List 1 change you'd make to a remake of your fave none SJ FF

[jmisbest]

How about we each list 1 change we'd make to a remake of our favorite Fighting Fantasy Book that wasn't made by the original Steve Jackson?, by which I'm referring to The 1 that didn't write Legend of Zagor. Also I apologize about not being able to fit the full title in the subject box

My favorite Fighting Fantasy Book that wasn't made by the original Steve Jackson is Master of Chaos and the change I'd make is that when The Main Villain makes you a offer to join him their is a option to pretend to, then when his guards down you get a free attack that does a lot of damage

[CharlesX]

Ian Livingstone had his name over Legend Of Zagor but didn't write it, Carl Sargent did, and Keith Martin\Carl Sargent wrote Master Of Chaos. The US Steve Jackson was an able and intelligent author, and so I'd loathe to change the things he wrote. I guess, it'd be kinda interesting if you could play Scorpion Swamp without serving a master (not just in two or three paragraphs as is the case in the original) perhaps the Dire Beast's area could have some big treasure. I think I'd prefer the original, though.
   Think I might be misreading this question. If Jimisbest is asking about K.Martin works, I would change Tower Of Destruction to make the rules less ambiguous and clumsy and make the puzzles less cryptic.

[jmisbest]

Nov 22, 2021 17:58:16 GMT CharlesX said:

Ian Livingstone had his name over Legend Of Zagor but didn't write it, Carl Sargent did, and Keith Martin\Carl Sargent wrote Master Of Chaos. The US Steve Jackson was an able and intelligent author, and so I'd loathe to change the things he wrote. I guess, it'd be kinda interesting if you could play Scorpion Swamp without serving a master (not just in two or three paragraphs as is the case in the original) perhaps the Dire Beast's area could have some big treasure. I think I'd prefer the original, though.
   Think I might be misreading this question. If Jimisbest is asking about K.Martin works, I would change Tower Of Destruction to make the rules less ambiguous and clumsy and make the puzzles less cryptic.

Sorry. Its each players favorite Book not by the original Steve Jackson, which in my case is Master of Chaos, I'd actually forgotten who wrote Master of Chaos and the reason I mentioned Legend of Zagor is because I thought that The US Steve Jackson wrote it and as its possible that some people don't know that it wasn't wrote by The UK Steve Jackson I thought it would be helpful to point out that it wasn't

[tyrion]

I'd get rid of the dice roll to get the orb in masks of mayhem. I'd also put a mathematical cheat proof at the end instead of just asking 'did you meet vashtri?' Other than that, a damn fine book.

[a moderator]

I recommend bookmarking fightingfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Fighting_Fantasy_Wiki_-_Titannica, jmisbest. That way you can check on details of which you're unsure (e.g. who wrote a specific book, how to spell a character's name) before posting, so as to cause less confusion to other users of the forum.

Your suggested change to Master seems a bit odd to me. The book already gives you the opportunity of catching Shanzikuul off guard by hearing him out before you take action against him, which is more than most others do. Adding a further option of 'lie to him in order to make a cowardly ambush' seems a little excessive - besides which, honourable behaviour is a big deal in this book, so a 'low blow' of that nature would be more likely to incur a penalty than be rewarded.

My favourite non-UK Steve Jackson book is probably Slaves of the Abyss. That could do with some clarification on whether the Skill penalty in section 83 is supposed to be permanent or temporary. And in section 166 it would make more sense to have the two paths the other way round, so Enthymesis' hint and the specific instructions about choosing which way to go aren't in opposition.

[nathanh]

My favourite book is Night of the Necromancer, and I think the change I would make would be to try to include other possible villains so it is a bit more mysterious. I enjoyed the story a lot but it was pretty clear who the villain was going to be.

