Codex Interview RPG Codex Interview: Eric Fenstermaker on Pillars of Eternity​

[Irenaeus III]

Eric's companion is the one that evoked the most emotion from me

Which one is that?

Edér

Oh yeah, he was a very good companion. Very much like a self-insert of Fenstermaker's Folly himself.

 

[Crichton]

This leads me to the bigger problem: he does not understand, and continues to ignore, that the characters in Pillars of Eternity were, by and large, boring, and thus depending on the characters to make the player emotionally invested/involved is not going to work. Why should I care about people such as Aloth, Sagani, Hiravias, etc., who just randomly hook up with the main character and barely says/does anything of value early on? Characters are not compelling just because they have their own personalities, motivations, and help to develop a theme. Characters are compelling because they make us sympathize with them, or like them, or hate them, or get a kick out of talking to them. Very few characters in Pillars of Eternity are able to do any of this, and that's a basic weakness that the writers need to address before talking up the big ideas for the second game.

Whatever problems Pillars had due to its winding plot, I disagree about the characters. I'd say Pillars is in the top 3 all time great-companion CRPGs, right after PS:T and MoTB. Eder, Durance have very nice stories, the Halfling druid and Kana have nice chatter, I kind of like Pallagina because she reminds me of Denehir, I wasn't cumming buckets over Grieving Mother like most codexers but the idea was interesting. Even the companions I didn't like much like Aloth and Sagani were just sort of blah, completely inoffensive (unlike many of the BG and KotOR dipshits).

I thought most of the other characters were nicely-written as well (Lady Webb and Raedric, in particular). The vast horde of quest-giving NPCs seem to have reasonable motivations and try to take advantage of the player's strength without instantly adoring him. All of the interactions with the Gods are nice, particularly Wael. Even characters we don't get to spend much time with like the Duc are more than the cardboard caricatures you get in most CRPGs.

The biggest exception that springs to mind is Thaos, simply because we know nothing about him. You could replace "he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to keep it secret" with "he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to create one of his own" or "he found out the gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to destroy them all" or "he was an ardent Woedica-worshiper back in the day and now he's trying to destroy all the other gods so people have to worship her again" or "the founder of the adeyr empire stole his girlfriend 6000 years ago and he became a priest of Woedica to take revenge on the empire over successive generations" and every interaction we have with him until the final battle would make just as much sense. I think for a game like this one, you either need to tell the player something about the villain (Irenicus) or create an intense personal conflict between the villain and the hero (The transcendent One). An incomprehensible villain who just faffs about ignoring the player doesn't work as well.

 

[Irenaeus III]

Very good post.

"he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to keep it secret" with "he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to create one of his own" or "he found out the gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to destroy them all" or "he was an ardent Woedica-worshiper back in the day and now he's trying to destroy all the other gods so people have to worship her again" or "the founder of the adeyr empire stole his girlfriend 6000 years ago and he became a priest of Woedica to take revenge on the empire over successive generations"

Those are some interesting ideas.

 

[Tigranes]

Yeah, where I have a lot of criticisms to throw at the plot structure, the execution, the tone of the writing, etc, etc, the companions were marvellous.

In a word, most people who don't like POE's characters simply don't jibe with the recessive, understated style that governs them - because melodrama has been the universal style governing how CRPGs are written for basically 99% of them.

Eder manages to functionally fulfill the "agreeable fighter NPC that can fit into any party" without becoming an annoying soapy-melodrama Carth; he manages to go through a story arc about a lost bro and guilt over the past without getting into predictable emo sob stories, grimdark try-hard Cure album "you do not understand my pain", or any such wildness. He responds in a complex and realistic way - sometimes joking, sometimes wishing he could sweep it all under a rug, sometimes getting a bit desperate about it. Sagani & Kana a lot of people say is 'boring', but usually this comes down to the argument that nothing EPIC happens in their stories. In fact, for any attentive player, they are the best mirrors for the themes of the POE main plot and the world and the Watcher: the idea that sometimes you can never discover the lost truths, recover the lost artefacts, set the record straight, get a revelation that puts all the pieces in the puzzle together, etc. That sometimes, the uncertainty and anxiety that you started your journey with is something that you can never get rid of, and what matters is how you still make your choices, which will define who you are, not the secrets or the missing soul.

Durance and the Grieving Mother are the more traditionally melodramatic and actively expressive types; those who broadcast their problems and mystery a mile away, and invite the player to journey through their intensified rendition of the themes. And it's good that they are there, quite apart from the fact that MCA wrote them, to have a bit of contrast.

