Reveal your fave FF Book by your least favorite FF author

[jmisbest]

I've a idea. How about we each reveal what our favorite FF Book by our least favorite FF author is and why?

My Favorite FF Book by my least favorite FF author is Armies of Death by Ian Livingstone 

The reason its my Favorite FF Book by Ian Livingstone is because its the only FF Book by Ian Livingstone that I eventually beat without cheating, a guide or getting help from friends

The reason I said eventually beat is because it took me roughly 2,500 attempts over a period of roughly 28 and a half months

[daredevil123]

Oct 26, 2021 9:40:58 GMT jmisbest said:

The reason I said eventually beat is because it took me roughly 2,500 attempts over a period of roughly 28 and a half months

And I thought I was dedicated when I played Chasms of Malice 50 times...

[bloodbeasthandler]

Oct 26, 2021 10:29:06 GMT daredevil123 said:

Oct 26, 2021 9:40:58 GMT jmisbest said:

The reason I said eventually beat is because it took me roughly 2,500 attempts over a period of roughly 28 and a half months

And I thought I was dedicated when I played Chasms of Malice 50 times...

That must be a well-thumbed copy, mustn't it!
See below for what happened when an attempt was made to win Crypt of the Sorcerer fairly and squarely.



We're at attempt 95,266 and we've still not won through to 400. 

[jmisbest]

Oct 26, 2021 10:40:31 GMT bloodbeasthandler said:

Oct 26, 2021 10:29:06 GMT daredevil123 said:

And I thought I was dedicated when I played Chasms of Malice 50 times...

That must be a well-thumbed copy, mustn't it!
See below for what happened when an attempt was made to win Crypt of the Sorcerer fairly and squarely.



We're at attempt 95,266 and we've still not won through to 400. 

No were near as well-thumbed as you'd think and that's due to the fact that because of all the constant wear and tear by the time I eventually beat Armies of Death I was on my 5th copy and I beat it on my 8th attempt using that copy

[bloodbeasthandler]

Least favourite author is Martin Allen [FF 33 and Clash of the Princes].

There's not much of a pool of books to choose from there and it's an easy choice for me - my preferred one of his books is [are] Clash of the Princes because though it might not have sold really well (or been advertised as well) a two-player set of books was a novel concept and one worth trying out. 

[CharlesX]

Oct 26, 2021 10:40:31 GMT bloodbeasthandler said:

Oct 26, 2021 10:29:06 GMT daredevil123 said:

And I thought I was dedicated when I played Chasms of Malice 50 times...

That must be a well-thumbed copy, mustn't it!
See below for what happened when an attempt was made to win Crypt of the Sorcerer fairly and squarely.



We're at attempt 95,266 and we've still not won through to 400. 

What's the maths on under .5% * 6 * 6 * 12? 2mn+ attempts?

I once rolled a 10 24 12 Avatar and thought he might have a shot at Trial Of Champions (he didn't). If I'd have known Champskees algorithm table I would have thought again.

2,500 attempts is a lot for a book like Armies Of Death that is hard but not that hard. Did you have Ian Livingstone style cursed dice ?

[jmisbest]

Oct 26, 2021 11:59:05 GMT CharlesX said:

Oct 26, 2021 10:40:31 GMT bloodbeasthandler said:

That must be a well-thumbed copy, mustn't it!
See below for what happened when an attempt was made to win Crypt of the Sorcerer fairly and squarely.



We're at attempt 95,266 and we've still not won through to 400. 

What's the maths on under .5% * 6 * 6 * 12? 2mn+ attempts?

I once rolled a 10 24 12 Avatar and thought he might have a shot at Trial Of Champions (he didn't). If I'd have known Champskees algorithm table I would have thought again.

2,500 attempts is a lot for a book like Armies Of Death that is hard but not that hard. Did you have Ian Livingstone style cursed dice ?

To be honest today is The 20th anniversary of the 1st time I beat Armies of Death without cheating, using a guide or getting either help or advise from a friend or family member and even though I remember that beating it took me roughly 2,500 attempts I can't remember why it took me roughly 2,500 attempts

[kieran]

I guess my least favourite FF author is Charlie Higson, but he only wrote 1 book so that's not very interesting.

