Interview RPG Codex Interview: Dan Vávra (Warhorse Studios)

[Zed]

Tags: Dan Vávra; Kingdom Come: Deliverance; Warhorse Studios

Dan Vávra and his Warhorse Studios are no strangers to intricate open world games. So when they announced that they were working on an open world RPG set in a realistic medieval setting, many people wanted to know exactly what they were up to. After two years... we still don't really know anything. We did get a glimpse of the game engine however, so we now know what to expect graphically. But what goes into the design philosophy behind the game? How will they approach the open world design? How do they balance it with strong, coherent storytelling? This and more is what I tried to wrangle out of Dan in an e-mail correspondence, resulting in this interview article.

What sort of realism is most important to you? Realistic gameplay, realistic game world, or realistic behavior? In regards to Warhorse RPG, in what areas are you striving for realism?

It's not about making a simulation of any kind—it's about creating a believable, coherent world and a story that makes sense. Because the devil is in the details, every detail counts when making that world. So, it's not important how many things there will be in the game, but rather that the things are well-executed and makes sense.

A real-world example: I am making a castle for my game. It might be a fantasy game, so I may mix different architectonic styles or came up with my own, but I still have to stick to some rules. Are there long-range weapons in my world? Are there any flying enemies? Who lives in the castle? How will it be defended? When you think about such things, you could never design those absurd caricatures of medieval castles you may find in most RPGs. The Witcher is one of the few exceptions. Probably because those guys are from Poland, and unlike Americans, they have real medieval castles all around them.

Speaking of the Witcher—The Witcher 3 was announced recently, with the main feature being that the game will have an open world approach. We have also heard speculation about Dragon Age 3 moving towards having a more open world as well. Why this sudden interest in open worlds for RPGs, do you think?

Skyrim! When something sells 20 million units, it will attract some attention. Publishers were hesitant about RPGs in the past—they are usually very buggy, complicated to develop and very hard to judge whether they're gonna sell or not. Open worlds are also very expensive, and being open world doesn’t guarantee a success. Look at True Crime, Sleeping Dogs, Dragons Dogma, or Amalur… But when they are done right, it's the ultimate entertainment.

Ah yes, Skyrim. I suppose it's the de facto king of the hill. What are your thoughts on Skyrim?

Well, as they say: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. For me, Skyrim (or the Elder Scrolls series as a whole) is the one-eyed man. So far, it is the only western open world RPG worth mentioning. For that reason, I was more grateful for it than anyone else, but I have lots of issues with the game. It's an American vision of a medieval fantasy world and as such, it's more like Disneyland with bizarre architecture, medieval knights using katanas, half-naked female warriors, illogical quests and story that is often morally very uncomfortable for me (for instance offering no other than evil choices in quests). The RPG I would like to play was still not made, so I am trying to make it. I'm also eagerly awaiting the new Witcher, which seems like it could be something I will enjoy.​

Read the full article: RPG Codex Interview: Dan Vávra (Warhorse Studios)

 

[Saxon1974]

Hmm, I am interested in this but seems odd there is so little info 2 years into it. Basically all we know is they are making an open world medieval themed RPG. Oh yea and apparently he does not like Americans. I think its a bit odd that he criticizes Bethesda for not making realistic medieval castles and the reason they didn't was because they are an American studio. Umm, as many problems as I have with Skyrim when did they ever say it was going to be a realistic medieval world? It's fantasy man.

This being said, I would love a more realistic medieval open world RPG so I hope they can deliver on this.

 

[Duraframe300]

So far, it is the only western open world RPG worth mentioning.

What? I thought Vavra liked New Vegas?

 

[Akarnir]

and story that is often morally very uncomfortable for me (for instance offering no other than evil choices in quests).

Fuck political correctness. The guy is fucking incoherent. He rants about their disneyland setting than cries because he can't always be the goodie two shoes.

Authentic Adventurers are assholes. That was always the case. When your life is constantly on the line, and you have little clue of all the stuff that is taking shapes around you, you survive by being selfish and decisive. Very little a few (fucking grammar) adventurers were actual good guys, in reality. Historians back then used to embellish them, but more often then not it's the circumstance that convinced them to side for the ''good''.

That doesn't mean you can't have your principles, line of conduct...
But there is no Evil/Good Option in real life. Most quest aren't about being either good or evil, just perform certain actions and get a reward from it (or double crossing the quest giver) .
Life is neutral overall, and every single job isn't about being altruistic or not. That's one dimensional and not plausible at all.

I don't see what's wrong in leaving you only evil choice. Pussy dev.

 

[Jed]

Very little adventurers were actual good guys, in reality.

Hobbit propaganda, man. I don't buy it.

