Development Info David Gaider on settings culture & history

Tags: BioWare; David Gaider; Dragon Age

<b>David Gaider</b>, <a href=http://www.bioware.com/games/dragon_age/>Dragon Age</a> lead writer, has posted his <a href=http://forums.bioware.com//viewpost.html?topic=386230&post=3197436&forum=84&highlight=>thoughts</a> on presenting culture and history in a CRPG. And yes, Volourn, it's news, because it's in the News section. Deal with it
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Books are wonderful, but as I said... you'd pretty much want to make them optional information only if you can avoid it (unless the book is part of needed quest clue in-game, but that's kind of a seperate thing).
<br>
<br>
Bards (as in mummers, jongleurs, minstrels... that sense of the word bard as opposed to the D&D class) are interesting in this use as they can relate tales in-game in a realistic fashion.
<br>
<br>
We can also arrange to have certain quests you encounter early on be related to key elements of the world that need to be introduced. So let's say I need to bring into play the religious elements of the setting, right? Well, let's have a religious figure play an important element in the early plot and during the discussion the religious background is revealed to the player. Giving player responses that, by their very nature, inform the player while not making their character seem ignorant is also a good way to go. Such as:
<br>
<br>
religious figure: Of course this trouble with the X faction is nothing new, as I'm certain you're aware.
<br>
<br>
player response #1: They've fought your church many times, I understand.
<br>
player response #2: Perhaps you should stop persecuting them. Just a thought.
<br>
player response #3: Maybe if you declared another holy war, you'd wipe them out this time.
<br>
<br>
Now, this is not from the game (just so you know), but here you can see that even before you select a response, the very nature of those responses have already told you several key things about faction X, right?
<br>
<br>
You can't rely on that solely, of course, and you need to be careful not to ask the player to make judgement calls on things he knows nothing about (my example would be bad unless you had at least some knowledge of faction X on which to judge the church's treatment of them) but it's a good tool to reinforce info with. And, naturally, you need to make the story such that it doesn't make it obvious that you're guiding the player through a history lesson. Heh</blockquote>
<br>
Actually, that's where our major disagreement with Bio designs is. David looks at dialogues as an additional story-telling tool, not as an opportunity for a player to actually choose something. His example is good, and does explain a lot about the conflict, but I doubt that each individual response has any effect on the gameplay. i.e. should you pick #3, you'd not be able to convince the "religious figure" to declare a war and fight in it, and he would hardly give your response #2 much thought.
<br>

"And yes, Volourn, it's news, because it's in the News section. Deal with it "

R00fles! I do deal with it; it's how I deal with it that leads to comments like yours. :twisted:

Anyways, on to main topic..


"David looks at dialogues as an additional story-telling tool, not as an opportunity for a player to actually choose something."

It's about context. He's answering a question about backstory, thes etting, and thr world. remember, though the world is new to the player; it isn't for the character so he's explaining how he'd go about giving out the info needed for the player without making the character look retarded.

I mean, how often in games - including BIO games - do you get the type of dialogue where the characters i smade to look like a doofus because the deisgners were trying to tell the players soemthing. KOTOR's opening sequence is a great example of this. "Your equipment is in your chest over there". I mean, LOL

"does explain a lot about the conflict, but I doubt that each individual response has any effect on the gameplay."

Because, he wasn't asked there about how the responses would effect game play but how he'd present culture, and history in a CRPG where the character knows stuff but the player doesn't neccssarily.

It's all about context.


Wanna test him, than go and ask him how he'd have characetr responses in dialogue effect the game. Then you'd know one way or another.

P.S. In a part of his post that you forgot to include it seems we have a confirmation that DA doesn't start the character with amnesia! YAY!

Volourn said:

"And yes, Volourn, it's news, because it's in the News section. Deal with it "

Click to expand...

Think of it as a disclaimer to stop you from whining.

It's about context. He's answering a question about backstory, thes etting, and thr world. remember, though the world is new to the player; it isn't for the character so he's explaining how he'd go about giving out the info needed for the player without making the character look retarded.

Click to expand...

Of course, but aren't other Bio games prove my point? Doesn't mean they are bad though, just more adventure then role-playing Otherwise, I don't mind at all.

Because, he wasn't asked there about how the responses would effect game play but how he'd present culture, and history in a CRPG where the characetr knows stuff but the player doesn't neccssarily. It's all about context.

Click to expand...

And once again, Bio is known for several responses leading to the same thing, context or not.

Wanna test him, than go and ask him how he'd have characetr responses in dialogue effect the game. Then you'd know one way or another.

Click to expand...

Have you actually played Bio games, Volourn? Had responses affected their games, Bio would have been praised now as a pillar of the hardcore role-playing community.

