Interview RPG Codex Interview: Dan Vávra (Warhorse Studios)

[Mrowak]

Enough with this nonsensical discussion of identifying with a player character. That's for E-LARP shit like Oblivion.

Not really. Take any RPG. Then remove the setting from it. What you are left with?

Take an RPG and remove numbers from it, and put something else that performs their function (e.g. abilities, reactivity to player's actions). It still will be an RPG.

Oblivion fails exactly in this regard. I mean it has tonnes of stats and abilities, and yet it is unresponsive, unreactive, the world is an empty void which does not account for anything you are doing. Oblivion is the very incarnation of a stat-centric game.

The E-LARP you talk about is a byproduct. Because the world does not react to players' actions they have to create their own headcannon and pretend their behaviour matters. I think Daniel.Vavra attempts to go in the opposite direction.

I don't play RPGs to pretend I'm someone else. I play them because I enjoy character progression, figuring out multiple solutions to quests/combat, open world exploration, and challenging combat that plays out differently depending on which type of character build I'm using.

And bajillion of stats are necessary for it how?

I don't give a fuck about IM-HER-SHUN!

Actually you do. All the elements above are what creates immersion in the game. This is what you respond to: *you* figuring out multiple solutions to quests (instead of e.g. clicking "[Diplomacy] I win"), *you* building your character to play it (not him playing the game for you), *you* exploring, and you facing foes (as opposed to rolling dice which determines if you won or not) Stats are just your means of securing that... but they also can prevent it, because they are... *duh*, static. In some games they may undermine all the facets that you care about. When taken to excess stats may turn the *game* into an interactive screen-saver.

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

So I have ritually destroyed all my consoles, because they are the root of all evil in the world and I decided to create something "true" for those who have the "knowledge". Something like this...

BTW: we had quite long discussion about what is true RPG, I refreshed my memory by reading the history of RPGs, and tried to search the definition of what RPG is. I didnt found any definitions stating something about controllers, skillbased gameplay or even necessity to have stats. I totally agree with this: "The variety of role playing games makes it inherently challenging to provide a common definition. However, all forms of role playing games – be they PnP RPGs, CRPGs, MMORPGs or LARPS - share a group of characteristics, which makes them identifiable from other types of games: storytelling with rules, control of fictional characters, a fictitious reality, usually the presence of a game master (or game engine), and at least one player." Amen.

 

[LundB]

Yeah people are totally saying that only Wizardry is a real RPG... Great strawman broski. And that broad a definition would make Halo an RPG.

I'm drunk so I'm going to just go to sleep and see if this interview and some of the posts itt make more sense in the morning.

They didn't.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Guise, this just in, Half Life is a RPG, like totally.

 

[Mrowak]

"The variety of role playing games makes it inherently challenging to provide a common definition. However, all forms of role playing games – be they PnP RPGs, CRPGs, MMORPGs or LARPS - share a group of characteristics, which makes them identifiable from other types of games: storytelling with rules, control of fictional characters, a fictitious reality, usually the presence of a game master (or game engine), and at least one player." Amen.

Yeah, but if I were to go Codex on you, I'd point out that this definition fits such games like Hexen, Halo, Gears of War, Binary Domain, Call of Duty, etc. In other words all modern shooters fit this framework.

So, are you desigining a popamole corridor shooter with stats?

The piece that's missing here, IMO is what those games are about (the focus of the genre). RPGs are about *exploration* and *interaction* with the gameworld through *a character* that *changes* in the course of the adventure and *the player controls the direction of those changes* to facilitate greater interactivity.

All of the abovesaid criteria must be fulfilled for a game to be considered an RPG.

Now how this is accomplished, I do not care.

 

[LundB]

The piece that's missing here, IMO is what those games are about (the focus of the genre). RPGs are about *exploration* and *interaction* with the gameworld through *a character* that *changes* in the course of the adventure and *the player controls the direction of those changes* to facilitate greater interactivity.

All of the abovesaid criteria must be fulfilled for a game to be considered an RPG.

Far Cry 3, Saints Row 3, and a host of other games are apparently RPGs then.

 

[Mrowak]

The piece that's missing here, IMO is what those games are about (the focus of the genre). RPGs are about *exploration* and *interaction* with the gameworld through *a character* that *changes* in the course of the adventure and *the player controls the direction of those changes* to facilitate greater interactivity.

All of the abovesaid criteria must be fulfilled for a game to be considered an RPG.

Far Cry 3, Saints Row 3, and a host of other games are apparently RPGs then.

Indeed, they are. Although the "character that changes" bit is rather lackluster in Far Cry 3. I haven't played Saints Row yet - not my thing.