 

[Ogg]

Years ago, when we played pen and paper, our goal was to experience something and make it as real as possible. The rules were the tools to make sure that the “simulation” would be accurate. When the computer RPGs started to appear, the premise was the same: I want to simulate how it is to be a knight wandering in a huge world, doing various stuff. The computers were not powerful enough, so a lot of stuff had to be left to the imagination and some kind of simulation based on numbers, luck and probabilities instead of real skill. I would say that the RPG rules and all those stats are just the means to simulate the world. RPG is an attempt for an ultimate simulation, that includes even the growth of the character and other things that are not visible.

Today, computers are powerful enough for accurate real-time visuals with all the simulation calculated in the background, and the controls are so sophisticated that it's possible to make very accurate skill-based simulation of combat or movement. So the RPG is no more about the dices and stats—it could be completely skill-based and it will finally resemble the real world as we all desired back in the days of pen and paper. Of course, a lot of people who are used to old rules or don’t like skill-based video games will not like it, but that's not important

Why is this guy on the RPGCodex?!

and story that is often morally very uncomfortable for me (for instance offering no other than evil choices in quests).

Fuck political correctness. The guy is fucking incoherent. He rants about their disneyland setting than cries because he can't always be the goodie two shoes.

Authentic Adventurers are assholes. That was always the case. When your life is constantly on the line, and you have little clue of all the stuff that is taking shapes around you, you survive by being selfish and decisive. Very little a few (fucking grammar) adventurers were actual good guys, in reality. Historians back then used to embellish them, but more often then not it's the circumstance that convinced them to side for the ''good''.

That doesn't mean you can't have your principles, line of conduct...
But there is no Evil/Good Option in real life. Most quest aren't about being either good or evil, just perform certain actions and get a reward from it (or double crossing the quest giver) .
Life is neutral overall, and every single job isn't about being altruistic or not. That's one dimensional and not plausible at all.

I don't see what's wrong in leaving you only evil choice. Pussy dev.

To be fair, i think he was refering to the daedric line of quests. Those were some of the most stupid evil quest I have seen in a video game. Not real life evil, more like a mirrored disney world.

 

[Quigs]

I love how this dumbfuck criticizes Americans for daring to create a game with a castle, as it's *so* out of place, Yet this Czechoslofaggiot made two games about the American Mafia.

I don't think I'll be buying what he's selling.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

and story that is often morally very uncomfortable for me (for instance offering no other than evil choices in quests).

Fuck political correctness. The guy is fucking incoherent. He rants about their disneyland setting than cries because he can't always be the goodie two shoes.

Authentic Adventurers are assholes. That was always the case. When your life is constantly on the line, and you have little clue of all the stuff that is taking shapes around you, you survive by being selfish and decisive. Very little a few (fucking grammar) adventurers were actual good guys, in reality. Historians back then used to embellish them, but more often then not it's the circumstance that convinced them to side for the ''good''.

That doesn't mean you can't have your principles, line of conduct...
But there is no Evil/Good Option in real life. Most quest aren't about being either good or evil, just perform certain actions and get a reward from it (or double crossing the quest giver) .
Life is neutral overall, and every single job isn't about being altruistic or not. That's one dimensional and not plausible at all.

I don't see what's wrong in leaving you only evil choice. Pussy dev.

Skyrim had quests where you offer to help a nice paladin exorcise a haunted house and then your character immediately volunteers to beat a defenseless old man to death because it sounds fun. Sure, you're dealing with forces beyond your ken or whatever, but you don't even get the option to turn it down. It's retarded and uncomfortable for all the wrong reasons.

 

[evdk]

To be fair, i think he was refering to the daedric line of quests. Those were some of the most stupid evil quest I have seen in a video game. Not real life evil, more like a mirrored disney world.

Dearic princes aren't evil, they are simply amoral.

 

[Excidium]

It's funny because his ideal RPG is literally a hiking sim.

Well, as they say: In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. For me, Skyrim (or the Elder Scrolls series as a whole) is the one-eyed man. So far, it is the only western open world RPG worth mentioning.

 

[Rhuantavan]

I like how this Dan fellow thinks.

 

[dnf]

So far, it is the only western open world RPG worth mentioning.

What? I thought Vavra liked New Vegas?

Made with Bethesda money

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

I love how this dumbfuck criticizes Americans for daring to create a game with a castle, as it's *so* out of place, Yet this Czechoslofaggiot made two games about the American Mafia.

I don't think I'll be buying what he's selling.

Helo there Yes, I have written two games about US Mafia and I think they are pretty accurate in how they display 30s and 50s America. They dont look like "Czechoslovakia", dont they? On the other hand, I know several games set in my hometown, in which Prague looks like some crazy themepark and I dont like it.

