While I’m not a Skyrim player, your assessment was very clear and IMO accurate - themes and thin “plot” definitely make for a great exploration type campaign. While I know some enjoy more focused plots with story beats - I’m more of an open world DM myself.
I generally find My sandbox games will usually start to converge around a central storyline and at around level 7 or 8 it starts to become more railroady just because of the players interests
@@DungeonMasterpiece Running Rime of the Frostmaiden right now. Loved the first 5 levels because it was such a big open world with enough “meat” that I could flesh out but hitting the 2nd half of the adventure it becomes much more linear. Seems like that is a natural progression of most open world/sandbox campaigns?
@@CaseyWilkesmusic I run evolving arcs. Where I place things and when they are triggered they sort of begin and that way they evolve with the characters levels and motives. That way they're are several of the "powder kegs" there. Eventually they will trigger enough and be high enough level to set the wrap up for the world
@@CaseyWilkesmusic a for instance is at level 5 they were offered a quest for contaminated animals. The shadow realm infection will develop into monsters if and when they go back there. The quest prompt will be different, and the location has evolved despite them not going there. The plot is thin enough that it took a few minutes of active note taking on general events and timeliness and what the progression would look like to the landscape.
I think for Skyrim the thing is the PLOT differentiates from the world story. The Plot is, you find you are the dragonborn, dragons return, you have to save the world. The current world history is the civial war stuff.
It's occurred to me that folks in Skyrim are remarkably academic, especially for a country purportedly inhabited by teutonic barbarians. What I mean is that there's a surprising number of quests are caused by someone doing historical or magical research in ancient ruins. These folks are REALLY into anthropology! Also journaling, seems like just about every corpse leaves behind a diary or journal or research notes. The reason I bring this up is it seems like a D&D campaign could use some more of that for the DM to inject plot, lore and background information in an organic feeling way, without getting too clunky with exposition or making it seem like he's just telling q story to a captive audience.
"Dragon Age: Inquisition" is an even more extreme example. Most side-quests are triggered by research notes, journals found on corpses, etc. This is partly due to economics. It's cheaper to write a journal than to create another fully-voiced characters. Also, the game's *writers*, not surprisingly, focus on writing :)
See, one thing I don’t like about Skyrim’s civil war (as much as I like it) is how much it sits around and waits for the Dragonborn to do something. It doesn’t move an inch until you do something, no war waits for one individual. Especially not an apocalyptic civil war. What I would have done is have holds being taken randomly.
Interestingly the original plan for the civil war questline was that it was supposed to behave far more dynamically, but Bethesda wound up completely crippling the complex suite of scripts that were supposed to be managing the civil war in the background. There were supposed to be a ton of battles fought in the background, scores kept by the game's AI, etc. to determine where Imperial and Stormcloak power was going to shift between the minor holds and even see some battles planned to happen near the player based on these scores kept in the background. While you are dungeon diving near Winterhold, the game could have decided in the day or two you were in the dungeon to shift the civil war in that hold such that the Imperials successfully took a fort nearby. The only thing they didn't allow to happen without the player was the major holds changing hands and the civil war ending. Sure, various towns, forts, and camps could get tossed this way or that, but Whiterun itself couldn't go either way until the player takes part in a battle for it. And it was entirely possible for the player to lose battles and actually cause their faction to lose territory, as opposed to how Bethesda just decided that you just get infinite men on your side to overrun whatever city is under siege. This also meant that you could find yourself fighting in many defensive battles where the opposing faction managed to gain enough inroads to a hold to try for a battle to take the entire hold, meaning you could watch a hold stay in your hands or fall to the enemy. You could even lose the civil war. I think they even had a system wherein if you threw in for one side or the other you'd have to find ways to safely travel through holds in enemy factions' hands, which was supposed to make other questlines a lot more interesting. You need to get some artifact but it's near Solitude and you're a Stormcloak? Then you're going to need to find a way to get there while evading Imperial patrols. Of course if you ignore the civil war then questing is much simpler. Sadly, Bethesda couldn't figure it out and so they made it almost entirely static, where the war just basically only turns once the PC joins in, and always on the side of the PC. There are mods out there that try to restore the more dynamic civil war system, though.
I *somewhat* disagree with the premise here, which is that factions & events the players choose not to interact/intervene with should be held in stasis. Or to put it another way, the world should be a powderkeg ready to explode... and it SHOULD be able to regardless of whether or not the players light the match. Notably, the anemic interaction between the Stormcloaks & Imperium in Skyrim was in part due to time & budget constraints, not purely gameplay concerns (although taking it's possible they gave up on tuning it). We shouldn't accept this as gospel because 'this is the way Skyrim did it'.... because Skyrim didn't intentionally do it! We know this because some intrepid modders have actually found evidence of a much greater system of faction gameplay, & partially resurrected it. Tabletop games also don't have the issue that video games do, where the clock is constant & real time. In a video game, un-attended-to events can easily & quickly pile up to overwhelm the player, whereas this is unlikely in a GM run game. If your players ignore the world-conquering lich, that should have consequences, but the GM can meter that. The disadvantage of the video game system meanwhile is events held in stasis are fairly obviously being held in stasis. If players choose not to follow after the marching army, & spend 3 in-game weeks on some other quest... it's going to be kind of jarring when the army is still camped by the same river. A couple of ways to practically manage 'off-camera' events: 1. Hankerin Ferinale's (AKA the ICRPG guy) split choice method... the world is composed of discreet forks in the road the players choose to follow. Simply have unfollowed forks result in consequences. 2. Stars without Number's faction system, where NPC factions literally get a 'turn' in between games to advance their goals & strive against one another. 3. Timers: you have 3 weeks to rescue the kidnapped children, otherwise they die. For the ritual that has to be performed during a full moon, players may stall by only 3 other quests, after which that fork is closed.
