagine someone getting a long way into the game before finding out about them and wanting to join. They may not want to have to start over specifically to play through the DB quests, which in all fairness I can understand. I don't mind doing so, but just because im ok with it doesn't mean everyone else is. Choice is a wonderful thing...

Yes and no. It's entirely possible, within the context of the game, to have the Elder Scroll before you even talk to the Greybeards. It just requires you to stumble upon the right person. The quest he gives you, during which you obtain the Elder Scroll, has nothing to do with the MQ.

OP I agree. I don't like how you have to interact with the thieve's guild for the jewel you pick up in certain areas. And since I don't want to join the TG, I have all these jewels in my inventory I cannot get rid of.

My character is a electric spellsword, and i did not want to use any sort of element (frost/fire). Yet in certain quests, you're forced to use them to proceed. So since I do not want to use fire/frost, do I just quit the quest and never see what lies beyond the door? That is stupid.

I also do not want to be a werewolf, yet to join the only guild similar to the fighter's guild requires it. Even though you only do a few minor quests you instantly have the option.

The Vigilant's of Stendarr, the perfect spellsword group, not available for joining.

And to all of you who keep saying not to get involved? You HAVE to at some point, or you miss out on quests and dungeons as well as good loot. The game is pretty boring if you don't have good quests to follow and all you do is free range. I love free ranging for awhile, but after so long I'd like a nice questline to follow.

I shouldn't have to just quit because the quest forces me to do something my character is not willing to do. Such as eating human flesh for a certain quest. Seriously? And there is an achievement attached to that too.

But the point is the game essentially doesn't allow/makes it difficult to avoid certain guild questlines and penalises the player if they do (e.g. access to certain word walls). it's not about having to reroll to do certain questlines - it's about not being able to avoid them without cutting yourself off from completing other content.

I feel like Bethesda was so terrified that the player might actually miss something that they specifically designed quests to lead you straight towards other, usually entirely unrelated, quests. This is why you can only refuse a quest 0.01 percent of the time, this is why you can find undroppable quest items for quests you've never even received, this is why your journal becomes so cluttered with stuff you don't even intend to do and you aren't even given the option of hiding those undesired entries, this is why you're practically drafted into every guild you overhear someone mumbling about. It's as though the magic compass highlighting every point of interest wasn't enough. They also had to build in what was effectively a quest arrow leading you by the nose to each and every yet undiscovered quest.

Look at Markarth: Jewelry stand lady sends you to deliver a ring to Calcelmo. This is an utterly worthless quest. You walk thirty seconds up the street and give some guy a random item. But this essentially ropes you into Calcelmo's spider killing/dwemer ruin mission. In Morthal: Idgrod has you deliver a letter to Whiterun's Danica Pure-Spring. Another worthless quest (though there's some distance at least), but it draws you into the Blessings of Nature quest. Skyrim is filled with these tiny, useless, boring quests whose only purpose seems to direct you to the real quests.

I really wonder just how many quests Skyrim would actually have if you ignored all these miscelaneous funneling quests.

I think there's an interesting game design point there.

you can say what's wrong with being a werewolf? it's a power you don't have to use that gives you disease resistance - what's not to like? but as the player, you may not want your character to be a werewolf, particularly if that would be totally out of character for the character you're playing. I think Bethesda assume everyone approaches the game from a 'here's some cool stuff, here's some cool powers, here's some stuff to do' perspective - it doesn't seem to occur to them you might feel it's a bit incongrous to be playing a cannibal werewolf assassin who also kindly quests to help people to get their lost items back from dungeons - it's great all the options are there, but they assume you'll want to do them all so seem oblivious to the fact railroading into doing certain out of character stuff might be a tad irritating to some people - and detract from the flexibility and freedom of choice their games are supposed to be built around.

The irony being that (for me at least) it's far more fun when you suddenly discover a quest you didn't know existed because the game didn't wave it in your face and you accidentally stumbled on it.

i like doing everything with one character, though i agree that it would be nice to have choices like destroy a guild or have rival guilds that do the same thing like either the companions or an official fighters guild morag tong or dark brotherhood thieves guild or something else you choices