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

[Chris Avellone]

Some of his management stories (more the tactics to push people out once they fall afoul of management than the outright fraud) remind me very much of many of the jobs I've had over the years. Bad management, nepotism, and 'evil' corporate practices are hardly the sole domain of game development. In my experience, I'd even say they are the norm rather than the exception.

Obsidian was my first experience with it - not even Interplay was like this, but then I was reminded I wasn't in senior management there, so my perspective was likely different than what was actually going on a high level.

 

[Chris Avellone]

The game industry is even more chaotic than I thought if a potential acquirer wouldn’t do the minimum due diligence to check what IPs they’re acquiring.

Dark Rock sounds like a pretty standard move. I’m not in games but my company does similar things to firewall separate parts of the business from each other. For example if somebody sues Obsidian to oblivion, this way the founders get to keep the IP and start over with a new firm.

I.e. this sounds like normal late capitalism bullshit, not particularly underhanded.

Good to know, thanks.

 

[Abu Antar]

Chris Avellone

Could you talk about more canned projects? Like the game you were making with Disney? Or other stuff we haven’t heard about? Are most of those cancellations because of Feargus?

 

[Tramboi]

Chris Avellone ,
ok so some lighter questions because work is hell (technically, hell is others, Sartre was right on this one), and we know it
Are you a heavy reader ? Do you know writers that are not ? Any special/deviant taste for European XIXth century literature, Krimis, children's books, or whatever ?

 

[Chris Avellone]

/me catches up

Okay Chris Avellone the penny finally drops on your "clear hierarchy" stuff. You're not demanding it so you can make underlings do their thing. You're demanding it to stop higher-ups from interfering in specifically delegated responsibilities.

That makes a lot more sense. I still think it's fundamentally misguided but it makes sense in context. From where I'm at Obsidian doesn't need an org chart: it needs new top management, rigorous factory-floor practices, and /then/ clearly-defined roles and responsibilities. But if your org chart has more than three levels in it, you're fucked from the start.

That is misguided, and I don't agree with it at all, I do want "underlings"* (and sub-leads) to do their thing - and unfortunately, in my hierarchy, every superior above you in fact has the right (but arguably shouldn't do it too much otherwise you undermine the people below you) to override anyone beneath them but they should check with the lead first before requesting a change (if only to make sure they understand the whole situation - there may be a reason something they disapprove of is done a certain way).

And even people on the lowest rings of the totem pole who are told "no" by their direct boss but still consider their opinion important to make the game better, can still go above their direct boss and bring it up the chain - provided you talk to your immediate boss first about the issue clearly, otherwise you're kind of throwing them under the bus by going to their boss. I did a presentation on hierarchies (at Digital Dragons, I think?) about why I felt hierarchies were important and what I thought was to be gained by them, but it wasn't to stop people from being active or to protect underlings/create fiefdoms - it was to make responsibilities clearer across the team and empower people in all roles. Also, I felt the higher up the chain, the more focused you should be on your own ability to make things happen for the betterment of the project which a junior designer may not feel able to do.

My hierarchy is also done partially so everyone knows who to go to when there's a problem, and that people in sub-lead and lead roles know they are empowered to solve problems in their discipline by default (for example, a Lead Level Designer would know by default they should be the one setting optimization guidelines for their level designers, checking their work, and so on) if that makes sense. If roles aren't appointed, it's true that some people will simply do things, but it's much better (imo) if you give people responsibilities, goals, and then step back. If you've hired the right people, you're good to go. I know this may sound naive, but I think it's very important for momentum and saving time, especially when time is always at a premium.

* I'm using this quote only in reference to the original post for clarity - in my opinion, everyone should be contributing to the project at every level, and you need everyone to make the game happen - I prefer "developer" regardless of rank.

 

[Chris Avellone]

Right, changing jobs is the easiest way of getting a raise (incl. situations where one leaves and comes back). This is standard in all industries, and makes sense.