To add to this, the game systems Blades in the Dark" and "Apocalypse World" have systems for DMs to handle more active factions (there are others, but I will address these first). In the former, factions have explicit goals, and "clocks" which keep track of said factions' abstracted progress on their individual goals. In the latter, the DM sets up "fronts," which represent the various threats present in the campaign world and their end goals. These fronts have different stages of progress, culminating in the completion of those respective goals. If you want lots of moving parts behind the scenes to add that sense of verisimilitude, I would suggest looking into implementing those in your game world. Also, just read "An Echo, Resounding" for management of settlements and their surroundings, and play FF12 for a game with a world that has stuff going on in the background, which at times only tangentially affects the main party.
I'm not sure I agree. I fear players may feel they get punished for the decision they make. At least if they are asked to chose between pursuing two diffrent goals and also if they feel pressured like this they may feel that they are pushed towards storyline that aren't the ones they may enjoy the most just because theily have the shortest expiration date. And I in particular don't like having to chose between which of two situations to neglect .
@@DaDunge But that's how a world feels lived in and non-static. It also organically creates tension in the campaign. If the players choose to not address incursions from the demi-humans to the west, instead going after the cult trying to open a demon gate, then yes some towns will fall to the demi-humans, but at least the party won't have to deal with a demon gate. Then, they can go after the demi-humans to re-take territory later if they want. To whit, giving player choices of things to do in the world is meaningless if those choices do not carry consequences. In a sandbox game, the clock is always ticking, and the world moves forward. The world hasn't collapsed before, and the world will find a way to not collapse then. Kings will levy armies, rival adventuring parties will step up, alliances will form, and the world will move on. The players will get to shape those events based off their actions, and that's where the fun comes in. To just make the world stop and wait to be looked at before moving just takes out all the tension from the world, and makes it feel much less real.
@@Cybermaul Yeah but them you are driving what the campaign is about rather than letting the players decide what they're intrested in. I for an example found myself rolling my eyes at your demon gate as I read it.
I don't necessarily agree with the powder keg theory. If players don't want to engage with the big, central tension that's fine, but it's not waiting for them to come along before things go down. Stuff just happens in the background and maybe an ongoing war means that the lands they're adventuring in change hands while they're busy exploring some old ruin, and that's a good thing. It makes the world feel more organic, immersive, and less videogamey.
I haven’t played Skyrim since release. This vid might be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I adore how you reach into other mediums and see how that overlaps with ttrpg. You’re a living ttrpg Venn Diagram and I love it.
Came back here after watching your hex crawl vid to make this comment, because it’s so closely intertwined with this one. Blades in the Dark does setting up the factions stuff really well - the city runs with or without the players, and all the factions are doing interesting things. The game is about the player’s forming a crew, running scores and carving out their own space in a city that is ‘all sewn up’.
This is a very interesting topic, in that yes I agree this is a good strategy for a true sandbox campaign, but I have found that for TTRPG's people often say they want a "sandbox" experience but really want the feeling of freedom while having a clear direction or set of choices to make that do actually have consequences on the game world, which is very different than what you are suggesting here where the factions or central tension is just waiting to interact with the PC's.....I would argue that having things progress without PC's for good or bad adds to the verisimilitude of a living breathing setting... in this way TTRPG's may be better suited to comparisons of Mass Effect or KoTOR. This is my experience as a DM and also as a player too...too many choices/freedom can be paralyzing, though railroading the party is also seen as undesirable... I have found most success in more of a "choose your own adventure" type framework, but with implied consequences to the actions or non-actions of the party. I want the players to feel that their choices affect the world around them which is something Skyrim does well on a micro level but not on the macro scale....this same is true for other Bethesda titles like the fallout series... ultimately at the end of the day it is style/preference and there is really no "right way" to play a TTRPG. Thanks for a thought provoking video, new to the channel and am enjoying your content!
It's like what the fellow over at The DM Lair keeps (aptly) pointing out. A sandbox campaign is harder to prep for and to run than a structured campaign, because lying back in the chair and saying "play" is neither a sandbox nor a campaign.
"people often say they want a 'sandbox' experience but really want the feeling of freedom while having a clear direction or set of choices to make that do actually have consequences on the game world" This is why I could never get into Skyrim. I felt like I had no direction or purpose.
My most memorable encounter was 3 dragons fighting each other (2 spawned near a dragon location, somewhere in the mountains near the labyrinthian). I was young at the time and decided to fight all 3 at once. I lost so many times but I eventually won.
i think an important point here is that there are dozens of plot threads to delve into in Skyrim, not just one. The plot moves on when the player walks in & sets it off, because it would be incredibly weird to be roleplaying as a guard, focusing on the main quest and maybe the civil war, and then you hear that the Dark Brotherhood was burned down? The leader of the companions died? Someone just cleared the temple of Meridia? What do i care, i'm just a town guard trying to get rid of these dragons! its the implication that the fuse was lit three months ago, it just happened to blow up exactly when you showed up. The plot of this faction was always destined to happen right now. Your players decide which plots they want to see go off, the rest is just a nice fireworks display in the background.
Consider the real world and all its complexities. Whether you are conscious of them or not things are occurring near you and far away from you. Some you agree with, others you don’t, and some you haven’t made up your minds just yet. You feel as though some directly impact you and others don’t. You also hear about different stories from others and have to piece them together to describe events you’re interested in hearing. This is the PC’s perspective. Now build your setting and run your games to promote those experiences I described.
