Instead of rolling stats...

[aggsol]

Rolling a low skill is usually a safe bet to fail an adventure. how would you replace that? Instead

Base: Skill 6 Stamina 12 Luck 6

Allow distribution of 12 Points. But then everybody would max out skill. But if I limit the max level I also have to reduce the available points. Then the player would end up with not enough stamina.

any ideas for a different approach? The easiest would be to provide prepared builds but I find that rather boring.

[linflas]

Here's my way for many books:

Skill = 1d6 / 2 + 9

Stamina = 2d6 / 2 + 15

Luck = 1d6 / 2 + 8

Round division result to lower integer (0 IS a possible value)

[sylas]

Maybe have:

Start - Skill 7, Stamina 14, Luck 7
Spend 24 points
Skill costs 4 each (20 for Skill 12)
Stamina costs 1 each (10 for Stamina 24)
Luck costs 2 each (10 for Luck 12)

[aggsol]

Jul 20, 2019 20:35:57 GMT linflas said:

Here's my way for many books:

Skill = 1d6 / 2 + 9

Stamina = 2d6 / 2 + 15

Luck = 1d6 / 2 + 8

Round division result to lower integer (0 IS a possible value)

Did you allow a lower luck max for a reason? Having max Skill of 12 would make any test for skill meaning less.

Jul 20, 2019 23:56:21 GMT sylas said:

Maybe have:

Start - Skill 7, Stamina 14, Luck 7
Spend 24 points
Skill costs 4 each (20 for Skill 12)
Stamina costs 1 each (10 for Stamina 24)
Luck costs 2 each (10 for Luck 12)

This is a great idea giving specific cost for a skill. How did you determine the 24 points to spend?

[vastariner]

I genuinely think rolling stats is pointless. Because someone with sk7 would never be an adventurer. Not without some magic, anyway. Hence my idea that one trades off the other - sk7, but five spells that can be used at any time. Or sk11, but one spell. At least for Basic FF. Spells can be one for warrior stuff, one for dexterity stuff, one for detecting stuff.

[sylas]

24 points to spend is just the total of the four dice you normally roll but maxed out.

[linflas]

aggsol : for Luck, that was an example. I usually don't spend many Luck points when playing, because I never use it on combats.

[a moderator]

Some authors require you to use Luck a lot, though. Or make a Luck roll absolutely crucial in the endgame (eg City of Thieves or Freeway Fighter).

[linflas]

Sure, but when it is Livingstone, i always pick 12/24/12

[aggsol]

I asked in context of creating my own adventure while staying true to the FF formula.

[dragonwarrior8]

I like Sylas' idea as obviously a luck point is worth more than a stamina point (and a skill point is worth far more). I would say a luck point is often worth more than even 2 stamina points. Im not sure how many stamina points I would need to get in order to trade away a luck point but its a good question as stamina points are also usually more easily recovered in the adventures. I also dont see a problem in assigning the skill score then still rolling for stamina and luck.

Those "fail this luck/skill test and you lose the adventure" moments are awful game design in my opinion. There should be a penalty sure, but instant failure? They really serve to almost scupper any good work done on the rest of the book. Nothing quite like knowing you are facing one of these do-or-die tests, feeling pretty good about your 10 luck score, then watching double sixes come up.

[sylas]

I don't mind the roll these numbers/pass this test or die situations...as long as you can find something during your adventure to mitigate or counter these outcomes.

[aggsol]

Peter Agapov over at Lloyd of Gamebooks had this topic just recently:

www.lloydofgamebooks.com/2019/05/gamebook-theory-mistake-5-creating.html

I agree that rolling stat is kinda countering the role playing aspect.

[sylas]

Jul 23, 2019 10:58:51 GMT aggsol said:

Peter Agapov over at Lloyd of Gamebooks had this topic just recently:

www.lloydofgamebooks.com/2019/05/gamebook-theory-mistake-5-creating.html

I agree that rolling stat is kinda countering the role playing aspect.

It's an interesting read but I disagree with about 90% of it.

[kieran]

Jul 23, 2019 11:52:33 GMT sylas said:

Jul 23, 2019 10:58:51 GMT aggsol said:

Peter Agapov over at Lloyd of Gamebooks had this topic just recently:

www.lloydofgamebooks.com/2019/05/gamebook-theory-mistake-5-creating.html

I agree that rolling stat is kinda countering the role playing aspect.

It's an interesting read but I disagree with about 90% of it.

Yeah, I think I'm on the same page as you here. Randomness can be fun and force you to play books differently - books like Stealer of Souls, Space Assassin, Howl of the Werewolf or Keep of the Lich Lord can be beaten by weak characters but they require the reader to play things very differently to what they can get away with for a more powerful character so that adds to their replayability a bit.

