Should an FF be winnable no matter how weak starting stats

[CharlesX]

So, this poll is asking how serious FFs should be about the disclaimer they included in the early gamebooks FFs should be mostly winnable no matter what one's stats. I don't know their motives for including it, when some of the gamebooks including it were definitely not doing that, nor whether it was noble, or more irrelevant and perhaps boring. I don't think it could\should be formally reintroduced, but FF would have been very different had they kept their words.

[kieran]

Ideally, yes. But the range of starting Skills makes this tricky to do without making it feel like a cakewalk for Skill 12 characters. It's doable of course, but it requires the author to devote sections to harder and easier paths which could perhaps be better served otherwise. So I think any book that lets you win with a Skill of 9 is pretty acceptable. But there are more than a few books which are far too hard even with max stats.

[a moderator]

Aug 19, 2023 20:51:37 GMT CharlesX said:

I don't think it could\should be formally reintroduced

It's in Assassins of Allansia, and a slightly altered version is in Shadow of the Giants.

[terrysalt]

I think the optimal path should be fairly easily winnable with minimum stats but higher stats would give you more flexibility to deviate from that path. I really don't like the idea of the game being lost before it even starts because you rolled poorly for your stats.

[paperexplorer]

I have mixed feelings here. I feel like you should slay at least one tough opponent on the journey, be it the boss or something like the Cyclops in WOFM that gives you an item to get past the boss.

[terrysalt]

Aug 20, 2023 2:31:19 GMT paperexplorer said:

I have mixed feelings here. I feel like you should slay at least one tough opponent on the journey, be it the boss or something like the Cyclops in WOFM that gives you an item to get past the boss.

I like the Balthus Dire approach to this where you can attack and have a difficult final battle or risk death trying for a non-combat victory (which becomes much less of a risk once you learn which options to take admittedly). That way, if you have bad stats, you aren't entirely locked out of victory but if you have the stats for it or just find it a more satisfying finale, you're welcome to take a more direct approach.

[thealmightymudworm]

I've gone for 'Yes' rather than 'Kind of' even though
– this is clearly not one of the top five qualities for an FF gamebook as there are several classics which don't come close to this.
– I'm discounting 'fairly easily' as to me that implies something like a 75%+ chance for a 7/14/7 loser.

because in spite of that it seems to be pretty clearly a failure if the character you're encourage to identify with and roll up by the rules plainly has no chance. If you are doomed without it being due to your own choices, or as part of the thrill of a close battle, that adds nothing to the experience of a gamebook. There's a certain absurdity in attempting to play by the rules, rolling up a SKILL 8, say, character, and hoping they get killed early so that you don't have to plough through to their inevitable later death. What's the point in playing by the rules if the author(s) has failed to make it winnable by the rules for a character you roll up from the outset?

I stand by the principle that someone dying in a gamebook should feel that either they could have chosen better or that they've been a bit unlucky. At a minimum, someone with poor stats should have a double-digit percentage chance of winning if they make optimal choices, so that it's worth a go. So that you don't need to be clinically insane to hope you might win.

It is hard to balance the books to allow for a decent amount of difficulty at all stats, but authors have tried from time to time. Notably Steve Jackson (US) with a possible full stats re-roll in DotD, as well as a big bonus for losing to Cyrano than winning. Then there are the different missions/endings where some are easier to get than others.

Other alternatives might be different routes leaning on whichever your least weak stat is and/or super-powered bonuses which are tucked behind straight (stat unrelated) 2 out 6 life or death rolls. Not worth the risk if you have decent stats, but if not...

[sylas]

I don't believe in thinking in such extremes unless it's for fun. The idea that the books should be winnable no matter how weak your initial attributes has been taken far too literally and seriously over the years. Having said that, the books should have a bit of leeway as well to account for all the adventurers who aren't maxed out.

A good reference into good FF gamebook design are from the works of Stephen Hand and Peter Darvill Evans. Night Dragon and Robot Commando are also extremely well designed.

[CharlesX]

My own take is FFs could perhaps be tough but not impossible for those with lower starting stats. There are some FF which frankly aren't great either in terms of chances of victory or their game-playing experience. There are others which would have been noticeably more enjoyable if they weren't so hard. Vault Of The Vampire, Tower Of Destruction, Midnight Rogue, Seas Of Blood, and several Green FF are examples of the latter.
   I enjoy a moderate challenge sometimes but FF takes that too far. I wouldn't mind more FF that were comparatively easy, especially if I were a young person reading it (let alone female), so long as they were well-written like Citadel Of Chaos or possibly Forest Of Doom rather than Starship Traveller.