Chris, if I understand correctly, you are hinting that plenty of people are thinking of leaving Obsidian at this point in time. Any particular reason that this (people thinking of leaving) is happening now?

No, I only know of a few people who have recently left/will leave, but my apologies if I implied there was a lot of people (although there could be, for all I know).

It would be a good time for people to leave if they weren't on Indiana, but before they go, they should make sure it's the right choice for them to leave - it may not be.

 

[Carnarium]

How, when and why Chris Avellone, Tim Cain and Josh Sawyer became the rockstar developers they are?

 

[Tramboi]

It would be a good time for people to leave if they weren't on Indiana, but before they go, they should make sure it's the right choice for them to leave - it may not be.

Lots of studios strip you from credits if you're not there anymore on shpping day (and maybe rightly so because the last months are the worse). Is it the practice at Obs ?

 

[aweigh]

Chris Avellone

Do you think incels have a unique perspective that can provide a template for future RPG narratives?

 

[Latro]

How, when and why Chris Avellone, Tim Cain and Josh Sawyer became the rockstar developers they are?

MCA: torment
Tim Cain: fallout
Josh Sawyer: F:NV

 

[Grauken]

/me catches up

Okay Chris Avellone the penny finally drops on your "clear hierarchy" stuff. You're not demanding it so you can make underlings do their thing. You're demanding it to stop higher-ups from interfering in specifically delegated responsibilities.

That makes a lot more sense. I still think it's fundamentally misguided but it makes sense in context. From where I'm at Obsidian doesn't need an org chart: it needs new top management, rigorous factory-floor practices, and /then/ clearly-defined roles and responsibilities. But if your org chart has more than three levels in it, you're fucked from the start.

That is misguided, and I don't agree with it at all, I do want underlings (and sub-leads) to do their thing - and unfortunately, in my hierarchy, every superior above you in fact has the right (but arguably shouldn't do it too much otherwise you undermine the people below you) to override anyone beneath them but they should check with the lead first before requesting a change (if only to make sure they understand the whole situation - there may be a reason something they disapprove of is done a certain way).

And even people on the lowest rings of the totem pole who are told "no" by their direct boss but still consider their opinion important to make the game better, can still go above their direct boss and bring it up the chain - provided you talk to your immediate boss first about the issue clearly, otherwise you're kind of throwing them under the bus by going to their boss. I did a presentation on hierarchies (at Digital Dragons, I think?) about why I felt hierarchies were important and what I thought was to be gained by them, but it wasn't to stop people from being active or to protect underlings/create fiefdoms - it was to make responsibilities clearer across the team and empower people in all roles. Also, I felt the higher up the chain, the more focused you should be on your own ability to make things happen for the betterment of the project which a junior designer may not feel able to do.

My hierarchy is also done partially so everyone knows who to go to when there's a problem, and that people in sub-lead and lead roles know they are empowered to solve problems in their discipline by default (for example, a Lead Level Designer would know by default they should be the one setting optimization guidelines for their level designers, checking their work, and so on) if that makes sense. If roles aren't appointed, it's true that some people will simply do things, but it's much better (imo) if you give people responsibilities, goals, and then step back. If you've hired the right people, you're good to go. I know this may sound naive, but I think it's very important for momentum and saving time, especially when time is always at a premium.

From my experience, both in small and large companies (completely different industries though), org charts are almost always completely useless to really show how power flows and decisions are made, they are more marketing to outsiders (other departments mostly) or newcomers, but never reflect reality the slightest

 

[Chris Avellone]

Would you be at all interested in any kind of reconciliation or is there too much to reconcile?

A lot of the people I knew have left, and I've worked with several of them since, but I'd work with any of the Obsidian developers again, just not at Obsidian with the current state of upper management. I'm not being petty here, it's just the truth. Of any that have left, I've worked to help them find new jobs when I can. Of ones I thought should stay, I have encouraged them to stay (ex: getting more experience is helpful, and Obsidian will allow you to get those years of experience).