Of course, that doesn't help you if playing something like Trial of Champions - roll badly and you're scuppered. However, the alternatives suggested in the article wouldn't really fix that book's issues:
Assigning stats? You have the freedom to put 12 in Skill or else you're sunk.
Choose from pre-generated characters? Better choose that one with 12 Skill! (The author is also incorrect to assume the author would generate characters who stand a good chance of beating the book - as anyone who has looked at the pre-generated characters for Ian Livingstone's books in the Series 2 Wizard run can attest to). 
Train the hero? Wouldn't really make sense for the context of the book.

Randomness isn't really the issue per se, it's that certain books are far too unforgiving and don't allow weaker characters a way through.

[thealmightymudworm]

I've never really liked the idea of assigning stats. Partly because it feels a bit unnatural: although people can make choices about what training etc they can do, people generally get landed with their natural limitations. A scrawny weakling just doesn't get to decide to be built like a brick proverbial.

Also I like the possibility of different stats affecting your tactics in playing a book. I was impressed with – for example – nathanh's breakdown of how different routes in Moonrunner are the best for different stats.

The problem is just, as has been said, that the variation in FF is too great. In principle, it would be nice if the authors had always allowed for routes passable by 7/14/7ers and other routes which required higher stats. Or perhaps more importantly: routes which allow you to nurse 1 or 2 duff stats (no one really plays 7/14/7 do they?) so that a hefty clod of 7/23/8 can blunder through by boxing like Homer Simpson while a willowy featherweight of 11/15/9 takes a different path entirely. This is a bit of a joke though, considering that some of them couldn't make books which were playable with *any* stats. Something like Linflas's method is the way to go imo.

Another thought, if balancing combats for Skill is the main problem, is that Attack Strength could be determined using three dice rather than two. That would reduce the importance of Skill differences, ie if two opponents both have Stamina 10 but one has Skill 11 and the other Skill 8, the latter would have a much better chance of fluking a win. This would cause other complications though.


(Edit: incidentally I wrote this before seeing the last three posts)

[dragonwarrior8]

I find the 3 dice idea interesting. I wonder how much of a difference it would make. Could be a fun experiment to try Deathtrap or Caverns with a 9-10 Skill character and 3 dice for combat to see what happens.

Should maybe the Stamina score be factored into the Attack Strength along with Skill? Something along the lines of Skill + 1/2 of Stamina + dice = Attack Strength. As it is, you can be fighting something twice your size (or greater) but it has no chance because your Skill is several points higher.  Although the stamina scores would have to be more indicative of the creatures involved. Something along the lines of Bruce Lee vs Andre the Giant. Andre has no chance in the world of FF.

[sylas]

Jul 23, 2019 13:03:43 GMT kieran said:

Jul 23, 2019 11:52:33 GMT sylas said:

It's an interesting read but I disagree with about 90% of it.

Yeah, I think I'm on the same page as you here. Randomness can be fun and force you to play books differently - books like Stealer of Souls, Space Assassin, Howl of the Werewolf or Keep of the Lich Lord can be beaten by weak characters but they require the reader to play things very differently to what they can get away with for a more powerful character so that adds to their replayability a bit.

Of course, that doesn't help you if playing something like Trial of Champions - roll badly and you're scuppered. However, the alternatives suggested in the article wouldn't really fix that book's issues:
Assigning stats? You have the freedom to put 12 in Skill or else you're sunk.
Choose from pre-generated characters? Better choose that one with 12 Skill! (The author is also incorrect to assume the author would generate characters who stand a good chance of beating the book - as anyone who has looked at the pre-generated characters for Ian Livingstone's books in the Series 2 Wizard run can attest to). 
Train the hero? Wouldn't really make sense for the context of the book.

Randomness isn't really the issue per se, it's that certain books are far too unforgiving and don't allow weaker characters a way through.

I was about to reference Stealer of Souls too. Stealer is one of the few books that actually punish you for having really high stats. By that I mean you as the reader would not get to enjoy the book quite as much because it is simply too easy to complete with a Skill 12 hero, whichever path you take. Whereas with average stats the book is still winnable but it is a lot more challenging in a fun way as it forces you to explore new paths to find those little bonus items that will make progress easier later in the adventure. A high Skilled character could skip this part entirely without any adverse effects but miss out on some great encounters. 

What I do agree on is, gamebooks are always too focused on combat, which in turn makes players believe that only a high Combat designed hero can get through. While this is sometimes true, gamebooks should not be written in this way since in only provokes hostility towards the book afterwards, or encourages poor character design. How many adventures do I want to play as Maximus the Maxed-out Prince of Everything before I get bored? Probably just the one.

