How important is gamebook gameplay difficulty?

[CharlesX]

I'm wondering whether gameplay difficulty is a big factor when playing gamebooks. I always feel an FF gamebook is ruined when it's too hard, and not quite so angry if it's too easy. But some people complain a lot if an FF is too hard, and I don't feel that's unjustified, and even though I like those gamebooks that have no dice rolling, I prefer some challenge without an excess.

   When answering this question, I'd rather answer both the challenge level in terms of statistical random challenge and other things such as attainability of good endings and puzzle difficulty level. While I like CYOA, I feel criticism sometimes focuses too much on whether they are too childish (who are after all their intended audience) and not on whether they are too easy or too hard, with some of the later CYOA being too hard (maybe only one or two ambiguous endings in the book, with most being fails, even down one of the big branches).

   Is it actually true when Livingstone and others say on social media and fan forums fans cheat and difficulty doesn't matter to them? You might think they wouldn't think so after lots of experience running RPG and game magazines. I think as well the culture was very different in the early eighties, but between then and today Livingstone published a lot of gamebooks with high challenge levels. His SOTG though is practically woke by comparison.

[scouserob]

I think gamebook difficulty splits into two categories:

Type 1) Finding the path(s) you can take to a solution.
Type 2) The probability of completing the solution(s) with a given character.

I prefer the first of these to be difficult (even extremely so like in Creature of Havoc).
For the second type, as long as the probability of success isn't too ridiculously low, I don't tend to mind as long as the adventure is a fun ride.

Examples of Gamebooks I like a lot: 
The Shamutanti Hills, Forest of Doom, Scorpion Swamp, Shadow of the Giants.  Type 1: Easy, Type 2: Easy.
Citadel of Chaos: Type 1: Medium, Type 2: Easy.
Deathtrap Dungeon, City of Thieves: Type 1: Medium, Type 2: Hard.
Creature of Havoc: Type 1: Hard, Type 2: Medium.

The examples that prove that difficulty matters:
Blood of the Zombies: Type 1: Medium, Type 2: Practically Impossible.
(I enjoy the journey as far as it goes but as a gamebook it is broken.)
Starship Traveller: Type 1: Medium, Type 2: Guaranteed Success.
(At least force us to have one Ship Battle and one Hand to Hand battle on the road to victory.)

It would be interesting to quantify the type 1 difficulty.
Perhaps by gauging the probability of choosing the correct options.  (Weighted somehow by their likelihood.)
A left/right choice would be 50%/50% say but put your head in the Bloodbeast's mouth or run away would be 5%/95%, or something.

[a moderator]

The type of difficulty makes a difference. Unfairly high (or low) stat requirements, dependence upon random rolls, excessively cryptic puzzles and overly narrow true paths can all push a gamebook beyond 'challenging' and into 'no fun' (and some of the most egregious offenders employ more than one of these tricks), but some are more tiresome than others.

Back when I was reviewing every issue of Proteus magazine, I played all but one of the adventures as many times as it took to beat them. I gave up on the one exception because the final fight had such appalling odds (imagine if the Manticore in Deathtrap Dungeon had 16 Skill). Mind you, I only ever managed to beat one of the others because I inadvertently glimpsed a section I wasn't supposed to be reading, and thereby discovered that the puzzle at the start of the endgame could only be solved by getting part of it wrong. And I hate the adventure with the broken puzzle (and OTT stat requirements and a punishingly narrow true path and a squandered premise (not that that last point affects the difficulty, but it's still a substantial flaw)) far more than I do the one with the borderline unwinnable fight.

[CharlesX]

Thanks for these replies. I personally theorise an FF with very low stat requirements can work if its well-written. Dave Morris wrote Keep Of The Lich-Lord, which will probably divide opinion as it is both quite well-written with evident care and a number of interesting paths and encounters, while some would say it was too easy (I say in counter-argument FF in general is pitched at a higher-than-it-should-be dfficulty level). Starship Traveller seems to be both heavily easy (in that the true path is guaranteed success), as well as perversely having you have to roll up an entire crew, and has pedestrian writing even for a sci-fi FF, and is much shorter than most FFs as well, so I'm saying I think it's both the design in general that's flawed as well as the 'difficulty' or rather absence of any. I would say (in agreement with Greenspine above) gamebooks should be a fun experience first and foremost and having outrageously hard puzzles can really detract from that (even more so if they have errors), as does excessive difficulty. With good gamebooks such as Citadel Of Chaos it doesn't necessarily make a world of difference they might be easy beause the encounters and world in general are memorable (although having a slight chance of failure does add some tension).