Awesome video, as usual. My first thought whenever I hear a very good theory video is always: how do I create a simple yet fun procedure and set of tools for this, so that I don't get burnt out when I attempt to apply these ideas. Any suggestions?
As a GM, aspiring writer and excessive ElderScrolls player I have a few dissenting opinions. But first, I agree that the sidequests in ES5:Skyrim are excellently done. I agree that their common lack of QuestGiver and their dedication to storytelling by location design, are both good inspiration to GMs designing side episodes in a campaign. I agree that the sense of a real world is something to aspire to. I agree that well crafted encounters can be a tool for world building as much as action scenes. All of this ES5:Skyrim does well. However. I think that some of the lessons you take are the wrong ones. First. Random Encounter Tables... Bah! I think the GM should have Encounter Tables, but pick and chose the correct ones for the occasion, not leave it to stupid dice. Random Encounter Tables are dumb and will more often mess up your game than improve it. In fact, in the game most good encounters are scripted, and actually random ones tend to be patrolling monsters or bandits and they get old and boring really fast. If you want the world to feel more immersive and alive with patrolling guards, skirmishing parties from both sides of the civil war, farmers on the way to market or trade caravans ... well, there are mods for that. Use encounters to tell the meta-story. But with care. Don't pick the encounters out of a hat. Then you talk about the civil war. And I agree that it is well set up. I like that it is up to the player to decide if it is between the loyal defenders of a multi-ethnic and fairly tolerant empire and a bunch of backwards, racist, national chauvenist cessationists. Or if it is between an opressive evil empire and a bunch of brave independent freedom-lovers. But the fact that the whole conflict is completely static and just lies waiting passively until the player does something to it, is bad. It is one of the things that doesn't work well in the game. It is immersion breaking and makes the entire conflict seem small and stupid, since it is apparently unable to proceed without the guiding hand of the epic protagonist. It is also not the main quest. The civil war is basically a big important side quest. The main quest is the thing with the awakening dragons. I think that I speak for a lot of player when I say that the small local sidequests are the good parts of the game, and the main quest and the civil war could have used a bit more work. One thing I would have liked is an actual time table. That once set in motion, events would unfold. As a player you could change the direction and outcome, but not this state where absolutely everything can just be left forever and then picked up again a year later as if no time had passed. That is frustrating and immersion breaking. Unsatisfying both on a player story level and as world building. Don't do that. Finally, one of the very best parts of the Elder Scrolls setting is the depth and weirdness of the world building. But both Oblivion and Skyrim skimps on that. Skyrim is better than Oblivion, but still comes across as a fairly bog standard viking fantasy setting. At least superficially. If you have a world with a ton of backstory and weird shit, don't be afraid to be different and weird. There is no value in bog-standard faux medieval DnD settings for their own sake. That's just what you use until you have something more interesting.
Something I guess works on elder scrolls: players are aliens to this world. So this whole them discovering the story as it unfolds organically works, cuz I mean, if you were a native of the land then you shouldn't be discovering thi stuff, you should know it already. Typical amnesia plot / shipwreck / waking up from cryostatis after the nukes fell and you saw your wife die and your son has been taken plots work for that
While I can make a few complaints about the 5 room dungeon design, "contrived" is not one I would use if the process is done well. To use "the guardian room" as my example, it does NOT have to be in the first room of the dungeon, it doesn't even have to be near the dungeon, it can be whatever obstacle the PCs have to get through to get to the dungeon which can be placed anywhere from the moment they decide to leave the town up to the dungeon. Even the act of figuring out where the dungeon is and how to get there could be the guardian if its made challenging. This can be done super flexibly and its just the first room. Plus you can have multiple guardians or the other rooms. The point of the 5 room dungeon design is a tool to ensure you have enough different things going on to make a dungeon feel like a good dungeon at the minimum. There are some shortcomings but in general its a very handy tool.
@@isaacthimbleby8926 It's really like the White Walkers vs the game of thrones. The Walkers are more important, and apocalyptic, but less imminent. They only show up at the end but are the reason any of the other stuff matters. The game is important because it's a huge mess that needs at least an approximant conclusion if anybody is going to have resources to free up to solve that problem. This is also why I never gave a damn about who ended up ruling Westeros, I just wanted them to get to the end because anything until that is inconsequential to the actual problem that needed to be solved. Similarly, the Empire and the Stormcloaks are important to the player, maybe. But except for the fact that it serves as a backdrop for the mythic event that is stopping a dragon from popping the world like a soap bubble it is honestly just par for the course political bickering that will calm down in a few generations. There's an argument that the apolcalyptic aims of the Thalmor are as important in the context of the larger Elder Scrolls series, but that really depends on what Bethesda does between games. And they're not know to hewing toward established canon when the have an ide they want to pursue, so maybe not. But both of those are just my perspective, I tend towards big picture interpretations. Which plot is the more significant to the player is honestly down to the player. Is the civil war resolved so that you can actually get to defeat Alduin? Or do you kill dragons because they're a nuisance that just keeps popping up? A lot of people never bother finishing either. That is pretty much the point; a la cart story element selection and the agency to decide whether you actually give a damn and want to pursue the stories, with a bit of goading to engage with the other plot. Which is the A plot and which is the B plot is up to you, and the only reason it's those two is development resource economy.
@@morganrobinson8042 I can see that argument -- if we are talking about individuals, and how they think about the game. However every online source I can find calls the Alduin quest line the main plot line; IGN, Wikipedia, both of the big game Wikis, even multiple blog posts by people working at Bethesda. To be clear, I'm not saying you are wrong - there is little inside the game itself (that I can remember) that specifies that the Alduin quests are the main quest line; so for any specific individual -- any one of the major quest lines could be for them their 'main' quest line, heck even the one about collecting Crimson Nirnroots. But I would still suggest that for the purposes of communication in a public forum, it is fairly well established that the Alduin quest line is the 'main' quest line.
