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

[karfhud]

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.

Fruitful themes, aye; but not necessarily in a 40-60 hour-long cRPG, and definitely not as a main (/leading/) story theme. It can work for a companion arc, for instance.

In a longer cRPG, there are certain narrative tropes that have to be adhered to, basically - your main character/characters have to undergo some kind of an evolution, progress, change. Doesn't have to be positive, but the theme of a journey is a must. Otherwise players are prone to lose any interest after 20 hours.

 

[Shadenuat]

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.)

Well it's not his per se since it turned to be collaborated effort (urghhh), but I agree. Like in JRPGs like Chrono Trigger, MCAs character arcs also are usually thematically linked by the game.

 

[Cosmo]

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.)

True, and some rather glaring elements attest to that : GM and Durance talking about important places we'll never get to see, the fact that Eder should react at lenght about Durance's role in Eothas' demise and doesn't, etc. Those two just feel as if they were ripped from another parallel game and put in PoE...

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.

Tigranes is wrong here, but he does have a point : there's a good reason companions and their arc often feel melodramatic, and that's because they have to be amped up firstly to act like an amplifying sound box for the plot and the setting, and secondly to make us feel that the choices the player makes for them matter.
And that's because a CRPG, being a game, is all about the players actions influencing game states, and you have to have very definite states if you want the player to be able to gauge his influence after all is said and done.
I don't think CRPGs (being all about choice and consequence, i.e. actions and their impact) can accomodate the philosophy that presided over PoE's companion's writing, which is made of different shades of "maybe". It may stem from a "mature" endeavour, but in the end it's just underwhelming.

 

[Sannom]

However, I will not be backing it as high as I did with the original*

I'm definitely not taking a physical copy this time. Although if there is a guidebook and the physical form comes as an add-on, I will probably take that.

Nah I don't really think you can explain it that way, they screwed up on this one, plain and simple. What they gonna need is a major retcon in the sequel concerning godlikes to somehow make it work.

They need to limit Godlikes to NPCs is what they should do. Pallegina and the Death Godlike of Magran's Fork really worked for me. Pallegina's past is a good example of what Godlike discrimination is probably like, abandoned by her father because of her infertility and probably angry and bitter that she isn't considered a woman, despite using that fact to get into a brotherhood. And Firedorn supporters said that getting rid of the only hint of transphobia in the game would only lessen its quality and make it too "PC".

The thing is, supposedly races are living together in almost all of Eoara's cultures, not only the Dyrwood.

Most cultures seem to be made up of two races : Aedyr is mostly folks and elves, the Vailian Republics are mostly folks and dwarves, the Living Lands are made up of folks and orlans, the Ganfathans are elves and orlans with one clan made up of dwarves, etc. Sagani's people and the pale elves of the White That Wends seem to be made up of only one race.

However, they could be born at some nonnegligible rate, if Vailian republic would care enough to create a law about godlikes being "without sex".

I don't remember that the Vailians made a law specific to Godlikes being genderless? They do consider infertile women to not be women (and apparently that makes them men) which immediately impacts godlike women though.

We aren't told anything about any afterlife in Pillars (unless I missed it) and as for the consequences of defying the gods on earth, people can see them for themselves.

Aside from Rymrgand promising oblivion to his followers, I don't think there is an afterlife or even the promise of better reincarnations in Eora.

Actually that would have made for a somewhat different approach to the theme - in absence of verifiable divine beings, but with the presence of the right technology/magic/whatever, would we make our own gods as "guardians of humanity" and how would we then deal with that?

To be fair, that has already been discussed before, for example in one ending of Deus Ex.

Doesn't Pillars of Eternity work off of the idea that people are reborn after they die? My understanding is that the gods only affect it by helping their believers' souls find decent families to be reborn under, while the people who don't believe just get a random family to be reborn under.

As I said above, I don't think there is any thought of the afterlife in most cults in Eora, except for Rymrgand's followers, for whom the promise of oblivion is one of the reasons they worship the Beast of Winter. Hence why all those pale elves had a massive crisis of faith when it came to their attention that despite loyally serving Rymrgand, they all had perfect souls for generations, untouched by the erosion their god supposedly brings with him.

