Speaking on a new episode of The Examined Game, Skyrim lead designer Bruce Nesmith shared his big takeaway from Baldur's Gate 3, and contrasted the approaches Bethesda and Larian have taken in their respective RPGs.
"The surprises come with the little things, not the big things. I have a long history with D&D as well as Bethesda. For me, it was joyful to see the D&D expression of fantasy rules come to life. Larian Studios did a magnificent job of that. I also thought that they redefined things in a certain way. Bethesda games have always had the philosophy of, let the player play everything.
"You can play the entire Thieves' Guild, you can play the entire Fighters' Guild, you can play the entire Mages' Guild, etc. There is nothing that your character can't play. That's a very good philosophy. I support that philosophy. But I was pleasantly surprised to see how positive it felt to me to make consequential decisions that closed off gameplay in Baldur's Gate.
"That also felt good, because it was done well. I felt like the decisions I made had more meaning in certain ways, because there were actual consequences. If I wanted to see those other [outcomes], I'd have to bring up another character and try different paths.
"They were both fun, they're just fun in different ways, and that, to me, was part of the surprise. I would have expected to fall on one side or the other, as if they were things [where] you couldn't have both. The lesson learned is: You can have both. I can enjoy this game over here that does it this way, and enjoy this game over here that does it that way."
I think Nesmith is 100% correct, and it's really Bethesda's lane to offer relatively unhindered fantasy fulfillment in its games. You generally see players and modders be the ones to introduce roleplaying-oriented restrictions, while Bethesda maximizes freedom.
At the same time, I've always thought that what separates Bethesda games from more pure sim sandboxes like Mount & Blade is that the studio provides the player with just enough structure and narrative to push back on. I think there's room to experiment there, and examples in Bethesda's own back catalogue of where it can take things.
Morrowind springs to mind: The Fighters' and Thieves' Guilds are opposed to each other, and their quests are mutually exclusive after a point—you even directly sabotage the other guild in each questline. The Mages' Guild and House Telvanni are similarly opposed, and the Dunmer Houses pretty much all hate each other.
But you don't even have to go all the way back to 2002: Skyrim has three major examples in the Civil War questline, the Dawnguard expansion, and the alternate ending to the Dark Brotherhood story. Siding with the Penitus Oculatus in "Destroy the Dark Brotherhood" isn't as substantial as the faction quest you're throwing away, but it is a very cool addition that enhances Skyrim's sense of depth and stakes. I'd love to see more like it in TES6: Sentinel—wouldn't it be rad to have a full questline for both the secret police and the assassins' guild?
I caught on Nesmith's choice of words that he enjoyed Baldur's Gate 3's approach "because it was done well." I've certainly encountered content-blocking choices in games that felt cheap or forced. I'm a huge CD Projekt fan, but I'll always be a hater when it comes to The Witcher 2's mutually exclusive second acts. I think the same idea was executed much better in Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty.
