Greetings,
Here is my personal semi-subjective view on why Skyrim's roleplaying mechanics always falls short for me.


Below is my very subjective semi-rant on the Skyrim DLC states & quick perspective on what I have always personally deemed of Skyrim's roleplaying mechanics:

The plot and everything left hanging has never bothered me , as personally I feel Skyrim will get more & more saturated with content that would only in the end turn out for cosmetic roleplay value which Skyrim suffers enough of .. Skyrim already lacks roleplay value mainly because of the reason of it focusing on the more "open world" perspective, this is the reason it lost it's balance for me - it's too open that the game is devoid of consequences open=do everything you want you're Dragonborn (This just lead back to the casualization debate and I don't want to go there). In a nutshell for me more DLCs with Skyrim's mechanics = just means more content that is experienced the same way , the plot/storyline would be hindered by what already is not appealing to me = same consequence mechanics = same use of cunning = which ultimately leads to another plotline hanging (then eventually Bethesda makes the Skyrim:Ultimatum DLC where the Dragonborn gets more pimped up with the same old glory scheme but same game mechanics)

Now I will review what I have just stated above and hopefully put a lot of things into user-perspective:

Cosmetic roleplay - To put it in a somewhat objective sense, no Skyrim does not lack roleplay . Skyrim gives you a very flat, broad, & unconstrained character development, unlike what the previous titles of the main series had.

unconstrained -The only thing now that would hinder you from advancing your perk progression are the decision of the player to acquire a perk based on it's usability/viability/cosmetic function, and the previous prerequisites of that perk (which is 100% of the time is another perk ) For instance it would have been nicer if most of the perk trees were tied closer to each other or were more specilized. A lot of perks could have been more constricted to have more roleplaying value ie. some perks were locked or required a certain quest to be completed like being a champion of a Daedric prince.

unconstrained - When you put it again in perspective, what does unconstrained mean? Less bounderies right? = Character development unchained. The more unconstratined character development is, the more it will lack specialization & solidness, which I find true for Skyrim. So as to why there are may debates on why _______ is overpowered/underpowered.

unconstrained - On chargen again with the removal of classes and major racial diversity, yes a lot were done in a unique broader but it had some major impacts on roleplaying value. There was nothing to give your character a backstory for chargen at Helgen except for some 5-10 differences in weapon proficiencies and racial powers - it was the equivalent of being a "newborn" as an advlt character who should've had unique traits. A race itself is not enough to suffice for backstory - this is what I mean by "cosmetic roleplay". Bethesda should've also deviated from the small gap between vital racial stats, ie. Orsimers with 200 health and Altmers with 250 magicka wouldn't have had hurt for compensation of removal of something to give you backstory roleplay value.

unconstrained - No faction diversity. No consequences and conflicts. If you complete every faction questline your character may feel like having a multiple personality disorder syndrome, that once valorous knight of yours has turned into a kleptomaniac and your precious roleplaying intent for him has been lost to greed. The previous titles of the main series had at least some diversity but still with minor consequences ie. Morrowind had some halted quest progression because you were a member of another faction and disposition impacts on opposing factions you have joined and Oblivion had conflicting quests. Though still minor conflicts and all other factions were still open for questline completion it would've been great to really see Bethesda deviated with Skyrim even more by bringing the "impact-oriented open world rpg" into play.

Do everything you want you're Dragonborn - Here is where all is forgiven and lost. This is why I guess it was a challenge for Bethesda to fit everything in from some of the stuff I mentioned above (which is about 0.8% of what could've been done) this is why Skyrim turned to 70% open world and 30% roleplaying game. The dire need for a new Dragonborn has immersed us in the game in a different type of way that roleplaying and our character backstory didn't seem to matter much.

Dragonborn - I think there is a subliminal intent of Bethesda that the Dragonborn should have no need for consequences. Which is agreeable to some extent.

Dragonborn - Skyrim is epic in it's own unique open world way.

Dragonborn - Again all is forgiven and well.


This just lead back to the casualization debate and I don't want to go there - I tend to think there is no such thing as "casual games" or "casual gaming", there is just preference and the state of mind.

Casual games - The whole "casualization" in gaming debate is really a shallow point to argue & debate upon whether a game is tagged as a "casual game" or has been "casualized" is highly subjective as to calling Skyrim a medieval GTA game. There is just realizing that your own knowledge & subjective perception of a game will override any other one's.


Skyrim's mechanics - With every new title to the main series of the Elder Scrolls games Bethesda deviates from the previous ones. I can only hope that the next one will be far off from Skyrim. I personally do not want a "Skyrim II".

Skyrim II - No please no.

Skyrim II - Out of all the main series I would have to say the best transition would be from Daggerfall -> Morrowind. Morrowind had 50% open world, 50% old-school rpg 50% simulation, & 50% of what Daggerfall and Skyrim was well Skyrim..

I just wish the next ES game would have this balance, I want to be able to wipe out & destroy enemy factions (gimme plots full of depth, intrugue, and conflict), really roleplay my heart out, a dynamic and impact-oriented world, and a game that rewarded you in the most unique and creative ways.

Did we play the same game, because having read your post, you're very contradicting while making a statement like this.

Sorry, but Skyrim is very constrained, making role playing limited. Not only does the game hide the three classes to pick from (as evident with the stones outside of Helgen), but it then continues to constrain the way people would like to develop by forcing them to take perks they don't want for the few they do want.

If there's one thing I hate in my games, it's being OP, and yet Archery requires me to pick Overdraw (1) on my way to Ranger, the only perk in the game I want (well, aside from the chance at decapitation at later levels, because watching heads roll is fun).

I have no objections to the level requirements of perks, but I was not impressed I had to follow branches to get them. It makes no sense, and worse, it completely separates out the objectives of role playing a character rather than pre-defining the trees for three very specific classes.

Don't believe me? Take a look at them carefully, those perks. Why isn't there a perk tree which embeds a minor magic for restoration, lockpicking, 1/2 handed, and archery without having to wade through other trees?

We're given Healing right out of Helgen, so it's crystal clear we all have some form of magic capabilities (which, again, strips people from role playing how they want to). In addition, we all have skills to swing an axe or fire an arrow with deadly accuracy, all before walking out the ruined fort formerly known as Helgen.

Stop and think just how constrained this really is, all the while pretending to be some Nord who has come home to Skyrim and got mixed up into all this. Call me cynical to believe a Nord would be casing magic if their build is strictly melee.

At least with Oblivion, they kept skill classes together, which made for people to advance their true roles without the need of having some idiotic perk tree restrict their development.

It could have been worse, though: Skyrim could have easily have forced us to pick a perk, which would have been even more constrained.

I'm sorry, but it looks to me many people are fooling themselves to believe Skyrim is a role playing game. It's very limited, and I say again, it's a DPG, or Dragonborn Playing Game.

One can easily ignore the MQ, but what's left: Imperial or Stormcloak, and a pesky civil war.

Here's a simple truth: most people redefine the term "role playing" when they've finally figured out how the game plays, and Skyrim is no different.

It's laughable people still believe they're playing a role in a game that cast their die before the very first carriage scene shows up.

It's still a good game, don't get me wrong, but it could have been so, so much better, especially after its previous iterations clearly showed what RPG truly meant.

At least Bethesda is moving on to new fields of game development. I personally find it more beneficial generally for them rather than tying up a horde load of plotlines just so they could make more DLCs that tie everything up (which is in no way easy I assume). Hopefully our stagnant common ground dreams of what was all good in an ES game will be resurrected.