Some bonus changes for my other top picks:

Night Dragon: Make Carnex more competitive.
Howl of the Werewolf: It's quite hard to rack up a big Change score: you die a fair amount in this adventure so quickly learn the ways to avoid getting Change. This means that you will rarely fail Change tests later in the book, and there are some fun consequences for doing so. I'd either rebalance the Change tests in the second half of the adventure, or put in more "risk Change increase to get a good reward" choices rather than "bad choice, have some Change".
Legend of Zagor: Replace Sallazar with Jallarial, and give her a boost. Also, better attribute ranges, e.g. instead of 1d6+5 skill, do min(1d6+6,11).
Moonrunner: Give some bite to Gruul's four Notura abilities that don't auto-defeat you, to give a bit more challenge and choice and to make the Corpse Master route, which is very fulfilling, more competitive. Slice and dice, little red-bag!
Dead of Night: I think there's a "would you like to use you Special Skill, if so DIE" option near the end. I don't think it's foreshadowed anywhere, so either do this or remove it. Maybe it is and I've just missed it. Honestly hard to think of anything obvious to improve with this one.
Stormslayer: I don't really like the art.

[CharlesX]

Nov 22, 2021 23:53:55 GMT nathanh said:

Dead of Night: I think there's a "would you like to use you Special Skill, if so DIE" option near the end. I don't think it's foreshadowed anywhere, so either do this or remove it. Maybe it is and I've just missed it.

I think you might be referring to using the Dark Veil talent when you are around Demon Prince Myrr, which is using a demonic power against a demon, so it's not hard to guess bad things might happen.

[nathanh]

I think it's that you see some demon writing and you can use an ability to read it, and if you do it's a curse that kills you, or something like that. Can't remember exactly. It's not in the final confrontation, just a bit before.

[CharlesX]

Nov 23, 2021 0:12:39 GMT nathanh said:

I think it's that you see some demon writing and you can use an ability to read it, and if you do it's a curse that kills you, or something like that. Can't remember exactly. It's not in the final confrontation, just a bit before.

You're right, I remember that now and how unfair it was!

[jmisbest]

Nov 22, 2021 17:58:16 GMT CharlesX said:

Ian Livingstone had his name over Legend Of Zagor but didn't write it, Carl Sargent did, and Keith Martin\Carl Sargent wrote Master Of Chaos. The US Steve Jackson was an able and intelligent author, and so I'd loathe to change the things he wrote. I guess, it'd be kinda interesting if you could play Scorpion Swamp without serving a master (not just in two or three paragraphs as is the case in the original) perhaps the Dire Beast's area could have some big treasure. I think I'd prefer the original, though.
   Think I might be misreading this question. If Jimisbest is asking about K.Martin works, I would change Tower Of Destruction to make the rules less ambiguous and clumsy and make the puzzles less cryptic.

It doesn't have to be A Book by K:Martain, rather its any book by a author other then the original Steve Jackson

[misomiso]

I'm a bit confused about the thread title - do you mean change something from a book NOT by the UK Steve Jackson? Why not any book by either him or Ian Livingstone? Why not just change something from any book?
ty

[King Gillibran]

Yeah Ian Livingstone is also has a lot of good books.
Favourite non Steve Jackson book is Deathtrap Dungeon and I wouldn't change a thing.
Favourite non Ian or Steve is Bloodbones and I would give you an option to take out that infuriating stupid Jezabel in one round of combat.

[a moderator]

Nov 21, 2022 10:28:09 GMT King Gillibran said:

Favourite non Steve Jackson book is Deathtrap Dungeon and I wouldn't change a thing.

If I were changing DD, I'd make the description of the ring's effect in section 251 more accurately reflect what the ring can actually do within the book.

[nathanh]

Nov 21, 2022 13:52:32 GMT a moderator said:

Nov 21, 2022 10:28:09 GMT King Gillibran said:

Favourite non Steve Jackson book is Deathtrap Dungeon and I wouldn't change a thing.

If I were changing DD, I'd make the description of the ring's effect in section 251 more accurately reflect what the ring can actually do within the book.

