Interview RPG Codex Interview: Dan Vávra (Warhorse Studios)

[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.

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

By your standards, the only people who should make a game about the American Mafia are people from America.

That's what we folks from America call "fucking retarded".

On the other hand, I can't think of a single game I've played which has used castles specifically designed to emulate old Bohemian designs. Nor have I ever attempted to learn more about the Czech republic based on something I've seen in a game, or thought any depiction of the Czech nation brought to my attention through video games was accurate. I guess that doesn't matter though, cause Grrr, Arrg, Stupid Americans think they can make a medieval game!

 

[Mrowak]

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.

By the very notion that in PnP different players must take turns, because otherwise there's chaos? But if you control a single character, or find a way to control effectively many characters in real time, are turns necessary? Doubtly so.

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.

You just spoke against the very definition of *any* game in existence. Players role is *always* of the utmost importance. Whenever it is not the most important factor you are not dealing with a game but with pseudo-interactive screen-saver. What matters and always has mattered is not stat deciding the outcome of gameplay but player's ability to utilise skills, abilities and said stats to overcome challenge. Now you can do that in turns controlling a few characters OR controlling a single character. I think in the latter case you can get rid of "useless" layer of stats when you can provide *effective*, *fun* control in another manner.

That's the very opposite of what an RPG actually is.

But what is an RPG?

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.

But claiming it is not an RPG because it is not turn-, party-based is equally serious fallacy. Morrowind? Daggerfall? Gothic?

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

Hi Daniel.Vavra.

How about you tell us your thoughts on some of the mechanics. What do you think about the idea of Level Scaling? This problem pops up time to time in games that have fast scaling skills and combat abilities since soon enough the player has killed enough critters to be a one man army.

Also, what do you think of Emergent gameplay? Bathesda tried that with their Radiant AI, which leads to ridiculous situations that they frequently try to pass off as features. Are you planning to go that way? Or you are more of the deep scripting Morrowind fan?

A third question about the population density of your open world. What we see in most games that come with this feature is the entire villages made up of 10 people and cities with 30 houses. I know Medieval populations weren't that large, but still this is underwhelming to say the least. How will you go about the issue?

Also, can you tell us which gameplay elements from older games you thought were actually relevant from an RPG perspective in an open world game? What innovations you'd like to see to improve on them?

EDIT: Also if you are willing and able, there are other boat-load of questions.

I dont like level scalling.
We would like to create living world based on AI rather than scripts (one of the giys working on it likes Settlers), but its in very early stage and things could go wrong, there is a reason nobody done it right yet
As much NPCs as possible. Hardware is the limiting factor and it also depends on the complexity of the AI. Ideal state would be Assassins Creed density, but with daily routine and place to stay for all of the characters, which is not possible probably

 

[CreamyBlood]

I like simulations, RPG's, FPS's, stories, quests and exploration.

So if you can make something fun and challenging like a Gothic 2, as opposed to something boring like a Skyrim, Gothic 3 or oblivion, I'd be interested.

 

[Drowed]

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

Neither your character in the game sees "rolling dice", but I digress. When you introduce me a plausible way of representing, in "real life" (as you said), the difference between the ability of my character and mine, we can talk.

To make it clear: it is not because I have good reflexes that my character necessarily has such reflexes. And the opposite is also true, of course, in many times my character has (or should have) much larger reflexes than mine. This is one of the foundations of the tabletop RPG, too. It would not be as fun if I had to give a stunt so that my character could do the same in-game, is not it?

Not that an RPG cannot exist without it, but to say that "this ("real-life, real-time simulation") is the ideal always dreamed by RPG players" is at least an absurd generalization. Maybe it's your dream, and that's fine. But do say like it's something everyone would want to do.

 

[Smejki]

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

By your standards, the only people who should make a game about the American Mafia are people from America.

You created this logic out of thin air. This poor little Czech dumbfuck hates american games beacuse they are american. Yet he loves New Vegas. Oh man, what a hypocrite he must be!

Just swallow your butthurt pride and stop being childish.

 

[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.

By the very notion that in PnP different players must take turns, because otherwise there's chaos? But if you control a single character, or find a way to control effectively many characters in real time, are turns necessary? Doubtly so.

Gosh! Are you trolling me? Or are you for real? Chess are turn based because otherwise, it'd be too chaotic? Right? No! Chess are fun to play because they are turn based. And real-time chess wouldn't be of any kind of interest to any one possessing half a brain! Turn based games need very different strategies from what you'd need in a real time game.
An evolution of turn-based made possible by the use of a computer would be phase-based. Not real time.