 

[Fairfax]

He did call Bethesda "petty" for the Metacritic thing, which is very amusing considering the stuff MCA has revealed.

Where did he say that again? (I can't find a reference, but Feargus said a lot over the years.)

If it's in a video, just let me know (I don't need the time stamp, I can just listen to it).

He didn't call them petty directly, I misremembered. "Personally, it does feel a little petty" was the actual quote. With the timestamp:

(29:00, in case it doesn't work)

2. I wouldn't have been lead on PoE, so I couldn't say. I also turned down leading the Planescape Kickstarter Feargus wanted me to do (although there was more to it than that).

This wasn't the inXile one? An Obsidian Planescape kickstarter?

Yeah, that's something Fairfax has talked about before I believe. We never heard anything about it other than that Chris wasn't interested.

Yes, Feargus said Chris was offered the chance to do a Kickstarter for a PS:T spiritual successor, but he "didn't want to go on another death march".

I did a presentation on hierarchies (at Digital Dragons, I think?)

Yes:

 

[Prime Junta]

I know this may sound naive, but I think it's very important.

It is naive. It's not the way people work.

The problems you're identifying are real problems, but the solution you're proposing is just bad. This isn't just opinion, it's something that has a lot of empirical validation. Hierarchies like the one you're outlining stifle horizontal communication and disempower people; it creates a situation where only exceptional individuals will take initiative to solve problems and everybody else will sit there twiddling their thumbs until their superior tells them what to do -- or, worse, happily continue doing their thing even if they know it's headed straight into a brick wall, because it's none of their business to worry about that sort of thing.

Moreover, every single little thing will need to be formally coordinated between the superiors because the underlings won't talk to each other and sort them out by themselves. This creates a massive management burden: everything is slower and more expensive, the workers are demotivated, and problems aren't discovered until it's too late to effectively and cheaply address them.

There are better ways to address these problems. They do involve defined roles and responsibilities, but they're nothing like the Taylorian thing you're touting.

 

[Chris Avellone]

From my experience, both in small and large companies (completely different industries though), org charts are almost always completely useless to really show how power flows and decisions are made, they are more marketing to outsiders (other departments mostly) or newcomers, but never reflect reality the slightest

It worked well on the Fallout DLCs, but maybe I'm biased. And the fact it was a small team helped.

 

[Jarpie]

Chris Avellone

We had this printed in our office wall in my last workplace, did you have this too?

 

[Prime Junta]

It worked well on the Fallout DLCs, but maybe I'm biased. And the fact it was a small team helped.

A good team can work well despite bad process. A division of responsibilities is essential. I contend that it would have worked even better had you had that division of responsibilities without the hierarchy -- or at least with less hierarchy. (Some is probably inevitable in most situations.)

 

[Chris Avellone]

It is naive. It's not the way people work.

The problems you're identifying are real problems, but the solution you're proposing is just bad. This isn't just opinion, it's something that has a lot of empirical validation. Hierarchies like the one you're outlining stifle horizontal communication and disempower people; it creates a situation where only exceptional individuals will take initiative to solve problems and everybody else will sit there twiddling their thumbs until their superior tells them what to do -- or, worse, happily continue doing their thing even if they know it's headed straight into a brick wall, because it's none of their business to worry about that sort of thing.

Moreover, every single little thing will need to be formally coordinated between the superiors because the underlings won't talk to each other and sort them out by themselves. This creates a massive management burden: everything is slower and more expensive, the workers are demotivated, and problems aren't discovered until it's too late to effectively and cheaply address them.

There are better ways to address these problems. They do involve defined roles and responsibilities, but they're nothing like the Taylorian thing you're touting.

Again, it worked well on the Fallout DLCs, but I admit my bias, and it was a small team. I agree it may not work for everyone.

