I feel a little personally attacked here, as I was one of the few on that other thread who don't think that Todd Howard's statement is necessarily ludicrous. FTR, I'm not at all using it to beat down other perspectives.

I think the title of the thread misrepresents the issue, because its a reasonable interpretation of Todd's statement is about the average Tamriellan's relationship with the practise of magic , not a question of the metaphsyics explaining the laws of nature.

I happen to think (and did say) that the discrepencies between the stated philosophy and what we see in game are largely scale- and game-limits related. If those things are taken into account, the statements aren't quite as ludicrous as they would otherwise seem.

The Invisibility Birthsign power might be another example of a mechanical, and not a lore problem if you consider the possibility that the power isn't meant to represent arcane power, but a game mechanic used to depict the extraordinary- yet natural- talent for being really slinky.

I'm not "against' anyone. I don't even disagree that they could have taken a more interesting route with Summerset. Just that I'm not satisfied that "Low-magic Tamriel" in the way Howard meant it is "ludicrous" or completely untenable.

psychotrip wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

I feel a little personally attacked here, as I was one of the few on that other thread who don't think that Todd Howard's statement is necessarily ludicrous. FTR, I'm not at all using it to beat down other perspectives.

I think the title of the thread misrepresents the issue, because its a reasonable interpretation of Todd's statement is about the average Tamriellan's relationship with the practise of magic , not a question of the metaphsyics explaining the laws of nature.

I happen to think (and did say) that the discrepencies between the stated philosophy and what we see in game are largely scale- and game-limits related. If those things are taken into account, the statements aren't quite as ludicrous as they would otherwise seem.

The Invisibility Birthsign power might be another example of a mechanical, and not a lore problem if you consider the possibility that the power isn't meant to represent arcane power, but a game mechanic used to depict the extraordinary- yet natural- talent for being really slinky.

I'm not "against' anyone. I don't even disagree that they could have taken a more interesting route with Summerset. Just that I'm not satisfied that "Low-magic Tamriel" in the way Howard meant it is "ludicrous" or completely untenable.

To be clear, seeing it on that thread was just the final impetus for me to make this thread. It was never meant to be a personal attack on you (I honestly didnt even know it was you who brought it up). As I said, I find the statement itself ridiculous, but I'm not coming down on everyone who's used it.

Again: sorry if it came off as personal. I dont recall bringing you up at all, I dont remember your specific comment, and I only brought up the specific thread after someone directly asked.


I do stand by my points, however. I think Todd's quote was a stupid comment that was used to justify a tonal shift in the series, I dont think it's an accurate statement on the overall ES universe, and it doesn't even make coherent sense if we consider events before Skyrim to be canon. I brought up several examples of how common magic is on Tamriel, and how casually people react to it. It just doesn't make sense, dude, and I'm not going to pretend it does.

I very much disagree with several of your points in the post above. If even birthsigns arent meant to be taken as we see them, if we can't trust what the player experiences, if we can't trust books on the subject, or what characters say in-game, then what's the point of having consistent lore at all? I feel like the unreliable narrator trope has gone way too far here. Arguments like these only serve to cheapen the world in my eyes, and make it less interesting. Just like Todd's alleged comment, bringing us full circle.

So yeah, I hope you dont take this as attacking you. I just see it as a spirited conversation about a franchise we both love.

I meant the "personally attacked" thing as more lighthearted than it came across, and was essentially an excuse to butt in on the convo.

Regarding the statement I bolded above; no, it *would* be a bad idea to trust mechanics and game-limitation for lore. Its like saying the physics of Tamriel are canonically different because we can carry 200 daedric 2-handers in our backpack. Or, for a tighter analogy- and one people *are* literally trying to argue- Red Eagle was a canonical Dragonpriest because if you are high-enough in level, you can encounter him as one. If we can agree that some things absolutely are mechanical- or limitation-based, I don't think its unreasonable to say that other instances of evidence may very well be, too.

What I definitely agree strongly on, is that its poor form to employ narrative to explain away limitations. It cheapens the lore and people can smell it a mile off.

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

psychotrip wrote: »

Supreme_Atromancer wrote: »

I feel a little personally attacked here, as I was one of the few on that other thread who don't think that Todd Howard's statement is necessarily ludicrous. FTR, I'm not at all using it to beat down other perspectives.