That's a good idea. I'd also consider making exactly one of the +SKILL items a +Attack Strength instead. Keep the book difficult but just a little more winnable.

[sylas]

That Luck test in Black Vein Prophecy

[hallucination]

Good call. And that dice roll in Masks of Mayhem

[CharlesX]

Generic list of changes I'd make to FF:

Very few 'do-or-die' rolls, they make a game brutal, random and unfair, especially when they are as high as 50-50 (or above). It doesn't even seem fair either - why should the success or failure of your mission be determined on a 50% chance of the way a fly buzzes (Armies Of Death) or a 50% chance whether people you don't even know are better than you at a game of chance (Return To Firetop Mountain)?

In the same vein, not these 'roll two dice three times, don't roll a double' calls, Bloodbones is already hard enough. Maybe a single one? I don't know why authors assume all players cheat like hell, I don't, and it isn't in the spirit of gaming. Same with Masks Of Mayhem, the silly one in six chance of getting an essential item ruins it. Should be one in six chance you don't get it.

Fewer useless items and illogical things, mainly a point for Livingstone books.

Fewer recording codewords you later turn into numbers - Island Of The Undead and Curse Of The Mummy (as well as Legend Of Zagor) had me spend too much time bookkeeping instead of slaying. Half the time you can just say something like "If the name ... means something to you" instead of asking the player if they can convert the name of the salesperson into numbers and then subtract that from the reference where they originally met (barely exaggerating, in the case of Curse Of The Mummy).

FF in general has had too many FFs which set the difficulty bar too high. I'd rather a gamebook was slightly too easy than slightly too hard, or in the case of certain FFs, far too hard.

Playtesting so there are fewer errors e.g. mislinked paragraphs, continuity errors, looping, assuming you've met characters you may not have met before, offering players a choice to use an item or skill you cannot have at that point, converting skill bonuses to attack strength bonuses where appropriate.

A good backstory - not necessarily one which tosses a reader into the action such as Siege Of Sardath, but maybe a rich one such as Creature Of Havoc or Deathtrap Dungeon. The backstory in Eye Of The Dragon doesn't work where you just freely drink what you think is slow-acting poison without even a kinfe on the table (I think the original mini-adventure has him slip it into your drink or something, which'd make more sense) - perhaps if the story included a reason for the dungeon complex, as well (perhaps it is the remains of an old Deathtrap Dungeon contest, or a powerful centre of magic in the spirit of a Buffyverse meme).

Female\non-white characters - Looking at you, Legend Of Zagor!

Size - This is a tough criticism but to me the FFs which haven't been full-length haven't worked as well as most ones (Starship Traveller was a failure, Freeway Fighter was underwhelming even if the magazine is good), so maybe no more or very few more of those.  Even in the new FFs Secrets of Salamonis feels like a more fleshed-out adventure than Shadow Of Giants which feels shorter than it is.

[vastariner]

Agree on the BVP luck test.

Was thinking of a change in Slaves of the Abyss and it would probably be the title; the Abyss is somewhat skated through at the end and the slaves are barely relevant. Except on a bad ending. Also it's X of [the] Y which is a bit cliché. Maybe The Dark Invasion?

[a moderator]

Nov 21, 2022 20:25:02 GMT CharlesX said:

The backstory in Eye Of The Dragon doesn't work where you just freely drink what you think is slow-acting poison without even a kinfe on the table (I think the original mini-adventure has him slip it into your drink or something, which'd make more sense)

No, you still voluntarily down it in the original. But you've been trying to make a living wrestling bears until you meet the man with the poison, so you're clearly a bit desperate and reckless anyway.
Oh, and in the Dicing with Dragons version

SPOILER: Click to show

it really is a slow-acting poison, which makes possible what may be the most inventive part of the whole adventure - finding a magical item which accelerates the passage of time, and having the poison kill you ahead of schedule.

