Cheating, playing fair and other styles
Dec 27, 2021 22:48:33 GMT
terrysalt and drmanhattan like this
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Dec 27, 2021 22:48:33 GMT
For The Altimer and New Gaia books I might try a workaround which is to make all the tests 3 points easier and see how that goes. They seem like arbitrary numbers based on the writer's gut feeling about how difficult the task in hand is. Arbitrary numbers based on assuming the reader has max stats.
I think it will detract from my enjoyment of the books if I totally ignore all dice rolls, to be honest.
Generally speaking, if the only way to succeed is to repeatedly roll double figures on 2d6 I've got to wonder if the writer knows what a bell-curve looks like or knows anything about probability theory. Or cares. The worst example ever is that ridiculous one strike combat in Chasms of Malice. You are effectively being invited to hurl the rules out the window with that one.
Part of the attraction of gamebooks is the resource management. Do you use up your first aid kit, or save it? Buy a weapon or some sort of special item that might come in handy later? Spend most of your money now or keep some back? Low on health you might want to avoid combat, if you are good at moving silently and climbing you might want to use stealth to gain access rather than brute force.
Without this, some of the dramatic tension is lost.
Same thing with the 'five-fingered bookmark'. My intention is to think carefully, make notes, record clues. Then make a choice.
If given the choice to go to the park, the library, the market, the pub... I don't then flick from one to the next just to see what happened until I get a desired outcome. As a child I did, but not now.
That's right, so do I. And maybe some (or even most?) of them will cheat... but so what? Why not craft a book where you assume they will not?
Shouldn't that be the default setting for these sorts of books?
With the gamebooks of the early 80's I can just about let go their shortcomings, and maybe the nostalgia helps with that. The books were proving a new concept and I can forgive them their faults.
With books written nowadays, I am expecting to be able to trust the author.
I think it will detract from my enjoyment of the books if I totally ignore all dice rolls, to be honest.
Generally speaking, if the only way to succeed is to repeatedly roll double figures on 2d6 I've got to wonder if the writer knows what a bell-curve looks like or knows anything about probability theory. Or cares. The worst example ever is that ridiculous one strike combat in Chasms of Malice. You are effectively being invited to hurl the rules out the window with that one.
Part of the attraction of gamebooks is the resource management. Do you use up your first aid kit, or save it? Buy a weapon or some sort of special item that might come in handy later? Spend most of your money now or keep some back? Low on health you might want to avoid combat, if you are good at moving silently and climbing you might want to use stealth to gain access rather than brute force.
Without this, some of the dramatic tension is lost.
Same thing with the 'five-fingered bookmark'. My intention is to think carefully, make notes, record clues. Then make a choice.
If given the choice to go to the park, the library, the market, the pub... I don't then flick from one to the next just to see what happened until I get a desired outcome. As a child I did, but not now.
... but generally speaking, I find the assumption that players will cheat to be rather an odd one.
Shouldn't that be the default setting for these sorts of books?
With the gamebooks of the early 80's I can just about let go their shortcomings, and maybe the nostalgia helps with that. The books were proving a new concept and I can forgive them their faults.
With books written nowadays, I am expecting to be able to trust the author.