Something I learned is that a world that is supposed to be a nation, should NOT HAVE AS FEW VILLAGES, FARMS, AND TOWNS AS IT DOES, SERIOUSLY I FUCKING LOVE SKYRIM BUT SOMETIMES WALKING INTO A "CITY" IT FEELS LIKE ITS JUST A TOWN, AND HALF OF THEM BASICALLY ARE, LIKE I KNOW THAT IT WAS 2012 BUT FUCK ME PLENTY OF GAMES COULD DO BIGGER AND BETTER AND BETHESDA DIDN'T, AND THE MAIN STORY IS JUST LIKE, OK. Phew rant over, apologies. But just a few more things I want to list, I don't think that there are enough guilds, and the guild quests that we do have, are rarely substantial, the only standouts are the last few main quests of the Dark Brotherhood, where you assassinate the Emperor, and most of the main line Thieves Guild quests, but after you kill Mercer and restore the skeleton key, having to to radiant quests to unlock shops is annoying, especially in that you need to do 5 quests in one hold to get a shop, but the quest locations are randomized, and you can't do say 5 in Solitude and then 5 somewhere else, you do a sporadic amount until you get your 5. But for me, the biggest thing that kills me is the lack of life the settled areas of Skyrim have to them, "cities" feel like towns with stone walls over half of em, and the others are just fucking villages, and SOMEHOW they are a seat of power in the hold they govern? Like, barely any of these places have a council or court, usually just a Jarl, Steward and a thane, sometimes with a scattered few other npcs but that's it, like, why aren't there more nobles than we have, and why don't the nobles we do have like house Greymane or other houses have a presence in the Jarls court or in local affairs? Like, they are noble houses interested in power grabs, they should be trying to grab power! Skyrim outside of the cities is fucking breathtaking, and I love the sense of adventure you can get from just wandering in one direction, amazing. The biggest thing for me, make the world feel more lived in, have the cities be larger, have there be more towns and villages, WAY MORE AND BIGGER FARMS, and more believability that this is a world where people live, not just a sandbox backdrop
While I agree with the commentary and ideas for the table, I completely disagree with you linking those ideas to the way Skyrim does things. There, it is much more like "WE NEED OUR LORD AND SAVIOR MAIN CHARACTER TO COME DO THESE QUESTS BECAUSE NOTHING IN SOCIETY WORKS IF HE IS NOT AROUND"
Personally think it might be useful to discuss the perspective you are speaking from when it comes to game type. Specifically, that you are discussing how to employ a better sandbox campaign, as opposed to a linear campaign. Different players and DMs enjoy different types of campaigns. Interesting video though.
Uh you mean linear, not railroading? Railroading is distinct from a campaign that just happens to be linear. And it involves the DM insisted that there be only one solution, one approach to the problem/issue/dilemma and the party must do it the DM's way or the plot doesn't advance/mission automatically fail, that sort of effect. That's what Railroading really is, and that's generally why it's so bad to engage such behavior.
This is just wrong--plot threads should evolve regardless of whether or not the PCs choose to interact with them. The quests they choose not to take shouldn't just wait in stasis for them to get back to town--the conflict undergirding those quests should, instead, advance and evolve in a way that takes into account the fact that the PCs didn't deal with the problem. This might mean the problem gets worse (which, incidentally, means that the quest continues to be level appropriate) or even that a rival group of adventurers dealt with the problem instead.
Gotta disagree about the plot. While your way can work having an overarching plot that unfolds whether the players are there or not can also be an engaging game. This idea that there's only one way to play d&d is objectively incorrect.
I thought oblivion was a much better game with a better story. I only wish dragons were included in it. I think Skyrims success had a lot to do with inclusion of dragons. We all love dragons. Need more of them in games.
Imagine toting Skyrim as a basis for your campaign building when it's one of the bleakest, laziest Bethesda worlds known to man. Play better games, dude. Hell, play better Bethesda games!
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
While I’m not a Skyrim player, your assessment was very clear and IMO accurate - themes and thin “plot” definitely make for a great exploration type campaign. While I know some enjoy more focused plots with story beats - I’m more of an open world DM myself.
I generally find My sandbox games will usually start to converge around a central storyline and at around level 7 or 8 it starts to become more railroady just because of the players interests
@@DungeonMasterpiece Running Rime of the Frostmaiden right now. Loved the first 5 levels because it was such a big open world with enough “meat” that I could flesh out but hitting the 2nd half of the adventure it becomes much more linear. Seems like that is a natural progression of most open world/sandbox campaigns?
@@CaseyWilkesmusic I run evolving arcs. Where I place things and when they are triggered they sort of begin and that way they evolve with the characters levels and motives. That way they're are several of the "powder kegs" there. Eventually they will trigger enough and be high enough level to set the wrap up for the world
@@CaseyWilkesmusic a for instance is at level 5 they were offered a quest for contaminated animals. The shadow realm infection will develop into monsters if and when they go back there. The quest prompt will be different, and the location has evolved despite them not going there. The plot is thin enough that it took a few minutes of active note taking on general events and timeliness and what the progression would look like to the landscape.
This description is how I felt playing fallout too
I think for Skyrim the thing is the PLOT differentiates from the world story. The Plot is, you find you are the dragonborn, dragons return, you have to save the world. The current world history is the civial war stuff.
It's occurred to me that folks in Skyrim are remarkably academic, especially for a country purportedly inhabited by teutonic barbarians. What I mean is that there's a surprising number of quests are caused by someone doing historical or magical research in ancient ruins. These folks are REALLY into anthropology! Also journaling, seems like just about every corpse leaves behind a diary or journal or research notes.