Yours sincerelly
Dumbfaggot

 

[Mrowak]

Years ago, when we played pen and paper, our goal was to experience something and make it as real as possible. The rules were the tools to make sure that the “simulation” would be accurate. When the computer RPGs started to appear, the premise was the same: I want to simulate how it is to be a knight wandering in a huge world, doing various stuff. The computers were not powerful enough, so a lot of stuff had to be left to the imagination and some kind of simulation based on numbers, luck and probabilities instead of real skill. I would say that the RPG rules and all those stats are just the means to simulate the world. RPG is an attempt for an ultimate simulation, that includes even the growth of the character and other things that are not visible.

Today, computers are powerful enough for accurate real-time visuals with all the simulation calculated in the background, and the controls are so sophisticated that it's possible to make very accurate skill-based simulation of combat or movement. So the RPG is no more about the dices and stats—it could be completely skill-based and it will finally resemble the real world as we all desired back in the days of pen and paper. Of course, a lot of people who are used to old rules or don’t like skill-based video games will not like it, but that's not important

Why is this guy on the RPGCodex?!

Well, technically what he is saying is not such a great heresy. He is right in stating that stats were originally made to simulate certain aspects of interactivity within gameworld. Hence, whenever it is possible removing stats from the equation is fine - IFF and only IFF they are redundant. To better illustrate the point, you do not need any calculations to see if your attack with the sword landed in Gothic, although there some stats will be required to compute armour resistance and effective damage sustained by the target. Adding "to hit" calculation (and stats associated with it) is completely pointless (and even harmful to the overall gameplay) in this example, whereas the actual damage calculation is a must.

 

[Infinitron]

Hi, Daniel.

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

Years ago, when we played pen and paper, our goal was to experience something and make it as real as possible. The rules were the tools to make sure that the “simulation” would be accurate. When the computer RPGs started to appear, the premise was the same: I want to simulate how it is to be a knight wandering in a huge world, doing various stuff. The computers were not powerful enough, so a lot of stuff had to be left to the imagination and some kind of simulation based on numbers, luck and probabilities instead of real skill. I would say that the RPG rules and all those stats are just the means to simulate the world. RPG is an attempt for an ultimate simulation, that includes even the growth of the character and other things that are not visible.

Today, computers are powerful enough for accurate real-time visuals with all the simulation calculated in the background, and the controls are so sophisticated that it's possible to make very accurate skill-based simulation of combat or movement. So the RPG is no more about the dices and stats—it could be completely skill-based and it will finally resemble the real world as we all desired back in the days of pen and paper. Of course, a lot of people who are used to old rules or don’t like skill-based video games will not like it, but that's not important

Why is this guy on the RPGCodex?!

Well, technically what he is saying is not such a great heresy. He is right in stating that stats were originally made to simulate certain aspects of interactivity within gameworld. Hence, whenever it is possible removing stats from the equation is fine - IFF and only IFF they are redundant. To better illustrate the point, you do not need any calculations to see if your attack with the sword landed in Gothic, although there some stats will be required to compute armour resistance and effective damage sustained by the target. Adding "to hit" calculation (and stats associated with it) is completely pointless (and even harmful to the overall gameplay) in this example, whereas the actual damage calculation is a must.

I would also like to point out, that our RPG system is VERY complicated and detailed, but its only visible when its necessary. When its possible to represent something in "real life" we prefer to do it this way, but of course, that there is lots of stats anc calculations in the background. I simply dont see any reason why should I use turn based combat with dice throws, when its possible to do simulate very realistic and sophosticated realtime combat. In real life, I dont see fencers throwin a dice when they figt

 

[Larendav]

Skyrim [..] only western open world RPG worth mentioning.

 

[Larendav]

Years ago, when we played pen and paper, our goal was to experience something and make it as real as possible. The rules were the tools to make sure that the “simulation” would be accurate. When the computer RPGs started to appear, the premise was the same: I want to simulate how it is to be a knight wandering in a huge world, doing various stuff. The computers were not powerful enough, so a lot of stuff had to be left to the imagination and some kind of simulation based on numbers, luck and probabilities instead of real skill. I would say that the RPG rules and all those stats are just the means to simulate the world. RPG is an attempt for an ultimate simulation, that includes even the growth of the character and other things that are not visible.

Today, computers are powerful enough for accurate real-time visuals with all the simulation calculated in the background, and the controls are so sophisticated that it's possible to make very accurate skill-based simulation of combat or movement. So the RPG is no more about the dices and stats—it could be completely skill-based and it will finally resemble the real world as we all desired back in the days of pen and paper. Of course, a lot of people who are used to old rules or don’t like skill-based video games will not like it, but that's not important

Why is this guy on the RPGCodex?!

Well, technically what he is saying is not such a great heresy. He is right in stating that stats were originally made to simulate certain aspects of interactivity within gameworld. Hence, whenever it is possible removing stats from the equation is fine - IFF and only IFF they are redundant. To better illustrate the point, you do not need any calculations to see if your attack with the sword landed in Gothic, although there some stats will be required to compute armour resistance and effective damage sustained by the target. Adding "to hit" calculation (and stats associated with it) is completely pointless (and even harmful to the overall gameplay) in this example, whereas the actual damage calculation is a must.

