RPG Codex Interview: Chris Avellone on Pillars Cut Content, Game Development Hierarchies and More

[lophiaspis]

In a well designed RPG, dialogue is gameplay. This is something Black Isle and Obsidian have always understood very well, MCA especially (even if he thinks he disagrees with the premise). The Ravel interaction is perhaps the best example. Choosing the wrong options with Ravel can give you a game over screen. Depending on how you handle her and your build, you can get massively more or less experience; you also get a variable amount of permanent stat boosts. I view the dialogue with Ravel as the real boss fight and the battle after is more like a nice dessert (it has substantially better encounter design than most fights in PS:T).

Why tho? What does picking the right dialogue option to get the most XP add to the, pardon me, experience? This just confirms my point on how gamification hurts narrative meaning. Seems more like a design flaw in Torment that for all the dramatically meaningful actions you carry out, most of the time you get a 'reward' like a +1 to Strength or some other gamified powerup that has no relevance whatsoever to the story and characters with which you just interacted. And this is not a case of 'ludonarrative dissonance', rather it is a case of the 'ludo' AS SUCH being INHERENTLY DISSONANT with the 'narrative'. This is the case in most story focused games (including oldschool puzzle adventures) where you have these gold nuggets of pure immersion, of videogames as a medium, in a sea of meaningless banality such as solving inventory puzzles, spank the monkey except with humans/monsters, eliminate these enemies to get a powerup/"experience points" to increase your ability to eliminate more enemies. Items in videogames are generally not real items with real properties but powerups fluffed up as items. Same with the people, they are all too often just either game pieces or rulebooks (quest dispensers) fluffed up as people, which drains them of all narrative meaning that they would have had if they were people acting as people rather than acting in this absurd way determined by the gamification. A more artistically focused design would ask how you can create a world wherein people and objects follow their own meaningful laws of existence, rather than them just being fluff for bizarre and incongruent game elements.

And why do people even assume that computer simulated worlds have anything at all to do with traditional games and sports? Are we talking about a new medium here, that emerged with computers in the 20th century, or are we talking about an activity that stretches back to prehistory? How can it be both? It can't. No, the medium is computer simulations; this false idea of the medium being 'videogames' is nothing but a legacy of its arcade origin. Game simulations are just a tiny tiny subset of the vast unexplored medium of simulations. And in the case of a designer who's not trying to make the next Tetris, but to tell a story in this new medium, this legacy paradigm can be positively harmful. The dogmatic insistence on gamifying the laws of physics in every computer simulation gets in the way of the designer's own stated purpose which might be to tell a story in a multimedia fashion, to allow the player to immerse themselves in a role, etc.

Also, I think you’re underselling Disco Elysium. Fail too many rolls and you’ll run out of health or volition points and lose the game.

The point, though, is that all of these active skill checks in DE are the gameplay. If anything, Disco Elysium is trying to regamify dialogue. ZA/UM realized something important: narrative and gameplay elements don’t need to be mutually exclusive. Combat should have narrative heft; interactions should be heavily based on stats, skills, buffs, dice rolls and, most of all, strategy, rather than just passive skill checks. I love this idea. Dialogue should feel like you’re under the gun and taking real risks, not like a CYOA, and the consequences of your choices should be more interesting than just pass/fail.

You may be right, I haven't played Disco so I can't say. You're right that the health and volition points represent a challenge, but to me what they have shown seems pretty simulationist compared with most RPGs in which you have to solve an interminable number of banal puzzles fluffed up as fight sequences to even progress in the story. I also think there's some confusion between the presence or immersion factor of feeling like you're taking risks because of the simulation elements, and actually being in a game situation where if you fail to do this and that action then you have to start over. I think the fact of losing the game and being forced to start over can in many cases hurt the actual immersion of feeling like you're in an intense situation. It would be more immersive if you 'failed' IN THE STORY, and the story went on with the consequences of the failure, rather than 'failing' in the GAME and simply being forced to start over.

And just to be clear: I'm obviously not against gamification and challenging gameplay per se. It has its place. It's not like I don't like games. All I'm saying is that in most cases designers would be well served by asking themselves whether a particular interaction should be gamified or not, instead of dogmatically gamifying everything as they do now.

 

[Roguey]

holy shit Feargus killed DS3??

This has been hinted at for quite some time.

Can you explain the reasoning behind the gun witch's character design in DS3? It's really disappointing to see such obvious and cliche cheesecake after the progressive and positive treatment of female characters in FONV.

I had virtually no involvement in Dungeon Siege 3, but I believe that's a question for Feargus.

I've got one for you George: when I departed DS III in June 2009, the creative foundation you were laying was awesome. I expected another story masterpiece. But the final game (10/2011) didn't excite most critics with its story. What the heck happened? =)

Good question, Kevin. The DS3 story went through so many rewrites that I don’t remember exactly where it was when you left the company, but I’m sure it was early in the process – probably right after I finished the Ehb sourcebook.

My early drafts of the story were truer to my usual narrative tendencies. They were more personal - focused on the player – and they depicted a “grayer” version of the Legion. One of the storylines – possibly the one you remember – also included a lot more supernatural elements.

