Interview with Sylvia Feketekuty
A very nice read, with some parts of it I enjoyed below!
Austin Langer was able to interview former BioWare narrative designer Sylvia Feketekuty. She discusses how the teams tackled exposition, pla
Austin Langer (RPGamer): When thinking about RPG dialogue across different eras, how do you approach balancing clarity and relatability with maintaining a distinct tone for the setting?
Sylvia Feketekuty: [...] Writing for Dragon Age was different. Since Mass Effect takes place in our own universe, you know how the laws of physics are supposed to work there. But each Dragon Age game had to reestablish its particular metaphysical framework of magic and spirits, their effects on different cultures, and the politics of dealing with them, on top of introducing new people and places. In my opinion, at least, there was a lot more to explain to players. Especially in the first few hours.
This is probably why, when I came on to Dragon Age: Inquisition, the narrative team already knew they wanted a diplomat character. Josephine helped to ground the big, political forces clashing around you. Whenever she briefed the Inquisitor, I had Josephine approach it like an executive summary. She knows the Inquisitor’s time is valuable. So, in tandem with your other advisors, she always gave players just enough information to make a decision, but never so much as to overwhelm them.
One of the other quirks I had in the back of my head is that Josephine isn’t quite as efficient in her speech as she thinks she is. The Lady Ambassador is never tiresome! But she’s so seeped in the grand politics of Thedas, she can’t help but try to round out all of the points, in the most diplomatic way possible. Paradoxically, I think it makes her exposition more interesting. That quirk is, I hope, part of Josephine’s charm.
AL: When a character is responsible for delivering critical exposition, how do you prevent that functional role from flattening their unique voice? Have you encountered situations where exposition demands directly conflicted with character voice?
SF: It can be a struggle! I’ve absolutely hit times when a character who needed to be in a scene was not the best choice to explain what was going on. In that case, sometimes delaying part of your exposition is the best move. An NPC learning about what’s going on alongside the player always helps pace things out more naturally.
As for making sure exposition doesn’t flatten a character’s voice: one thing I like to do is give an NPC something to complain about, or worry over, or be excited for. It’s not necessary for very short scenes, of course. But if it’s a larger beat of exposition, try to dig deep for that hook. It helps with even the driest of information. If resources and time permit, bringing in a second NPC for the first NPC to argue with is even better. We always pay more attention when there’s friction.
When I was writing Emmrich’s personal quests in Veilguard, I tried to have a current of worry running underneath his explanatory dialogue. He’s the kind of person who’s always mulling things over in the back of his mind. “Should I tell Rook about lichdom? Can I successfully join their ranks? Will Manfred be all right if I do? Will Rook understand?”
And once Emmrich learns a former friend is behind the sinister events he’s investigating, his anxiety goes through the roof. It was really easy to write Emmrich’s plot exposition after that, because it was so charged with his personal anguish and fears.
Those moments weren’t perfect right off the bat though. I’d like to shout out the other writers, especially Trick and Brianne and Gabriel, who gave feedback that helped bring those emotions to the fore. Honestly, having someone you trust give you candid but useful story feedback is probably the fastest way to improve your exposition (and most other parts of your writing.)
AL: How early in development do narrative constraints like branching scope or VO limits start shaping how dialogue is written?
SF: Right away. I think people would be surprised by how much even “small” branching dialogue-say a shopkeeper who has six different greetings and farewells-can make your word budget skyrocket when multiplied across an entire game. (Especially if your game is fully voiced, and you have to keep actor availability into consideration.)
One thing I wanted from the start of Veilguard was significant branching with Emmrich for players who took the Mourn Watch origin. Since it’s one of six origins, there was only, theoretically, a one in six chance players would ever see that dialogue. On paper that doesn’t seem like a good use of extra words. But I think that kind of branching is what players like the most.
It really pays off a choice you make, and lets you get deeper into role playing a specific fantasy, and changes a relationship with a character. That’s cool! It’s the kind of reactivity I like, at any rate. So if Rook’s a Mourn Watcher, players can complain with Emmrich that no one outside Nevarra really gets necromancy, or gossip about what’s happening back home, and so on. That was very fun for me. I think it was worth it.
