How should FF gameplay difficulty be balanced?

[CharlesX]

Just wondering whether anyone has any magic solution to gameplay difficulty. This is inspired partly from the Skill bonuses thread and also because I'm a strong supporter of a Secrets Of Salamonis style-system. You may vote for up to 6 answers.

[sylas]

FF is a system that involves dice for attributes so the range you're gonna get is already set from the get go. There are very few FF books that got the balance exactly right, possibly not one due to this. The book will be either too easy or too hard for the most part. Point-buy system is likely the most balanced way forward but I doubt more FF books will apply the Secrets of Salamonis system and even then, that can also be disadvantage. After all, who ISN'T going to put all their points into Skill? Those who do will think the adventure too easy; those who don't will find it near impossible. See what I mean? If anything, this is one of the reasons I give higher praise to Demons of the Deep and Stealer of Souls because those at least try to reward a weaker hero with more benefits in combat so the right mindset was there.

[Per]

I picked "harder and easier paths", though this isn't exactly how I think about it. In all three of the first books, there were paths on which you were doomed and paths on which you were not. If you had high stats, then whichever path you were on, you could attempt more foolhardy things, select more trap options, and generally have a greater tolerance for bad luck or judgement. But high stats weren't used for gatekeeping who could be on the true path(s).

Some later developments worked against this. One is that where previously you had possibly been asked to fight a Skill 9 enemy on the optimal path, you could soon expect anything up to 12, then toss in special abilities and hazards on top. Another being a shift from lots of different branching and/or converging paths with random happenings to more linear structures where each surviving character would necessarily have gone through the same story beats and mechanical challenges. Combine these and you'll effectively weed out the low-stat adventurers.

Writers did things very differently, of course. Luke Sharp in some of his books allowed for huge freedom combined with huge freedom to mess up, where high stats would help but ultimately not be necessary. But then they had other issues.

[nathanh]

It's a tricky question because we will probably not start from an agreed position about the victory chance of a 7/14/7 character and a 12/24/12 character. Some might say there should be a route, perhaps very difficult to find, where the 7/14/7 character has a good chance of winning. Some might say that every character should have a reasonable chance of failure. If I had a choose an optimal difficulty I'd say that 7/14/7 should be 10-25% success chance, 9/19/10 should be around 50%, and 12/24/12 should be 95%-100%. That is extremely difficult to arrange and I don't think any book is even close the this (at some point I will run the numbers for "Talisman of Death, but interpreting a lot of skill boosts as AS boosts", which might have a chance of getting close).

There is one option not explicitly on here and perhaps will be controversial, but you could get some mileage out of routes with non-stat-related rolls on otherwise easy routes, and a hard route that relies on high SKILL and LUCK only.

[sylas]

Moonrunner is possibly the only book that did it best as Stephen Hand realized that a good balanced system should rely less on attributes and more on CHOICES. Similarly, this is why the Virtual Reality/Critical IF books (except Green Blood) work so well.

[King Gillibran]

I dont want it to change and while I dont entirely agree most have it about right, I feel it is all in individual book character.

[CharlesX]

Nov 20, 2023 0:02:05 GMT nathanh said:

It's a tricky question because we will probably not start from an agreed position about the victory chance of a 7/14/7 character and a 12/24/12 character. Some might say there should be a route, perhaps very difficult to find, where the 7/14/7 character has a good chance of winning. Some might say that every character should have a reasonable chance of failure. If I had a choose an optimal difficulty I'd say that 7/14/7 should be 10-25% success chance, 9/19/10 should be around 50%, and 12/24/12 should be 95%-100%. That is extremely difficult to arrange and I don't think any book is even close the this (at some point I will run the numbers for "Talisman of Death, but interpreting a lot of skill boosts as AS boosts", which might have a chance of getting close).

There is one option not explicitly on here and perhaps will be controversial, but you could get some mileage out of routes with non-stat-related rolls on otherwise easy routes, and a hard route that relies on high SKILL and LUCK only.

Yes, I realised 10 minutes after setting the poll up I'd stupidly failed to include an 'other' option.

