The Elder Scrolls has spent decades as one of role-playing gaming’s defining fantasy settings, yet it has not received the kind of high-profile, externally developed companion entry that Fallout did with Fallout: New Vegas. Kurt Kuhlmann, a veteran designer and former Elder Scrolls loremaster, has offered a possible explanation: the success of New Vegas also created an enduring argument about creative ownership that Bethesda may have had little interest in repeating with Tamriel.
Kuhlmann, who worked as a quest designer on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and later served as co-lead designer on The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, left Bethesda in 2023. Reflecting on the absence of an Elder Scrolls equivalent to New Vegas, he pointed to Todd Howard’s protectiveness over the fantasy series and to the fan debate that followed Obsidian Entertainment’s Fallout installment.
“The whole New Vegas thing did create this, at least the perception of this, ‘who makes a better Fallout game?’” Kuhlmann said. “I don’t know that Todd wanted to create that situation again for The Elder Scrolls. Todd, from my time there, he is very protective of it.”
That is an informed personal interpretation rather than a formal explanation of Bethesda’s franchise strategy. Kuhlmann does not claim to be revealing a confirmed policy, nor does the available account establish that a third-party Elder Scrolls project was ever actively proposed and rejected. But his comments articulate a practical reason a publisher might hesitate: a spin-off can expand a series while simultaneously making the question of who should define that series far louder.
Why New Vegas changed the conversation
A spin-off is a work derived from an established property that usually explores a different story, place, character group, or creative direction from the core series. In games, it can also mean a different developer takes the lead while working within the larger world, rules, and brand expectations already attached to the franchise.
For Fallout, New Vegas became more than a supplementary release in fans’ eyes. It prompted a recurring comparison between Obsidian and Bethesda: not simply which individual game someone prefers, but which studio is better suited to make Fallout overall. Kuhlmann described the perception directly, noting that some New Vegas supporters argue that Obsidian is better at these games and should be handed the series entirely.
That distinction matters. Fans comparing two entries in a long-running series is normal. A debate over stewardship is something broader. Stewardship, in this context, means the perceived authority to determine a franchise’s tone, lore, priorities, and future. Once an outside developer delivers an entry that attracts an especially committed audience, discussion can move from “this is a good alternate take” to “this should be the main take.”
Kuhlmann’s point is not that a competing studio has to fail for the original team to retain its role. It is that a successful spin-off may produce a permanent comparison that overshadows the intended benefit of broadening the franchise. For a property as closely associated with Bethesda’s own development identity as The Elder Scrolls, that may be a risk leadership would prefer not to invite.
Related coverage includes Why The Elder Scrolls Never Got Its Own New Vegas-Style Spin-Off.
Protecting a series is not the same as rejecting collaboration
It would be easy to read the remark as evidence of hostility between Bethesda and Obsidian, but the information available points away from that conclusion. Howard has previously said that Obsidian was “the only choice” for a new Fallout game after Fallout 3, and he has also expressed strong respect for the studio and its slate of 2025 releases.
Those remarks complicate any simplistic “Bethesda versus Obsidian” framing. A developer can value another studio’s talent, acknowledge its work, and still choose to retain close control over a different franchise. The choice is especially understandable when the two series have distinct identities even though both occupy the broad role-playing-game category.
Fallout is a post-apocalyptic setting with its own established history, factions, visual language, and player expectations. The Elder Scrolls is a separate fantasy world with a different lore foundation and a particularly long-running association with Bethesda’s internal teams. Kuhlmann’s experience as a loremaster is relevant here: lore work involves preserving coherence across a fictional universe, including the history, cultures, terminology, and narrative rules that fans use to make sense of it. The more central lore consistency is to a brand’s identity, the more consequential a change in creative leadership can appear to its audience.
That does not mean another team could not make an Elder Scrolls game. It means the decision would carry consequences beyond development logistics. The product would be judged both as a game and as a statement about who has the authority to interpret Tamriel.
The burden of comparison
There is a useful difference between a sequel and an external companion project. With a sequel from the established studio, fans still argue over systems, stories, and design direction, but the basic authorship of the series is assumed. With a spin-off from another developer, authorship itself becomes part of the discourse.
That can be productive. Different creative teams can bring different priorities to familiar worlds, whether that means new approaches to quests, character choice, regional storytelling, or role-playing systems. Yet it can also create a split audience, particularly when a portion of players sees one approach as the “real” expression of what the franchise should be.
New Vegas’s legacy illustrates the latter dynamic. Its reputation has not merely endured as a positive response to one game; it has become a reference point in discussions about the future of Fallout. Kuhlmann’s observation is that Bethesda likely saw that effect and decided it was not a dynamic worth reproducing for The Elder Scrolls.
For players hoping for an Elder Scrolls project from a different studio, that interpretation does not make the possibility impossible. It does, however, suggest that the barrier may be strategic rather than imaginative. The question may not be whether there are other developers capable of making a compelling game in the setting. The question may be whether Bethesda believes the upside of such a release would outweigh the likely argument about custodianship afterward.
What the Xbox restructuring adds to the picture
The issue has acquired extra weight amid reported restructuring at Xbox. Bethesda has reportedly taken over management of Obsidian, while Bethesda president Jill Braff has said the studio will retain its “creative identity.” At the same time, the studios are described as working together on a new Fallout game.
Management structure and creative identity are related but not identical ideas. Management concerns reporting lines, oversight, resource decisions, and organizational direction. Creative identity is the studio’s distinctive approach to design and the autonomy it has to pursue that approach. A promise to preserve the latter may reassure observers that Obsidian’s voice will remain recognizable, but it does not erase questions about how organizational changes affect developers in practice.
Those concerns have been voiced publicly as well. Michael Douse, publishing director for Baldur’s Gate 3, said he could not imagine the move felt great for Obsidian’s developers. That response should be understood as commentary on the possible human impact of the restructuring, not evidence that creative identity has already been lost or that a particular project’s direction has changed.
For fans, the immediate practical implication is mostly one of expectation management. Collaboration between Bethesda and Obsidian on Fallout should not automatically be treated as a template for The Elder Scrolls. The two franchises may sit under the same broader corporate umbrella, but Kuhlmann’s comments indicate that Bethesda’s leadership may view the reputational stakes around an Elder Scrolls spin-off differently.
What this means for Elder Scrolls expectations
There is no announced Elder Scrolls spin-off in the information at hand, and nothing in Kuhlmann’s remarks should be mistaken for a tease that one is in development. Instead, the comments help explain why players have not seen a direct equivalent to New Vegas despite years of interest in the idea.
The core takeaway is less dramatic than a rivalry narrative: successful collaborations can still make rights holders more cautious. New Vegas demonstrated that a different studio can become deeply associated with a beloved version of a major role-playing series. In Kuhlmann’s view, Howard’s response for The Elder Scrolls was likely to avoid setting up that same comparison.
That puts Bethesda’s protectiveness in a clearer light. It can be read as a desire to preserve creative continuity, brand identity, and the studio’s relationship with a series it has long defined. Players may reasonably disagree with that instinct and prefer to see multiple interpretations of Tamriel. But the argument Kuhlmann identifies is not about whether fans could enjoy an outside perspective; it is about whether Bethesda wants to turn that perspective into a contest over who should own the future of The Elder Scrolls.
As the wider RPG landscape continues to evolve, studios are also experimenting with how older formulas can be retained or adapted—an issue visible even in discussions around preserving a classic questing experience while adjusting its systems. For Bethesda, Kuhlmann’s account suggests that preserving the Elder Scrolls identity may mean keeping its central development role in-house rather than testing that identity through a high-profile outside spin-off.
