|
|
Post by coppertop71 on May 30, 2016 22:23:26 GMT
This really is just a "what if" question. I was looking at my FF books in the bookcase many of which were not printed by Wizard (as you all know) and as a result I have a collection of Wizard & Puffin editions.
It got me thinking how great it would be if Puffin reprinted them all? I was wondering, if that ever happened, how would you like them presented? Original artwork and Green spine or something new? What banner would you choose?
For me, I would prefer the original artwork (in most cases) with the first green zigzag banners as they allowed the artwork to take centre stage. Of course, I would expect the editing problems to be fixed & would probably discontinue Sky Lord completely.
Are there any books front covers you didn't like and would change?
|
|
|
|
Post by philsadler on May 30, 2016 22:38:18 GMT
I always thought that Dead of Night had a bad front cover and yet I loved that book and I loved its internal illustrations. Also, I think that the 'One big bad person' that many of the covers feature is getting stale. What about the House of Hell cover with all of its details, or the Spectral Stalkers with theirs, or even Phantoms of Fear because at least it's a bit different.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnbrawn1972 on May 30, 2016 22:52:12 GMT
This really is just a "what if" question. I was looking at my FF books in the bookcase many of which were not printed by Wizard (as you all know) and as a result I have a collection of Wizard & Puffin editions. It got me thinking how great it would be if Puffin reprinted them all? I was wondering, if that ever happened, how would you like them presented? Original artwork and Green spine or something new? What banner would you choose? For me, I would prefer the original artwork (in most cases) with the first green zigzag banners as they allowed the artwork to take centre stage. Of course, I would expect the editing problems to be fixed & would probably discontinue Sky Lord completely. Are there any books front covers you didn't like and would change? Not sure about artwork but a radical fix of Crypt and Spellbreaker would be great. In Spellbreaker if they had not been so slapdash they should allow you to surrender to the guards on the true path. In Crypt all bonuses must be to initial skill or attack strength.
How many of the books need amending in regard to skill bonuses not being what they should be namely attack strength bonuses? The last book that was correct was City Of Thieves and it took until Green 'matured' for it finally to be clear and logical.
If every book had to be amended so a lowest stats character could win then a complete re-write would be necessary(except for Trial Of Champions which delivers nominative determinism and there is no promise in the blurb about a lowest character winning)
Could the 'professionals' on here agree on easy fixes? Paragraph errors are a no-brainer? Altering book chances is so much more difficult. If every bonus in Crypt was an attack strength bonus would you end up with a skill 18 character against Razaak? Maybe a good thing?
Would a tiny amendment be logical? Inserting the Blacksmith code where Green forgot in Night Of The Necromancer? I always thought the last 2d6 dice roll for will with the Codex should be 3d6 'forcing' you to push hard to acquire will?
|
|
|
|
Post by coppertop71 on May 30, 2016 22:56:21 GMT
Yes House of Hell definitely. I even bought a copy of the puffin book as I don't like the Wizard cover. Maybe Beneath Nightmare Castle would benefit from that many tongued woman on the front?
My Wizard edition books look ok I guess but the green spines of my puffin ones are more nostalgic and I think they look better
|
|
sylas
Baron
"Don't just adventure for treasure; treasure the adventure!"
Posts: 1,678 
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy, Way of the Tiger
|
Post by sylas on May 30, 2016 23:28:32 GMT
Altering Crypt of the Sorcerer wouldn't be too hard. There are only around 6 main changes needed to make it playable.
|
|
|
|
Post by coppertop71 on May 30, 2016 23:52:53 GMT
Altering Crypt of the Sorcerer wouldn't be too hard. There are only around 6 main changes needed to make it playable. Yes I agree. All that's needed really is to rectify the editing problems that stop you playing the book properly. Some of the other books have very minor editing issues (such as the spy ray reference in ROK) but at least they are still playable. Well, for me personally, I would like to see a new run of the green spines reprinted so they're all the same and new. I know that's not going to happen but as i say, in an ideal world |
|
sylas
Baron
"Don't just adventure for treasure; treasure the adventure!"