The reason I bring this up is it seems like a D&D campaign could use some more of that for the DM to inject plot, lore and background information in an organic feeling way, without getting too clunky with exposition or making it seem like he's just telling q story to a captive audience.
I had never considered this..... very astute.
"Dragon Age: Inquisition" is an even more extreme example. Most side-quests are triggered by research notes, journals found on corpses, etc.
This is partly due to economics. It's cheaper to write a journal than to create another fully-voiced characters.
Also, the game's *writers*, not surprisingly, focus on writing :)
See, one thing I don’t like about Skyrim’s civil war (as much as I like it) is how much it sits around and waits for the Dragonborn to do something. It doesn’t move an inch until you do something, no war waits for one individual. Especially not an apocalyptic civil war. What I would have done is have holds being taken randomly.
Interestingly the original plan for the civil war questline was that it was supposed to behave far more dynamically, but Bethesda wound up completely crippling the complex suite of scripts that were supposed to be managing the civil war in the background.
There were supposed to be a ton of battles fought in the background, scores kept by the game's AI, etc. to determine where Imperial and Stormcloak power was going to shift between the minor holds and even see some battles planned to happen near the player based on these scores kept in the background. While you are dungeon diving near Winterhold, the game could have decided in the day or two you were in the dungeon to shift the civil war in that hold such that the Imperials successfully took a fort nearby.
The only thing they didn't allow to happen without the player was the major holds changing hands and the civil war ending. Sure, various towns, forts, and camps could get tossed this way or that, but Whiterun itself couldn't go either way until the player takes part in a battle for it. And it was entirely possible for the player to lose battles and actually cause their faction to lose territory, as opposed to how Bethesda just decided that you just get infinite men on your side to overrun whatever city is under siege.
This also meant that you could find yourself fighting in many defensive battles where the opposing faction managed to gain enough inroads to a hold to try for a battle to take the entire hold, meaning you could watch a hold stay in your hands or fall to the enemy. You could even lose the civil war.
I think they even had a system wherein if you threw in for one side or the other you'd have to find ways to safely travel through holds in enemy factions' hands, which was supposed to make other questlines a lot more interesting. You need to get some artifact but it's near Solitude and you're a Stormcloak? Then you're going to need to find a way to get there while evading Imperial patrols. Of course if you ignore the civil war then questing is much simpler.
Sadly, Bethesda couldn't figure it out and so they made it almost entirely static, where the war just basically only turns once the PC joins in, and always on the side of the PC. There are mods out there that try to restore the more dynamic civil war system, though.
@@YaroKasear the mod open civil war brings back a lot of that, but not all of it
I *somewhat* disagree with the premise here, which is that factions & events the players choose not to interact/intervene with should be held in stasis. Or to put it another way, the world should be a powderkeg ready to explode... and it SHOULD be able to regardless of whether or not the players light the match.
Notably, the anemic interaction between the Stormcloaks & Imperium in Skyrim was in part due to time & budget constraints, not purely gameplay concerns (although taking it's possible they gave up on tuning it). We shouldn't accept this as gospel because 'this is the way Skyrim did it'.... because Skyrim didn't intentionally do it! We know this because some intrepid modders have actually found evidence of a much greater system of faction gameplay, & partially resurrected it.
Tabletop games also don't have the issue that video games do, where the clock is constant & real time. In a video game, un-attended-to events can easily & quickly pile up to overwhelm the player, whereas this is unlikely in a GM run game. If your players ignore the world-conquering lich, that should have consequences, but the GM can meter that.
The disadvantage of the video game system meanwhile is events held in stasis are fairly obviously being held in stasis. If players choose not to follow after the marching army, & spend 3 in-game weeks on some other quest... it's going to be kind of jarring when the army is still camped by the same river.
A couple of ways to practically manage 'off-camera' events:
1. Hankerin Ferinale's (AKA the ICRPG guy) split choice method... the world is composed of discreet forks in the road the players choose to follow. Simply have unfollowed forks result in consequences.
2. Stars without Number's faction system, where NPC factions literally get a 'turn' in between games to advance their goals & strive against one another.
3. Timers: you have 3 weeks to rescue the kidnapped children, otherwise they die. For the ritual that has to be performed during a full moon, players may stall by only 3 other quests, after which that fork is closed.
I mostly agree with all of this lol
To add to this, the game systems Blades in the Dark" and "Apocalypse World" have systems for DMs to handle more active factions (there are others, but I will address these first). In the former, factions have explicit goals, and "clocks" which keep track of said factions' abstracted progress on their individual goals. In the latter, the DM sets up "fronts," which represent the various threats present in the campaign world and their end goals. These fronts have different stages of progress, culminating in the completion of those respective goals.
If you want lots of moving parts behind the scenes to add that sense of verisimilitude, I would suggest looking into implementing those in your game world. Also, just read "An Echo, Resounding" for management of settlements and their surroundings, and play FF12 for a game with a world that has stuff going on in the background, which at times only tangentially affects the main party.
I'm not sure I agree. I fear players may feel they get punished for the decision they make. At least if they are asked to chose between pursuing two diffrent goals and also if they feel pressured like this they may feel that they are pushed towards storyline that aren't the ones they may enjoy the most just because theily have the shortest expiration date.
And I in particular don't like having to chose between which of two situations to neglect .
@@DaDunge But that's how a world feels lived in and non-static. It also organically creates tension in the campaign. If the players choose to not address incursions from the demi-humans to the west, instead going after the cult trying to open a demon gate, then yes some towns will fall to the demi-humans, but at least the party won't have to deal with a demon gate. Then, they can go after the demi-humans to re-take territory later if they want.