 

[codexian reject]

Skyrim like, with a world that makes sense, gameplay system that makes it a competent action game where it is more fun/interesting then relying on RNG and stats alone, but which rely on RNG and stats in other areas, is something that many people is definitely looking forward to. I really like recent gameplay presentation of Wasteland 2, looks promising and fun, but it doesn't mean I want to play only turn based RPGs now.

That said, console controller is good only for single character action games that don't require fast and precise aiming and don't have / require frequent use of detailed GUI, but it shouldn't be an issue for the kind of game Warhorse is making and will need only a slight redesign for m&k ( think new DeusEx ). Why controller is terrible for anything else was said already in detail in this thread. I don't get why you feel the need to defend consoles terrible input devices in the context of this game and on the codex out of all places. It won't sell on consoles because of the setting and simulationist goals. It is bound to sell on Xbox and PS combined less than on PC, and retail margins, platforms submissions/cuts and heavy marketing required to sell there anything at all, will eat most of the profits anyway. The kind of people that care about authenticity, good taste and making sense, simulation depth, or have a clue where Bohemia is, don't play on console toys and you won't even have photorealistic graphics on consoles to make them drool. They'll laugh at it and call it boring. Just look at The Witcher 2 “success” on xbox360 ( and that game seemed to be perfect match for consoles ) ...

On the other hand the codex is filled with closed minded morons, that follow flawed “dogmatic logic”, keeping to mutter the same mindless mantras like: “I didn't enjoy combat in any real time with pause squad based rpg so far, thus turn based is superior and RTWP is shit by definition”, or “P&P rpgs are turn based, so computer rpgs should be too”. It doesn't matter, that realtime makes things happen simultaneously, which only adds another layer of depth and realism to tactical simulation, or that RT makes you spend most of the time actually playing the game instead of being bored to death wasting more than half the time, watching each unit moving/acting their turns one by one. Maybe most of RTWP games were a dumbed down mess on purpose, by design and market research, or because devs failed to accomplish what they tried to, not because of real time principle only? Maybe JA2 is the best tactical RPG because it was well designed all around, not because of turns only?

No... for these people computer rpgs should be all about implementing simplistic P&P rules, originally designed to be easily calculated on the fly by 12 years old kids. Arguing with them, is a waste of time, better to leave them alone moving sprites and throwing virtual dices against non existent AI in D&D GoldBox games, which is an epitome of entertainment apparently. Design proposals and opinions of these people about games that aim to be virtual reality simulators, are about as valuable, as religious zealots solutions to real world problems. BTW, D&D/Forgotten Realms are one of the more retarded systems/worlds, an insult to good taste and human intelligence, that should die in fire.

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

I would say, that the other important thingy is CHOICE of WHAT to do and HOW to do it. To me that is the biggest difference. FC3 or RDR are open world games, but only choice you have in them is to WHEN to do something. But when you start to do some quest, its usually linear. In RPG you usually have choice to do it in different ways and that choice is also based on abilities of your character. This makes a huge difference and disqualifies most of the mentioned games (even some that are called RPGs). But its worth mentioning, that even in tabletop RPGs, there is not unlimited choice usually. Game master has some story and he is manipulating the game to stay within its boundaries.

But anyway, almost all of the definitions of RPG are mentioning STORYTELLING as most important part of the RPG, while the story is co-created by the players (based on their choice and actions). None of the definitions state anything about controllers, platforms or need to be turn based.

But anyway, I dont care about this stuff. I am creating a game which I would like to play. If anyone will like it - great. If someone thinks its not true RPG - whatever. I dont care how its called, I have more important stuff to think about.

 

[Mrowak]

But anyway, I dont care about this stuff. I am creating a game which I would like toplay. If anyone will like it - great. If some think its not true RPG - whatever. I dont care how its called, I have more important stuff to think about.

Now, now don't get flustered. As long as it's going to be as ambitious and fun to play as you are promising it to be, I am certain most Codexers will buy it. I feel sorry you had to become the victim of the enternal debate "But what is an RPG? "

 

[Metro]

Oblivion fails exactly in this regard. I mean it has tonnes of stats and abilities, and yet it is unresponsive, unreactive, the world is an empty void which does not account for anything you are doing. Oblivion is the very incarnation of a stat-centric game.

Except it isn't. Stats are almost meaningless in Oblivion because of the level scaling and because of the overall terrible design of the character system by Bethesderp. They basically give the player in-game hacks to increase your powers to stupid level... all in the name of E-Larping. That's what happens when you don't constrain the players in terms of stats/builds/mutually exclusive branches of development.

The E-LARP you talk about is a byproduct. Because the world does not react to players' actions they have to create their own headcannon and pretend their behaviour matters. I think Daniel.Vavra attempts to go in the opposite direction.

It's not a byproduct it is intentional by the game's very design. Wasn't one of its taglines: 'Live another life' or some nonsense like that?