[CharlesX]

Nov 20, 2023 0:02:05 GMT nathanh said:

It's a tricky question because we will probably not start from an agreed position about the victory chance of a 7/14/7 character and a 12/24/12 character. Some might say there should be a route, perhaps very difficult to find, where the 7/14/7 character has a good chance of winning. Some might say that every character should have a reasonable chance of failure. If I had a choose an optimal difficulty I'd say that 7/14/7 should be 10-25% success chance, 9/19/10 should be around 50%, and 12/24/12 should be 95%-100%. That is extremely difficult to arrange and I don't think any book is even close the this (at some point I will run the numbers for "Talisman of Death, but interpreting a lot of skill boosts as AS boosts", which might have a chance of getting close).

There is one option not explicitly on here and perhaps will be controversial, but you could get some mileage out of routes with non-stat-related rolls on otherwise easy routes, and a hard route that relies on high SKILL and LUCK only.

This sort of thing hasn't not been done before with more nuanced gamebooks such as Night Of The Necromancer, Moonrunner and Deathmoor. One problem is many FF have gone for including non-stat-related deaths, sometimes 50-50 or cumulatively worse than that, as well as tough opponents, instead of 'second chance' which young readers might expect\deserve.

[kieran]

Nov 20, 2023 10:33:14 GMT CharlesX said:

Nov 20, 2023 0:02:05 GMT nathanh said:

It's a tricky question because we will probably not start from an agreed position about the victory chance of a 7/14/7 character and a 12/24/12 character. Some might say there should be a route, perhaps very difficult to find, where the 7/14/7 character has a good chance of winning. Some might say that every character should have a reasonable chance of failure. If I had a choose an optimal difficulty I'd say that 7/14/7 should be 10-25% success chance, 9/19/10 should be around 50%, and 12/24/12 should be 95%-100%. That is extremely difficult to arrange and I don't think any book is even close the this (at some point I will run the numbers for "Talisman of Death, but interpreting a lot of skill boosts as AS boosts", which might have a chance of getting close).

There is one option not explicitly on here and perhaps will be controversial, but you could get some mileage out of routes with non-stat-related rolls on otherwise easy routes, and a hard route that relies on high SKILL and LUCK only.

This sort of thing hasn't not been done before with more nuanced gamebooks such as Night Of The Necromancer, Moonrunner and Deathmoor. 

I dunno about Deathmoor. There is a hard-to-find alternative route but it doesn't avoid one tricky battle and it doesn't necessarily get you past another.

That said, whichever route you take through Deathmoor, it doesn't require particularly amazing stats - you're just very unlikely to beat it with 7/14/7 whatever route you take.

[CharlesX]

Nov 20, 2023 12:19:28 GMT kieran said:

Nov 20, 2023 10:33:14 GMT CharlesX said:

This sort of thing hasn't not been done before with more nuanced gamebooks such as Night Of The Necromancer, Moonrunner and Deathmoor. 

I dunno about Deathmoor. There is a hard-to-find alternative route but it doesn't avoid one tricky battle and it doesn't necessarily get you past another.

That said, whichever route you take through Deathmoor, it doesn't require particularly amazing stats - you're just very unlikely to beat it with 7/14/7 whatever route you take.

I haven't read Deathmoor before (I saw it, but it didn't seem brilliant from my flick-through so I never rented it from library), so I'm going on the basis of the solution. I was partly referring to the option to go for a harder path, which in the solution thread doesn't have enemy and damage stats let alone a stats success table. I'd agree Deathmoor doesn't sound like a phenomenal FF in several ways (perhaps it could be in my 'average FF' thread), Howl Of The Werewolf does it a lot better.

   I used to ambitiously go way off the true path playing Night Dragon and get killed all the time .

[kieran]

Luke Sharp was actually pretty good at providing a multitude of paths with some being much easier than others.

[schlendrian]

I do think that magic (especially the CoC system) could be a great way to balance books: If you have crap stats, you can choose some fighting spells to not be completely helpless. Or there could be spells that help you get around some tough combats.

[CharlesX]

Nov 20, 2023 16:20:36 GMT schlendrian said:

I do think that magic (especially the CoC system) could be a great way to balance books: If you have crap stats, you can choose some fighting spells to not be completely helpless. Or there could be spells that help you get around some tough combats.