"Doesn't mean they are bad though, just more adventure then role-playing"

RPG RPG RPG Codex doesn't cover adventure games. At least last I checked. I came here to discuss RPGs with FO fans; not adventure games.


"Have you actually played Bio games, Volourn?"

No. Not once. Never.


"Had responses affected their games, Bio would have been praised now as a pillar of the hardcore role-playing community."

That just proves that community is full of retarded morons. BIo's dialogues DO effect their games. Why do you lie? Just ebcause it isn't at FO's level doesn't mean it doens't effect the game. Must I list the usual exmaples to EMBARASS you again?

geez.. Responses in dialogues in BIO games effect what happens LOTS!

Volourn said:

"Doesn't mean they are bad though, just more adventure then role-playing"

RPG RPG RPG Codex doesn't cover adventure games. At least last I checked. I came here to discuss RPGs with FO fans; not adventure games.

Click to expand...

That again. Well, we do now. Considering that it's getting harder and harder to find a purebred RPG, we had to broad our horizons. We have agreed that any game where you play a role (like Mario or that marine in Doom) are RPGs, we have also accepted Dr. Greg's definition that any game where you have fun is an RPG. That certainly opened up doors for a lot of games we couldn't cover earlier.

"Have you actually played Bio games, Volourn?"

No. Not once. Never.

Click to expand...

Aha! I knew it. Nobody can say that NWN was good with a straight face unless they didn't play it.

"Had responses affected their games, Bio would have been praised now as a pillar of the hardcore role-playing community."

That just proves that community is full of retarded morons. BIo's dialogues DO effect their games. Why do you lie? Just ebcause it isn't at FO's level doesn't mean it doens't effect the game. Must I list the usual exmaples to EMBARASS you again?

Click to expand...

Bring it on, biatch!

geez.. Responses in dialogues in BIO games effect what happens LOTS!

Click to expand...

Yeah, like talking to Garth or Mission or even that guy at the starting ship.
You must save Bastilla!
- I don't want to, fuck off
- After I save myself
- Yay! I get to save somebody!

Sure, there are some plot points where what you say counts, but 9/10 cases it doesn't.

Re: David Gaider on settings culture & history

Vault Dweller said:

Actually, that's where our major disagreement with Bio designs is. David looks at dialogues as an additional story-telling tool, not as an opportunity for a player to actually choose something.

Click to expand...

I can't say wheter Gaider looks at them exclusively as story-telling material or not. It seems he's just giving an example, not necessarily his definite view on them. However, I don't think dialogues should serve either of them exclusively. There's no reason why they can't be used to further the story at given points and give choices to players at others. I just think that if they are meant to further the storyline, then they shouldn't present choices which would lead the player into thinking he was influencing outcomes when he wasn't.

The trials the Solar in Throne of Bhaal presented to players fit the story very nicely, but all the choices presented were useless as far as determining what ending you'd get, or how it'd change your changes to determine said ending (not sure if this was changed in Ascension, though). In these cases, it could be argued that they were there for roleplaying, true, but roleplaying doesn't really come into play in a game simply because I'm pretending the answers will matter. You can't use imagination as a means for roleplaying the same way you can in PnP. Back on topic though, there's many instances of this case with Bioware's dialogue structures... Baldur's Gate 2 was a perfect example. You'd often get dialogue choices that were either meaningless or that lead nowhere, and they often seemed like added material for a particular character's exposition rather than anything else. The guard of the Harper Hold at the Docks comes to mind. I don't think you should be given a choice to ask him if there was any other way of getting entrance without killing the two mages if he's not going to change his mind and if there's no other way to handle it. That just feels like toying around with the player, not taking him anywhere.

That's also probably why I prefer Fallout's (and possibly Torment's) dialogue structures, as far as choice goes, as in most of the cases, choices presented to you actually have the capacity to change things, and the story is presented in either a more self-contained way, or through other means (journals, historical archives, etc.).

Volourn said:

RPG RPG RPG Codex

Click to expand...

Now say that with a commercial jingle behind it and we've got our opening audio blurb for our radio station.

"That again. Well, we do now. Considering that it's getting harder and harder to find a purebred RPG, we had to broad our horizons. We have agreed that any game where you play a role (like Mario or that marine in Doom) are RPGs, we have also accepted Dr. Greg's definition that any game where you have fun is an RPG. That certainly opened up doors for a lot of games we couldn't cover earlier."

Then change the name to FunGameCodex and don't cover NWN as NWN wasn't found fun by the Codex Big Wigs.


"Bring it on, biatch!"

Get on all 4 years, and strip then.


"Sure, there are some plot points where what you say counts, but 9/10 cases it doesn't."

Liar.