Books should be much more versatile, especially in this day and age where we are able to learn from past mistakes and identify what works and what does not. Books like Moonrunner, Night Dragon, Beneath Nightmare Castle, Sorcery! Avenger! Alice's Nightmare in Wonderland, and Heart of Ice, are the ones we can learn from the most in terms of how gameplay mechanics and story choices and rewards should be presented.

[daredevil123]

Howl of the Werewolf is interesting in that Skill is calculated by 1 die roll divided by 2 (rounded up) plus 7, giving a score of 8-10. A system like this would improve many of the books, I feel.

[a moderator]

Jul 23, 2019 18:09:17 GMT daredevil123 said:

Howl of the Werewolf is interesting in that Skill is calculated by 1 die roll divided by 2 (rounded up) plus 7, giving a score of 8-10. A system like this would improve many of the books, I feel.

As long as the author and editor don't forget the reduced upper limit for Skill. We wouldn't want another Mudworm incident.

[thealmightymudworm]

Oops I forgot about this...

Jul 23, 2019 14:15:51 GMT dragonwarrior8 said:

I find the 3 dice idea interesting. I wonder how much of a difference it would make. Could be a fun experiment to try Deathtrap or Caverns with a 9-10 Skill character and 3 dice for combat to see what happens.

I don't own either of those books and don't know/can't remember the details of the fights, only their overall punishing reputations.

I think that as the three dice will increase the chances of a lower Skill opponent hurting you just as it improves your chances against a higher skilled opponent, you might expect your total Stamina loss through a playthrough to be similar on average. (That's assuming that the high Skill and low Skill enemies have similar Stamina in general, which they probably don't.)

So a lot depends on whether the player to be able to restore their Stamina with sufficient provisions between fights. (Caverns is supposed to be bad for that I think?) So for example, a Skill 9 Stamina 15 hero who had to battle a Skill 11 Stamina 10 monster followed by a Skill 7 Stamina 10 might have a much better chance of surviving the first fight. But then they might take a couple of extra hits in the second and get finished off if they haven't had a munch in between.

Should maybe the Stamina score be factored into the Attack Strength along with Skill? Something along the lines of Skill + 1/2 of Stamina + dice = Attack Strength. As it is, you can be fighting something twice your size (or greater) but it has no chance because your Skill is several points higher.  Although the stamina scores would have to be more indicative of the creatures involved. Something along the lines of Bruce Lee vs Andre the Giant. Andre has no chance in the world of FF.

There's always a trade-off. I don't know many gamebook combat systems but the basic FF system has the benefits of being easy to learn and working just about efficiently and effectively enough to suspend disbelief, at the cost of being a bit simplistic. Skill and Stamina in particular have to somehow cover a variety of different abilities.

So for example, (and you may be thinking this sort of thing): after failing to impress your fellow tribesmen with a juggling act (Skill 8, rolled 10) they abandon you to the plains. You are then attacked by a tyrannosaurus, which is bad news for you as it rates at Skill 12 Stamina 20 and the only thing you can think as it bites you in half is "I wish the T-Rex had taken the juggling challenge on my behalf – it would pass it every time!". So from that point of view it would make sense to lower the beast's Skill and use something else to top up its Attack Strength.

On the other hand, Stamina isn't a neat fit for size and strength. I never watched Game of Thrones (not even for Kieran's feet) but a lesson from the Viper vs the Mountain was that greatly reduced Stamina doesn't prevent a lethal attack. Or perhaps a better example would be a severely injured dinosaur or dragon thrashing around in desperation – they're not that much easier to fight than healthy ones. Certainly they don't get smaller when you hit them. Plus it might make fights more boring if getting early momentum is likely to make you win.

Perhaps it might be slightly better to use initial Stamina rather than just Stamina so that it didn't get reduced during the fight. So maybe you encounter an injured T-Rex of Skill 6 Stamina 14 out of 26 with an Attack Strength of 6 + 13 + dice. That could work.

I still think it has limitations: if the range of Stamina you have for a hero is still 14-24, you presumably need a much higher score for something like a dino. On the other hand dwarves might come out as a lot punier than is traditional. It would also be impossible to depict eggshell-skull types like Goliath. But I suppose any system will creak somewhere unless you get bogged down in a plethora of extra statistics.

---

Edit: I realised after writing it that the GoT reference doesn't really work for this particular point because Gregor most certainly does have a reduced 'Attack Strength' on the ground even if he's still strong.

[Damo]

The first thing you do when starting a new adventure is roll stats - skill first.
"Oh I rolled a 1. Well that character gives up, start again."
And I'll keep rolling until I get a 5 or 6 then proceed from there.