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"

That's not Thaos' history. He didn't find out that the gods are fake and decided to help protect that secret, he was an active participant in their creation and then the expansion of their cult. You're describing one of the possible endings for Aloth.

 

[Trashos]

We aren't told anything about any afterlife in Pillars (unless I missed it) and as for the consequences of defying the gods on earth, people can see them for themselves.

Aside from Rymrgand promising oblivion to his followers, I don't think there is an afterlife or even the promise of better reincarnations in Eora.

Thaos also mentions that he is hoping to end up like his two giant companions (in the final fight). So yes, people seem to hope that they will be favored by the Gods at some point in afterlife.

 

[Irenaeus III]

However, I will not be backing it as high as I did with the original*

I'm definitely not taking a physical copy this time. Although if there is a guidebook and the physical form comes as an add-on, I will probably take that.

Nah I don't really think you can explain it that way, they screwed up on this one, plain and simple. What they gonna need is a major retcon in the sequel concerning godlikes to somehow make it work.

They need to limit Godlikes to NPCs is what they should do. Pallegina and the Death Godlike of Magran's Fork really worked for me. Pallegina's past is a good example of what Godlike discrimination is probably like, abandoned by her father because of her infertility and probably angry and bitter that she isn't considered a woman, despite using that fact to get into a brotherhood. And Firedorn supporters said that getting rid of the only hint of transphobia in the game would only lessen its quality and make it too "PC".

The thing is, supposedly races are living together in almost all of Eoara's cultures, not only the Dyrwood.

Most cultures seem to be made up of two races : Aedyr is mostly folks and elves, the Vailian Republics are mostly folks and dwarves, the Living Lands are made up of folks and orlans, the Ganfathans are elves and orlans with one clan made up of dwarves, etc. Sagani's people and the pale elves of the White That Wends seem to be made up of only one race.

However, they could be born at some nonnegligible rate, if Vailian republic would care enough to create a law about godlikes being "without sex".

I don't remember that the Vailians made a law specific to Godlikes being genderless? They do consider infertile women to not be women (and apparently that makes them men) which immediately impacts godlike women though.

We aren't told anything about any afterlife in Pillars (unless I missed it) and as for the consequences of defying the gods on earth, people can see them for themselves.

Aside from Rymrgand promising oblivion to his followers, I don't think there is an afterlife or even the promise of better reincarnations in Eora.

Actually that would have made for a somewhat different approach to the theme - in absence of verifiable divine beings, but with the presence of the right technology/magic/whatever, would we make our own gods as "guardians of humanity" and how would we then deal with that?

To be fair, that has already been discussed before, for example in one ending of Deus Ex.

Doesn't Pillars of Eternity work off of the idea that people are reborn after they die? My understanding is that the gods only affect it by helping their believers' souls find decent families to be reborn under, while the people who don't believe just get a random family to be reborn under.

As I said above, I don't think there is any thought of the afterlife in most cults in Eora, except for Rymrgand's followers, for whom the promise of oblivion is one of the reasons they worship the Beast of Winter. Hence why all those pale elves had a massive crisis of faith when it came to their attention that despite loyally serving Rymrgand, they all had perfect souls for generations, untouched by the erosion their god supposedly brings with him.

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"

That's not Thaos' history. He didn't find out that the gods are fake and decided to help protect that secret, he was an active participant in their creation and then the expansion of their cult. You're describing one of the possible endings for Aloth.

10/10 post. Give this guy a medal brofist

 

[Tigranes]

Tigranes is wrong here, but he does have a point : there's a good reason companions and their arc often feel melodramatic, and that's because they have to be amped up firstly to act like an amplifying sound box for the plot and the setting, and secondly to make us feel that the choices the player makes for them matter.
And that's because a CRPG, being a game, is all about the players actions influencing game states, and you have to have very definite states if you want the player to be able to gauge his influence after all is said and done.
I don't think CRPGs (being all about choice and consequence, i.e. actions and their impact) can accomodate the philosophy that presided over PoE's companion's writing, which is made of different shades of "maybe". It may stem from a "mature" endeavour, but in the end it's just underwhelming.