Thaos is terribly written all the way through, and only really gets compelling dialogue at the very end, but as Crichton says, the other major characters tend to do well. Maybe a consequence of how little cross-editing was possible, so that characters as mostly handled by a single writer come out well but the whole plot creaks and trips a lot?

 

[Trashos]

Some very interesting posts here. I don't understand some people's hate for Thaos, I thought he was excellent and a worthy foe. Heck, I am a libertarian and still I liked the guy.

The biggest exception that springs to mind is Thaos, simply because we know nothing about him. You could replace "he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to keep it secret" with "he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to create one of his own" or "he found out the gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to destroy them all" or "he was an ardent Woedica-worshiper back in the day and now he's trying to destroy all the other gods so people have to worship her again" or "the founder of the adeyr empire stole his girlfriend 6000 years ago and he became a priest of Woedica to take revenge on the empire over successive generations" and every interaction we have with him until the final battle would make just as much sense. I think for a game like this one, you either need to tell the player something about the villain (Irenicus) or create an intense personal conflict between the villain and the hero (The transcendent One). An incomprehensible villain who just faffs about ignoring the player doesn't work as well.

Why did Thaos need more details? Not knowing the details of his life makes his message crystal clear. It is not a case of "I think like this because thus and such happened to me" (like Aloth). Thaos' argument is an intellectual one. Sometimes less is more.

Thaos is terribly written all the way through, and only really gets compelling dialogue at the very end, but as Crichton says, the other major characters tend to do well. Maybe a consequence of how little cross-editing was possible, so that characters as mostly handled by a single writer come out well but the whole plot creaks and trips a lot?

Again, I don't see what is terrible about the way he is written. Isn't the message he embodies clear? Doesn't he make an interesting case?

 

[Tigranes]

My reason for beating on Thaos has more to do with the way he is placed in the game, rather than his lines in isolation. He doesn't get enough screen time, and where he does, here's this guy in a stupid mad wizard costume appearing in far too convenient deus ex machina-y places (e.g. the sanitarium). I think if the Watcher's madness aspect was properly played up more, and the player got more insights into the distant past throughout (someone mentioned visiting Creitum in dream state), then he would be better situated. Hence he is a lot more impressive right at the end, when he can actually have a rational conversation with you about his beliefs instead of spouting propaganda. As it is, his talk just feels too decontextualised to have impact in Act 1/2, and when he appeared at the trial I groaned because I knew he would turn up just at the right moment, whereas Sarevok and Irenicus didn't have such convenient appearances.

 

[Ninjerk]

TBH, the game would probably be better off if he wasn't even in the game until the end of Act 2.

 

[Trashos]

Doh! The early discussions with Thaos are my favorite moments in the game! They threw me so far out of my comfort zone that I almost had a spiritual experience (while my character was also having a spiritual experience on screen).

Yes, more could have been done. But I wouldn't call it anywhere near terrible.

 

[Irenaeus III]

I have zero problems with Thaos whatsoever. He's great.

 

[Neanderthal]

Expectin more n just another bossfight, for fucks sake thas got Tim Cain an (had) Chris Avellone there, make someat as interestin as facin Master, talkin wi Transcendant One or Ravel. Owt instead o just another bloody fight.

 

[Irenaeus III]

Yeah, you should be able to join Thaos's crew and #MakeWoedicaGreatAgain.

Who has the best bunny ears hat in all Eora??

 

[Infinitron]

Fenstermaker's Folly says they weren't trying to have direct analogues to BG, but I thought Thaos seemed like a conspicuous blend of Sarevok and Irenicus, combining the sophistication of the latter with the former's utter sublimation to a higher ideal.

 

[felipepepe]

I knew he would turn up just at the right moment, whereas Sarevok and Irenicus didn't have such convenient appearances.

I really like how Irenicus isn't just a omnipresent bad guy - he basically gets his own adventure/story arc, starting from his lair being attacked, the battle with the cowled wizards, negotiating and going with Imoen to Spellhold, taking over it, stealing your powers for revenge upon the elves, etc... he's doing his own quest, and there are obstacles besides a single meddling group of adventurers.

That and all the conversations you have with him make him much more relatable than Thaos, who is just this mysteriously evil god-like guy for 95% of the game...

Also, dat motherfuking David Warner voice:

 

[Azarkon]

Yeah, where I have a lot of criticisms to throw at the plot structure, the execution, the tone of the writing, etc, etc, the companions were marvellous.

In a word, most people who don't like POE's characters simply don't jibe with the recessive, understated style that governs them - because melodrama has been the universal style governing how CRPGs are written for basically 99% of them.