   Dave Morris wrote a Golden Dragon gamebook you could complete without rolling dice after generating your character, but the gamebook was so much more well-written and atmospheric than Starship Traveller (or Gates of Death  ) that it is still a top half gamebook in my view. Another thing Dave Morris did in one Knightmare gamebook was have a riddle you could give two correct answers to, one optimum and one incorrect but good enough to get you through, which might be the mark of a good writer.

[a moderator]

Apr 17, 2023 16:17:38 GMT CharlesX said:

Dave Morris wrote a Golden Dragon gamebook you could complete without rolling dice after generating your character

Are you sure?

In Crypt of the Vampire you can't avoid getting into a fight with the crazed Elf. Even if you FLEE at the earliest opportunity, you still need to roll dice to do so.
There is no way of avoiding some combats in The Temple of Flame.
The Eye of the Dragon has a couple of viable paths, but one includes a fight against three Kappa, and the other requires an item you can only get by confronting Lord Mantiss - and combat or an Agility roll is unavoidable there (yes, you can use the Dodge spell to automatically succeed at one Agility roll, but there's one roll to reach him, and a second to FLEE if you don't want to fight Mantiss).
It's not possible to beat Castle of Lost Souls without getting into at least one fight. Combat with Slank can only be evaded if you carried out a series of actions that includes getting into battle with an animated bearskin rug.

[CharlesX]

Apr 17, 2023 17:46:19 GMT a moderator said:

Apr 17, 2023 16:17:38 GMT CharlesX said:

Dave Morris wrote a Golden Dragon gamebook you could complete without rolling dice after generating your character

Are you sure?

In Crypt of the Vampire you can't avoid getting into a fight with the crazed Elf. Even if you FLEE at the earliest opportunity, you still need to roll dice to do so.
There is no way of avoiding some combats in The Temple of Flame.
The Eye of the Dragon has a couple of viable paths, but one includes a fight against three Kappa, and the other requires an item you can only get by confronting Lord Mantiss - and combat or an Agility roll is unavoidable there (yes, you can use the Dodge spell to automatically succeed at one Agility roll, but there's one roll to reach him, and a second to FLEE if you don't want to fight Mantiss).
It's not possible to beat Castle of Lost Souls without getting into at least one fight. Combat with Slank can only be evaded if you carried out a series of actions that includes getting into battle with an animated bearskin rug.

The Golden Dragon gamebook I'm referring to is The Eye Of The Dragon, which Pip's solution strongly suggests is possible to complete without dice rolls after generation, mainly via clever use of spells (for example, he suggests casting Gust Of Wind when you're trying to flee, which might be how he deals with the FLEE roll). I even have a similar memory about that gamebook myself, so if what you're saying about it is true, that is news to the two of us. 

[a moderator]

You can use Gust of Wind when Mantiss pursues you, but you still have to FLEE as per the rules before you get the opportunity. While the text in the relevant section doesn't mention the Agility roll, there's no mention of it when there's a FLEE option in section 43 or section 246, either, presumably because it's covered in the rules. The only other fights with FLEE options (sections 110 and 270) do mention the roll, but they do so because exceptional circumstances mean that the standard rules do not apply.

ETA: Looking at Pip's solution, I see that he has underlined the word 'Flee' (and no other word throughout the whole solution). His other solutions use underlining to indicate combat, attribute tests, and use of the FLEE option, implying that he was taking the rule into account here.

[Wilf]

I love a gamebook where it's difficult to find the True Path - Siege Of Sardath, Creature Of Havoc, and The Crimson Tide are my Top 3 FFs.

Difficult essential dice rolls make a book worse, for sure, but they're not a showstopper for me. I'm in this for well written stories and clever flowcharting. I'm still a fan of Masks Of Mayhem, Black Vein Prophecy, and Spellbreaker, in spite of their difficult dice rolls.

[CharlesX]

Apr 17, 2023 21:13:06 GMT Wilf said:

I love a gamebook where it's difficult to find the True Path - Siege Of Sardath, Creature Of Havoc, and The Crimson Tide are my Top 3 FFs.

Difficult essential dice rolls make a book worse, for sure, but they're not a showstopper for me. I'm in this for well written stories and clever flowcharting. I'm still a fan of Masks Of Mayhem, Black Vein Prophecy, and Spellbreaker, in spite of their difficult dice rolls.