It seems pretty clear to me that most CRPGs are heavily melodramatic, and that POE companions in comparison tend to be very recessive. (Again, 'melodramatic' meaning here intense, active, overtly emotional, nothing pejorative). Of course, that doesn't mean it's the player's fault for not liking them. You're actually agreeing with me, more or less, or at least, I agree with you: especially in a genre dominated by epic transformations or struggles, it's tough to write about a guy who doesn't find what he's looking for, or ambiguity in the lessons of her journey, without getting muddled or losing players. I really like their attempt and hope they keep it up, because I see it as a welcome addition to the whole ecosystem, but it's certainly something that as you say bristles with the CRPG form as it stands.

 

[Crichton]

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"

That's not Thaos' history. He didn't find out that the gods are fake and decided to help protect that secret, he was an active participant in their creation and then the expansion of their cult. You're describing one of the possible endings for Aloth.

Apologies my good man, here you go:

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" "he helped to create the gods as an ancient wizard and wants to keep anyone from finding out" 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.

 

[Cosmo]

I really like their attempt and hope they keep it up, because I see it as a welcome addition to the whole ecosystem, but it's certainly something that as you say bristles with the CRPG form as it stands.

For the reasons i previously stated i think it's commendable in theory but ultimately misguided (plus another minor reason : content-light companions have always existed, no need to work your ass off linking them to the storyline if their story ends on an underwhelming note).
I could agree with you if the individual storylines had done a better job of introducing the world via their meandering (each character would have been a good mix of Durance/GM and the other, less chatty guys). That way their story wouldn't have felt so much truncated as simply ending on a philosophical note. But we both know that wasn't the case.

 

[Xzylvador]

Apologies my good man, here you go:

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" "he helped to create the gods as an ancient wizard and wants to keep anyone from finding out" 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.

 

[Infinitron]

You could replace "he found out the Gods were created by ancient wizards and wants to keep it secret" "he helped to create the gods as an ancient wizard and wants to keep anyone from finding out" 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.

How is this true? Thaos spends the game specifically trying to defame animancy in various ways (eg, his actions in the Sanitarium). That doesn't fit with those alternate plots.

 

[Infinitron]

BTW, I think you could make an argument that The Transcendent One isn't any better than Thaos in the way his respective game handles his appearances. "Intense personal conflict" with a weird metaphysical ghost thingy that you only get to talk to in the last ten minutes of the game?

Lots of rose-colored glasses here. Ditto with Irenicus, who is the RPG villain equivalent of "Half-Life 2 has one of the best videogame stories because ENVIRONMENTAL STORYTELLING".

 

[Severian Silk]

Was the Vault Dweller melodramatic in FO1? Did he/she have a major character arc? No, I don't think so.

 

[Sòren]

you can tell that the writing in POE sucked big time when you see people start discussing wether the game is politically correct or not.


and im having a hard time believing that anyone ever called fenstermaker a "genius".

 

[felipepepe]

BTW, I think you could make an argument that The Transcendent One isn't actually that different from Thaos in the way his respective game handles his appearances. "Intense personal conflict" with a weird metaphysical ghost thingy that you only get to talk to in the last ten minutes of the game?

On the contrary. PS:T opens with one of the coolest hooks in RPGs - you are dead then wake up, because you are a fucking immortal and must figure out what's happening with you. And for like 60-70% of the game, that's your entire motivation, with the TO only being hinted in the background until you speak with Ravel and actually learn a lot of yourself.

PoE, on the other hand, shows Thaos from the start and never properly establishes being a watcher as something bad & pressing - even the devs admit it isn't a well developed hook. Their equivalent of Ravel is that crazy watcher on the Keep, who already spells everything out for you and changes the entire goal of the game to "FIND THAOS" only about 15-20% in.

Imagine playing PS:T, and as soon as you meet Pharod he perfectly explains your condition and goes "now kill this TO guy". One is a journey about self-discovery and then dealing with the consequences of your own past actions... the other is about stopping the bad guy because he also did bad things to you - and you were bros in a past life or something...

Lots of rose-colored glasses here. Ditto with Irenicus, who is the RPG villain equivalent of "Half-Life 2 has one of the best videogame stories because ENVIRONMENTAL STORYTELLING".