To whit, giving player choices of things to do in the world is meaningless if those choices do not carry consequences. In a sandbox game, the clock is always ticking, and the world moves forward. The world hasn't collapsed before, and the world will find a way to not collapse then. Kings will levy armies, rival adventuring parties will step up, alliances will form, and the world will move on. The players will get to shape those events based off their actions, and that's where the fun comes in. To just make the world stop and wait to be looked at before moving just takes out all the tension from the world, and makes it feel much less real.
@@Cybermaul Yeah but them you are driving what the campaign is about rather than letting the players decide what they're intrested in. I for an example found myself rolling my eyes at your demon gate as I read it.
I don't necessarily agree with the powder keg theory. If players don't want to engage with the big, central tension that's fine, but it's not waiting for them to come along before things go down. Stuff just happens in the background and maybe an ongoing war means that the lands they're adventuring in change hands while they're busy exploring some old ruin, and that's a good thing. It makes the world feel more organic, immersive, and less videogamey.
This is one of the best videos I've seen on the open world playstyle of RPGs. Awesome job dude.
Thanks you! Much appreciated!!
Skyrim also teaches you what NOT to do in a campaign...
If a dragon encounter turns out to be a minor annoyance, you're doing it wrong.
I haven’t played Skyrim since release. This vid might be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I adore how you reach into other mediums and see how that overlaps with ttrpg. You’re a living ttrpg Venn Diagram and I love it.
1:00 Actually the empire never really enforced the ban on worshipping Talos. Not until Ulfric started demanding to be allowed to do it openly.
Came back here after watching your hex crawl vid to make this comment, because it’s so closely intertwined with this one.
Blades in the Dark does setting up the factions stuff really well - the city runs with or without the players, and all the factions are doing interesting things.
The game is about the player’s forming a crew, running scores and carving out their own space in a city that is ‘all sewn up’.
I've always liked rolling up multiple encounters at once, even if I don't always do so. They tend to be my favorite randomized moments.
I hadn't thought about it terribly much, but I think I might start doing that it more.
This is a very interesting topic, in that yes I agree this is a good strategy for a true sandbox campaign, but I have found that for TTRPG's people often say they want a "sandbox" experience but really want the feeling of freedom while having a clear direction or set of choices to make that do actually have consequences on the game world, which is very different than what you are suggesting here where the factions or central tension is just waiting to interact with the PC's.....I would argue that having things progress without PC's for good or bad adds to the verisimilitude of a living breathing setting... in this way TTRPG's may be better suited to comparisons of Mass Effect or KoTOR. This is my experience as a DM and also as a player too...too many choices/freedom can be paralyzing, though railroading the party is also seen as undesirable... I have found most success in more of a "choose your own adventure" type framework, but with implied consequences to the actions or non-actions of the party. I want the players to feel that their choices affect the world around them which is something Skyrim does well on a micro level but not on the macro scale....this same is true for other Bethesda titles like the fallout series... ultimately at the end of the day it is style/preference and there is really no "right way" to play a TTRPG. Thanks for a thought provoking video, new to the channel and am enjoying your content!
It's like what the fellow over at The DM Lair keeps (aptly) pointing out. A sandbox campaign is harder to prep for and to run than a structured campaign, because lying back in the chair and saying "play" is neither a sandbox nor a campaign.
"people often say they want a 'sandbox' experience but really want the feeling of freedom while having a clear direction or set of choices to make that do actually have consequences on the game world"
This is why I could never get into Skyrim. I felt like I had no direction or purpose.
Please make more videos about videogames/movies that have hidden lessons to spice up our TTRPGS!
My most memorable encounter was 3 dragons fighting each other (2 spawned near a dragon location, somewhere in the mountains near the labyrinthian).
I was young at the time and decided to fight all 3 at once. I lost so many times but I eventually won.
Ive played hours of Skyrim, and never once followed the "main story line", I didn't know what it is because I just GTAed Skyrim for hours on end.
I am finding your content riveting, it has influenced my game design hugely, Thanks very much!
ive just started watching his videos too, if you have some free time interested in talking about campaigns?
Very crisp idea, I already started to update my encounter tables!
Great video! I never played Skyrim, but the Thin Plots reminds me alot of Dungeon World fronts.
I need to reread dungeon world
i think an important point here is that there are dozens of plot threads to delve into in Skyrim, not just one. The plot moves on when the player walks in & sets it off, because it would be incredibly weird to be roleplaying as a guard, focusing on the main quest and maybe the civil war, and then you hear that the Dark Brotherhood was burned down? The leader of the companions died? Someone just cleared the temple of Meridia? What do i care, i'm just a town guard trying to get rid of these dragons!
its the implication that the fuse was lit three months ago, it just happened to blow up exactly when you showed up. The plot of this faction was always destined to happen right now.
Your players decide which plots they want to see go off, the rest is just a nice fireworks display in the background.
skyrim:"decade long content cycle"
me: laughs in gothic 1
That was way over my head, lol.
Love your videos!
Consider the real world and all its complexities. Whether you are conscious of them or not things are occurring near you and far away from you. Some you agree with, others you don’t, and some you haven’t made up your minds just yet. You feel as though some directly impact you and others don’t. You also hear about different stories from others and have to piece them together to describe events you’re interested in hearing. This is the PC’s perspective. Now build your setting and run your games to promote those experiences I described.
Some books are leaning on your shelf. There is Rulebook real estate on there!
That's because I'm using them lol 🤣
Dude you hit 1k pretty fast!
I know! I'm honestly shocked people want to hear this crap! 😂
@@DungeonMasterpiece it’s gold bro!
