Eh, I don't really care that they got rid of named classes - though I guess I sort of liked it as something to help me think about what my character was going to be. It didn't really bind you to anything any more than the racial skill bonuses do in Skyrim.

And yeah, there are still attributes. What there aren't any more are stats (or what I call stats: strength, dexterity, etc. the standard old school RPG fair). This I am less happy with because while it is an interesting way of going about the system (what is going on in Skyrim) I think it, and this follows my previous point from my post earlier, reduces the uniqueness of individual characters. I start with the same carry weight, running speed, fatigue, health, magicka as any other character - the only chages are skills (which is important, I don't want to not give that credit). I feel that the system makes it feel more like I'm starting exactly the same for each character no matter what. Which is good for blank slate, I can do anything with any character feel, but bad (in my opinion) for unique character feel.

Would you be happier with all character creation being in game? You don't get to choose your race or anything in real life so the game would randomly choose that for you upon every new start. Skill attainment would be in-game and you'd have to learn everything from scratch. The cosmetic look of your character would be in game and you would have to do it in a game location like in your home or perhaps at a barbershop kind of location.

Personally, I think if you have the imagination then how Skyrim does things is great.

The player can make myriad choices prior to character development. Or they can choose not to. They can then decide to honor those choices. Or they can choose not to.

So... yes... the game asks you less "explicit" questions. But... some people don't need to be asked questions in order to generate answers. For those folks, Skyrim is surprisingly accomodating.

I hear you, but i choose not to you use magic.

I'm one of those people who are bummed about the stats being gone. Any good RPG will give you a damage bonus based on your strength, and magic bonus based on your intelligence, a sneak bonus based on your dexterity etc., etc., but all that is gone. We essentially all start as the same person, apart from looks, and will eventually end up as the same person with 100 in everything. That's a pretty dire and depressing outlook for any true role player.

Well you start with a blank slate and when you get into the world you can choose what your character wants do, which skills you want to use/what you're going to be good at. That's how I like an RPG to be. I don't like when a game decides for me what I should evolve. Like main/minor attributes.

I hear you too, I chose that as well, but that doesn't change the fact that I can.

I don't understand why people think stats and levels have to be part of a role-playing game. You create a character. You act as it would act. You are playing a role. You are playing a RPG. Technically, just about every video game is an RPG.

With that uselessness stated, sometimes limitations are very useful in creating an experience that fits into a fantastical role. That's a big reason classes are helpful. When you give people complete freedom to develop however they want, you're making it hard for them to experience your game in the right frame of mind. I know, folks want a mage in heavy armor or a thief who casts spells. That's fine. But we need a box, so that we can think outside of it.

Well then you just got screwed by Bethesda, because they chose for you to be a Dragonborn who can Thu'um, cast magic, and spread death and destruction with any weapon he picks up. That's the grandest robbery of freedom I've ever seen in a supposed RPG.

Who says you have to cast a spell? That's what makes this game fun-- playing with self imposed restrictions. My Rogue would not only refuse to cast a spell, but he wouldn't even learn a spell or keep a spell book. He hated magic. My newest character, Cleric, hates Witches and Undead so he won't touch Conjuration or Destruction-- focusing solely on Restoration and Alteration. Also, since I modeled him after a Baldur's Gate Cleric, he won't equip a bladed weapon-- one handed mace only. There's a ton of other restrictions I impose on my gaming which makes everything even more fun.

See what I mean?

Well then you just got screwed by Bethesda, because they chose for you to be a Dragonborn who can Thu'um, cast magic, and spread death and destruction with any weapon he picks up. That's the grandest robbery of freedom I've ever seen in a supposed RPG.

See above. Also, put it on Master difficulty and try to spread "death and destruction" with an iron sword or a level 1 destruction spell. Seems like your main complaint is that you won't restrict your gameplay, which is your own fault. I don't need a game to set parameters for me, I'll take care of that. Skyrim's system is perfection.

Quoted for truth.

I see your point but it's not a game breaker for me.

But thats no different from DF, MW and Oblivion where I could end up as strong as everybody else. as skilled as them at everything etc regardless of race and class
At least admit that perks in Skyrim will mean you will have to make choices about what you are going to be strong in

I don't feel screwed... Being Dragonborn is part of the game (have not started the main quest), I'm playing a mage so magic is fine. When I don't play a mage I forget about my spells so doesn't really bother me. I got my moneys worth for this game.

there is no cost. i don't have to contemplate or choose between certain skills, attributes, and character traits. it's all "in-game." cop out.

skyrim is the non-thinking man's game. i just play. roleplaying goodness vs. meaningful character.

everybody starting at zero is exactly right. nothing. no difference. meaningless.

i can play however i want. i can sim a character.

no limitations, no distinctions, no penalties.

that's all skyrim has.

I'm not that familiar with the other Elder Scrolls games. Did they not have main quest lines that do this same thing?

I don't mind systems where you get advantages and disadvantages at the start of the game, like later D&D. But taking away the ability to cast spells isn't a very good disadvantage. My thief has literally never cast a spell, he doesn't deserve a special bonus for that... The bonus is that he didn't level up using magic.

Almost nothing was lost through getting rid of attributes since almost everything that attributes did was actually expressed through some other measure. They were never used for "attribute checks". You raised them just to raise something else.

I tried to start a http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1233553-mod-suggestions-for-attributes on how to reintroduce attributes back before the game came out. It would be possible though it would require rebalancing.

Yeah, perks are great for sure, I've never denied that. My OP was about increasing the use of them.

As for stats, I want stats more like the old AD&D style, 3-18, or whatever the range is, where they don't really increase unless by magic or divine intervention. That makes them that much more special and you really have to consider your decisions. You should never be able to be as strong as a giant, and not all races should have the same stats. Some are smarter, some are stronger.

I like the freedom to be what I want to be in Skyrim, but I don't like the fact that I can end up being the best at EVERYTHING. I can be the best warrior, mage and thief in the world, at the same time. That's just effed up, pardon my French.

gosh, have you actually played the game
no, you can't
try to be good at every thing and you will miserably fail
perks need to be chosen in an intelligent manner to be useful, specialisation pays off

Then you should be awarded with learning the skills you've specialized in 10-15% faster.

Those stats were stats, they were just skills with a different name. Stats don't change (by much at least). Unless you work out, you don't get stronger. Unless you study and broaden your mind, you don't get wiser. Unless you stretch, you don't get more dexterious.

because i don't play games to "roleplay" a character.

i shouldn't have to "roleplay" a character.

As Fitzhume pointed out the idea of starting with a "box" of some type around your character is something I like. Even if I know eventually I'm going to break out of that box entirely and do something completely different with my character I personally like having that "guidance." In my mind the ability to pick major/minor skills in previous TES games was not onerous, but instead something that was my decision on what I wanted to do with my character. Sometimes it turned out things I picked weren't the best options, but eh, that was ok with me. I think we just see how we play role playing games differently.

well I don't agree you can be the best at everything, just not enough perks, but I agree more starting differentiation between characters would've good
personally I feel that getting rid of classes and adding perks in (although the names not perfect but not a big thing for me) were good moves but the lack of differentiation between starting characters was a bad move, classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater

The original suggestion had nothing to do with attributes, why are we debating attributes?

The idea with pre-game traits was aimed at expanding the perks system.