What attracts me to the first three books you mention, especially the first two which are absolute masterpieces imo, is both the puzzle-esque work to find the true path and their rich world and writing. Masks Of Mayhem has very terse writing (if it has a good atmosphere, like most Waterfield works), and is disappointing in both the game ending and in having many short instant death references. In FF as in CYOA I prefer fewer unfair, out-of-the-blue instant deaths. Steve Jackson is able to get away with both 'excessive' and 'easy' difficulty because his death references are as logical and well-written as his writing style and the worlds he builds.

   I suspect a very hard (or easy) gamebook may (or as you say, may not) overshadow its other attributes. With apologies to Vagsancho, I think Crypt Of The Sorceror is a bottom-half gamebook leaving aside the heavy difficulty; it has many Livingstonian traits, a ridiculously narrow true path, lots of cliches,  slightly traditional, mean-spirited and so on. But I will play and replay Trial Of Champions or Bloodbones or Spectral Stalkers for that matter because the writing and illustrations seem to me like some of the best.

   I kind of get what you're saying about a good story trumping problematic gameplay. I'd rather play the (second) three books you mention, even Spellbreaker which I hate, than Appointment with FEAR, which is pedestrian, or Sky Lord, where bad writing is even more of a problem than a high difficulty level.

    

[Pete Byrdie]

I enjoy mapping books out with copious notes, so on the whole I probably prefer gamebooks that are less difficult so I can explore without constantly dying. It's not unknown for me to play a book I've won just to explore that space on the map, or to go to it when I've mapped virtually everything and know the true path even if I haven't had a winning playthrough yet. But I don't mind difficulty as long as it's not functionally impossible, in which case you've either wasted a lot of time exploring or you're just deciding how much cheating is required. But, yeah, as long as I'm enjoying exploring I'm fine.

I probably prefer multiple paths to victory, and lots of places that you can thoroughly explore on different playthroughs. I suppose that makes an easier book. FF's random range of stats makes it tricky to know how to approach a book, and must have made them difficult to write with fairness and difficulty in mind.

[soulreaver]

I think as the books have gameplay, difficulty is an important factor, and I also agree strongly with scouserob that 'difficulty' comes in two forms: the type you have control over (eg, decisions you make) and the type you don't (eg, dice rolls). While there are some gamebooks that I can enjoy to some extent if you ignore the rules as-written, this isn't really 'playing' the gamebook anymore at this point.

Dice rolling does add a certain thrill to the adventure due to its unpredictability, but if the statistical chance of completing an adventure is too small, it becomes a slog as you feel like you're doomed from the outset.  Fighting Fantasy is very deeply flawed in this respect because of how character stats are randomly generated combined with its combat system. Indeed there are a number of books where, after giving them a whirl and failing due to low stats, I'll just automatically assume that any future adventurer I roll up with low SKILL died and roll again without even bothering with rolling the rest of the stats.

The problem with the combat system is that having a higher Skill and adding two six-sided dice for your Attack Strength score makes a huge difference to how often you'll 'win' a combat round. Excuse the very crude maths, but: the most likely roll on 2 six-sided dice is a 7 (it has a 1/6 chance of showing up) and is the 'average' score you're likely to get in combat. So just for argument's sake let's assume the enemy always rolls a 7 (the most common scenario). If you have just ONE skill point LESS than them, you need to roll a 9 or more to hit them every time - which has only a 10/36, or ~28% chance of happening. Meanwhile the chance that YOU will take damage is ~58% (the remaining % nobody gets hurt). So your enemy is likely to do ~2 times more damage to you than you do them (Luck, special abilities etc not withstanding). So if you start with a Skill of 7 and have to fight an Orc with a fairly humble Skill 8 Stamina 8, you'll likely take ~16 Stamina damage in the process - which is massive, and enough to kill a low-Stamina adventurer outright.

The entire thing hinges on a single roll you make at the start of the game, which determines your Skill, and makes it vary anywhere from 7 to 12. Since a SINGLE POINT of difference makes a huge statistical difference, it becomes almost impossible to 'balance' the statistical difficulty of a book. An opponent that is a total pushover for a Skill 12 hero becomes an existential threat for a Skill 7 character. So the author will almost inevitably pitch the statistical difficulty either too low (to let low-SKILL characters finish the book) or too high (to ensure that high-SKILL characters face a challenge).

Reducing the element of chance in the initial character creation would go a long way to letting the books get balanced better. One of the things I liked about Night Dragon was that it gave you an 'experience bonus' that effectively ensured you wouldn't have a character with less than 8 Skill and 8 Luck, but didn't let you exceed 12 in those stats either. Secrets of Salamonis (though it has problems of its own) starts you with pre-generated stats, and thus its difficulty can be pitched just right.