This is another reason I should have had an 'other' option although I suppose this could come under 'more help through bonuses'. OTOH I don't think magic, or other bonuses for that matter, are as key as how your own stats compare with your opponents; take Keith Martin's FF, which combine heavy bookkeeping with overpowered enemies (I guess Jon Green 'saw the error of his ways' after Curse Of The Mummy and then Bloodbones).

[bloodbeasthandler]

Nov 20, 2023 16:20:36 GMT schlendrian said:

I do think that magic (especially the CoC system) could be a great way to balance books: If you have crap stats, you can choose some fighting spells to not be completely helpless. Or there could be spells that help you get around some tough combats.

Yep. Magic. 
Skills too. 

[Pete Byrdie]

As long as there's a true path to a reasonable chance of victory, I don't think much else matters. However, allowing the player character to get more powerful as they go, if the right choices are made, instead of getting to the end a battered weakling, is a good idea. I do wonder, if items such as breastplates, shields and helmets make a big difference, why a seasoned adventurer doesn't kit themselves out before starting off.

[Per]

In "plucky fortune seeker" adventures, going in without (theoretically) expensive gear can make sense. In an "eh, let's send one guy to prevent the world from blowing up" scenario, not as much.

[roidhun]

Absolutely. In an adventure as high-stakes as, say, The Legend Of Zagor it's borderline ridiculous just how under-equipped you are at the start. Why isn't King Irian offering you the pick of the magic weapons in the royal armoury if he really wants you to succeed?

[roidhun]

I'm going to confess at this point that I usually cheat a little right at the beginning of a book by automatically awarding myself 10 Skill, 20 Stamina and 10 Luck. I've always found the whole idea of randomly rolling for your own stats daft when every other character has fixed stats. Otherwise, I play fair. I won't even allow my character to do something like randomly guessing the right number sequences for placing the Nine Gold Rings in Trial of Champions if he hasn't had an in-game opportunity to learn them. Pre-generated characters with fixed stats (or at least the option to choose them rather than randomly rolling if that's what you prefer) in all new or reprinted books would be a big plus, IMHO.

[CharlesX]

Nov 22, 2023 11:57:53 GMT roidhun said:

I'm going to confess at this point that I usually cheat a little right at the beginning of a book by automatically awarding myself 10 Skill, 20 Stamina and 10 Luck. I've always found the whole idea of randomly rolling for your own stats daft when every other character has fixed stats. Otherwise, I play fair. I won't even allow my character to do something like randomly guessing the right number sequences for placing the Nine Gold Rings in Trial of Champions if he hasn't had an in-game opportunity to learn them. Pre-generated characters with fixed stats (or at least the option to choose them rather than randomly rolling if that's what you prefer) in all new or reprinted books would be a big plus, IMHO.

So, for gamebooks that are on the harder spectrum do you assume a character with maxed-out stats (such as Trial Of Champions, where a maxed-out Skill 10 hero has a less than .1% chance of victory)?

[roidhun]

Nov 22, 2023 12:09:44 GMT CharlesX said:

Nov 22, 2023 11:57:53 GMT roidhun said:

I'm going to confess at this point that I usually cheat a little right at the beginning of a book by automatically awarding myself 10 Skill, 20 Stamina and 10 Luck. I've always found the whole idea of randomly rolling for your own stats daft when every other character has fixed stats. Otherwise, I play fair. I won't even allow my character to do something like randomly guessing the right number sequences for placing the Nine Gold Rings in Trial of Champions if he hasn't had an in-game opportunity to learn them. Pre-generated characters with fixed stats (or at least the option to choose them rather than randomly rolling if that's what you prefer) in all new or reprinted books would be a big plus, IMHO.

So, for gamebooks that are on the harder spectrum do you assume a character with maxed-out stats (such as Trial Of Champions, where a maxed-out Skill 10 hero has a less than .1% chance of victory)?

I usually go with Skill 10, Stamina 20 and Luck 10 regardless of how easy or difficult an individual book has a reputation for being. I find it very helpful to have a better idea of what my character is or isn't likely to be able to accomplish in any situation where I have to Test Luck, Skill or occasionally Stamina. Of course, sometimes the dice are just going to be against me. Nothing to be done but curl up in a ball and cry for a while, then start over.

Edit:
But boy was I glad that Night Dragon let me automatically raise my Skill by 1 (to 11) and my Stamina by 2 (to 22)!