Actually you do. All the elements above are what creates immersion in the game. This is what you respond to: *you* figuring out multiple solutions to quests (instead of e.g. clicking "[Diplomacy] I win"), *you* building your character to play it (not him playing the game for you), *you* exploring, and you facing foes (as opposed to rolling dice which determines if you won or not) Stats are just your means of securing that... but they also can prevent it, because they are... *duh*, static. In some games they may undermine all the facets that you care about. When taken to excess stats may turn the *game* into an interactive screen-saver.

No, they don't create immersion -- they are simply good elements of an RPG. Has nothing to do with me transposing myself into a fictional character.

 

[Wizfall]

So I have ritually destroyed all my consoles, because they are the root of all evil in the world and I decided to create something "true" for those who have the "knowledge". Something like this...

BTW: we had quite long discussion about what is true RPG, I refreshed my memory by reading the history of RPGs, and tried to search the definition of what RPG is. I didnt found any definitions stating something about controllers, skillbased gameplay or even necessity to have stats. I totally agree with this: "The variety of role playing games makes it inherently challenging to provide a common definition. However, all forms of role playing games – be they PnP RPGs, CRPGs, MMORPGs or LARPS - share a group of characteristics, which makes them identifiable from other types of games: storytelling with rules, control of fictional characters, a fictitious reality, usually the presence of a game master (or game engine), and at least one player." Amen.

You miss the point so much that it is scary.
I hope you are trolling.
Of course real time games like the elder scroll are cRPG (i have only play Daggerfall and Morrowind though).
The gameplay of those games have advantages but also huge disadvantages over turn based.
They don't play the same way at all and you can't achieve the same result. It's totally different games.
So claiming one system is evolution over the other does not have sense.

 

[Metro]

Someone do a Codex troll with a psycho knit cap and beard.

 

[hiver]

You guys and youre semantics.

The main point is is the game fun or not!

Daniel.Vavra

tell me the important stuff:

1. Is there going to be romances? Since you like Witcher are we going to get high def romancing as we did there? You know just fading to black isnt cutting it anymore. It has to be more engaging. And with such a cutting edge graphics you could expand you can achieve
bigger immersion then anyone before.
You guys have a chance to do something bigger, better and more innovative than Wither and mass effect achieved.
How about hot babes? How about hot dudes? Are you going to provide appropriate content for LGTB community or are you going to be one of those that say nobody was LGTB in middle ages?

2. How intense and gritty is the combat going to be exactly? I like skyrim but man there is no blood, no limbs flying off, no heads flying off - well except when you get that critical strike animation.
Clearly something that can be improved and topped. Especially with magic. Is there going to be torture? There was a lot of it in middle ages. Or are you going to wuss out of that too?

3. How about the story? is it going to be epic? How important my character will be for that world?

 

[felipepepe]

But anyway, I dont care about this stuff. I am creating a game which I would like to play. If anyone will like it - great. If someone thinks its not true RPG - whatever. I dont care how its called, I have more important stuff to think about.

I fully agree with this statement.

 

[evdk]

I fully agree with this statement.

When has the Codex ever let an opportunity to discuss the definition of RPG go by?

 

[Captain Shrek]

I fully agree with this statement.

When has the Codex ever let an opportunity to discuss the definition of RPG go by?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...at-constitutes-good-games.76382/#post-2282498

 

[Gord]

The piece that's missing here, IMO is what those games are about (the focus of the genre). RPGs are about *exploration* and *interaction* with the gameworld through *a character* that *changes* in the course of the adventure and *the player controls the direction of those changes* to facilitate greater interactivity.

All of the abovesaid criteria must be fulfilled for a game to be considered an RPG.

Now how this is accomplished, I do not care.

TBH, then you might still like the game he is going to do, because if I understood him correctly that stuff is still in.
The point that startet the whole discussion after all hasn't been so much about that. The thing is, that he's putting player skill over character skill, which is the main issue.
Your char will still have stats and improve them, but player skill will be much more important in combat (and other stuff, I guess) than character skill.
This doesn't necessarily touch on interaction, exploration or C&C, though.
But if you prefer character-skill focused systems, like D&D over, say, player-skill focused ones like Skyrim's then you're out of luck I guess.

 

[MetalCraze]

The real RPG is about you coming to a D&D session and saying "OK I'm going to play as a rog-" and DM cutting you off, shouting "shut the fuck up asshole! You are going to play as a fighter character who can only wield a few swords and use one at a time and his only combat trick is to roll around enemies and chip their health off and no you can't even pick a haircut - it will be white with a ponytail. And now I will tell you where you must go and what you must do and how you will do it. And if you don't like then go away you BITCH"

 

[Crooked Bee]

you can't even pick a haircut

Updated my skyway.txt

 

[Dexter]

you can't even pick a haircut

Updated my skyway.txt

Everybody knows they patched Witcher 2 to include a barber, seriously...