As for the choice element: this one is more fair as it allows you to consistently avoid doing the wrong thing on replays, but having too many dead ends becomes tiresome and repetitive, and having a 'one true path' can become painful as well, as it reduces replay value. I personally really dislike the 'dead man walking' type scenarios where, because you entered a certain area, you're going to inevitably reach a dead end, but it lets you explore for quite some time before reaching that dead end - it might be 'realistic' but it really just ends up wasting my time in the end. I also strongly dislike 'unmappable' scenarios, where the places visited depend only on your choices, not on any geographical logic, or where events occur if and only if you make certain decisions, even if that decision shouldn't really impact anything (looking at you, Appointment with FEAR). I feel those things are unrealistic, irritating, and just make things harder for the sake of being harder.

What I DO like is when the game gives you optional items/skills/bonuses to use as you see fit - a magic item you can use once only, or a cursed weapon that gives you a bonus in return for costing you health, or a spell that drains a limited mana pool, or something like that. These can introduce a lot of choice, and at the same time let those choices influence the statistical probability of finishing a book. In my mind, these are some of the coolest things in gamebooks... as long as the player remembers to use them. The Legend of Zagor, despite its other faults, does this rather well.

So in summary: yes, difficulty is really important to how much I enjoy a gamebook or not, and I think it's often done poorly.

[kieran]

Apr 19, 2023 0:12:02 GMT soulreaver said:

So the author will almost inevitably pitch the statistical difficulty either too low (to let low-SKILL characters finish the book) or too high (to ensure that high-SKILL characters face a challenge).

A good way round this is to have only weak enemies on the one true path (or ways to boost your stats along that path). More difficult enemies can be placed on paths that are viable if less ideal so a high Skill character can get away with making a few mistakes where a low Skill character can't. This keeps high Skill as an advantage without making it necessary. Only about a dozen of the books successfully implement such an approach though.

[CharlesX]

Apr 19, 2023 0:12:02 GMT soulreaver said:

I think as the books have gameplay, difficulty is an important factor, and I also agree strongly with scouserob that 'difficulty' comes in two forms: the type you have control over (eg, decisions you make) and the type you don't (eg, dice rolls). While there are some gamebooks that I can enjoy to some extent if you ignore the rules as-written, this isn't really 'playing' the gamebook anymore at this point.

Dice rolling does add a certain thrill to the adventure due to its unpredictability, but if the statistical chance of completing an adventure is too small, it becomes a slog as you feel like you're doomed from the outset.  Fighting Fantasy is very deeply flawed in this respect because of how character stats are randomly generated combined with its combat system. Indeed there are a number of books where, after giving them a whirl and failing due to low stats, I'll just automatically assume that any future adventurer I roll up with low SKILL died and roll again without even bothering with rolling the rest of the stats.

The problem with the combat system is that having a higher Skill and adding two six-sided dice for your Attack Strength score makes a huge difference to how often you'll 'win' a combat round. Excuse the very crude maths, but: the most likely roll on 2 six-sided dice is a 7 (it has a 1/6 chance of showing up) and is the 'average' score you're likely to get in combat. So just for argument's sake let's assume the enemy always rolls a 7 (the most common scenario). If you have just ONE skill point LESS than them, you need to roll a 9 or more to hit them every time - which has only a 10/36, or ~28% chance of happening. Meanwhile the chance that YOU will take damage is ~58% (the remaining % nobody gets hurt). So your enemy is likely to do ~2 times more damage to you than you do them (Luck, special abilities etc not withstanding). So if you start with a Skill of 7 and have to fight an Orc with a fairly humble Skill 8 Stamina 8, you'll likely take ~16 Stamina damage in the process - which is massive, and enough to kill a low-Stamina adventurer outright.

The entire thing hinges on a single roll you make at the start of the game, which determines your Skill, and makes it vary anywhere from 7 to 12. Since a SINGLE POINT of difference makes a huge statistical difference, it becomes almost impossible to 'balance' the statistical difficulty of a book. An opponent that is a total pushover for a Skill 12 hero becomes an existential threat for a Skill 7 character. So the author will almost inevitably pitch the statistical difficulty either too low (to let low-SKILL characters finish the book) or too high (to ensure that high-SKILL characters face a challenge).

Reducing the element of chance in the initial character creation would go a long way to letting the books get balanced better. One of the things I liked about Night Dragon was that it gave you an 'experience bonus' that effectively ensured you wouldn't have a character with less than 8 Skill and 8 Luck, but didn't let you exceed 12 in those stats either. Secrets of Salamonis (though it has problems of its own) starts you with pre-generated stats, and thus its difficulty can be pitched just right.