Edit:
If a book is reputed to be really difficult I might bump my Skill up to 12, but if so I would try to balance things a bit by dropping my Stamina down to 18.

[roidhun]

Oh, and obviously my usual numbers can't quite work with The Legend Of Zagor. If I'm playing it I'll use the following:

Braxus = Skill 10, Stamina 20, Luck 7, Gold 10

Anvar = Skill 10, Stamina 22, Luck 8, Gold 10

Stubble = Skill 9, Stamina 20, Luck 9, Gold 15

Sallazar = Skill 9, Stamina 16, Luck 7, Gold 10

If you're trying to spot a pattern, it really boils down to giving myself above-average scores, but not implausibly maxed-out ones. (Has anybody, ever, randomly rolled Skill 12, Stamina 24 and Luck 12? Without using loaded dice? If so, Cheelah must have really been smiling on you that day!)

[bloodbeasthandler]

Nov 21, 2023 21:52:36 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I do wonder, if items such as breastplates, shields and helmets make a big difference, why a seasoned adventurer doesn't kit themselves out before starting off.

There's a certain advantage to a suit of leather armour insofar as you are lighter, more agile. Clunking about in chainmail or, worse, platemail might get you killed if you need to run for a period of time, sneak, climb or swim. 

But i see your point - going into an adventure with barely anything other than a sword, some food, and a bag for putting things in makes no sense.
No rope, no grapnel, no empty bottle for putting stuff in, no hand mirror [for looking round corners or killing basilisks], small crowbar, spare weapon [dagger]

Maybe as part of the introduction you should get some choices for this sort of stuff.
Or get a clear option to buy things in a marketplace like you do in Legend of the Shadow Warriors.

[bloodbeasthandler]

Nov 22, 2023 11:57:53 GMT roidhun said:

I'm going to confess at this point that I usually cheat a little right at the beginning of a book by automatically awarding myself 10 Skill, 20 Stamina and 10 Luck. 

You are not alone - so do I! And I will continue to do this for the new books too, just in case!

I tend to only fiddle the SKILL roll though, and like you I go for 10. All the rest is randomly rolled. Except LUCK 7 might be a re-reoll.... 

I don't get a kick out of staggering on with a character (one doomed from the start) lurching from one fight to the next burning through provisions and then expiring as soon as some SKILL 10 or 11 monster turns up. 

The first read of a gamebook is really quite the most important one for me.

[CharlesX]

Nov 22, 2023 18:20:46 GMT roidhun said:

Oh, and obviously my usual numbers can't quite work with The Legend Of Zagor. If I'm playing it I'll use the following:

Braxus = Skill 10, Stamina 20, Luck 7, Gold 10

Anvar = Skill 10, Stamina 22, Luck 8, Gold 10

Stubble = Skill 9, Stamina 20, Luck 9, Gold 15

Sallazar = Skill 9, Stamina 16, Luck 7, Gold 10

If you're trying to spot a pattern, it really boils down to giving myself above-average scores, but not implausibly maxed-out ones. (Has anybody, ever, randomly rolled Skill 12, Stamina 24 and Luck 12? Without using loaded dice? If so, Cheelah must have really been smiling on you that day!)

Yes, as well as 7 14 7, probably more than once. And when playing a hard Gamebook Adventures recently, I kept rerolling 6 dice in the hope of getting 35 (you can re-flip the dice halfway through a roll, but they aren't loaded), but surprised myself by getting 36. I saved it, of course.

   On the former I ascribe this to two things, one, that rolling dice by hand and via shaker doesn't get a perfect balance of probabilities (which would explain why I think my odds playing haven't always been quite the same as stastical odds), and two, that I played too much FF in the day, when I was a kid.  The latter was definitely a fluke.

   Going back to the thread title though, I'd suggest gameplay difficulty be balanced by not including lots of random do-or-die tests (sometimes with terrible odds) as well as overpowered enemies. Take Jon Green, who displayed a real learning curve by having several hard FFs, then altering Curse Of The Mummy to make it easier in the reprint, writing Bloodbones, and getting it right with Howl Of The Werewolf, Stormslayer and Night of The Necromancer. Funny gameplay has barely been touched on in the many reprints of Jackson and Livingstone FFs, one might almost think the authors were resting on their laurels (except Creature Of Havoc, where the reprints add to difficulty by making your fighting advantages unclear).