Eder manages to functionally fulfill the "agreeable fighter NPC that can fit into any party" without becoming an annoying soapy-melodrama Carth; he manages to go through a story arc about a lost bro and guilt over the past without getting into predictable emo sob stories, grimdark try-hard Cure album "you do not understand my pain", or any such wildness. He responds in a complex and realistic way - sometimes joking, sometimes wishing he could sweep it all under a rug, sometimes getting a bit desperate about it. Sagani & Kana a lot of people say is 'boring', but usually this comes down to the argument that nothing EPIC happens in their stories. In fact, for any attentive player, they are the best mirrors for the themes of the POE main plot and the world and the Watcher: the idea that sometimes you can never discover the lost truths, recover the lost artefacts, set the record straight, get a revelation that puts all the pieces in the puzzle together, etc. That sometimes, the uncertainty and anxiety that you started your journey with is something that you can never get rid of, and what matters is how you still make your choices, which will define who you are, not the secrets or the missing soul.

Durance and the Grieving Mother are the more traditionally melodramatic and actively expressive types; those who broadcast their problems and mystery a mile away, and invite the player to journey through their intensified rendition of the themes. And it's good that they are there, quite apart from the fact that MCA wrote them, to have a bit of contrast.

Thaos is terribly written all the way through, and only really gets compelling dialogue at the very end, but as Crichton says, the other major characters tend to do well. Maybe a consequence of how little cross-editing was possible, so that characters as mostly handled by a single writer come out well but the whole plot creaks and trips a lot?

I don't think melodrama has anything to do with it. Carth was just as annoying to me as Kana. It's the design and writing that make them annoying.

Not all characters are created equal. We all are aware of this concept in other mediums - of TV/movie/novel characters that irritate the shit out of us, of people who are supposed to be sympathetic but aren't, of characters that are shit because they are cliche, and of characters that aren't cliche but are still shit, and so on so forth.

We give a pass to games mainly because we don't consider them to be as character-driven as other mediums. For example you can play through Baldur's Gate 1 without ever paying attention to the characters, because the game play itself is fun. But when a game DOES try to rely on its characters to engage the player, then it opens itself to the same criticism.

I suppose much of it is subjective, as people don't necessarily react in the same way to the same characters in other mediums. But there are near universals, especially when you control for audience. For example, most people reacted negatively to Anakin in the Star Wars prequels, and that's just because Anakin is a terrible character. Most people, even Bioware fans, despised Sera in Dragon Age Inquisition, for the same reason. Controlling for audience - most of the Codex love Morte and Ravel in Planescape: Torment. Most Pillars of Eternity fans are cool with Eder and Durance. Most Bioware fans adore Garrus and Tali. Those characters work for their audience.

This isn't a product of chance. It's a product of design, and while not all characters in a game need to be on the same level with regards to how compelling they are, developers need to acknowledge when, as a whole, they fall short, and what the problems might have been. That is what I want to see from Obsidian, instead of simply ignoring this aspect of the game altogether, because since Chris left, I have no faith that they're able to put out consistently entertaining and compelling supporting characters. I certainly didn't get much of it from Pillars of Eternity, and for that matter, New Vegas, both of which were games primarily developed and written by the rest of the team.

 

[Prime Junta]

This isn't a product of chance. It's a product of character design and development, and while not all characters in a game need to be on the same level with regards to how compelling they are, developers need to, at least, acknowledge when they're not, and what the problems might have been. That is what I want to see from Obsidian, instead of simply ignoring this aspect of the game altogether, because since Chris left, I have no faith that they're able to put out consistently entertaining and compelling characters. I certainly didn't get much of it from Pillars of Eternity, and for that matter, New Vegas, both of which were games primarily developed and written by the rest of the team.

My favourite Pillars characters were Edér, Sagani, and Hiravias. MCA's Durance and GM were among my least favourite ones. They have plenty of writing talent there. They could use more rigorous editing though.

TBH I haven't been all that impressed with any of MCA's characters since KOTOR 2, and even there Kreia was basically Ravel warmed over. I'm still optimistic that he'll make something that outdoes them all, once he finishes whatever quest he's been on since... well, since PS:T basically.

 

[Tigranes]

I don't get the point you're trying to make. Characters are important when games put focus on them, OK. Sometimes it is pretty clear that most people in the audience thought X character was great/crap, OK. And then => You think Obsidian cannot write good characters?

I thought POE had good characters and enjoyed them, obviously you might disagree. I also noted that many people couldn't get over their expectation of melodramatic characters (I'm using that term technically, i.e. I don't mean whiny crybabies, although they are included), but sure, that may not apply to you. If you found them bad, then.... "it's the design and writing" that makes characters good or bad? Duh?