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.

You just spoke against the very definition of *any* game in existence. Players role is *always* of the utmost importance. Whenever it is not the most important factor you are not dealing with a game but with pseudo-interactive screen-saver. What matters and always has mattered is not stat deciding the outcome of gameplay but player's ability to utilise skills, abilities and said stats to overcome challenge. Now you can do that in turns controlling a few characters OR controlling a single character. I think in the latter case you can get rid of "useless" layer of stats when you can provide *effective*, *fun* control in another manner.

What are YOU doing on the RPGCodex?!
When talking about RPG and action games, "skills" have a very obvious meaning that you feign not to understand. Player skills are the ability to move quick around the target, strike at the right time, at the right place... In other words, twitching. Character skills arethe tools an RPG player have to face a challenge (combat or not). Do I use my high charisma to seduce the barmaid or do I try steal the key in the innkeeper purse? Do I cast a fireball that'll also burn my fighter or do I prepare a forced retreat?
Player skills: head shot=dead
Character skills: aim the head, character stats will decide if I miss and how much damage I did

That's the very opposite of what an RPG actually is.

But what is an RPG?

If I follow you right, Gran Turismo is the epitome of an RPG. Look at all this stats! It's "very complicated and detailed." In real life, I don't see car drivers throwin dice. Controling your character is much more effective without all those useless layers of calculations. And you still have all those skills (accelerate, brake turn right, turn left, nitro boost at higher levels...) at your disposal, like in a true classic RPG.

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.

But claiming it is not an RPG because it is not turn-, party-based is equally serious fallacy. Morrowind? Daggerfall? Gothic?

That's not what I'm claiming. Just read again. What I wrote was that an RPG is a game were character skills matter more than player skills. That's what makes Deus Ex more of an RPG than a shooter for instance. Is morrowind a skill game? Or are the damage you deal governed by your stats?

 

[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

By your standards, the only people who should make a game about the American Mafia are people from America.

That's what we folks from America call "fucking retarded".

On the other hand, I can't think of a single game I've played which has used castles specifically designed to emulate old Bohemian designs. Nor have I ever attempted to learn more about the Czech republic based on something I've seen in a game, or thought any depiction of the Czech nation brought to my attention through video games was accurate. I guess that doesn't matter though, cause Grrr, Arrg, Stupid Americans think they can make a medieval game!

By my standard, everyone doing something should do his homework and do some research before working on something. Then it doesnt matter where he lives. I never said I dont like Americans. I dont like ignorants I dont even said, that I dont like funny looking castles, I just would like to see a game, where castles actually look like castles. Thats it.
Castles in Bohemia are very similiar to castles anywhere in Europe. They are usually more influenced by period, terrain and building materials than region. Germany, Poland, France, Bohemia, Italy are very similiar (at least for an ignorant
Castle looks like this

or this

or this

All 14th century Bohemia preserved to present.

 

[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.

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

By your standards, the only people who should make a game about the American Mafia are people from America.

You created this logic out of thin air. This poor little Czech dumbfuck hates american games beacuse they are american. Yet he loves New Vegas. Oh man, what a hypocrite he must be!

Just swallow your butthurt pride and stop being childish.

I positively love that you went back and edited in more anger into your post, specifically to call me butthurt. The irony is of course lost on you. Codex trolls used to be badass. Your weaksauce shit does a disservice to the community.

 

[Mrowak]

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.

By the very notion that in PnP different players must take turns, because otherwise there's chaos? But if you control a single character, or find a way to control effectively many characters in real time, are turns necessary? Doubtly so.

Gosh! Are you trolling me? Or are you for real? Chess are turn based because otherwise, it'd be too chaotic? Right? No! Chess are fun to play because they are turn based. And real-time chess wouldn't be of any kind of interest to any one possessing half a brain! Turn based games need very different strategies from what you'd need in a real time game.
An evolution of turn-based made possible by the use of a computer would be phase-based. Not real time.

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.

You just spoke against the very definition of *any* game in existence. Players role is *always* of the utmost importance. Whenever it is not the most important factor you are not dealing with a game but with pseudo-interactive screen-saver. What matters and always has mattered is not stat deciding the outcome of gameplay but player's ability to utilise skills, abilities and said stats to overcome challenge. Now you can do that in turns controlling a few characters OR controlling a single character. I think in the latter case you can get rid of "useless" layer of stats when you can provide *effective*, *fun* control in another manner.

What are YOU doing on the RPGCodex?!

Chilling.