No, lots of fanboyism here, when almost every other post in this thread is you defending PoE. The stupid "rose-colored glasses" argument only makes it worse. You know people here constantly replay BGII - myself included.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm talking strictly about the player's "face time" with the villain. I know I'm not the only one who thought TTO was ultimately a bit underwhelming.

I think that in general, RPG villains haven't been that great as villains per se. For various reasons, RPG designers often cannot make the villain an active force in the world. Instead, they make him the classic "final boss waiting for you in his lair". To compensate for that, they make the villain really WEIRD and AWESOME. TTO and The Master are obvious examples. They make a big impression on young minds who are already accustomed to the final boss trope in videogames, but in a more sober consideration, you can't help but notice that it's a lopsided and artificial way to tell a story about conflict between two parties.

The alternative is to make the villain an active force in the world, but then you have to come up with reasons why the player can't kill him early, which leads to all sorts of "cutscene immunity"-type scenarios that nobody likes. But I think that as an example of that type of villain, Thaos has fundamentals that are at least as strong as those of previous ones, with an agenda that goes beyond "let's wait for CHARNAME to show up so I can steal his soul". (Which doesn't mean that the execution of those fundamentals was perfect, mind you.)

 

[Athelas]

I'm talking strictly about the player's "face time" with the villain. I know I'm not the only one who thought TTO was ultimately a bit underwhelming.

I think that in general, RPG villains haven't been that great. In many of them, for various reasons, the designers cannot make the villain an active force in the world. Instead, they make him the classic "final boss waiting for you in his lair". To compensate for that, they make the villain really WEIRD and AWESOME. TTO and The Master are obvious examples. They make a big impression on young minds who are already accustomed to the final boss trope in videogames, but in a more sober consideration, you can't help but notice that it's a lopsided and artificial way to tell a story about conflict.

The alternative is to make the villain an active force in the world, but then you have to come up with reasons why the player can't kill him early, which leads to all sorts of "cutscene immunity"-type scenarios that nobody likes. But I think that as an example of that type of villain, Thaos has fundamentals that are at least as strong as those of previous ones, with an agenda that goes beyond "let's wait for CHARNAME to show up so I can steal his soul".

But TTO and the Master *are* active forces, you constantly stumble into side quests and characters that hint at their actions in both games. That's how they are build up, through clues and hints you piece together, and I think it's a better approach than the typical 'villain is contractually obligated to show up and taunt the main character a few times' routine. They don't show up to confront the main character for logical reasons (the Master because he isn't aware of the Vault Dweller's existence, TTO because he doesn't actually want to kill TNO, and because TNO can use the link between them to destroy him). This is also how a lot of Obsidian games handle the villain (Kotor 2 and Mask of the Betrayer).

I agree about Irenicus though. He's incredibly one-dimensional (the game never even gives an inkling of a reason why he suddenly wants to ascend to godhood and is willing to murder for it), though I think Bioware did write some great dialogue (dat sass!), although David Warner deserves most of the credit for the delivery there.

 

[Infinitron]

They don't show up to confront the main character for logical reasons

Well, yeah. That's why I thought it was weird to talk about an "intense personal conflict" between TNO and TTO. I would sooner describe Irenicus as that sort of villain than TTO. He's not so much an effective villain in his own right as he is a capstone to TNO's journey.

 

[Roguey]

The alternative is to make the villain an active force in the world, but then you have to come up with reasons why the player can't kill him early, which leads to all sorts of "cutscene immunity"-type scenarios that nobody likes.

Wasteland 2 got around this problem by having Matthias talk to you through radio broadcasts and screens. Cutscene immunity isn't an annoyance when the villain talking to you isn't physically there.

(oddly enough I can't recall a fantasy RPG where you talk to an apparition of the main villain except the fakeout in Arcanum and Divinity 2 to some extent, though it goes the kotor2 route in that the voice in your head helping you is someone with ulterior motives).

 

[Infinitron]

The alternative is to make the villain an active force in the world, but then you have to come up with reasons why the player can't kill him early, which leads to all sorts of "cutscene immunity"-type scenarios that nobody likes.

Wasteland 2 got around this problem by having Matthias talk to you through radio broadcasts and screens. Cutscene immunity isn't an annoyance when the villain talking to you isn't physically there.