Posts: 1,678
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy, Way of the Tiger
|
Post by sylas on May 31, 2016 0:39:20 GMT
In an ideal world, fans would be able to publish their works under the FF name instead of having to convert something made for FF into something same but different.
|
|
|
|
Post by offm on May 31, 2016 3:43:20 GMT
Altering Crypt of the Sorcerer wouldn't be too hard. There are only around 6 main changes needed to make it playable. I think Mr Ian Livingstone should hire you to fix some books, you have got my seal of approval ( no it isn't a joke) good writers should be hired more often. Sent from my SUNSET2 using proboards edit: To be very clear on this , i have high respect and regards towards Mr Ian Livingstone , but nowadays writing a gamebook should be like a colaborative project , like when he started with Warlock of Firetop Mountain with Steve Jackson . |
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on May 31, 2016 13:33:10 GMT
How many of the books need amending in regard to skill bonuses not being what they should be namely attack strength bonuses? The last book that was correct was City Of Thieves and it took until Green 'matured' for it finally to be clear and logical. Even City only got it right about half the time. The blacksmith sells armour providing a Skill bonus that ought to be for Attack Strength. The Skill bonus from the Elven Boots on Key Street is more contentious, but as items found on the other two streets leading from the city gate have Attack Strength bonuses, having the boots do likewise would provide a little more balance. Also, losing your fancy sword on Key Street should mean an Attack Strength penalty rather than Skill loss. As I recall, Keith Martin was generally pretty good on the Attack Strength/Skill distinction. Mentioning him reminds me tha t a bug-free Revenge of the Vampire would be up there with a playable Spellbreaker on my 'every FF book reissued' wishlist. Regarding cover design... well, my username and avatar should tell you everything you need to know about the spines. In most instances, I prefer the Puffin covers to the Wizard ones ( The Seven Serpents being the primary exception). For Citadel I'd go with the second Puffin cover. A new cover illustration for Master of Chaos wouldn't go amiss, and it'd be nice to have more appropriate subject matter for Temple of Terror (a properly intimidating Malbordus and the Dragon artefacts, for example) and Star Strider (not sure what, but it shouldn't be hard to improve on 'minor opponent you'll probably never encounter anyway'). And Scorpion Swamp could do without such an obvious duplication of an internal illustration. Maybe a montage of the three quest-givers above a suitably atmospheric picture of the view in section 9. |
|
|
|
Post by thealmightymudworm on Jun 1, 2016 11:43:20 GMT
How many of the books need amending in regard to skill bonuses not being what they should be namely attack strength bonuses? The last book that was correct was City Of Thieves and it took until Green 'matured' for it finally to be clear and logical. Even City only got it right about half the time. The blacksmith sells armour providing a Skill bonus that ought to be for Attack Strength. The Skill bonus from the Elven Boots on Key Street is more contentious, but as items found on the other two streets leading from the city gate have Attack Strength bonuses, having the boots do likewise would provide a little more balance. Also, losing your fancy sword on Key Street should mean an Attack Strength penalty rather than Skill loss. I'm never quite sure with armour. It's associated with combat, like a sword, but if it's crafted to give full protection with less weight, or magically adjusting to ease your movements, then maybe it makes it easier to run, jump and climb too. It sort of raises the question as to why/when busting past your initial Skill is such a big deal. Is your initial Skill just your intrinsic athleticism without equipment, or does it include stuff? Presumably according to City your Skill increased during the Introduction because of the quality sword, without challenging your initial Skill. |
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Jun 1, 2016 17:59:19 GMT
There's nothing magical about the armour (on checking, it's more specifically a chainmail coat) in City. It just fits well, and adds 2 Skill. Which is fine if you've lost some Skill, otherwise you've just paid a lot of money for an item that does nothing for you. And if you subsequently lose it, you have to deduct 2 Skill, whether or not you got to apply the bonus during the short time in which you had the chainmail. Which is absurd.
|
|