I would say Seas Of Blood was an example of a gamebook where more than half, maybe much more than half I would have to just abandon an Avatar before I start playing, even though in other aspects the gamebook is strong, there is only a single, obscure and over-expensive way to increase your current Crew Strength and no opportunities to affect your other pre-generated variables (it might have been fun as well as sensible to increase your Crew Strike, perhaps with cannons). I think Secrets Of Salamonis's system might be the future for many if not most FFs, while I reckon the FF system has been a strong one, workarounds can only go so far and I think after about eighty gamebook titles it might be time for a new approach. I also agree the notion of experience points as implemented in Night Dragon or Fighting Fantasy Legends App is a great workaround.

[nathanh]

I went with "moderately important"; a review of my highest-rated gamebooks mostly has ones of moderate challenge for mapping and low to moderate challenge for rolling, however there are some hard-rolling books in there (Legend of Zagor, Deathtrap Dungeon). Looking at the bottom of the list is more illuminating: these tend to be dominated by books with relatively precise solutions and also high required rolls.

Across all gamebook series, I would put my top 3 as Moonrunner (relatively forgiving in both rolls and precision), Heart of Ice (no rolls, relatively forgiving in precision), Eye of Winter's Fury (no way to lose by wrong choices; very difficult to lose by bad rolls). So definitely no difficulty requirements to claim the top spots.

[CharlesX]

Apr 19, 2023 17:10:56 GMT nathanh said:

I went with "moderately important"; a review of my highest-rated gamebooks mostly has ones of moderate challenge for mapping and low to moderate challenge for rolling, however there are some hard-rolling books in there (Legend of Zagor, Deathtrap Dungeon). Looking at the bottom of the list is more illuminating: these tend to be dominated by books with relatively precise solutions and also high required rolls.

Across all gamebook series, I would put my top 3 as Moonrunner (relatively forgiving in both rolls and precision), Heart of Ice (no rolls, relatively forgiving in precision), Eye of Winter's Fury (no way to lose by wrong choices; very difficult to lose by bad rolls). So definitely no difficulty requirements to claim the top spots.

I've always tended to like those gamebooks where you don't have to roll dice, as the description, atmosphere and artwork, as well as world, can surpass the tension you get from having to roll dice (which can often be lopsided, as it is in FF with its very variable generation system). I particularly like longer, more ambitious ones such as Meanwhile, Life's Lottery, Choose Your Own Super Adventure, Detective gamebooks, Puzzle Adventures, and the bigger CYOA (my understanding is the later CYOA had fewer choices and endings and more straight, sometimes boring description). Those gamebooks can be just as hard as the harder FFs, where after you have worked out the true path then except for the very hardest you will be able to beat it every few goes.

   We haven't mentioned those crazy arbritrary gamebooks which say things like "what day of the week are you reading this book?", or worse "what month were you born" (so, you'll always lose or always win ), which make the 50 50 rolls in Return To Firetop Mountain and Spellbreaker look like birthday cake. In today's kid's gamebooks (such as You Choose If You Live Or Die Gamebooks) I think they say things like "pick one of these two numbers" or "pick a number" and even that makes more sense. Another thing which gets me is when there is meant to be a picture clue, and as has been said Siege Of Sardath for example does this well but in other gamebooks they will say things like "who is the bad guy" and there is absolutely no clue either in the picture or in any preceding text (like Roald Dahl's The Witches, only unintentional).

   I wouldn't necessarily say gameplay was "deeply important" (like you). Some CYOA by R.A. Montgomery is fairly well-designed (original, lots of endings, alternate routes) but he can be a terrible writer. It's the same in FF, works such as Keep Of The Lich-Lord and Space Assassin are better-designed than they play while Robin Waterfield often includes instant deaths and tough enemies but is surely one of FF's best writers.

[sylas]

Gamebook difficulty often determines the level of enjoyment and replayability so it depends how high you regard those factors. Too difficult, too complicated or too much bookkeeping and you risk putting off your audience. Too simple and you risk losing replayability due to lack of a challenge.
It's very hard to get the balance right but any approach that results in readers sharing and/or coming back to the book is good.

[paperexplorer]

I prefer a book that requires multiple attempts to find the correct path over one I can blunder through first go. Difficulty in finding the correct path is important to me as it adds replayability and gives me a challenge to work through.

Fairness regarding ability to win via dice? Less important tbh. I enjoy the challenge of finding the way through over succeeding through dice play.

I think this is why I rate Crypt of the Sorceror much higher than a lot here.