Some examples:

1. The murder mystery in KOTOR.

2. The trial in NWN.

3. Firkragg in BG2.

4. Telling Minsc that you won't help him find his grilfriend in BG1. (admittedly, BG1 is probably the worst BIO role-playing wise). Not surprising since it's their first RPG.


That's one example for each of their game. Outside of BG1, they have TONS of situations in them where your responses DO matter. To say otherwise is to say a lie. Period.


"The guard of the Harper Hold at the Docks comes to mind. I don't think you should be given a choice to ask him if there was any other way of getting entrance without killing the two mages if he's not going to change his mind and if there's no other way to handle it. That just feels like toying around with the player, not taking him anywhere."

In this example, depending on the guard's demeanor, it might sense to have the oppurtunity tot ry to get bhim to help even if it's 100% certain he'll say no. Why? 'cause the player should ahve the option to at least try, and it's a good way to show that that the gaurd has a personality and in this case isn't 'bribeable' or whatever.

Overall, Ia gree with you, the way VD is taking that post by Gaider out of context is just plain silly.

Volourn said:

In this example, depending on the guard's demeanor, it might sense to have the oppurtunity tot ry to get bhim to help even if it's 100% certain he'll say no. Why? 'cause the player should ahve the option to at least try, and it's a good way to show that that the gaurd has a personality and in this case isn't 'bribeable' or whatever.

Click to expand...

I agree with that, but that's part of my point. Why not expose this in some other way rather than presenting me with choices in key instances, wheter plot or quest-related, rather than giving me an useless option? Specially in BG2, which used cutscenes and party banter to expand on certain scenarios. Maybe I am looking at it in a wrong way, but I fell you could considerably cut down on these type of meaningless choices and focus more on those that may matter to the outcome of something.

EDIT: Remember the dialogues with Irenicus and Aran Linvail? Like five options per every time you got to talk, and how many mattered? Granted, you ocasionally got a different attitude from the NPC in question, but that was it. You'd still get the help of the Shadow Thieves, and Irenicus would still go away leaving you blubbering about in your cell.

"Remember the dialogues with Irenicus and Aran Linvail? Like five options per every time you got to talk, and how many mattered?"

I agree with that. That was poorly handled... Much better examples than the guard one..

As has been mentioned, in that message I was responding to a very specific topic asking how setting information could be given to the player.

I don't think dialogue is exclusively just a story-telling tool, though I think that is definitely a valid use for it. The player getting to make meaningful choices in dialogue is also important, and I think our games have provided plenty of that so I don't think I really need to defend it.

I think that since BG2 and NWN, however, we have actually gone more away from having multiple PC responses that all lead to the same result. They might sometimes just be there for flavor and to allow the player to direct the conversation, but these days there is more of a willingness to allow the writers to respond to exactly what is being said more (stemming from a relaxing of the draconian "word count monster" which was at its height during NWN).

And to just think that Gaider's civil and clear response will be forgotten when Pooperscopper logs in to say "You're still a cunt! ke ke ke".

I think BIO and Gaider have a spy here.. Mr. Gaider hasn't been here at the 'Codex for awhile and all of asudden he posts "out of the blue" in a non news thread in the news section about him?


Anyways, being the fanboy I am, Dave is right. VD is wrong. Next. :twisted:

Look Volo, it's David Gaeder.

Yuck, you're drooling.....

Bah. I've seen Gaider logged in a couple of times this week - so I don't think he needs spies. It's actually possible he visits for reasons unrelated to his work - who knows? Haha.

Maybe its because the site handles RPG news and David Gaider is an RPG designer? I know, I know, it sounds like a conspiracy, but hey, it's a crazy world.

You should also take into account that this thread has his name on the title... but that might be unrelated as well.

"David Gaider is an RPG designer"

No. He is an adventure game designer.

2 words:

endless

bifurcation

you want every dialogue choice to have meaningful impact on gameplay beyond simple reward of loot v. karma kinda thing? try to do that in the context of a story driven game. try to do this in a game where the main story is essential.

possible solutions is to break up game... make so that there is very few essential plot points in game. the main story, while representing the ultimate goal/resolution, becomes necessarily more vague and less important. individual sub-quests, with their own limited story arcs that is largely discreet and insular from the main plot, becomes focus of game. go to town Alpha and kill the mayor and save the puppies from the burning building, and blackmail the local teamsters guild leader... your gameplay choices, while significant, is localized.

however, considering how popular the bio story driven games has been, games with a singular and identifiable protagonist who follows a largely predetermined script o' essential plot points 'til late in game, it seems mighty unlikely that they is gonna suddenly change their minds and ditch the current approach.