Well thought out.
thank you!
Awesome video, as usual. My first thought whenever I hear a very good theory video is always: how do I create a simple yet fun procedure and set of tools for this, so that I don't get burnt out when I attempt to apply these ideas. Any suggestions?
check out my speed prep video. It talks about using two random encounters to do the heavy lifting for you.
Reject canon, embrace continuity?
As a GM, aspiring writer and excessive ElderScrolls player I have a few dissenting opinions.
But first, I agree that the sidequests in ES5:Skyrim are excellently done. I agree that their common lack of QuestGiver and their dedication to storytelling by location design, are both good inspiration to GMs designing side episodes in a campaign. I agree that the sense of a real world is something to aspire to. I agree that well crafted encounters can be a tool for world building as much as action scenes. All of this ES5:Skyrim does well.
However. I think that some of the lessons you take are the wrong ones.
First. Random Encounter Tables... Bah! I think the GM should have Encounter Tables, but pick and chose the correct ones for the occasion, not leave it to stupid dice. Random Encounter Tables are dumb and will more often mess up your game than improve it. In fact, in the game most good encounters are scripted, and actually random ones tend to be patrolling monsters or bandits and they get old and boring really fast. If you want the world to feel more immersive and alive with patrolling guards, skirmishing parties from both sides of the civil war, farmers on the way to market or trade caravans ... well, there are mods for that. Use encounters to tell the meta-story. But with care. Don't pick the encounters out of a hat.
Then you talk about the civil war. And I agree that it is well set up. I like that it is up to the player to decide if it is between the loyal defenders of a multi-ethnic and fairly tolerant empire and a bunch of backwards, racist, national chauvenist cessationists. Or if it is between an opressive evil empire and a bunch of brave independent freedom-lovers. But the fact that the whole conflict is completely static and just lies waiting passively until the player does something to it, is bad. It is one of the things that doesn't work well in the game. It is immersion breaking and makes the entire conflict seem small and stupid, since it is apparently unable to proceed without the guiding hand of the epic protagonist.
It is also not the main quest. The civil war is basically a big important side quest. The main quest is the thing with the awakening dragons.
I think that I speak for a lot of player when I say that the small local sidequests are the good parts of the game, and the main quest and the civil war could have used a bit more work. One thing I would have liked is an actual time table. That once set in motion, events would unfold. As a player you could change the direction and outcome, but not this state where absolutely everything can just be left forever and then picked up again a year later as if no time had passed. That is frustrating and immersion breaking. Unsatisfying both on a player story level and as world building. Don't do that.
Finally, one of the very best parts of the Elder Scrolls setting is the depth and weirdness of the world building. But both Oblivion and Skyrim skimps on that. Skyrim is better than Oblivion, but still comes across as a fairly bog standard viking fantasy setting. At least superficially. If you have a world with a ton of backstory and weird shit, don't be afraid to be different and weird. There is no value in bog-standard faux medieval DnD settings for their own sake. That's just what you use until you have something more interesting.
I don’t think I clicked fast enough!
Yeah, this was probably one of my fastest clicks ever
0:58 wow the only thing Skyrim missed is the factions are the wrong color lol
Something I guess works on elder scrolls: players are aliens to this world. So this whole them discovering the story as it unfolds organically works, cuz I mean, if you were a native of the land then you shouldn't be discovering thi stuff, you should know it already. Typical amnesia plot / shipwreck / waking up from cryostatis after the nukes fell and you saw your wife die and your son has been taken plots work for that
While I can make a few complaints about the 5 room dungeon design, "contrived" is not one I would use if the process is done well. To use "the guardian room" as my example, it does NOT have to be in the first room of the dungeon, it doesn't even have to be near the dungeon, it can be whatever obstacle the PCs have to get through to get to the dungeon which can be placed anywhere from the moment they decide to leave the town up to the dungeon. Even the act of figuring out where the dungeon is and how to get there could be the guardian if its made challenging. This can be done super flexibly and its just the first room. Plus you can have multiple guardians or the other rooms. The point of the 5 room dungeon design is a tool to ensure you have enough different things going on to make a dungeon feel like a good dungeon at the minimum. There are some shortcomings but in general its a very handy tool.
Fallout new vegas would be abetter example. Its thematically rich at least, not that its hard while being compared to skyrims writting.
That isn’t the main plot of Skyrim!
The main plot is killing Alduin!
Basically everything you said probably still applies (I’m still watching it)
In fact the simple fact that you made that mistake drives your point home even harder.
@@isaacthimbleby8926 It's really like the White Walkers vs the game of thrones. The Walkers are more important, and apocalyptic, but less imminent. They only show up at the end but are the reason any of the other stuff matters. The game is important because it's a huge mess that needs at least an approximant conclusion if anybody is going to have resources to free up to solve that problem. This is also why I never gave a damn about who ended up ruling Westeros, I just wanted them to get to the end because anything until that is inconsequential to the actual problem that needed to be solved.
Similarly, the Empire and the Stormcloaks are important to the player, maybe. But except for the fact that it serves as a backdrop for the mythic event that is stopping a dragon from popping the world like a soap bubble it is honestly just par for the course political bickering that will calm down in a few generations. There's an argument that the apolcalyptic aims of the Thalmor are as important in the context of the larger Elder Scrolls series, but that really depends on what Bethesda does between games. And they're not know to hewing toward established canon when the have an ide they want to pursue, so maybe not.
But both of those are just my perspective, I tend towards big picture interpretations.
Which plot is the more significant to the player is honestly down to the player. Is the civil war resolved so that you can actually get to defeat Alduin? Or do you kill dragons because they're a nuisance that just keeps popping up? A lot of people never bother finishing either.