[Wizard Slayer]

It's an interesting one. I'm finding it hard to pick an option because of the nuances.

There's not just whether a book is hard, but how it is hard. The best/true path can be hidden, but also in ways that are counter intuitive (e.g. in Crypt of the Sorcerer where an arguably evil act is needed to avoid a Sk12 St24 battle later, something I only discovered after completing the book - yes, I did it the hard way). There's punishing dice rolls, but there's a difference between high-Skill fights, do or die attribute tests, or the awful 'roll a die', the outcome of which totally determines ultimate success or failure.

If I think back to favourite books, ones I'd happily go back to play over again, some are among the hardest, some are the easiest, and some are in between. That makes it sound like gamebook difficulty doesn't really matter since it's the story and other aspects that mean I can enjoy even a ridiculously easy book, so I nearly voted No Importance. But then I can't deny some of those books would be even better if they were made easier/harder.

It's not Deeply Important (as an side, Deathtrap Dungeon is consistently highly thought of yet it's one of the hardest books out there), it's not No Importance because I do think about it. It's not Moderatly Important if I can have books of such difference high on my person list, so I thinking out loud for me it's Sometimes. Sometimes it makes a book better or worse than it could otherwise have been, but it's never make or break.

[CharlesX]

Apr 21, 2023 8:13:08 GMT Wizard Slayer said:

It's an interesting one. I'm finding it hard to pick an option because of the nuances.

There's not just whether a book is hard, but how it is hard. The best/true path can be hidden, but also in ways that are counter intuitive (e.g. in Crypt of the Sorcerer where an arguably evil act is needed to avoid a Sk12 St24 battle later, something I only discovered after completing the book - yes, I did it the hard way). There's punishing dice rolls, but there's a difference between high-Skill fights, do or die attribute tests, or the awful 'roll a die', the outcome of which totally determines ultimate success or failure.

I imagine you made the decision to cheat to win Crypt the hard way? I don't think even Vagsancho would unknowingly or otherwise complete Crypt Of The Sorceror via facing the Gargantis in swordfight lol!

[Wizard Slayer]

No, no cheating barring my previously discussed house rules, where taking skill bonuses for weapons/armour as Attack Strength bonuses meant my final 12/18/10 character at least faced it with an effective Skill of 14. It was my 15th attempt at the book, mind (and 13th and 14th I reached Raazak only to be zombified while fighting him, so winning finally without even taking a scratch from him was sweet indeed!). Still better than the 20 attempts Creature of Havoc took, which I guess says something about the difference making it hard by obscuring the path or by requiring high dice rolls.

[marblefigure]

A lot of them ought to have had a range of just 10-12 for initial skills. Most are obviously impossible for low skilled player characters.

The ones that are broken gameplay wise are a different matter. The series suffered a lot from no playtesting.

[sylas]

Apr 22, 2023 11:21:07 GMT marblefigure said:

A lot of them ought to have had a range of just 10-12 for initial skills. Most are obviously impossible for low skilled player characters.

The ones that are broken gameplay wise are a different matter. The series suffered a lot from no playtesting.

About half the books in the series can be legitimately completed with an initial Skill of 9 and about a third of them can be completed with minimum stat rolls. So it's not as terrible and unfair as it seems.

[CharlesX]

Apr 22, 2023 11:26:57 GMT sylas said:

Apr 22, 2023 11:21:07 GMT marblefigure said:

A lot of them ought to have had a range of just 10-12 for initial skills. Most are obviously impossible for low skilled player characters.

The ones that are broken gameplay wise are a different matter. The series suffered a lot from no playtesting.

About half the books in the series can be legitimately completed with an initial Skill of 9 and about a third of them can be completed with minimum stat rolls. So it's not as terrible and unfair as it seems.

I suspect we will be debating this until cows come home but while what Sylas says is technically true I think gameplay difficulty is very much a problem, particularly those gamebooks which are too hard.

While you might be able to complete an FF with Skill 9 this does not allow for dice rolls for other things, Seas Of Blood Spellbreaker House Of Hell being the most notable examples where an Avatar has to roll high or maximum for other attributes from the start.

FF often has mandatory test of an attribute which on failure mean brutal instant death, no random roll or alternate route, nothing, and often more than one in the same gamebook.

These 50 50 rolls to even survive are unfair to the point where they're outrageous, and yet gamebooks such as Masks Of Mayhem and Return To Firetop Mountain combine them with a 1 in 3 chance of death from a fire and an enemy who kills you if they can roll doubles on a successful strike before you can as well as a random chance of failure from a staff. Odds of 1 in 6 might be justifiable but odds of 1 in 2 (as in one path in the otherwise well-written Phantoms Of Fear) is pushing it.