I think the title of the thread misrepresents the issue, because its a reasonable interpretation of Todd's statement is about the average Tamriellan's relationship with the practise of magic , not a question of the metaphsyics explaining the laws of nature.

I happen to think (and did say) that the discrepencies between the stated philosophy and what we see in game are largely scale- and game-limits related. If those things are taken into account, the statements aren't quite as ludicrous as they would otherwise seem.

The Invisibility Birthsign power might be another example of a mechanical, and not a lore problem if you consider the possibility that the power isn't meant to represent arcane power, but a game mechanic used to depict the extraordinary- yet natural- talent for being really slinky.

I'm not "against' anyone. I don't even disagree that they could have taken a more interesting route with Summerset. Just that I'm not satisfied that "Low-magic Tamriel" in the way Howard meant it is "ludicrous" or completely untenable.

To be clear, seeing it on that thread was just the final impetus for me to make this thread. It was never meant to be a personal attack on you (I honestly didnt even know it was you who brought it up). As I said, I find the statement itself ridiculous, but I'm not coming down on everyone who's used it.

Again: sorry if it came off as personal. I dont recall bringing you up at all, I dont remember your specific comment, and I only brought up the specific thread after someone directly asked.


I do stand by my points, however. I think Todd's quote was a stupid comment that was used to justify a tonal shift in the series, I dont think it's an accurate statement on the overall ES universe, and it doesn't even make coherent sense if we consider events before Skyrim to be canon. I brought up several examples of how common magic is on Tamriel, and how casually people react to it. It just doesn't make sense, dude, and I'm not going to pretend it does.

I very much disagree with several of your points in the post above. If even birthsigns arent meant to be taken as we see them, if we can't trust what the player experiences, if we can't trust books on the subject, or what characters say in-game, then what's the point of having consistent lore at all? I feel like the unreliable narrator trope has gone way too far here. Arguments like these only serve to cheapen the world in my eyes, and make it less interesting. Just like Todd's alleged comment, bringing us full circle.

So yeah, I hope you dont take this as attacking you. I just see it as a spirited conversation about a franchise we both love.

I meant the "personally attacked" thing as more lighthearted than it came across, and was essentially an excuse to butt in on the convo.

Regarding the statement I bolded above; no, it *would* be a bad idea to trust mechanics and game-limitation for lore. Its like saying the physics of Tamriel are canonically different because we can carry 200 daedric 2-handers in our backpack. Or, for a tighter analogy- and one people *are* literally trying to argue- Red Eagle was a canonical Dragonpriest because if you are high-enough in level, you can encounter him as one. If we can agree that some things absolutely are mechanical- or limitation-based, I don't think its unreasonable to say that other instances of evidence may very well be, too.

What I definitely agree strongly on, is that its poor form to employ narrative to explain away limitations. It cheapens the lore and people can smell it a mile off.

I didnt say game limitations. I said what happens in the game. Npcs have MENTIONED their birthsigns before. I believe in Shivering Isles a character laments over being born under the atronach and not being able to regenerate magicka. Shadowscales are a thing. Books describe the powers birthsigns give you. Some are described more vaguely than others (the shadow, for example), but several directly mention powers and abilities. Is that just another "transcription error"?

Mechanical LIMITATIONS are one thing. No one takes the draconian madstone quest too seriously, because we know they didnt have the resources to make a completely new fort and race of people for a single quest.

But when mechanics and lore are explicitly linked, and when characters act like the mechanics exist in-universe, and when the player is constantly solving problems using these in-universe powers that are described in-lore, then I think it's fair for players to expect those mechanics to be roughly...true? Why else should we be interested in them if these "powers" are just some immersion breaking button that doesnt relate to whats happening in the story?

But I can prove my point with far less words: if birthsigns dont actually give regular people magical powers, then that's boring and therefore wrong. I challenge anyone to argue with me there. How is it more interesting this way, when the magic is literally being sucked out of the setting? When earlier games were defined by how magical the world was, and how that affects society? How does this improve the setting? Because you cant convince me this was always intended. This had to be a change in the worldbuilding if it's true.