When talking about RPG and action games, "skills" have a very obvious meaning that you feign not to understand. Player skills are the ability to move quick around the target, strike at the right time, at the right place... In other words, twitching. Character skills arethe tools an RPG player have to face a challenge (combat or not).

That we determined. Still I fail to see the reason against player taking direct manual control if the interface permits it. It's not like there cannot be other layers of stats to be used in this mode.

Do I use my high charisma to seduce the barmaid or do I try steal the key in the innkeeper purse? Do I cast a fireball that'll also burn my fighter or do I prepare a forced retreat?

Those are equally valid choices in the game in question - the one you are bashing here for some arbitrary reason.

Player skills: head shot=dead

Yes, that too, if permitted by the game. If the artificial facet of numbers whose only function is to reflect reality can be substituted by manual control, why not do that?

Character skills: aim the head, character stats will decide if I miss and how much damage I did

Which is completely redundant and artificial - I daresay autistic (no offence) - if the interface provides a means of effective control directly to a player's hands. See Gothic. Now, calculating that damage would still be good idea in this case.

That's the very opposite of what an RPG actually is.

But what is an RPG?

If I follow you right, Gran Turismo is the epitome of an RPG. Look at all this stats! It's "very complicated and detailed." In real life, I don't see car drivers throwin dice. Controling your character is much more effective without all those useless layers of calculations. And you still have all those skills (accelerate, brake turn right, turn left, nitro boost at higher levels...) at your disposal, like in a true classic RPG.

Grand Turismo lacks the setting for the plot to unravel. Oh, that's the redundant part? Then name an RPG without a setting All that your example proved was that stats are not the defining feature of an RPG.

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.

But claiming it is not an RPG because it is not turn-, party-based is equally serious fallacy. Morrowind? Daggerfall? Gothic?

That's not what I'm claiming. Just read again. What I wrote was that an RPG is a game were character skills matter more than player skills.

Which I disagree on.

That's what makes Deus Ex more of an RPG than a shooter for instance. Is morrowind a skill game? Or are the damage you deal governed by your stats?

Or maybe how you use those stats? And I think you just couldn't throw spells mindlessly in Morrowind - you had to aim, and run and do the bunch of other things. You know - the things that make up gameplay. Because rolling imaginary dice is no gameplay, I fear.

 

[Infinitron]

So Quigs what made you decide to post for the first time after almost two years

 

[Ogg]

This thread is now about castle fetishism.

 

[Hobz]

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.

Obviously this is your definition of RPG. Are you also against team-based RPG because in P&P you only play one character at a time ? As it occurred to you that turn-based was a necessity precisely because of all the dice rolling ?

Don't get me wrong i'm not saying real-time skill-based realistic is the only way to go, i'm not even stating which one is the most "fun" or "interesting". But seriously, the genre is vast enough that you don't have to go full butthurt when someone has different bias. Beside, this only concerns combats, obviously they will still need stats and skill for pretty much everything else.
PS:T being RTwP is not an RPG in your book I guess...

 

[evdk]

So Quigs what made you decide to post for the first time after almost two years

Terrible injustice perpetuated against honest hardworking American folk by dirty Slav untermenschen.

 

[Severian Silk]

In medieval days knights would swing mice at each other and press mythological WASD buttons. So realistic.

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

What I wrote was that an RPG is a game were character skills matter more than player skills. That's what makes Deus Ex more of an RPG than a shooter for instance. Is morrowind a skill game? Or are the damage you deal governed by your stats?

In my opinion, RPG is a game, where PLAYER takes ROLE of some CHARACTER and becomes him. ROLE PLAYING GAME. The difference between any other game and RPG is, that the "simulation" of the character behaviour and his progress and development is much deeper. I can get better, stronger, smarter, sick, married etc. and my actions affect the world as well. Some things must be represented by numbers, because there is no other way how to tell the player how good he is at something, because he cant feel his body (strenght), some other values could be represented visually and realtime, because graphics made a huge leap forward since 70s when it all started, but in the background, its still numbers and stats, player just doesnt need to see it, because he sees the real thing.