(oddly enough I can't recall a fantasy RPG where you talk to an apparition of the main villain except the fakeout in Arcanum and Divinity 2 to some extent, though it goes the kotor2 route in that the voice in your head helping you is someone with ulterior motives).

Yeah, I was just thinking about that model myself, in the context of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan, which tells a pretty effective story of personal conflict even though Kirk and Khan never actually meet in person. It seems like the kind of thing that could be hard to pull off in any kind of story without seeming artificial, though.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

I finished The White March and I completed the main game again too so I could see the new ending slides.

Everything I liked about Pillars of Eternity - the writing, the reactivity, the art, the music, and the general design of the game world, I loved in The White March too.

The things I didn't like - the combat, the systems, the levelling, the mechanics and the hordes of enemies to fight through, I didn't like in The White March either.

I kinda knew what to expect, seeing as the developers constantly talked about Baldur's Gate during the Kickstarter, and they talked about Icewind Dale for the expansion. But it is Obsidian, so I was hoping they wouldn't go overboard with the combat. It could have been a lot worse, I guess.

It was nice not having to fight through every single area - there were a few non-combat solutions here and there, and the ending did pick up on some decisions I made before, so that was nice. But I hope Obsidian's next game will be more Fallout: New Vegas/Mask of the Betrayer, and less Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale.

 

[Trashos]

I agree about Irenicus though. He's incredibly one-dimensional (the game never even gives an inkling of a reason why he suddenly wants to ascend to godhood and is willing to murder for it), though I think Bioware did write some great dialogue (dat sass!), although David Warner deserves most of the credit for the delivery there.

He is ambitious, and his power made him believe that he deserves more. Why does he need a better reason than that? Anyway, he did go into some details in his "power" speech (that woman had no power etc). He turned against his people because his people did not allow him to pursue his ambition.

Irenicus is a character straight out of an Ancient Greek Tragedy, being both right and wrong in a way. But his frustration led him to commit hubris thrice (was not happy with what life had in store for him + turned against his people + so arrogant that he did not pay the appropriate attention to the Bhaalspawn's threat) and he was punished accordingly (by the son of a god, btw).

Such a pitty that more people don't appreciate this beauty.

 

[Athelas]

I agree about Irenicus though. He's incredibly one-dimensional (the game never even gives an inkling of a reason why he suddenly wants to ascend to godhood and is willing to murder for it), though I think Bioware did write some great dialogue (dat sass!), although David Warner deserves most of the credit for the delivery there.

He is ambitious, and his power made him believe that he deserves more. Why does he need a better reason than that?

It's perfectly fine to write a villain with this motivation, it's another thing entirely to leave out any sort of characterization. Even Sarevok, who has basically the exact same motivation, receives way more characterization: the entitlement from how he feels becoming the new Bhaal is his birthright, the (presumably) corrupting influence of the Bhaalspawn essence, the grudge he has against Gorion for not saving him (although rather contrived/nonsensical).

 

[duanth123]

It's perfectly fine to write a villain with this motivation, it's another thing entirely to leave out any sort of characterization.

You somehow must have played the game without escaping from his prison, to make such statements.

I distinctly recall having to murder multiple, insane clones of Irenicus's past lover in the opening.

That he would:

a) actually express the feeling of love as a villain; and

b) go to the totally depraved and misguided lengths of trying to reproduce that person, all the while satisfying his baser needs with a mistress that you rifle through the room of,

is much greater characterization than I've seen in many other CRPG villains.

And something you actually experience as a player, rather than read or suffer through in an exposition dump.

 

[Athelas]

You somehow must have played the game without escaping from his prison, to make such statements.

I distinctly recall having to murder multiple, insane clones of Irenicus's past lover in the opening.

That he would:

a) actually express the feeling of love as a villain; and

b) go to the totally depraved and misguided lengths of trying to reproduce that person, all the while satisfying his baser needs with a mistress that you rifle through the room of,

is much greater characterization than I've seen in many other CRPG villains.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasLovedOnes (included is a long list of video game villains that meet this criteria)

And something you actually experience as a player, rather than read or suffer through in an exposition dump.

http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/First_Journal_of_Jon_Irenicus
http://baldursgate.wikia.com/wiki/Second_Journal_of_Jon_Irenicus