I do think you paint a grim picture of lead and sub-lead responsibilities and expectations in this, which wasn't my experience - good leads and sub-leads remove many of the problems you describe, and if they don't, they should be removed from lead roles or never promoted to them.

Also, as much as I am naive about things, if I discovered that after giving direction and encouraging initiative as much as possible, I might re-consider having a team member that did act like an automaton and wasn't picking up on what we needed from them. When doing hiring at Black Isle and Obsidian, we always looked for candidates who had upward potential and initiative, not someone simply to be a cog (we recognized we'd need more leads in time).

But I admit it's not for everyone, and it doesn't work in every situation and with every employee.

 

[Grauken]

Also, game dev is probably like movies or other entertainment industries one where a lot of people go in with already a high amount of optimism, which is not true for a lot of other, more conventional industries where most people go more for a paycheck and hopefully interesting work, but don't expect it

 

[Latro]

Chris Avellone

I recall an article where you said writing/doing work for a mod was one of the best ways for someone from the outside to break into the industry, have you personally seen any mod-folk hired at Obsidian? Did you guys actually check out the mods the applicants worked for in-depth?

Oh, and what about Twines? Not very familiar with the program, but I'm assuming you spend a few minutes checking out how it's written?

 

[Prime Junta]

When doing hiring at Black Isle and Obsidian, we always looked for candidates who had upward potential and initiative, not someone simply to be a cog (we recognized we'd need more leads in time).

That's very good.

The thing is, a hierarchical culture will crush the initiative out of most of those people, unless they're lucky enough to "click" with their superior. Conversely, a well-functioning non-hierarchical culture will turn a lot of "cogs" into individuals with upward potential and initiative.

Personal experience: I have several colleagues who are Chinese women. They come from an extremely hierarchical, authoritarian corporate culture, which also values ambition, education, and hard work. With almost all of them the trajectory has been the same: they start out confused, then within a few weeks (tops) something clicks and they realise that they can take control of their work, and they incredibly quickly become self-directed, highly productive, and happy colleagues, while retaining all their ambition, work ethic, and competence. Put them into a hierarchical structure and they would sit in it meekly awaiting instruction, then performing those duties to the letter.

(For some reason this doesn't seem to work with Chinese men. They immediately start looking for the top dog in the system, and once they've decided who he is, they start undermining him in order to take his position.)

(Edit: not to mention all the socio-psychological bullshit that hierarchies in general engender. It brings out the worst in social primates like we are.)

 

[Jarpie]

IMO you need someone in charge of projects and hierarchy to keep track of who's doing what and how they are progressing. If someone's not pulling their weight, for whatever reason, there needs to be process to sort out any problems, I know it's probably problematic in creative endeavors as creative fluids might not flow on schedule, but how else can you keep the project running on time?

In my experience, clear hierarchy is necessary to keep it clear who is responsible for what and who reports to whom, of course it doesn't always work like it's planned as there might be personality clashes and whatnot.

 

[Mustawd]

From my experience, both in small and large companies (completely different industries though), org charts are almost always completely useless to really show how power flows and decisions are made, they are more marketing to outsiders (other departments mostly) or newcomers, but never reflect reality the slightest

EDIT: In all seriousness, I kind of miss the structure of a hierarchical structure of my audit firm. Leaving public accounting to go to corporate accounting I found the freewheeling flat organizational nature a bit too loosey-goosey for my tastes.

However, I'm not in a creative industry. I can see how that rigid structure can stifle creativity if not implemented correctly. However, if you have the right people in place and if the key people at each point in the chain are on the same page, then I think it can provide enough structure to get stuff done with concrete expectations while allowing enough cretavity for ideas to bloom naturally.

But being on the same page is not always an easy thing to do.

 

[some funny shit]

so Chris Avellone, what is love?

 

[Quillon]

So far from what Chris wrote; I got that bad persons/managers/leads have damaged/ruined games, may or may not be related to hierarchies