Looking at what I voted for various books for Wilf's poll, the author of multiple books with the worst average score is Martin Allen. My favourite book of his is Sky Lord because I find its wackiness occasionally endearing - it has major design flaws, but many of them also crop up in the Clash of the Princes books and they're a lot more bland.

[a moderator]

My least favourite FF gamebook is Blood of the Zombies (I haven't yet played any of the Scholastic-only gamebooks because Blood was that demotivating), but I enjoyed a lot of Ian Livingstone's early FF gamebooks, so I wouldn't call him my least favourite FF author.

The FF author whose entire gamebook oeuvre has caused me most negative feelings would be Marc Gascoigne, but as Battleblade Warrior was his sole contribution to that range, there is no choice for 'favourite'.

As regards more prolific authors, I could echo Kieran on Martin Allen, but rather than just go 'what he said', I'm broadening the scope of the question a little.

While Jon Sutherland never actually wrote for the FF main range, he did co-author The Dark Usurper, which has quasi-official FF status on account of having been serialised in White Dwarf. And pretty much everything I hate about Battleblade is also present in Usurper, only more so. Railroading, careless writing, sloppy characterisation, flawed implementation of rules... And most of the non-FF gamebooks written or co-written by him that I've played are also pretty dismal, making him my least favourite gamebook author who has had published a solo adventure using the FF system.

Sticking solely to his FF work, I'd cite part 1 of Usurper as my favourite, if only because the flaws aren't so egregious. It's all about escaping from captivity, so the way in which all non-lethal paths inevitably lead to the same outcome isn't an issue - whatever means you choose to try and get out of the castle, success is going to result in leaving the castle. The dice rolls seem to matter (unlike the bit in part 2 where you have to Test your Luck, and then the same thing happens regardless of the outcome of the roll), and the main NPC is nowhere near as useless or annoying as the characters introduced later on. That still leaves some pretty dreadful writing, but even the grammatical atrocities of the introduction aren't enough to drag it down to the level of the later instalments.

Outside of FF, I'd list Through the Wire from the Real Life Gamebooks series as my favourite Jon Sutherland book, because I actually enjoyed playing it.

[dragonwarrior8]

Oct 26, 2021 11:43:43 GMT jmisbest said:

Oct 26, 2021 10:40:31 GMT bloodbeasthandler said:

That must be a well-thumbed copy, mustn't it!
See below for what happened when an attempt was made to win Crypt of the Sorcerer fairly and squarely.



We're at attempt 95,266 and we've still not won through to 400. 

No were near as well-thumbed as you'd think and that's due to the fact that because of all the constant wear and tear by the time I eventually beat Armies of Death I was on my 5th copy and I beat it on my 8th attempt using that copy

I made it to an even 60 attempts on Crypt before declaring it a lost cause that just wasnt going to happen (although I probably knew that well before the 60th attempt) but this got me wondering how many actual attempts others might have put in trying to beat it. Between the Harpoon Flies, Clay Golem and Hill Giant, you die well over half the time fairly early in the book so the attempts were flying by faster than the tortuous Chasms of Malice where the deaths mostly occur closer to the end.


I know there are some dedicated players out there, but Im assuming 95k attempts is a joke Bloodbeasthandler! 

[CharlesX]

Oct 26, 2021 14:30:20 GMT a moderator said:

My least favourite FF gamebook is Blood of the Zombies (I haven't yet played any of the Scholastic-only gamebooks because Blood was that demotivating), but I enjoyed a lot of Ian Livingstone's early FF gamebooks, so I wouldn't call him my least favourite FF author.

The FF author whose entire gamebook oeuvre has caused me most negative feelings would be Marc Gascoigne, but as Battleblade Warrior was his sole contribution to that range, there is no choice for 'favourite'.

As regards more prolific authors, I could echo Kieran on Martin Allen, but rather than just go 'what he said', I'm broadening the scope of the question a little.

While Jon Sutherland never actually wrote for the FF main range, he did co-author The Dark Usurper, which has quasi-official FF status on account of having been serialised in White Dwarf. And pretty much everything I hate about Battleblade is also present in Usurper, only more so. Railroading, careless writing, sloppy characterisation, flawed implementation of rules... And most of the non-FF gamebooks written or co-written by him that I've played are also pretty dismal, making him my least favourite gamebook author who has had published a solo adventure using the FF system.