I would also like to point out, that our RPG system is VERY complicated and detailed, but its only visible when its necessary. When its possible to represent something in "real life" we prefer to do it this way, but of course, that there is lots of stats anc calculations in the background. I simply dont see any reason why should I use turn based combat with dice throws, when its possible to do simulate very realistic and sophosticated realtime combat. In real life, I dont see fencers throwin a dice when they figt

If you want to simulate a world in an RPG, take inspiration from Darklands.

 

[undecaf]

In real life, I dont see fencers throwin a dice when they figt

I don't think there are many games either where you see the fencers do that.

 

[Ogg]

I would also like to point out, that our RPG system is VERY complicated and detailed, but its only visible when its necessary. When its possible to represent something in "real life" we prefer to do it this way, but of course, that there is lots of stats anc calculations in the background. I simply dont see any reason why should I use turn based combat with dice throws, when its possible to do simulate very realistic and sophosticated realtime combat. In real life, I dont see fencers throwin a dice when they figt

What's the point of realism? RPGs aren't about reallism! They're games. And historically, they're turn based games. What you're making seems (but we don't know much about it yet) just like an action game where player skills matter more than character skills. That's the very opposite of what an RPG actually is. Nothing wrong with building an action game. But don't claim it's an rpg simply because it's open world and in a medieval setting.

That being said, I like your comment about how castles and Middle Ages are most often incorrectlly represented in video games. I don't know if it's really because of the nationality of developers or simply because they simply have no interest in history and never did any research on the subject (it's not that hard to check what a real castle was like in medieval Europe ; just open wikipedia ffs!)

 

[Ogg]

To be fair, i think he was refering to the daedric line of quests. Those were some of the most stupid evil quest I have seen in a video game. Not real life evil, more like a mirrored disney world.

Dearic princes aren't evil, they are simply amoral.

In theory, yes. But in Skyrim (and maybe in Oblivion, not sure), they're just random evil dark lords that force you to kill innocent people just for their amusement (with two or three notable exceptions).

 

[mindx2]

I would also like to point out, that our RPG system is VERY complicated and detailed, but its only visible when its necessary. When its possible to represent something in "real life" we prefer to do it this way, but of course, that there is lots of stats anc calculations in the background. I simply dont see any reason why should I use turn based combat with dice throws, when its possible to do simulate very realistic and sophosticated realtime combat. In real life, I dont see fencers throwin a dice when they figt

Sorry, don't need or want another "button smashing, hiking simulator!"

What's the point of realism? RPGs aren't about reallism! They're games. And historically, they're turn based games. What you're making seems (but we don't know much about it yet) just like an action game where player skills matter more than character skills. That's the very opposite of what an RPG actually is. Nothing wrong with building an action game. But don't claim it's an rpg simply because it's open world and in a medieval setting.

 

[abnaxus]

So does this Warhorse game have a publisher?

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

I would also like to point out, that our RPG system is VERY complicated and detailed, but its only visible when its necessary. When its possible to represent something in "real life" we prefer to do it this way, but of course, that there is lots of stats anc calculations in the background. I simply dont see any reason why should I use turn based combat with dice throws, when its possible to do simulate very realistic and sophosticated realtime combat. In real life, I dont see fencers throwin a dice when they figt

What's the point of realism? RPGs aren't about reallism! They're games. And historically, they're turn based games. What you're making seems (but we don't know much about it yet) just like an action game where player skills matter more than character skills. That's the very opposite of what an RPG actually is. Nothing wrong with building an action game. But don't claim it's an rpg simply because it's open world and in a medieval setting.

That being said, I like your comment about how castles and Middle Ages are most often incorrectlly represented in video games. I don't know if it's really because of the nationality of developers or simply because they simply have no interest in history and never did any research on the subject (it's not that hard to check what a real castle was like in medieval Europe ; just open wikipedia ffs!)

I think I was pretty clear when sayingm, that realism (for me) doesnt mean simulation. I just believe, that all things should make sense. When I am making loop hole in a castle wall, its nice, when it is placed at a spot, where it could be used to shoot at attackers. Its nice, when the horse is able to gallop more than 20 meters, Its nice when fencing doesnt look like five years old kids with sticks. The game should be fun, it might be very accessible and intuitive, but it will do it only good, if everything makes sense - is "real". Its not that much harder to make a game where things make sense. Only think you need to create such game is not to be an ignorant

And BTW Fallout New Vegas is my favourite RPG. I had "medieval" of fantasy games in mind when I was speaking about "western RPGs"

 

[evdk]

So does this Warhorse game have a publisher?

He says in the interview that they are going to show the game to some interested parties soon, so all signs point to "no so far"