However, it was decided (above my pay grade) that we should keep the story focused on a threat that affected the nation or the world. Also, there was a desire to ensure that the Legion was clearly Good. I think the underlying impulse was to avoid a lot of narrative complexity, which makes sense in a franchise like Dungeon Siege.

So at that point, I started a long cycle of story revisions. Normally, the iteration process is where your story gets progressively stronger. But in this case, I remember feeling that we’d ended up with a weaker, more watered-down story than some of the earlier versions.

Is there any particular reason why Dungeon Siege III wasn't more unusual?

Yes, definitely. First, we were bound by the Dungeon Siege license, and the DS world is a fairly standard fantasy setting, albeit with a few twists. Second, Higher Powers wanted DS3 to be more mainstream… and not a personal storyline like MotB. Third, narrative was not a top priority on DS3, so the story and setting got less attention and resources than combat and gameplay.

And then

So Richard Taylor wasn't the reason Dungeon Siege 3's story sucked?

Richard Taylor is never cited as the reason any game sucked, ever. That guy is amazing.

The Codex dilemma: the guy who wants sexy women in video games also wants bog-standard save-the-land storylines.

 

[Prime Junta]

Didn't Feargus say something to the effect of, a cRPG is bashing skeletons and collecting loot? Figures. (Paging resident autists for chapter and verse.)

 

[Infinitron]

The Codex dilemma: the guy who wants sexy women in video games also wants bog-standard save-the-land storylines.

Yup. And the uncreative schmoe who just wants to go "running around Skyrim and going into dungeons and killing skeletons" is also the guy who you can count on to keep on making RPGs for 15 years.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/article.php?id=8787

RPS: [...] do you look at something like Walking Dead and think, “Well, if we really want to focus on the choices, let’s strip out the combat and just make a story”?

Feargus Urquhart: That’s hard. I don’t want to say I’m a traditionalist, but my upbringing is Dungeons and Dragons. [...] As it relates to something like taking the combat out, this is where there’s probably better game designers and smarter people than me who could come up with an incredible system for that. But you know what? I personally enjoy that aspect. I like running around Skyrim and going into dungeons and killing skeletons. It makes me feel like this fantasy character. I don’t know that it would feel the same way. Maybe the answer there is that there are genres where it makes sense that combat is being put in, but combat exists particularly in fantasy role-playing games because that’s kind of where it came from. It was a tactical game. It’s more of an ingrained part of why that experience ever was there. But I think for other things it can absolutely get taken out, simplified. But it has to be replaced with something.

EDIT: Ninja'd!

 

[Perkel]

Honestly it is super tiring to read it and probably even more so for Chris to experience it.

Chris Avellone since you quit Obsidian have you ever thought about making kick-starter for game with you as lead ? Obviously you said some people wanted to head their projects but i am talking about your project. Or do you fancy just focusing on writing as freelancer more ?

 

[Prime Junta]

Anyone else feel that Feargus deserves an updated developer mug? The one he has doesn't seem to communicate his ... essence sufficiently.

 

[Iskramor]

In other news, the Fearg is suddenly active on Twitter again, posting pictures of dogs and license plates and other things to demonstrate how completely unconcerned he is about any of this.

https://twitter.com/Feargus

MUH Tempi

 

[Cross]

The Codex dilemma: the guy who wants sexy women in video games also wants bog-standard save-the-land storylines.

And yet, when Feargus finally manages to secure ownership of an IP that Obsidian has full creative control over (unlike all their previous games), we get this:

 

[The Great ThunThun*]

I have a strong suspicion that Chris Avellone no longer wants to be the lead designer. He probably neither wants the responsibility nor the glory. He is more interested in doing the job he likes, which is designing deep characters and putting them in complex situations.

 

[Lahey]

I'm waiting for the film adaptation.

Feargus will be played by Paul Giamatti.

Giamatti could definitely pull off the 'screaming at publishers over the phone' monologues, but Louie Anderson would be my pick.

 

[Infinitron]

He is more interested in doing the job he likes, which is designing deep characters and putting them in complex situations.

Nope, not that either IMO. That's just another Codex wishful thinking.

He's just interested in experimenting with all sorts of weird stuff.

 

[Ezeekiel]

Edit: This post got messed up somehow, missing part of the quote.

 

[Projas]

Didn't Feargus say something to the effect of, a cRPG is bashing skeletons and collecting loot? Figures. (Paging resident autists for chapter and verse.)

That's closer to a definition of an RPG than anything we've ever came up with. Maybe that's how he put it in the non compete.

 

[Roguey]

And yet, when Feargus gets to be in full control of his own IP, we get this:

I get the impression Feargus campaigned really hard for boobplate with Project Eternity, but Sawyer got his "told you so" with the negative reception to the first Cadegund pic.

 

[Infinitron]

Those portraits have been changed in the final game if you look at the streams (there's a reason they were all removed from the last beta update)

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

I'm not exactly a long time regular but I would wager this is the best thread on the Codex ever.

Monty battling Inxile and intergalatic pedophiles vs. this? Not even close.

Unless if Chris starts slowly descending into madness, live on the internet. But so far he seems dissapointingly sane.