A reader should NOT be facing a gamebook first rolling hero after hero until they roll up a 'really good' one, then opening the gamebook knowing their odds of survival\victory are as low as 1 in 3 or 1 in 4. Yes, that's a minority, but it's also quite a few. Plus of course, that's disregarding things like harder paths, choosing Sallazar in Legend Of Zagor, but above all those gamebooks such as Sky Lord, Masks Of Mayhem, Spellbreaker and Crypt Of The Sorceror (don't get me started on Blood Of The Zombies) where the odds are beyond unfair and (were) desperately in need of playtesting. I would say it's saddening, because MOM S and COTS are pretty well-written while SL and maybe Starship Traveller seem like missed opportunities.

I say some of the alleged tough\mission impossible FFs wouldn't have been quite so hard if the authors had specified where a Skill bonus should have been an attack strength bonus, unfortunately some (not all) put as little or less effort in that as they did with gameplay difficulty.

 

[pip]

Apr 17, 2023 18:57:54 GMT a moderator said:

You can use Gust of Wind when Mantiss pursues you, but you still have to FLEE as per the rules before you get the opportunity. While the text in the relevant section doesn't mention the Agility roll, there's no mention of it when there's a FLEE option in section 43 or section 246, either, presumably because it's covered in the rules. The only other fights with FLEE options (sections 110 and 270) do mention the roll, but they do so because exceptional circumstances mean that the standard rules do not apply.

ETA: Looking at Pip's solution, I see that he has underlined the word 'Flee' (and no other word throughout the whole solution). His other solutions use underlining to indicate combat, attribute tests, and use of the FLEE option, implying that he was taking the rule into account here.

This is correct, using my solution, you do have to roll dice for the Flee test there.

So you do have to roll dice at least once during this book... even though the result doesn't matter because you cannot die if you use the solution. 

To get back on topic, I am very impressed with Eye of the Dragon for this reason. There are many viable paths, including one with guaranteed success, but it isn't easy to figure out. 

[CharlesX]

Apr 22, 2023 19:17:19 GMT pip said:

Apr 17, 2023 18:57:54 GMT a moderator said:

You can use Gust of Wind when Mantiss pursues you, but you still have to FLEE as per the rules before you get the opportunity. While the text in the relevant section doesn't mention the Agility roll, there's no mention of it when there's a FLEE option in section 43 or section 246, either, presumably because it's covered in the rules. The only other fights with FLEE options (sections 110 and 270) do mention the roll, but they do so because exceptional circumstances mean that the standard rules do not apply.

ETA: Looking at Pip's solution, I see that he has underlined the word 'Flee' (and no other word throughout the whole solution). His other solutions use underlining to indicate combat, attribute tests, and use of the FLEE option, implying that he was taking the rule into account here.

This is correct, using my solution, you do have to roll dice for the Flee test there.

So you do have to roll dice at least once during this book... even though the result doesn't matter because you cannot die if you use the solution. 

To get back on topic, I am very impressed with Eye of the Dragon for this reason. There are many viable paths, including one with guaranteed success, but it isn't easy to figure out. 

Yes, this slightly technical debate about whether or not you roll dice has been something of a distraction from what was more my intended point, which is that one can succeed in The Eye Of The Dragon without having to either be involved in combat or make dangerous do-or-die rolls, and even after knowing this one can very much enjoy it. TEOTD is a great gamebook, concise and exciting, with good illustrations, memorable encounters, and more. I daresay its at least as good as Keep Of The Lich-Lord, where you DO have to roll dice but the gamebook isn't always fleshed-out, and half the gamebook is optional mini-quests, and better than Starship Traveller where Steve Jackson wrote a gamebook you can complete without risk because he rushed it, and of course better than a lot of average gamebooks such as those by R. A. Montgomery where things such as good writing and gameplay just weren't bothered with.  

[CharlesX]

I wonder who voted no importance?

    I think most people who write comments on these messageboards are unrepresentative in that we tend not only to not cheat but also to apply strict rules (about skill bonuses, eating meals, casting spells etc.) that even the authors obviously didn't have in mind, so that's unrepresentative not only in terms of the student\player audience but also young people (although I don't think to the extent Sir Ian might think).

   I think I've said before that a high or low difficulty level has ruined gamebooks for me such a Spellbreaker or Starship Traveller, but if people can enjoy these gamebooks in spite of their difficulty curve, great.

[johnbrawn1972]

Apr 27, 2023 11:42:33 GMT CharlesX said:

I wonder who voted no importance?

