FF books you don't like for things that are their fault

[CharlesX]

For a sense of balance.
   A lot of FF books are quite meh, they are bland and unexceptional, but you might enjoy or dislike them. Others have specific mechanics you may dislike. The one-strike combats in Chasms Of Malice. The 50-50 rolls in Livingstone books. The do-or-die rolls in Masks. Spellbreaker's failure to add a surrender option. Lots of things in Revenge Of The Vampire.
   When I played Curse Of The Mummy for the first time, I would be asked in an ultra-Green way not only the name of a merchant, but the location \ reference number, or something like that (who remembers the reference number they meet a merchant in an FF book?), before converting it into a number and adding or subtracting to that 😵 again and again.
   I never enjoyed Tower Of Destruction, because the tough puzzles and rule ambiguities spoiled what I thought was a well-constructed adventure.
   To me, a gamebook, FF or otherwise, is primarily about gameplay, so rubbish game mechanics can destroy an otherwise good gamebook.
   Does anyone else feel the same way about specific gamebooks?

[bloodbeasthandler]

Jan 14, 2022 0:22:01 GMT CharlesX said:

For a sense of balance.
   A lot of FF books are quite meh, they are bland and unexceptional, but you might enjoy or dislike them. Others have specific mechanics you may dislike. The one-strike combats in Chasms Of Malice. The 50-50 rolls in Livingstone books. The do-or-die rolls in Masks. Spellbreaker's failure to add a surrender option. Lots of things in Revenge Of The Vampire.
   When I played Curse Of The Mummy for the first time, I would be asked in an ultra-Green way not only the name of a merchant, but the location \ reference number, or something like that (who remembers the reference number they meet a merchant in an FF book?), before converting it into a number and adding or subtracting to that 😵 again and again.
   I never enjoyed Tower Of Destruction, because the tough puzzles and rule ambiguities spoiled what I thought was a well-constructed adventure.
   To me, a gamebook, FF or otherwise, is primarily about gameplay, so rubbish game mechanics can destroy an otherwise good gamebook.
   Does anyone else feel the same way about specific gamebooks?

This very much depends on an individual's attitude to the books in general. 
Do you see them first and foremost as 'interactive fiction', a story? An environment where you put yourself in the position of the character and make choices as if you were the character or there yourself?

Or are you more inclined to treat the books as a puzzle to be solved, or like a computer game to win through to end of? 

No doubt it's a mixture of both, but from what you say in the quote I think you incline more to the latter, and overall I probably do as well. 

Game-breaking mechanics and bugs and sloppy construction mar the experience and take me out of the story (and the story itself is also of great importance to me). Take 'one strike combat' as an example - a mechanic that's probably the worst in all the books and not one I'll go into detail on here - but what happens as a result of dying because of it? Do you sigh, put the book down, roll up another character and start again? Or ignore it all and move on regardless? In this case, if it is my first playthrough I will obey the rule, trusting that the writer knew what he was doing. But if it keeps happening, I will ignore it because it's obvious untested rubbish, utter nonsense ... BUT ... it has marred my experience of the book - the 'character' I rolled up is meant to be dead... and here I am carrying on anyway. It has taken me 'out of the book', made me a bit irritated at the author, and now means that even if i win through to para 400 with this character, the 'victory' will be a hollow one.