[Pete Byrdie]

There have been some good attempts at making books which give potentially winning paths with low stat heros. But it must make writing a book so much more difficult, unless you just disregard the actual chances of a player winning a book, which seems to happen sometimes. I can't help but think FF has burdened itself with a broken character generation system that gives too broad an ability range, and in whatever future FF has, they'd do better to bite the bullet and abandon it for a system that perhaps balances different stats better.

I think there are things to be gained from a gamebook without being guaranteed to win. But there's no point playing if there's only a very small or no chance of winning. I think perfect choices should lead to no smaller than a 75% chance of winning.

[bloodbeasthandler]

Aug 20, 2023 11:28:17 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

. I can't help but think FF has burdened itself with a broken character generation system that gives too broad an ability range, and in whatever future FF has, they'd do better to bite the bullet and abandon it for a system that perhaps balances different stats better.

Maybe that's the answer, Pete, maybe not. 

For example, if we were to have a gamebook where the mission is to 'kill the warlord' who turns out is some sort of great swordsman... if I were to roll up a SKILL 12 character I might be confident in defeating him in hand-to-hand combat [maybe looking to collect some magic weaponry or armour on the way if possible, just to make sure].

But if i start out with a SKILL 7 or 8 weakling, then there'll need to be some other method for me - maybe poisoning him, shooting from afar, setting a trap, or somehow getting someone else to do away with him. 

My initial stats will dictate the path i would want to take. 

The point I'm trying to make is that the book should give us those options. 

If you as a SKILL 7 character are railroaded into combat after combat and then in the end into a swordfight with the warlord, then in my opinion the writer of the book has failed. It's a failure of imagination as much as anything else.  

If it proves too hard to construct a book giving those options then yes, as you said, bite the bullet and abandon it for a different system. 

[King Gillibran]

I feel that you shouldnt be gauranteed success no matter what stats but just so long as that even if you die you dont feel the death was boring.
Some of my favourite books have good examples.
Steve Jackson had mostly got his books balanced out such as Sorcery or Citadel of Chaos both have options of hard or easy paths. Creature of Havoc is so expertly written that it feels exciting every time you die. Secrets of Salamonis did away with random stats completely.
Ian Livingstone has far less of his books so evenly balanced however my favourite FF Deathtrap Dungeon, which is virtually impossible to beat with minimum stats is designed that if i roll up a weak character and send him into the dungeon and he dies I just think that it serves him right for trying to beat a dungeon you are not supposed to survive and so it also feels when you do get a strong character through very epic and exciting.
Another factor is that when I was a kid I would assign myself a Skill 11 Stamina 19 and Luck 9 character or stronger by default and if the book didnt have a skill 11 or 12 boss or other epic scene (ie the battle at the end of armies of death) I would dislike the book because I loved an epic battle. As a kid I never liked City of Thieves Forest of Doom Khare or many other books because they didnt have an exciting boss. That is why I feel Citadel of Chaos nailed it can feel like a challenge to beat no matter what stats yet still possible.

[CharlesX]

Aug 21, 2023 7:55:26 GMT King Gillibran said:

I feel that you shouldnt be gauranteed success no matter what stats but just so long as that even if you die you dont feel the death was boring.
Some of my favourite books have good examples.
Steve Jackson had mostly got his books balanced out such as Sorcery or Citadel of Chaos both have options of hard or easy paths. Creature of Havoc is so expertly written that it feels exciting every time you die. Secrets of Salamonis did away with random stats completely.
Ian Livingstone has far less of his books so evenly balanced however my favourite FF Deathtrap Dungeon, which is virtually impossible to beat with minimum stats is designed that if i roll up a weak character and send him into the dungeon and he dies I just think that it serves him right for trying to beat a dungeon you are not supposed to survive and so it also feels when you do get a strong character through very epic and exciting.
Another factor is that when I was a kid I would assign myself a Skill 11 Stamina 19 and Luck 9 character or stronger by default and if the book didnt have a skill 11 or 12 boss or other epic scene (ie the battle at the end of armies of death) I would dislike the book because I loved an epic battle. As a kid I never liked City of Thieves Forest of Doom Khare or many other books because they didnt have an exciting boss. That is why I feel Citadel of Chaos nailed it can feel like a challenge to beat no matter what stats yet still possible.

I like Ian Livingstone's Temple Of Terror where he has a very strong Giant Sandworm setting the tone of the gamebook. Unfortunately more often than not Livingstone doesn't do that.

   I see a strong case for moderation; it isn't fun with a gamebook such as Seas Of Blood or Island Of The Undead where you have to discard PC after PC before you start because the majority would have an inadequate chance of winning. I also think 50 50 life-or-death are absolutely ridiculous, and should be on a list of no-no's for how to write gamebooks (together with One-Strike-Combats).