[kieran]

Portal of Evil -

SPOILER: Click to show

Hide Gloten's secret a bit better

More generally, if you must punish readers for taking the obvious choice, leave a hint that they shouldn't have done so. That way, when they try the book again, they'll know better rather than just keep making the same mistake over and over. Examples:

Siege of Sardath:

SPOILER: Click to show

In order to get the Mystery Potion, you need to refuse to buy anything from the merchant then change your mind. Yet if you didn't initially refuse, you'll have no idea you missed out on anything and will assume refusal would have led to you missing out on the other essential items he sells.

Crypt of the Sorcerer:

SPOILER: Click to show

Befriending the Bonekeeper means you'll have to beat a Skill 12 Stamina 24 monster - yet it seems the right choice as you get a useful ring for doing so and opting to kill a harmless old man seems a ridiculous choice.

Masks of Mayhem:

SPOILER: Click to show

If you sensibly wait on the land to fight the crocodile, you miss out on the chance to get the orb. Yet, there will be no indication you missed anything.

[terrysalt]

Nov 22, 2022 11:01:46 GMT kieran said:

Crypt of the Sorcerer:

SPOILER: Click to show

Befriending the Bonekeeper means you'll have to beat a Skill 12 Stamina 24 monster - yet it seems the right choice as you get a useful ring for doing so and opting to kill a harmless old man seems a ridiculous choice.

Not just a ridiculous choice, a ridiculous choice you are immediately heavily penalised for making. 

[King Gillibran]

Nov 21, 2022 14:27:27 GMT nathanh said:

Nov 21, 2022 13:52:32 GMT a moderator said:

If I were changing DD, I'd make the description of the ring's effect in section 251 more accurately reflect what the ring can actually do within the book.

That's a good idea. I'd also consider making exactly one of the +SKILL items a +Attack Strength instead. Keep the book difficult but just a little more winnable.

Some things maybe I would change like the ring but with DD it is not one where you are trying to save the world. It was designed to be a killer labyrinth that was virtually impossible, so any difficulty problems with it are acceptable.

[dragonwarrior8]

Nov 21, 2022 17:25:06 GMT sylas said:

That Luck test in Black Vein Prophecy

Would some kind of official proclamation of a change from Mr. Mason himself suffice to make it "canon"?  Might be a good opportunity seeing as how he frequents these boards. Assuming he would even want to have it changed that is. Perhaps he (and/or Steve Williams) prefers it the way it is. 

[a moderator]

IMO, the Luck test in BVP is an interesting idea, poorly implemented. Having what appears to be misfortune ultimately prove to be a good thing could be a neat twist. The problems with it in BVP are

1. The Luck test in question happens at the worst possible time - when the player is at maximum Luck, and before some tests it would be better to succeed at.
2. The seemingly adverse consequences of the failed roll never have a downside. If apparent-but-not-really bad luck doesn't in any way harm or inconvenience you, it never really comes across as bad luck, just weirdness. And with all the other odd stuff going on, not even particularly disturbing weirdness.

[sleepyscholar]

Nov 21, 2022 22:42:17 GMT vastariner said:

Agree on the BVP luck test.

Was thinking of a change in Slaves of the Abyss and it would probably be the title; the Abyss is somewhat skated through at the end and the slaves are barely relevant. Except on a bad ending. Also it's X of [the] Y which is a bit cliché. Maybe The Dark Invasion?

Go outside and flagellate yourself for that. There's plenty wrong with Slaves of the Abyss, but the title ain't one of them.

I particularly resent being told that Um of the Argh is a cliché, given the way all my other books were named.

My philosophy for titles is that at some point the reader should be asking 'What the hell does that mean?' By that criterion, of course, Magehunter is my worst title, but then by that stage I was just desperate for approval.

[sleepyscholar]

Nov 24, 2022 16:30:41 GMT dragonwarrior8 said:

Nov 21, 2022 17:25:06 GMT sylas said:

That Luck test in Black Vein Prophecy

Would some kind of official proclamation of a change from Mr. Mason himself suffice to make it "canon"?  Might be a good opportunity seeing as how he frequents these boards. Assuming he would even want to have it changed that is. Perhaps he (and/or Steve Williams) prefers it the way it is. 