Sticking solely to his FF work, I'd cite part 1 of Usurper as my favourite, if only because the flaws aren't so egregious. It's all about escaping from captivity, so the way in which all non-lethal paths inevitably lead to the same outcome isn't an issue - whatever means you choose to try and get out of the castle, success is going to result in leaving the castle. The dice rolls seem to matter (unlike the bit in part 2 where you have to Test your Luck, and then the same thing happens regardless of the outcome of the roll), and the main NPC is nowhere near as useless or annoying as the characters introduced later on. That still leaves some pretty dreadful writing, but even the grammatical atrocities of the introduction aren't enough to drag it down to the level of the later instalments.

Outside of FF, I'd list Through the Wire from the Real Life Gamebooks series as my favourite Jon Sutherland book, because I actually enjoyed playing it.

Battleblade Warrior is imo good enough if you disregard the weird provisions rule and the mediocre writing. Unfortunately books like EOTD and GOD have lowered the FF bar, with post COTM books being alarmingly variable. I don't know whether the new SJ book and the new Sorcery! Book (one and the same?) will continue or alter this trend.

[a moderator]

EotD is mediocre, and maybe one day I'll actually attempt GoD and discover why it is so loathed, but Battleblade has too much denial of player agency for me to ever consider it a good gamebook.

[The Count]

I've never actually thought about who my least favourite FF author is

I wouldn't count Higson as an author under any circumstances... so that rules it out.

BotZ isn't really a FF book, so doesn't count.

I dislike a lot of Steves books, however he knows how to construct a good gamebook and his FFs are mostly well planned and executed without needing the collection of hundreds of useless items (Sorcery! excluded, and they are technically not FF as such) and a tidal wave of high stat opponents.

So it would be Night of the Necromancer - Green is a great story author but his early FF books are excessively complicated and excessively difficult, while his latter ones are excessively complicated for the sake of it making them excessively boring.


Just realised the thread title is favourite by least favourite, so that would probably be Bloodbones as despite rating Howl higher last year, a further read of it has reduced my opinion of it considerably. NoN is my least favourite of Greens efforts as it is tediously complex for the sake of it.

[CharlesX]

Oct 26, 2021 18:38:21 GMT The Count said:

I've never actually thought about who my least favourite FF author is

I wouldn't count Higson as an author under any circumstances... so that rules it out.

BotZ isn't really a FF book, so doesn't count.

I dislike a lot of Steves books, however he knows how to construct a good gamebook and his FFs are mostly well planned and executed without needing the collection of hundreds of useless items (Sorcery! excluded, and they are technically not FF as such) and a tidal wave of high stat opponents.

So it would be Night of the Necromancer - Green is a great story author but his early FF books are excessively complicated and excessively difficult, while his latter ones are excessively complicated for the sake of it making them excessively boring.

That is interesting because Night Of The Necromancer is technically well-constructed, with its alternate paths and sophistication (just like Howl Of The Werewolf), I suggest most people would reckon J. Green's worst book was his Spellbreaker, which without the surrender option is quite a bit tougher than Crypt (gulps). Paradoxically Spellbreaker is a very well-built, well-written world (albeit a railroad one with excessive random instant deaths) but the difficulty is as broken as the title.

   Personally I think Green's Bloodbones struck a good balance with a tight story, world and gameplay while giving the reader choices in terms of purchases and encounters; but that isn't the OP's question, is it?

[kieran]

Oct 26, 2021 18:57:09 GMT CharlesX said:

I suggest most people would reckon J. Green's worst book was his Spellbreaker

Spellbreaker is ridiculously unfair but it's a great read. I would probably pick Curse of the Mummy as his worst. It's almost as difficult and much more dull.

[tyrion]

Luke Sharp is my least favourite author, and I can't really get into any of his Khul based books, although the illustrations are good. So I'm going to have to say my favourite from my least favourite author is Star Strider.

[a moderator]

Oct 26, 2021 19:32:56 GMT kieran said:

Oct 26, 2021 18:57:09 GMT CharlesX said:

I suggest most people would reckon J. Green's worst book was his Spellbreaker

Spellbreaker is ridiculously unfair but it's a great read. I would probably pick Curse of the Mummy as his worst. It's almost as difficult and much more dull.

Agreed. Playability matters, but less so than readability. I'm more likely to give up on a dull gamebook than a harsh one.