That is pretty much the point; a la cart story element selection and the agency to decide whether you actually give a damn and want to pursue the stories, with a bit of goading to engage with the other plot. Which is the A plot and which is the B plot is up to you, and the only reason it's those two is development resource economy.
@@morganrobinson8042 I can see that argument -- if we are talking about individuals, and how they think about the game.
However every online source I can find calls the Alduin quest line the main plot line; IGN, Wikipedia, both of the big game Wikis, even multiple blog posts by people working at Bethesda.
To be clear, I'm not saying you are wrong - there is little inside the game itself (that I can remember) that specifies that the Alduin quests are the main quest line; so for any specific individual -- any one of the major quest lines could be for them their 'main' quest line, heck even the one about collecting Crimson Nirnroots.
But I would still suggest that for the purposes of communication in a public forum, it is fairly well established that the Alduin quest line is the 'main' quest line.
Said thus before with your videos, it would be easier to see what you're getting at with actual gameplay
My mind is pregnant
Something I learned is that a world that is supposed to be a nation, should NOT HAVE AS FEW VILLAGES, FARMS, AND TOWNS AS IT DOES, SERIOUSLY I FUCKING LOVE SKYRIM BUT SOMETIMES WALKING INTO A "CITY" IT FEELS LIKE ITS JUST A TOWN, AND HALF OF THEM BASICALLY ARE, LIKE I KNOW THAT IT WAS 2012 BUT FUCK ME PLENTY OF GAMES COULD DO BIGGER AND BETTER AND BETHESDA DIDN'T, AND THE MAIN STORY IS JUST LIKE, OK. Phew rant over, apologies. But just a few more things I want to list, I don't think that there are enough guilds, and the guild quests that we do have, are rarely substantial, the only standouts are the last few main quests of the Dark Brotherhood, where you assassinate the Emperor, and most of the main line Thieves Guild quests, but after you kill Mercer and restore the skeleton key, having to to radiant quests to unlock shops is annoying, especially in that you need to do 5 quests in one hold to get a shop, but the quest locations are randomized, and you can't do say 5 in Solitude and then 5 somewhere else, you do a sporadic amount until you get your 5. But for me, the biggest thing that kills me is the lack of life the settled areas of Skyrim have to them, "cities" feel like towns with stone walls over half of em, and the others are just fucking villages, and SOMEHOW they are a seat of power in the hold they govern? Like, barely any of these places have a council or court, usually just a Jarl, Steward and a thane, sometimes with a scattered few other npcs but that's it, like, why aren't there more nobles than we have, and why don't the nobles we do have like house Greymane or other houses have a presence in the Jarls court or in local affairs? Like, they are noble houses interested in power grabs, they should be trying to grab power! Skyrim outside of the cities is fucking breathtaking, and I love the sense of adventure you can get from just wandering in one direction, amazing. The biggest thing for me, make the world feel more lived in, have the cities be larger, have there be more towns and villages, WAY MORE AND BIGGER FARMS, and more believability that this is a world where people live, not just a sandbox backdrop
While I agree with the commentary and ideas for the table, I completely disagree with you linking those ideas to the way Skyrim does things. There, it is much more like "WE NEED OUR LORD AND SAVIOR MAIN CHARACTER TO COME DO THESE QUESTS BECAUSE NOTHING IN SOCIETY WORKS IF HE IS NOT AROUND"
I let the story go on.
Personally think it might be useful to discuss the perspective you are speaking from when it comes to game type. Specifically, that you are discussing how to employ a better sandbox campaign, as opposed to a linear campaign. Different players and DMs enjoy different types of campaigns. Interesting video though.
As someone who has more than 5000 hours in Skyrim (heavily playing + modding) … For the Empire! Long live the Imperial Army and long love Cyrodiil!
Sandbox is hard to do well, most dms should go for railroad over sandbox, but preferably narrative driven. Sandbox is 99% of the time done bad
Uh you mean linear, not railroading? Railroading is distinct from a campaign that just happens to be linear. And it involves the DM insisted that there be only one solution, one approach to the problem/issue/dilemma and the party must do it the DM's way or the plot doesn't advance/mission automatically fail, that sort of effect.
That's what Railroading really is, and that's generally why it's so bad to engage such behavior.
@@guyman1570 sure, linear
And then there were mods.
This is just wrong--plot threads should evolve regardless of whether or not the PCs choose to interact with them. The quests they choose not to take shouldn't just wait in stasis for them to get back to town--the conflict undergirding those quests should, instead, advance and evolve in a way that takes into account the fact that the PCs didn't deal with the problem. This might mean the problem gets worse (which, incidentally, means that the quest continues to be level appropriate) or even that a rival group of adventurers dealt with the problem instead.
You can do that too
Gotta disagree about the plot. While your way can work having an overarching plot that unfolds whether the players are there or not can also be an engaging game. This idea that there's only one way to play d&d is objectively incorrect.
Sandbox play or get out.
Exactly
I thought oblivion was a much better game with a better story. I only wish dragons were included in it. I think Skyrims success had a lot to do with inclusion of dragons. We all love dragons. Need more of them in games.
Elden ring will take over Skyrim’s title
Imagine toting Skyrim as a basis for your campaign building when it's one of the bleakest, laziest Bethesda worlds known to man. Play better games, dude. Hell, play better Bethesda games!
Try Elden Ring budday.
I know I know I know!
Downvoting. Sorry I hate people saying dovah and dovahkin.
no worries. I say it dozens of time a day. My dog is named dovah.
@@DungeonMasterpiece
Cool!
Okay, so how do I join your game table? 😁
Nah, better worldbuilding stuff in morrowind