 

[Gord]

So does that mean that Skyway liked TW2 because you could pick a different haircut, or didn't he like it because of that?
I'm confused...

 

[Mrowak]

Oblivion fails exactly in this regard. I mean it has tonnes of stats and abilities, and yet it is unresponsive, unreactive, the world is an empty void which does not account for anything you are doing. Oblivion is the very incarnation of a stat-centric game.

Except it isn't. Stats are almost meaningless in Oblivion because of the level scaling and because of the overall terrible design of the character system by Bethesderp. They basically give the player in-game hacks to increase your powers to stupid level... all in the name of E-Larping. That's what happens when you don't constrain the players in terms of stats/builds/mutually exclusive branches of development.

Ok, so what in your opinion is E-LARP? Until now I was convinced it was about you doing stuff in the gameworld and it not giving a damn. For example, "I close the door behind me, because that's what my character would do" or "I go to close the Oblibion Gates immediately because the world is in peril, so what the game couldn't care less?". What is your definition.

The E-LARP you talk about is a byproduct. Because the world does not react to players' actions they have to create their own headcannon and pretend their behaviour matters. I think Daniel.Vavra attempts to go in the opposite direction.

It's not a byproduct it is intentional by the game's very design. Wasn't one of its taglines: 'Live another life' or some nonsense like that?[/quote]

Hmm. It may be you are right in the case of Bethesda's marketing, but the point still stands. Oblivion is a piece of crap because its reactivity is limited, ergo od doesn't live up to its promises. There's no suspension of disbelief in the land of cardboards.

Actually you do. All the elements above are what creates immersion in the game. This is what you respond to: *you* figuring out multiple solutions to quests (instead of e.g. clicking "[Diplomacy] I win"), *you* building your character to play it (not him playing the game for you), *you* exploring, and you facing foes (as opposed to rolling dice which determines if you won or not) Stats are just your means of securing that... but they also can prevent it, because they are... *duh*, static. In some games they may undermine all the facets that you care about. When taken to excess stats may turn the *game* into an interactive screen-saver.

No, they don't create immersion -- they are simply good elements of an RPG. Has nothing to do with me transposing myself into a fictional character.[/quote]

But they do create immersion - they are what makes every action of yours matter. When you *want* to see what the next quest will be, or to play a motherfucking Viking with all the pros and cons of being one, to see the consequences of your actions and how they influence the world around you (including the gameplay) - this is genuine immersion.

Just consider for a moment why fetch quests are so lame (maybe because they are purely procedural, boring stuff unassociated with your character - why should you do busywork, when you became a viking for a reason?), or why killing a goddamn dragon is more satisfying than steamrolling a pack of rats (maybe because challenge creates immersion? Substitute the dragon with a bunch of stat-bloated rats [with the same skin and size] and see what happens). Or how when you pick a thief you expect the world and the gameplay to provide you with appropriate gameplay and quests befitting this class?

You may not care about stuff like plot, but you will always care if there is interesting stuff to do and how it's presented to you.

You could contrast that with IMMERSHUN where you are TOLD how you should feel or react (through cutscenes - Bioware Style) or be left on your own in a sandbox to create youe headcanon, while the gameworld doesn't give a damn (Bethesda's school of thought).

The argument here comes down to form vs. function. You don't play an RPG to fumble around with stats or gain abilities just because they have different names and numbers are so cool (form). You do so to see what happens when you *use* those stats and abilities in action (function).

As you might expect IMO, RPGs are defined exactly by function - the form is a fluff that can change however the designer wills it.

 

[Irenaeus]

when I play I want to escape issues of class and gender that still persist in RL.

 

[Mrowak]

The piece that's missing here, IMO is what those games are about (the focus of the genre). RPGs are about *exploration* and *interaction* with the gameworld through *a character* that *changes* in the course of the adventure and *the player controls the direction of those changes* to facilitate greater interactivity.

All of the abovesaid criteria must be fulfilled for a game to be considered an RPG.

Now how this is accomplished, I do not care.

TBH, then you might still like the game he is going to do, because if I understood him correctly that stuff is still in.
The point that startet the whole discussion after all hasn't been so much about that. The thing is, that he's putting player skill over character skill, which is the main issue.
Your char will still have stats and improve them, but player skill will be much more important in combat (and other stuff, I guess) than character skill.
This doesn't necessarily touch on interaction, exploration or C&C, though.

Well considering that I was arguing in favour of the developer all this thread - which I thought I reflected in that comment - then sure as hell I expect to like it... I do not care how he accomplishes his goal - if he adds a bunch of stats or gets rid of them entirely. If it still is an RPG, I'll roll with it.