    I think most people who write comments on these messageboards are unrepresentative in that we tend not only to not cheat but also to apply strict rules (about skill bonuses, eating meals, casting spells etc.) that even the authors obviously didn't have in mind, so that's unrepresentative not only in terms of the student\player audience but also young people (although I don't think to the extent Sir Ian might think).

   I think I've said before that a high or low difficulty level has ruined gamebooks for me such a Spellbreaker or Starship Traveller, but if people can enjoy these gamebooks in spite of their difficulty curve, great.

Someone who thinks Crypt is easy?

[CharlesX]

The post-results remarks:

Think these results tell us nothing we didn't know already, half of gamebook readers reckon results are deeply important but a lot of people reckon a gamebook is salvageable even if it's very hard or very easy. There seems to be fewer-and-fewer people voting for each increment less important, on the basis of which I'd say, "some importance", although a small social media poll with about 20 people voting it's hard to draw conclusions (if I'd been serious, I'd go on Facebook, but I have no interest in Facebook).

[CharlesX]

Apr 27, 2023 14:04:20 GMT johnbrawn1972 said:

Apr 27, 2023 11:42:33 GMT CharlesX said:

I wonder who voted no importance?

    I think most people who write comments on these messageboards are unrepresentative in that we tend not only to not cheat but also to apply strict rules (about skill bonuses, eating meals, casting spells etc.) that even the authors obviously didn't have in mind, so that's unrepresentative not only in terms of the student\player audience but also young people (although I don't think to the extent Sir Ian might think).

   I think I've said before that a high or low difficulty level has ruined gamebooks for me such a Spellbreaker or Starship Traveller, but if people can enjoy these gamebooks in spite of their difficulty curve, great.

Someone who thinks Crypt is easy?

I've a feeling it might have been Vagsancho, given he wouldn't change a thing about Crypt, and he didn't complain\whine unlike most here about Blood Of The Zombies, where those of us with some interest in it only saw a very difficult gamebook, he chiefly saw a very good gamebook (good for him, right?). Who ever it was they would seem to be in the minority, though.

[thealmightymudworm]

The stats and dice rolling aspect of FF brings another dimension to the books which completely fails if they are impossible to play by the rules (or it's so miserable that you'd only do it as a bet). Livingstone is right of course that almost everyone cheats, but not that everyone cheats all the time, many/most of us at least want the option of completing the books by the rules.

It's a richer experience with the possibility (but hopefully a low to low-ish possibility) of dying even making perfect choices, giving a sense of jeopardy. Perhaps a string of dice rolls might make you change tactics from your intended walkthrough, adding some variation.

As soulreaver said, the FF system is not one which lends itself to having a possible but not trivial run-through on all potential stats. So we can forgive books which are essentially brick walls for SKILL 7ers. (I'd never describe Vault of the Vampire as a bad book because it can be completed in a sane number of playthroughs playing by the rules.) But it's not impossible to do if the author makes an effort. For example, Steve Jackson (US) demonstrated that in his books with different missions (SS) or different gradations or kinds of victory (DotD, RC), not to mention in DotD you get an extra SKILL point for losing your training 'fight' with Cyrano, and there's that opportunity to re-roll your stats completely in the merman baths. That's definitely a plus point, and VotV would be even better if it had some comparable touches.

Conversely it's just unforgivable for books to be (near-)impossible on ALL stats. It's just not that hard to do it properly, so it seems careless or even spiteful.

The original 'one true path' promise was a good one. If you start an adventure with great stats and fall over the finish line at the end with your LUCK on 4 and STAMINA on 1, you should be thinking "Hmm, must have missed a few tricks in this that would have made it easier. I'll find them next playthrough." not "At last, 50 playthroughs after finding out the best route I've finally fluked it, never again."

---

Edit: non-chance difficulty is more of a judgment call/matter of taste. In general, as has been said, being penalised for failing to do illogical things is always bad. Or at least, we expect there to be a few traps where doing the most logical thing costs a few STAMINA points. But if you repeatedly miss a vital clue because you're failing to dive into acid or kick a bear in the crotch and have no way of knowing that's the wrong choice, that's a problem.

As a principle, I'd suggest that if you put in some sort of puzzle to be worked through which is essential or near-essential, the ratio of your likely readership who can figure it out vs those who are stumped should be (very) high. Inviting people to enjoy an exciting romp based on the cover and title of your book only to cause them misery by slapping them with algebra and lateral thinking halfway through is unkind. Perhaps even more so if the puzzle is very open and you have to be on the author's weird wavelength.