[CharlesX]

That would be C. Higson, but I 'd rather die in a ditch than say his one book was my favourite FF, no matter what the criteria.
   I'm not a Luke Sharp fan because his books aren't descriptive and (they) are more random than unique; but my favourites of his are Fangs Of Fury and Star Strider for their writing and originality.
   I think I. Livingstone's Trial Of Champions is underrated if not his best work.

[The Count]

Oct 26, 2021 18:38:21 GMT The Count said:

I've never actually thought about who my least favourite FF author is

I wouldn't count Higson as an author under any circumstances... so that rules it out.

BotZ isn't really a FF book, so doesn't count.

I dislike a lot of Steves books, however he knows how to construct a good gamebook and his FFs are mostly well planned and executed without needing the collection of hundreds of useless items (Sorcery! excluded, and they are technically not FF as such) and a tidal wave of high stat opponents.

So it would be Night of the Necromancer - Green is a great story author but his early FF books are excessively complicated and excessively difficult, while his latter ones are excessively complicated for the sake of it making them excessively boring.

Just realised the thread title is favourite by least favourite, so that would probably be Bloodbones as despite rating Howl higher last year, a further read of it has reduced my opinion of it considerably. NoN is my least favourite of Greens efforts as it is tediously complex for the sake of it.

[johnbrawn1972]

Oct 27, 2021 8:11:22 GMT The Count said:

Oct 26, 2021 18:38:21 GMT The Count said:

I've never actually thought about who my least favourite FF author is

I wouldn't count Higson as an author under any circumstances... so that rules it out.

BotZ isn't really a FF book, so doesn't count.

I dislike a lot of Steves books, however he knows how to construct a good gamebook and his FFs are mostly well planned and executed without needing the collection of hundreds of useless items (Sorcery! excluded, and they are technically not FF as such) and a tidal wave of high stat opponents.

So it would be Night of the Necromancer - Green is a great story author but his early FF books are excessively complicated and excessively difficult, while his latter ones are excessively complicated for the sake of it making them excessively boring.

Just realised the thread title is favourite by least favourite, so that would probably be Bloodbones as despite rating Howl higher last year, a further read of it has reduced my opinion of it considerably. NoN is my least favourite of Greens efforts as it is tediously complex for the sake of it.

My personal opinion is it has a wonderfully baroque intricacy and also you can choose to make the adventure very complicated and risky by, say, entering the catacombs or play a very conservative strategy and have a very high chance of success. For this reason I would rate the later efforts as much more faithful to the original spirit of the early books than the young man about town brutal exercises in probability that his early efforts manifested. Nevertheless Spellbreaker is wonderfully written and reads much better than his later efforts yet at the same time I prefer the effort taken to create joy rather than exercises in sadism.

[CharlesX]

Oct 27, 2021 17:07:07 GMT johnbrawn1972 said:

Oct 27, 2021 8:11:22 GMT The Count said:

Just realised the thread title is favourite by least favourite, so that would probably be Bloodbones as despite rating Howl higher last year, a further read of it has reduced my opinion of it considerably. NoN is my least favourite of Greens efforts as it is tediously complex for the sake of it.

My personal opinion is it has a wonderfully baroque intricacy and also you can choose to make the adventure very complicated and risky by, say, entering the catacombs or play a very conservative strategy and have a very high chance of success. For this reason I would rate the later efforts as much more faithful to the original spirit of the early books than the young man about town brutal exercises in probability that his early efforts manifested. Nevertheless Spellbreaker is wonderfully written and reads much better than his later efforts yet at the same time I prefer the effort taken to create joy rather than exercises in sadism.

I sometimes read people praising Spellbreaker's writing, and while I like the illustrations in Slellbreaker, I always thought the writing was pretty below-average (whether or not that view is coloured by my low opinion of the gameplay). The writing is mean-spirited, dry, and has little characterisation, the world-building is a very stereotypical superstitious time and place. A slightly similar world was built much better in Dead Of Night.
   Gameplay elements such as expensive 'wild goose chase' items, and in particular a heavily linear path, obviously do not help. J. Green, in my view, possibly 'tries too hard', where for example Keep Of The Lich-Lord prioritised choice over purpose and seamlessly created a believable world. I would say Green's Bloodbones has better world-building than his Spellbreaker.