MCA's personal style is very distinct at this point and we won't see his kind again in POE2, and that's a pity. It'll be interesting to see whether the same distribution of roles remain (4-5 writers with 1 companion each, or something like that).

 

[Fairfax]

This isn't a product of chance. It's a product of character design and development, and while not all characters in a game need to be on the same level with regards to how compelling they are, developers need to, at least, acknowledge when they're not, and what the problems might have been. That is what I want to see from Obsidian, instead of simply ignoring this aspect of the game altogether, because since Chris left, I have no faith that they're able to put out consistently entertaining and compelling characters. I certainly didn't get much of it from Pillars of Eternity, and for that matter, New Vegas, both of which were games primarily developed and written by the rest of the team.

My favourite Pillars characters were Edér, Sagani, and Hiravias. MCA's Durance and GM were among my least favourite ones. They have plenty of writing talent there. They could use more rigorous editing though.

TBH I haven't been all that impressed with any of MCA's characters since KOTOR 2, and even there Kreia was basically Ravel warmed over. I'm still optimistic that he'll make something that outdoes them all, once he finishes whatever quest he's been on since... well, since PS:T basically.

 

[Azarkon]

I don't get the point you're trying to make. Characters are important when games put focus on them, OK. Sometimes it is pretty clear that most people in the audience thought X character was great/crap, OK. And then => You think Obsidian cannot write good characters?

I thought POE had good characters and enjoyed them, obviously you might disagree. I also noted that many people couldn't get over their expectation of melodramatic characters (I'm using that term technically, i.e. I don't mean whiny crybabies, although they are included), but sure, that may not apply to you. If you found them bad, then.... "it's the design and writing" that makes characters good or bad? Duh?

MCA's personal style is very distinct at this point and we won't see his kind again in POE2, and that's a pity. It'll be interesting to see whether the same distribution of roles remain (4-5 writers with 1 companion each, or something like that).

I can be more specific. I think the characters in Pillars of Eternity were lacking in two aspects. The first is that most of them simply never show much personality outside of their own quests. I get that they're designed to be "normal" people, instead of "bigger than life." But normal people do not have to be boring. Normal people are capable of being challenged, forced to make hard decisions, etc., until they rise, fall, break. That is what's compelling about stories that deal with normal people. There is a little of this in Pillars of Eternity, but it's not enough. The game itself just about never puts the companions' loyalties and relationships with you to the test. It never creates a sufficient amount of *drama* and *conflict* for people to struggle and express who they actually are. It never makes the companions active agents who decide their own fate, who will judge you as you judge them. In not doing so, it very much makes them feel less than alive.

The second is that they rarely/never actually develop during the course of the game. Character development is central to high quality story telling. It doesn't require the character to change, but it should always involve a gradually deeper understanding of the character. A character is flat when he/she never develops much past the initial impression, and that to me describes the bulk of Pillars of Eternity's characters, except for Durance and Grieving Mother. This has to do with presentation more than it has to do with the design of the character's plots, because when you watch the endings, you do get the feeling that each character has been changed by the events of the game. But this doesn't show up during the game itself, which takes away from the experience because, in the end, you spend 80+ hours inside the game, and only about an hour, at best, reading the ending.

 

[Tigranes]

That's cool. Yes, I agree with you that their personality is too often confined to staged chats. Some of their impromptu party banter can be cool, but they just don't get close to classic lines in BG or such. I think the key thing here, though, was the decision to make all companions modular and stand-alone; that is, their quests rarely intersect meaningfully with your own main quest, and rather run parallel (with the exception of Durance, really). So I think that's what leads to them pretty quiet and static for large parts of the game.

Re. character development, Aloth changes quite a lot; Eder and Sagani have life-defining moments, pretty much. I think a more accurate way to point out the problem here is the way denouements are handled. As far as I know, Pallegina's quest never really seems to impact her in some visible way, and I would have liked to see Aloth end up with more drastic and broken personalities at the end, e.g. Anomen's two-way split. I actually really like how, say, Sagani or Hiravias talk through the ends of their quest with you, because again it's a well thought out reinforcement of the game's themes without them going OH MY GOD, but I think this does contribute to a sense that no earth-shattering change has occurred.

 

[Ninjerk]

I somewhat enjoyed Eder's little bit in the ruined Temple. That probably speaks to the area I live in more than anything.

 

[Infinitron]

As far as I know, Pallegina's quest never really seems to impact her in some visible way

The "secret encounter" after you return to the Vailian embassy does a bit of that.