[Wizard Slayer]

I definitely think that they should be winnable on lowest stats, in a one-in-five-or-six kind of fashion. I definitely like the idea from 'mudworm that something like a difficult combat could be negated by getting a special item that requires a random difficult dice roll; the sort of thing you can leave alone or try for if it's your only desperate option.

In favour of dooming low-stat characters, playing the gamebooks without cheating and with little memory of them (especially past No. 36 or so) has shown me that it can have a positive affect on play. Given a seemingly obviously-doomed character, I end up taking paths and options that I would never have risked a Skill 12 character on. Often it means discovering enjoyable parts of the book that I'd never otherwise have played, and sometimes it means discovering a useful or necessary item that might not have found for ages, so sure was I that the other path was the best/correct one.

Edit: For clarity, I'm a No in the poll. I think they should be winnable with low-stats characters, but not easily so.

[CharlesX]

Aug 21, 2023 12:14:28 GMT Wizard Slayer said:

I definitely think that they should be winnable on lowest stats, in a one-in-five-or-six kind of fashion. I definitely like the idea from 'mudworm that something like a difficult combat could be negated by getting a special item that requires a random difficult dice roll; the sort of thing you can leave alone or try for if it's your only desperate option.

In favour of dooming low-stat characters, playing the gamebooks without cheating and with little memory of them (especially past No. 36 or so) has shown me that it can have a positive affect on play. Given a seemingly obviously-doomed character, I end up taking paths and options that I would never have risked a Skill 12 character on. Often it means discovering enjoyable parts of the book that I'd never otherwise have played, and sometimes it means discovering a useful or necessary item that might not have found for ages, so sure was I that the other path was the best/correct one.

Edit: For clarity, I'm a No in the poll. I think they should be winnable with low-stats characters, but not easily so.

Including a claim any character should win no matter what their stats was a mistake in my book, because it would tie the hands of writers. If I had to choose between an FF as atmospheric and well-written as Deathtrap Dungeon or one that's as accessible and flexible as Keep Of The Lich-Lord I'd prefer Livingstone's works.

   Having said that, it's kind of nutty the way they include a claim when it blatantly is untrue for many FFs, probably the majority where it is included!  

[a moderator]

Aug 21, 2023 12:59:38 GMT CharlesX said:

Including a claim any character should win no matter what their stats was a mistake in my book, because it would tie the hands of writers. If I had to choose between an FF as atmospheric and well-written as Deathtrap Dungeon or one that's as accessible and flexible as Keep Of The Lich-Lord I'd prefer Livingstone's works.

  

Ease of winning and quality of writing are unrelated. There's nothing to prevent a writer from combining the playability of Keep with the atmosphere of Deathtrap.

Having said that, it's kind of nutty the way they include a claim when it blatantly is untrue for many FFs, probably the majority where it is included!  

Definitely the majority. I've been working on a piece about this for my Fantazine column (since before this thread was created), and my research for it revealed that (according to champskees' stats) in more than half of the FF books that make that claim, rolling nothing but ones at character creation gives 0% odds of success, and the odds only rise above 10% for around a third of them.

[Wizard Slayer]

Aug 21, 2023 12:59:38 GMT CharlesX said:

Including a claim any character should win no matter what their stats was a mistake in my book, because it would tie the hands of writers. If I had to choose between an FF as atmospheric and well-written as Deathtrap Dungeon or one that's as accessible and flexible as Keep Of The Lich-Lord I'd prefer Livingstone's works.

There's a difference between should and could though. I don't think a 7/14/7 character should win, but it's better if they could. Deathtrap is spoilt by not even allowing medium characters to win, thanks to no less than six unavoidable combats with Skill 10+ opponents (I include the second Flying Guardian because of the Attack Strength penalty).

It could so easily have been better with a bit of tweaking. Some way you can find of avoiding the penalty against the Guardians. Drop the Skill of the Cave Troll and the Bloodbeast and either the Ninja or the Manticore (while also giving the one who keeps Skill 11 a lower stamina). Personally I'd weaken the Manticore, given the shield aspect. And/or maybe with the Bloodbeast you have to Test Your Luck instead of winning two attack rounds. You'd still have a challenge in fighting poor Throm and the Ninja, there's still a mighty fight to have to win the book, there's ways around the harder fights (Pit Fiend, Bloodbeast) but a Skill 9 character still has a decent chance. Even a Skill 7 might get very lucky...!

Keep is an interesting one: I never discovered until after I completed it that there was such an easy way to win, with such a simple "head for the target" approach. I was so sure I had to fight the Vampires in the graveyard that I hadn't considered there was a way round it.

[CharlesX]

Aug 21, 2023 15:52:27 GMT Wizard Slayer said:

Keep is an interesting one: I never discovered until after I completed it that there was such an easy way to win, with such a simple "head for the target" approach. I was so sure I had to fight the Vampires in the graveyard that I hadn't considered there was a way round it.