And then, you have the combat. That is the part where some old school people will have problems. Skill based realtime gameplay is evil! In the old days, it was just not possible to make a fencing simulator, so it was "simulated" with dice throws and some rules. But in the real world, fencing is skill based and if I want to play the role of a swordsman, it only makes sense, that the game will ask me to show some skill. Problem is, that fencing is hard, I can tell you, I had few fencing lessons, so since the game is done for entertainment purposes, it will make the fencing much easier, but will still require some skill. What is wrong with that? There is still huge difference between action game and rpg game combat. My character still has lots of stats that affect the combat (strenght, agility, stamina, perks....), I have lot of equipment that I modified. Isnt that roleplaying? In my opinion it is. But anyone has different tastes and I cant do anything about that

 

[Infinitron]

Mrowak and the rest of you guys need to stop with the apologetic devil's advocate bullshit. Every self-respecting Codexer knows that Vavra's answer to that second-to-last question is not fucking kosher. It's the classic "old RPGs were like that of because technical limitations" canard, like Matt Findley's interview from 2011 that he now wishes was buried under 50 feet of cement.

Now, that doesn't mean Vavra's game won't be a decent sandbox action-RPG in the end, because, well, those horrible technical limitations do still exist, so he will have to add in some stats.

 

[Daniel.Vavra]

I just love it here!

 

[Larendav]

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

Cool.

 

[Smejki]

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

By your standards, the only people who should make a game about the American Mafia are people from America.

You created this logic out of thin air. This poor little Czech dumbfuck hates american games beacuse they are american. Yet he loves New Vegas. Oh man, what a hypocrite he must be!

Just swallow your butthurt pride and stop being childish.

I positively love that you went back and edited in more anger into your post, specifically to call me butthurt. The irony is of course lost on you. Codex trolls used to be badass. Your weaksauce shit does a disservice to the community.

I quite regret I wrote what I wrote. I mean the angry style. That didn't differ from you and that's not good. I apologize for the tone, but the points remain - you don't understand what was written in the interview and you got butthurtly pissed off because of it. Chill out and think. And read, and read, and think.

And regarding the "coming back". I edited the post almost immediately to add points, because it was a plain simple accusation. That's never a good thing.

 

[Excidium]

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

Gothic series was made in Asia? There were plenty of open world games that did things much earlier or better than TES, the Ultima Series did NPCs who follow routines almost two decades before "Radiant AI".

 

[Mrowak]

Mrowak and the rest of you guys need to stop with the apologetic devil's advocate bullshit. Every self-respecting Codexer knows that Vavra's answer to that second-to-last question is not fucking kosher. It's the classic "old RPGs were like that of because technical limitations" canard, like Matt Findlay's interview from 2011 that he now wishes was buried under 50 feet of cement.

Now that doesn't mean Vavra's game won't be a decent sandbox action-RPG in the end, because, well, those horrible technical limitations do still exist.

Well, that also might be the case - a lot of good things was borne out of limitations. I bet many RPG designers genuinely wanted players' to have greater degree of control, but ultimately achieved something better without ultimately giving it. In other words his statement doesn't mean RPGs of the yestertears were worse and doesn't mean the "new wave" is by default better. It will be different.

All I am saying, while we need to preserve the past and see to it that the branch of our beloved RPGs is looked after and develop, we cannot forget nor deny the bullshit we had to put up with in them (whenever I hear someone telling that Falllout 1 and 2 had good combat system I am about to weep).

Neither should we limit the progress in another direction - a quite valid *branch* (one of many) of RPGs. Last time I checked there was a nostalgia here for the return of "golden era" whre very innovative RPGs turned up at every corner... Except that:

1) For every "innovative" RPG there was a bunch of shit that we wiped out of our collective memory.
2) Innovation requires changes in the formula - drastic ones which went directly against the paramount position of stats. Without them games such as Daggerfall or Morrowind, which *were* a heresy when you compare to party-based dungeon crawlers, wouldn't have been made.

Let the guy make the game as he envisions it to be. We'll see where his idea takes him. He is likely to fail in his endeavour, but then again making a leap into right direction has never been easy. Who knows? Maybe he *will* create what Daggerfall was to the generation of RPGs before it.

 

[Infinitron]

He is likely to fail in his endeavour

That's the spirit!

 

[Quigs]

So Quigs what made you decide to post for the first time after almost two years

It's going to be a good year for RPGs. Specifically I saw the post about Shadowrun, and thought I'd contribute.

Less specifically, I think this whole Kickstarter thing is dangerous and potentially devastating to the genre I love, while also being the best thing for it. We're getting a crack at some great RPGs from small companies who aren't afraid to explore new ideas and settings, and I think the codex has always provided interesting and sometimes valuable insight and opinions on the subject. My unsubstantiated fears are that Kickstarter will become a tool from big-name publishers to get free venture capital without the hassle of shareholders.

Also, to rebuke the dirty Slavs.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Also, to rebuke the dirty Slavs.

Domain: Nazism.