[a moderator]

Unless there's an early, unavoidable fight against an opponent with a high Skill, you're better off using low-Skilled characters you roll up to check out inadvisable-looking options and blind choices in a new adventure - if you hit an Instant Death, you haven't wasted a decent character finding out that it's lethal, and if there's an unexpected benefit, you've learned something useful for future attempts.

[bloodbeasthandler]

I'm more in line with Damo on this. I'll just choose SKILL 10 when playing a new book. 

The first reading of a book is the most important one.
You can only ever read a book for the first time once. 

I like to have a belief I might win through, however unlikely. 
I simply don't trust the FF books to be balanced, not now not in the past or in the future, because for the most part they are not playtested. I assume a low SKILL means death sooner rather than later no matter how clever your choices and how much you pay attention. 
From Lloyd on Gamebooks when he talks about generating FF characters with d6+6 for SKILL etc he says: 

Using this method, with a little bit of bad luck, it is easy to create a traitor protagonist, whose skills work against the reader's interest instead of helping him achieve victory. Not fair, is it?


[Edit: apologies - aggsol already pointed this out earlier in the thread]

It's not fair, no, and it spoils the experience too, in my opinion. Being doomed from the start is boring and annoying. 

[fertobardi]

Jul 20, 2019 23:56:21 GMT sylas said:

Maybe have:

Start - Skill 7, Stamina 14, Luck 7
Spend 24 points
Skill costs 4 each (20 for Skill 12)
Stamina costs 1 each (10 for Stamina 24)
Luck costs 2 each (10 for Luck 12)

With the base stats of 7/12/7, you get really the hang of it. I have made some characters with that proportion for points distribution of yours and i have found for my joy that is optimal.

OFC that im on the side that random stats sucks. Simply because its counter intuitive for what a rpg meant to be: That is freedom of creation (under the a set of rules ofc).

On a side note: I tell that with the maximum respect for all what the FF have pioneered for the rpg world.

On topic: If you max skill, you pay the price of being very squishy or very unlucky.
Because otherwise with 14 stamina it will add too much IMHO.

For example: sk/st/lk
knight 11/16/9
barbarian 10/20/9
rogue 11/12/11
archer 11/14/10
feral druid 10/18/10
mage 10/14/12

Personally i dont like to max stamina of some character unless i have a really good reason for that (magically speaking maybe).

Because 24 stamina feels very OP compared to the regular enenemies you meet. Even the bosses.

I also find not fun to max skill eitherway, because fearing the double six on its a lot of fun like Critical failure.

A luck stat bellow 9 i find it difficult to play because of some insta death or mission failure cases. So pay the price.

You have added much fun value to my games with your idea of base stats fractioning that way: 4 to 1 skill, 1 to 1 stamina and 2 to 1 luck.

But i stick with the base 7/12/7. Thanks so much silas. Btw im new here and i will dig in and share my takes and mini battle system

Cheers!

[sylas]

fertobardi
You are 2 Stamina short on your characters. A 12 Stamina hero will usually not be enough to survive a Stamina Test (roll 4d6 vs current Stamina score) and he will have a hard time against enemies that drain 1 Stamina per attack round no matter the outcome.

[Pete Byrdie]

What's the actual utility of rolling stats? I used to use my rubbish heroes for trying out those routes I hadn't tried, and that was sometimes fruitful, and felt like part of the game. But I knew they had no chance of winning. Any other option of assigning different values to your stats becomes 'choice 0', you never know whether the writer has allowed a route that gives those stats a chance or not. Learning that might also be part of the game. But, given how complicated designing a gamebook is, expecting different optimal routes depending on stats might be more than can be hoped for.

[CharlesX]

There's a lot to be said for a pool system in which you assign a number of points before the adventure, this makes the player feel more in control and the game more 'real'. Obviously it's every bit as important the game be balanced.

[fertobardi]

Jan 9, 2024 23:28:58 GMT sylas said:

fertobardi
You are 2 Stamina short on your characters. A 12 Stamina hero will usually not be enough to survive a Stamina Test (roll 4d6 vs current Stamina score) and he will have a hard time against enemies that drain 1 Stamina per attack round no matter the outcome.

Yes, indeed. You're right.

Also, i've made a house rule that you assign armor by stamina range not skill. So, to use armor plate have to be 18+ stamina.

My knight is: 10sk/18st/11lk

Im thinking to follow this same criteria to make up something for magic points. For example:

Min magic stats of 7, raising 1 by 2 and for each 1 point you raise on magic you loose 1 in skill, like is said on the AFF 2ed i think.

Something like citadel of chaos magic system. My wizard have 11 magic points and 8 skill. The max spells you can choose being the total of magic points but you have limited spells that you can cast each day similar of citadel.
Sorcerers are fine the way they are. Getting from stamina and would only roll against the magic points normally to cast spells.