It's well-designed that way; after being asked at one point if I had the Spear of Qadarnai I redid the entire adventure after losing in the theory I had missed something vital. I then read a tough ending reference explaining I'd taken too long!

   All the sub-quests and so on must seemingly work better rewritten as a Fabled Lands adventure, where they'd become beneficial (haven't read it) instead of red herrings.

[paperexplorer]

Having thought on it more, I think it's acceptable for a book to be beatable with minimal stats, but only with a small % chance. As much as it is annoying, it shouldn't be a cake walk for a skill 11 or 12 either.

The Forest of Doom has 86% chance for victory on minimal stats. Yes part of that is finding the optimal route, but what is the point of a skill 12 player picking up the dice on that play through?

I will say it would be very hard as a writer to balance it, but a book where a skill 7 has 10% chance ad a skill 12 80% would be an ideal balance.

I think the idea about a smaller range has merit too.
Roll 1 die for skill:
1-2 = skill 10
3-4 = skill 11
5-6 = skill 12
This would fit most books and make them playable without players re-rolling a new character

[johnbrawn1972]

I have said many times I like Citadel and Forest because you can find the path of least resistance and exploit it to the limit. As others have mentioned you can play Citadel differently especially the ending with Balthus Dire if you have rolled high numbers.

In some ways a very late book like Night of the Necromancer obeys the early rule being discussed as you can try to exploit the path of least resistance to have a chance of success. If you roll high numbers you can then play the perfect ending with the Spirit Stone. This always reminded me of Citadel.

I suppose each gamebook should have at least been honest about the modus operandi of the book and the introductory story should make reference to the need for the hardiest adventurer to overcome The Walk or whatever it is so the author should be honest about the differing requirements of each individual book.

[CharlesX]

Aug 23, 2023 16:28:48 GMT johnbrawn1972 said:

I have said many times I like Citadel and Forest because you can find the path of least resistance and exploit it to the limit. As others have mentioned you can play Citadel differently especially the ending with Balthus Dire if you have rolled high numbers.

In some ways a very late book like Night of the Necromancer obeys the early rule being discussed as you can try to exploit the path of least resistance to have a chance of success. If you roll high numbers you can then play the perfect ending with the Spirit Stone. This always reminded me of Citadel.

I suppose each gamebook should have at least been honest about the modus operandi of the book and the introductory story should make reference to the need for the hardiest adventurer to overcome The Walk or whatever it is so the author should be honest about the differing requirements of each individual book.

While Night Of The Necromancer is definitely a forgiving gamebook in many ways, there's always a strong chance your adventurer will fail to acquire Spook Skill and if that is the case, your stats need to be strong (I believe Champskees odds assume you will just give up if you do not acquire Spook, in spite of potential ways for you to continue).

[johnbrawn1972]

Aug 23, 2023 16:44:32 GMT CharlesX said:

Aug 23, 2023 16:28:48 GMT johnbrawn1972 said:

I have said many times I like Citadel and Forest because you can find the path of least resistance and exploit it to the limit. As others have mentioned you can play Citadel differently especially the ending with Balthus Dire if you have rolled high numbers.

In some ways a very late book like Night of the Necromancer obeys the early rule being discussed as you can try to exploit the path of least resistance to have a chance of success. If you roll high numbers you can then play the perfect ending with the Spirit Stone. This always reminded me of Citadel.

I suppose each gamebook should have at least been honest about the modus operandi of the book and the introductory story should make reference to the need for the hardiest adventurer to overcome The Walk or whatever it is so the author should be honest about the differing requirements of each individual book.

While Night Of The Necromancer is definitely a forgiving gamebook in many ways, there's always a strong chance your adventurer will fail to acquire Spook Skill and if that is the case, your stats need to be strong (I believe Champskees odds assume you will just give up if you do not acquire Spook, in spite of potential ways for you to continue).

I have just checked my solution and you have a 58% chance of having a 97% probability to acquire Spook and also a 41% chance of having a 90% probability to acquire Spook. If you do not acquire Spook then later you have a 16% chance of acquiring Spook. This is why I think it is something of a recapitulation of some of the early books.

[cj]

Perhaps the answer is guided by whether someone thinks of FF as a series of GAMEbooks or gameBOOKS.

[CharlesX]

One alternative is just to have fixed starting stats, as has been done in Secrets Of Salamonis. I don't know whether other people use the suggested pre-rolled characters in the back of some of the relatively recent adventures (I don't), frankly rolling a die between those templates makes as much sense as rolling between have a 7 14 7 hero and a 12 24 12 one. Another alternative is to penalise players who are doing well and give bonuses to those struggling, like the Sommerswerd (however you spell it) in Lone Wolf.