btw, this issue is directly related to Gromnir's recognition of some folks' childish fascination with multiple endings. is no easier place in game to have multiple resolutions than at the end... 'cause as a developer you not have to deal with consequences beyond the bifurcation at resolution. choose 1 and you get conclusion 1. choose 2 and you get conclusion 2... etc. sure, is nice n' all to give players a chance to choose from multiple possible resolutions, but truth of the matter is that it not take developer/designer no particular talent or cunning to make available. heck, chances are, in reality, you gots 1 real ending that, 'pon reflection, is necessary and largely unavoidable... along with a bunch o' other endings that not make much sense in context of the story as a whole... which is ok. these is games and not novels. same level o' coherence and elegance is not required. however, the multiple resolution bit is easiest place in game to do such things... and for the most part, the most meaningless place too.

the more importance a developer places on having a compelling and well developed story, the less likely you is to see that same developer try to make every dialogue option have gameplay significance. the two things is largely mutual in the exclusivity.

HA! Good Fun!

btw...

keep in mind that Gromnir is not necessarily in favor o' the bio approach. we don't want a single identifiable protagonist with a largely scripted story. however, before one can find alternatives, one must recognize the realities o' the situation... and the reality is that the more control you gives to the player over protagonist and story, the less control a developer can have over such things. is axiomatic.

HA! Good Fun!

Good fun indeed.
I think for the sake of roleplaying different dialogue paths give chances to represent the character in the game.
But yes, tight knit story would be better off without different paths, take Deus EX: Invisible War as example and compare it to the first Deus Ex which main story was still linear but very compelling (though quests had multiple solutions).

You're right, Gromnir, but I posit that your solution is actually the way things should go. I don't mean that the "main story" should become less epic, but maybe it doesn't need to be hanging over you like a Damocles sword the whole game. I feel that if it does, you are undermining the sense of cohesiveness of your game. I felt this like a hammer in BG2. It suddenly hit me, as I'm sure happened to lots of other people, when I was in the middle of a meaningless sidequest or other. I was actually allowing a trusted friend, who I had adventured with for ages, to rot in a prison cell, suffering who knows how many tortures. I feel BG2 to be a failure in this: keeping me interested BOTH in the overarching story of the game and the sidequests and exploring that "flesh out" the game. I think it would have been much better had Imoen NOT been arrested at the beginning of the game. Maybe Irenicus should have said something intriguing or revealing, making me want to eventually track him down and question him. Whatever.

One game which I actually think did good in this one respect was Morrowind. The "main quest" was initially presented by one guy, and his tasks at the beginning were simple "jobs" you did. You were told to work for him by Imperial command, but of course could choose when to approach him. This is how I think a game should work. As the story progresses and the exploration and sidetracking become less, THEN it's time to crank up the epicness slider.

I like a high ratio of content vs fluff, and when every dialogue option has a point I feel that I get such a high ratio. In Diablo only the NPCs have things to say, and that was fine with me. It would not have been fine to offer me choices and then have them say the same stuff regardless of what I say.

I had no idea that publishers limited the word count in RPGs though. Why do they do that? Are they afraid that Beavis and Butthead won't play the game, because "if they wanted to read, they'd go to school"? If that's the case, then cutting down on pointless dialogue options would have been a great idea. Or is there a word count to prevent the developers from spending too much time and effort on mere text, when everyone knows that the mainstream player prefers graphics and such?

I can understand why a school assignment might have a min/max word count, but usually the player of a game doesn't have to read through all of the text. This is definitely the case when a lot of text has been dedicated to alternative results of dialogues. So this word count thing is a big mystery to me.

Dgaider said:

I think that since BG2 and NWN, however, we have actually gone more away from having multiple PC responses that all lead to the same result. They might sometimes just be there for flavor and to allow the player to direct the conversation, but these days there is more of a willingness to allow the writers to respond to exactly what is being said more (stemming from a relaxing of the draconian "word count monster" which was at its height during NWN).

Click to expand...

I noticed KOTOR was better in this department, but there's still too much of it for my liking. There are times when I'll read the dialogue choices, pick one of them and then notice that the reply is so generic that it's probably the response to several of the choices. It pokes holes in my suspension of disbelief.

yeah, I think a word count would make much more sense if it counted the biggest "path" through the dialogue tree. Why would a publisher care that there is 1000 total words in an NPC if any given character will only see 200 of them? Only reason I can think of is localization costs, but those can't be that big

Gromnir said:

keep in mind that Gromnir is not necessarily in favor o' the bio approach. we don't want a single identifiable protagonist with a largely scripted story.

Click to expand...

I can vouch for that

Astromarine said:

Maybe Irenicus should have said something intriguing or revealing, making me want to eventually track him down and question him. Whatever.

Click to expand...

I find that more interesting than kidnapping an NPC and assuming I would care for her.