
Originally Posted by
Drinking with Skeletons
How do you define "need" in this context? Do you mean following the narrative provided by the main quest or perhaps side quests? I've always believed that part of role-playing--even in your rigidly mechanical definition of the term--was to do things that make sense for your character to do. For example, a rogue who is good at backstabbing and lockpicking may still be adventurous, and it's not unreasonable for such a character to decide to go into a random dungeon and use his/her rogue skills to try to obtain fabulous and hidden treasures. There's no need for it, in that there is not a specific, outside force compelling the character to enter the dungeon, but it can work as both a character and mechanical approach to the game.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's not unreasonable for a player to desire some degree of freedom--including the freedom to fail, should an area, creature, or situation be impossible for their build. I know you're really big on defining RPG as a form of mechanics as opposed to experience--which I don't fully agree or disagree with, mind you--but it seems like you're advocating an essentially linear approach in which the role-playing begins and ends with how the character solves the problems he/she is presented using rigidly defined game mechanics, and dismissing the value in the character interacting with the world to open up new, dynamic opportunities to apply those rigidly defined game mechanics.
I would argue that if Daggerfall presents an open world, it's quality should be judged partly on how well it allows the player to explore that world, and not solely on how well it allows players to role-play through a specific path or paths within that world.
Apologies if I'm unclear or if I misunderstood your point.