 

[grotsnik]

On the subject of companions and their quests: I remember the writer of one of those milling-around comedy movies (maybe the original Clerks? Jarhead?) saying something like, 'The hardest thing in the world is to tell a story about boredom without being boring.'

I think PoE suffers from a similar problem - it's a pretty massive challenge to consciously write a story about uncertainty, dissatisfaction and irresolution without...well, making the player feel uncertain and dissatisfied. And it becomes next to impossible when the quest mechanics aren't working to reinforce your theme.

Or to put it another way, when you're writing in a medium that at every juncture of a quest makes a big happy *BING* noise, updates your journal, and awards you 2000 experience points, that isn't necessarily a great medium for a story that just trails off without warning.

Likewise, Eder's quest is about half-buried history, and the impossibility of unpicking the fragments we're left with after the event...but it's also a quest where you load a pre-existing area, go around pressing the tab key three times in a patch of grass, and then have the crucial clue drop helpfully into your lap 5 seconds later after a generic fight scene. The story's lofty aim is just way out of whack with its own structure.

But I really do like that theme, 'What if we can be assured of nothing?' I'd love to see it explored in a more complementary game. It's funny, because in many ways it feels like it'd be better suited to the Numenara setting, with all of its incomprehensible ancient history and Roadside Picnic-esque artifacts and relics. You could actually see the theme being reinforced in the gameplay there; items which appear to serve one purpose but actually hold another, etc.

 

[Shadenuat]

In a word, most people who don't like POE's characters simply don't jibe with the recessive, understated style that governs them - because melodrama has been the universal style governing how CRPGs are written for basically 99% of them.

Boring is not a writing style.

Eder manages to functionally fulfill the "agreeable <...> NPC that can fit into any party"

Every PoE NPC fits this quota. They never have problem with anything player does or other NPCs do. They are stagnant. Even through their change - you make Aloth agree to live with his voice in the head. What's next? Nothing.
And I'm not just saying that to point out that your companions don't murder each other while in your party. Rather that, what happens in the game or it's world, or if Hievoras becomes a loner or tribe chief, nothing of that is connected together.

In fact, for any attentive player, they are the best mirrors for the themes of the POE main plot and the world and the Watcher: the idea that sometimes you can never discover the lost truths, recover the lost artefacts, set the record straight, get a revelation that puts all the pieces in the puzzle together, etc. That sometimes, the uncertainty and anxiety that you started your journey with is something that you can never get rid of

Did you manage to write this with a serious face? So, game has to say that it has nothing to say?

what matters is how you still make your choices, which will define who you are, not the secrets or the missing soul.

uuuuh.......ok? so what makes that Disney "you are who you choose to be" interesting or worthy to make a game about?

Durance isn't good because he is "expressive". He is good because he follows important principles, much like PST, Kotor2 and MotB characters followed:
1) He is a product of what defines the setting. In PoE it's the godkilling history accident. His motivations and beliefs were strongly shaped by this, as well as his character.
2) He is tied in into game plot, which is impersonal, ie POE plot is not like BG1 plot where you just want to kill guy who murdered your dad, it tries to present and resolve some metaphysical problem/question, and Durance is there because the god-theme is his theme.
3) Resolution of the game affects him in a strong, meaningful way, wrapping up and tying ends of his theme together.

Durance is not part of ragtag adventure team ala BG1, he is part of the grand picture. His existence is actually meaningful, it serves to reinforce game themes. He is an arrow that hits, while other characters are just pebbles randomly thrown around.

But I really do like that theme, 'What if we can be assured of nothing?' I'd love to see it explored in a more complementary game.

If you make a plot about a rhetorical, meaningless question without answer, especially one with "nothing" in it, then "nothing" is what you will get.

 

[Infinitron]

I think Durance and GM aren't the greatest Avellone companions. Specifically, they feel like characters that were written by Avellone but not designed by him (which isn't that different from what actually happened, I guess). They have the substance, but not the interactivity. Fully realized Avellone companions to me are something like the Doctors in Old World Blues - the game gives you all sorts of ways to fuck with them. (PoE does approach this with the option to give GM a creepy lobotomy at the conclusion of her plot, though.)

What's next? Nothing.

I would say that Aloth in particular has a rather big "What's next" in the future of the setting.

 

[grotsnik]

If you make a plot about a rhetorical, meaningless question without answer, especially one with "nothing" in it, then "nothing" is what you will get.

Well, tell that to Samuel Beckett. Or look at the climax of King Lear ('Is this the promised end?' / 'I know when one is dead and when one lives'). You might not be a fan, but existential uncertainty and the horror of meaninglessness can be incredibly fruitful themes for great writing.

They just didn't work here.