I don't make proclamations (even after the greater part of a bottle of champagne -- or rather Chiliean sparkling wine, which, to be honest, is just as good). But I would definitely be happy with changing that roll. There wasn't, to be honest, a huge amount of thought behind it. Steve might have different ideas about it, though.

Most of these flashpoints -- and the legendary Mudworm edit, which I am sure took about 10 seconds of Marc's time to think of doing -- are not created with anything like the level of thought you wonderful people subsequently invest in them.

[sleepyscholar]

Nov 24, 2022 17:26:40 GMT a moderator said:

IMO, the Luck test in BVP is an interesting idea, poorly implemented. Having what appears to be misfortune ultimately prove to be a good thing could be a neat twist. The problems with it in BVP are

1. The Luck test in question happens at the worst possible time - when the player is at maximum Luck, and before some tests it would be better to succeed at.
2. The seemingly adverse consequences of the failed roll never have a downside. If apparent-but-not-really bad luck doesn't in any way harm or inconvenience you, it never really comes across as bad luck, just weirdness. And with all the other odd stuff going on, not even particularly disturbing weirdness.

This is a sound analysis.

In other words, there was an idea behind that failed luck roll. It just wasn't thought through thoroughly.

[CharlesX]

Nov 27, 2022 16:09:49 GMT sleepyscholar said:

Nov 21, 2022 22:42:17 GMT vastariner said:

Agree on the BVP luck test.

Was thinking of a change in Slaves of the Abyss and it would probably be the title; the Abyss is somewhat skated through at the end and the slaves are barely relevant. Except on a bad ending. Also it's X of [the] Y which is a bit cliché. Maybe The Dark Invasion?

Go outside and flagellate yourself for that. There's plenty wrong with Slaves of the Abyss, but the title ain't one of them.

I particularly resent being told that Um of the Argh is a cliché, given the way all my other books were named.

My philosophy for titles is that at some point the reader should be asking 'What the hell does that mean?' By that criterion, of course, Magehunter is my worst title, but then by that stage I was just desperate for approval.

I don't know about that, I like how Magehunter manages to be exotic and original and (pretty much) playable at the same time.

   As for BVP - I don't know if we're becoming fixated on the notion of 'correcting' the luck test. To me it makes as much sense to have lines like "you feel the light over you, trying to change you" and then a 50-50 roll, with a luck test being beneficial in one and bad in the other. Even with (just the one) 50-50 roll elsewhere in the gamebook. What we're ignoring is the failed luck test is simple and does the job (particularly for a kid audience).

[sleepyscholar]

Nov 28, 2022 13:08:19 GMT CharlesX said:

Nov 27, 2022 16:09:49 GMT sleepyscholar said:

Go outside and flagellate yourself for that. There's plenty wrong with Slaves of the Abyss, but the title ain't one of them.

I particularly resent being told that Um of the Argh is a cliché, given the way all my other books were named.

My philosophy for titles is that at some point the reader should be asking 'What the hell does that mean?' By that criterion, of course, Magehunter is my worst title, but then by that stage I was just desperate for approval.

I don't know about that, I like how Magehunter manages to be exotic and original and (pretty much) playable at the same time.

   As for BVP - I don't know if we're becoming fixated on the notion of 'correcting' the luck test. To me it makes as much sense to have lines like "you feel the light over you, trying to change you" and then a 50-50 roll, with a luck test being beneficial in one and bad in the other. Even with (just the one) 50-50 roll elsewhere in the gamebook. What we're ignoring is the failed luck test is simple and does the job (particularly for a kid audience).

I'm not sure one 'plays' a title!

I consider Magehunter my best book, but as I say, the title was rather obvious: its saving grace is that it's one word only.

Your point about the overthinking is right, and I tried to make the same point earlier when noting that authors rarely invest as much thought into their specific decisions.