[schlendrian]

Nov 22, 2023 18:52:26 GMT bloodbeasthandler said:

But i see your point - going into an adventure with barely anything other than a sword, some food, and a bag for putting things in makes no sense.
No rope, no grapnel, no empty bottle for putting stuff in, no hand mirror [for looking round corners or killing basilisks], small crowbar, spare weapon [dagger]

"The Big Book of Random Facts" or its Allansian analogue, annotated by Ungoth, should probably be in the rucksack of every Allansian hero.

[Pete Byrdie]

Nov 22, 2023 18:52:26 GMT bloodbeasthandler said:

Nov 21, 2023 21:52:36 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I do wonder, if items such as breastplates, shields and helmets make a big difference, why a seasoned adventurer doesn't kit themselves out before starting off.

There's a certain advantage to a suit of leather armour insofar as you are lighter, more agile. Clunking about in chainmail or, worse, platemail might get you killed if you need to run for a period of time, sneak, climb or swim. 

But i see your point - going into an adventure with barely anything other than a sword, some food, and a bag for putting things in makes no sense.
No rope, no grapnel, no empty bottle for putting stuff in, no hand mirror [for looking round corners or killing basilisks], small crowbar, spare weapon [dagger]

Maybe as part of the introduction you should get some choices for this sort of stuff.
Or get a clear option to buy things in a marketplace like you do in Legend of the Shadow Warriors.

Mail is actually very comfortable and light, just a pain to get off. I certainly wouldn't suggest full plate harness for adventuring. The lack of a knife is strange for someone travelling around in a medieval level world. Whether a dagger or just an eating knife, our adventurer should have something. In the case of many of the books, travelling about fighting is the character's profession. Personally, I'd wear a light gambeson with mail over it, and have a dagger.

[roidhun]

You sound like you're speaking from experience. Member of a historical reenactment society?

Edit:
Never fails to amuse me when some idiot recycles the old piece of nonsense about knights in full plate armour having to be hoisted into the air by teams of peasants pulling on ropes and then lowered onto their horses from above. That myth was the result of effete movie actors like Lawrence Olivier in the 1940s wanting to make historically accurate Shakespeare adaptations wearing reproduction metal armour and then discovering that they could barely move. An actual medieval esquire was in training throughout his teens and by the age of 20 he could run in full plate for 20 minutes before fatigue started to become a problem. He most certainly could climb into his own bloody saddle without help!

Edit:
Never fails to annoy me when some idiot movie or TV scriptwriter doesn't know the difference between a mace and a morningstar either. (Yes, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, this does mean the three of you!)

[CharlesX]

My primary knowledge of mail and swords is through museums not re-enactment societies but their swords were so heavy I would have struggled to lift them let alone fight so being a knight must have been very much a full-time job. But being a fortune-seeker adventurer you are expected to carry 101 other things such as lantern mirror potion rope treasure and more than two other things so I'd agree they should not be kitted out like a knight.

[Pete Byrdie]

Nov 23, 2023 8:33:42 GMT roidhun said:

You sound like you're speaking from experience. Member of a historical reenactment society?

Edit:
Never fails to amuse me when some idiot recycles the old piece of nonsense about knights in full plate armour having to be hoisted into the air by teams of peasants pulling on ropes and then lowered onto their horses from above. That myth was the result of effete movie actors like Lawrence Olivier in the 1940s wanting to make historically accurate Shakespeare adaptations wearing reproduction metal armour and then discovering that they could barely move. An actual medieval esquire was in training throughout his teens and by the age of 20 he could run in full plate for 20 minutes before fatigue started to become a problem. He most certainly could climb into his own bloody saddle without help!

Edit:
Never fails to annoy me when some idiot movie or TV scriptwriter doesn't know the difference between a mace and a morningstar either. (Yes, Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens, this does mean the three of you!)

Many years ago, viking and saxon. I have fond and humorous memories of trying to get mail to fall off by turning my upper body upside down.

[kieran]

Nov 23, 2023 8:33:42 GMT roidhun said:

Never fails to annoy me when some idiot movie or TV scriptwriter doesn't know the difference between a mace and a morningstar either. 

Or a flail