If Morrowind was made using this logic, it would've all looked like Cheydinhal. Remember how Oblivion's loading screens claimed that Cheydinhal uses dunmer architecture? I always took that as one of their first attempts to "un-weird" the setting, which they later had to backtrack on.

If Morrowind were made today, it would've looked like Cheydinhal, and we'd be arguing in forums about how all that talk of ash and giant bugs were just "exaggerations". That's where Todd's quote leads us. That's where the repeated "reimagining" of this franchise leads us.

psychotrip wrote: »

[
But I can prove my point with far less words: if birthsigns dont actually give regular people magical powers, then that's boring and therefore wrong. I challenge anyone to argue with me there. How is it more interesting this way, when the magic is literally being sucked out of the setting? When earlier games were defined by how magical the world was, and how that affects society? How does this improve the setting? Because you cant convince me this was always intended. This had to be a change in the worldbuilding if it's true.

For me it's the other way around, for example I would find it boring and uninteresting if magic birthsign powers would be so common that they apply to everyone. It would take away some of the mystery and uncertainty of the world and would basically make everyone super overpowered. I always interpreted it like, how people born under a certain sign could (as opposed to always have) have those magical attributes. Since everyone having it would also mean that roughly 1/12th of the population could turn invisible at will. And it would be inconsistent with the rest of the setting, since I'd imagine no one would want to be a shopkeeper or market vendor in such an environment.

I've played TES games since the start and I never felt like there was a tonal shift at all, it always came across as pretty grounded and gritty to me, at least in comparison to more high fantasy settings. It's what I always liked about the setting, since in high fantasy settings magic often becomes the solution to all problems.

The highborns would notice first, but realize there are many sources of magic and mysticism in the elder scrolls franchise. Magic would be drawn from different realms, there's also blood magic and plenty of spells that npcs use that we don't have access to. They would even go so far as to burn a trading card game if they felt it consumed the flow of magicka or even trap magical creatures like dragons .

I would probably give this a good read:
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Magic

If a form or source of magic that is common suddenly vanishes, another form will take it up.

psychotrip wrote: »

Dr_Con wrote: »

The highborns would notice first, but realize there are many sources of magic and mysticism in the elder scrolls franchise. Magic would be drawn from different realms, there's also blood magic and plenty of spells that npcs use that we don't have access to. They would even go so far as to burn a trading card game if they felt it consumed the flow of magicka or even trap magical creatures like dragons .

I would probably give this a good read:
https://en.uesp.net/wiki/Lore:Magic

If a form or source of magic that is common suddenly vanishes, another form will take it up.

But the sun is gone so everyone would notice that. And probably die. The quote also says "magic" without any qualifiers. They were talking about ALL magic.

I feel like you're not addressing the point, here.

I was reading through the comments and addressing some of what I read.

to your point- in real life, everyone would notice, heck we notice when the sun has a flare.

In parts of this game, where people are bound to towers or caverns underground, they may not notice. We also don't know how photosynthesis works in this world, but I'm pretty sure mushrooms don't need light irl and they are edible and in abundance in this world of tamriel. There's entire mythos dedicated to the sun and the moon. Particularly, it's most important to the Khajiit though I'm sure every culture would say the sun is just as important to them (I'm not even sure if Hist trees need light tbh since you can just feed them mudcrab meat wrapped in weeds apparently).

Without the sun, however, everything would freeze in places that do not have access to geothermal or (I know I'm making this up) magickathermal sources. It's not about the crops at this point, it's about the freezing and frost. While mushrooms may still grow in the absence of sun, you would have no life in the overworld, everyone would retreat to daedric planes that do have a source of heat- if the absence of magicka or the sun doesn't bar that.

The ice death- not an ice age- would come quickly and yes, in a dark way, Todd Howard is right, nobody would notice the sun is gone as they would freeze to death first.

This one has no doubt that a more mundane approach would be far easier to achieve from a development perspective.
This one also has no doubt that the exodus would be very apparent in terms of long term subscriber numbers.

Magic is intrinsically woven into the fabric of Nirn, it is the source of our adventures there, and a true delight to minds that seek freedom from the mire of the mundane.

What we need, are devs that are willing to project their minds into the heart of magic once more, and bring back the shining secrets that so delight.

*Sitting in Fargrave and looking out at the horizon*
I know they are capable of doing so.