 

[Ezeekiel]

What, MCA is married? That reduces my list of middle-aged unmarried men worth looking up to to 0. Guess I should just kill myself.

Hahahaha perfect.

 

[Cross]

Those portraits have been changed in the final game if you look at the streams (which is why they were all removed from the last beta update)

They were changed because they were practically forced to, after a fan edit of those portraits drew widespread praise and vocal criticism of Obsidian's original portraits.

 

[Xunwael]

The point, though, is that all of these active skill checks in DE are the gameplay. If anything, Disco Elysium is trying to regamify dialogue. ZA/UM realized something important: narrative and gameplay elements don’t need to be mutually exclusive. Combat should have narrative heft; interactions should be heavily based on stats, skills, buffs, dice rolls and, most of all, strategy, rather than just passive skill checks. I love this idea. Dialogue should feel like you’re under the gun and taking real risks, not like a CYOA, and the consequences of your choices should be more interesting than just pass/fail.

Adding stats to dialogue makes it feel like a CYOA though, doesn't it? Combat can get away with it because it can be hundreds of rolls in just one encounter, never mind over the course of an entire game. That lets the randomness of rolls even itself out over the course of the fight. Adding rolls to dialogue either feels frustrating and gamey in a way that pulls you out of it (e.g. 60% chance to get Eden to kill himself; such roleplaying). And doing it without rolls just gets you boring crap like Age of Decadence, where with the right social skills you walk around literally erasing settlements from the map with your tongue, the correct dialogue options helpfully pointed out to you by the UI. It's just gambling or heavy-handed railroading.

PS:T dialogue was interesting because you had to actually read it to make it through and not just pick the option highlighted by your relevant social skill, but even PS:T had the issue that you kind of just wanted to play a wizard with the right levels of int/wis so you could gain access to that dialogue.

I guess if you sat down and designed a really robust dialogue 'combat' system it could be good, and this is easier if your game doesn't have combat to distract from that system, but man that sounds like a lot of work - where instead of having attacks just be rolls you have to write dialogue for all of them? When they already seem overloaded with the simple dialogue currently in games?

 

[Elex]

Didn't Feargus say something to the effect of, a cRPG is bashing skeletons and collecting loot? Figures. (Paging resident autists for chapter and verse.)

That's closer to a definition of an RPG than anything we've ever came up with. Maybe that's how he put it in the non compete.

i just realized that somewhere in the world a judge have too find the definition of rpg for a non compete clause.

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

While Fallout was in production, I was unhappy at how development worked at Interplay. People who didn’t play games, or didn’t even seem to like games, were making decisions about how to market the game, what features it should have, and when it should ship. ... But the same problems resurfaced. For example, to save time and money, I had decided to have the same internal artists make the box for Fallout 2. Feargus was upset that I had made such a decision without consulting him, but when I talked to Marketing, they were fine with the idea. But then Sales decided to change the box size and style, which would create problems for making the second box look similar to the first. In a meeting with Sales where Feargus was present, I was told that the decision was made and “there will be no further discussion on it.”

 

[Blakemoreland Hybrid Boss]

Well, that would be misappropriation, which I don't think is fair to attribute to Obsidian's culture, for all the angst we spill here.. The second "still impossible to implement" I doubt -- there is a possibility that Jones would argue against the factual reality of working code, but that would be far too unreasonable. Agree that the "insult" you mention could have added the emotional aspect to the legal side of affairs, though.

You give them too much credit.

 

[deepfire]

While Fallout was in production, I was unhappy at how development worked at Interplay. People who didn’t play games, or didn’t even seem to like games, were making decisions about how to market the game, what features it should have, and when it should ship. ... But the same problems resurfaced. For example, to save time and money, I had decided to have the same internal artists make the box for Fallout 2. Feargus was upset that I had made such a decision without consulting him, but when I talked to Marketing, they were fine with the idea. But then Sales decided to change the box size and style, which would create problems for making the second box look similar to the first. In a meeting with Sales where Feargus was present, I was told that the decision was made and “there will be no further discussion on it.”

Makes you wonder, why would Tim choose to work with Feargus once again, right?

..and I don't like the answers that come to mind..

 

[Ezeekiel]

It shouldn't come out as a surprise at this point that Avellone himself is as big of a dick as the rest of the partners. Those five clearly deserved each other.

This also serves as a reminder for anyone thinking about founding a company. Do it on your own, at least then you can get rid of everyone who you despise after 10 long years.

Maybe Chris has *permission* to say this stuff and this is all a prelude to a big exodus or coup at Obsidian after Pillars 2 release?
Be pretty funny if Sawyer and Co suddenly announce their own new studio, out of reach of the wicked claws of upper management or whatever.

 

[Prime Junta]

Maybe Chris has *permission* to say this stuff and this is all a prelude to a big exodus or coup at Obsidian after Pillars 2 release?
Be pretty funny if Sawyer and Co suddenly announce their own new studio, out of reach of the wicked claws of upper management or whatever.

Way to start a new studio. "OHAI publishers, work with us, we're really cool and laid-back and not the least bit difficult to work with!"