|
|
Post by CharlesX on Feb 27, 2022 21:46:35 GMT
I think most of us can agree some of the best FF passages - the most colourful, interesting and out-there - are those that can't be reached not only via the true path, but often even if you want to complete the FF at all. Or else directly lead to your death, such as the necromancer's quest in Spellbreaker - say yes out of interest\curiosity knowing it * won't end well *, get the Witches Mark, die 5 references later. Some of my favourites are the careers in Crimson Tide, trying to rob Lord Azzur's Palace in Midnight Rogue.. Every bit as foolhardy and insane as you might think it is. The Sorcery! series has a lot of cool deaths. I like the part where you eat the weird balls in the kitchen (technically not unreachable, but definitely not true path\remotely recommended). Any favourites? |
|
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 Feb 27, 2022 22:55:10 GMT
All of the Paul Mason entries have brilliant FF passages as do most of Steve Jackson's. The best thing about them is that since the writing stays rich and interesting, you have no idea you are on a false path until a bit later. This is unlike other adventures where you can sometimes tell from the quality of the writing or the encounter that they are obvious false paths as the scene isn't so richly detailed or intriguing.
Black Vein Prophecy and Creature of Havoc have great side stories that sound like they could very well have been an intended path if you weren't already aware of the bigger adventure.
|
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Feb 27, 2022 23:30:11 GMT
The Sorcery! series has a lot of cool deaths. I like the part where you eat the weird balls in the kitchen (technically not unreachable, but definitely not true path\remotely recommended). You can't visit both the kitchen and Naggamanteh, so the kitchen is unreachable if you want to win. Well, it is unless you learn the secret of the third Throben Door from Naggamanteh, proceed through to and beyond the fourth Throben Door, get tricked into going to the other tower, wind up imprisoned with Jann, cast the ZED spell without finding out what it does, roll an outcome that sends you back to before you entered Mampang Fortress, and assume that you retain the knowledge you gained from the Torturer, so on your second pass through the adventure you can visit the kitchen and still achieve victory - unless the meatballs get you killed. |
|
|
|
Post by The Count on Feb 28, 2022 2:22:02 GMT
Every paragraph of Phantoms of Fear is a masterpiece, and while there are some in the dream world that can potentially only be reached when you have no chance of winning (depending on which method you are attempting), a particularly good one is: If you have killed Erik and taken his axe, it becomes a hinderance while trying to navigate a narrow passageway, alerting the denizens of Ishtras lair to your presence, and leading to your death. And in Siege of Sardath If you fail to escape from / kill the Morn Imposter and he carries you out of the window, you can get some great story including learning the imposters real name, end up escaping but missing some vital clues, or get a very off had instant death that subtly implies it will be anything but... Not to mention it has an illustration associated to the most interesting paragraph in that sequence that introduces you to two enemies you'd otherwise meet and immediately kill to get an essential item |
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Mar 1, 2022 6:40:35 GMT
All of the Paul Mason entries have brilliant FF passages as do most of Steve Jackson's. The best thing about them is that since the writing stays rich and interesting, you have no idea you are on a false path until a bit later. This is unlike other adventures where you can sometimes tell from the quality of the writing or the encounter that they are obvious false paths as the scene isn't so richly detailed or intriguing. Black Vein Prophecy and Creature of Havoc have great side stories that sound like they could very well have been an intended path if you weren't already aware of the bigger adventure. I was more interested in writing those side stories than the main one, if truth be told. And like Jamie & Min, I definitely enjoyed writing death paragraphs. The Crimson Tide 'careers' are actually there, as I've mentioned before, because I regard them as valid conclusions to the book. Most readers won't be satisfied with leaving vengeance aside and becoming a monk, but maybe some will: and I'm not going to tell them they're wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by vastariner on Mar 1, 2022 9:05:31 GMT
I was more interested in writing those side stories than the main one, if truth be told. And like Jamie & Min, I definitely enjoyed writing death paragraphs. Certainly - assuming it was his work - Jamie seemed to enjoy writing his own death paragraphs in Omens & Auguries... |
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Mar 1, 2022 9:11:37 GMT
Certainly - assuming it was his work - Jamie seemed to enjoy writing his own death paragraphs in Omens & Auguries... That was Jamie's work all right (though bits may have been done in collaboration with Dave Morris). |
|
|
|
Post by nathanh on Mar 1, 2022 9:36:07 GMT
I like the entry in Slaves of the Abyss where you're just calmly reading it and -
|
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Mar 1, 2022 18:46:18 GMT
You can't visit both the kitchen and Naggamanteh, so the kitchen is unreachable if you want to win. I sometimes wonder if this was an oversight by Steve J. I base that mainly on the fact that the Serpent Ring enables you to be specifically warned about the larder, and all the other pieces of advice from the serpents are applicable to the 'true path'. All of the Paul Mason entries have brilliant FF passages as do most of Steve Jackson's. The best thing about them is that since the writing stays rich and interesting, you have no idea you are on a false path until a bit later. This is unlike other adventures where you can sometimes tell from the quality of the writing or the encounter that they are obvious false paths as the scene isn't so richly detailed or intriguing. Yes the writing stays interesting. This is important. I would also say that it helps to have good illustrations on the 'wrong paths' too, for example the Mirror Demon in Deathtrap Dungeon. |
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,451
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Mar 1, 2022 18:55:55 GMT
I sometimes wonder if this was an oversight by Steve J. I base that mainly on the fact that the Serpent Ring enables you to be specifically warned about the larder, and all the other pieces of advice from the serpents are applicable to the 'true path'. Or it was one of those red herrings he loves so much. |
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 1, 2022 20:44:44 GMT
All of the Paul Mason entries have brilliant FF passages as do most of Steve Jackson's. The best thing about them is that since the writing stays rich and interesting, you have no idea you are on a false path until a bit later. This is unlike other adventures where you can sometimes tell from the quality of the writing or the encounter that they are obvious false paths as the scene isn't so richly detailed or intriguing. Black Vein Prophecy and Creature of Havoc have great side stories that sound like they could very well have been an intended path if you weren't already aware of the bigger adventure. In criticism, this is why there is so much hatred for Eye Of The Dragon - every false move could be seen from space like The Great Wall Of China (except for choose left\choose right style options). I don't think the 'book' in 'gamebook' is Livingstone's trump suit, but Forest Of Doom has many memorable encounters everywhere. |
|
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 Mar 1, 2022 22:16:42 GMT
All of the Paul Mason entries have brilliant FF passages as do most of Steve Jackson's. The best thing about them is that since the writing stays rich and interesting, you have no idea you are on a false path until a bit later. This is unlike other adventures where you can sometimes tell from the quality of the writing or the encounter that they are obvious false paths as the scene isn't so richly detailed or intriguing. Black Vein Prophecy and Creature of Havoc have great side stories that sound like they could very well have been an intended path if you weren't already aware of the bigger adventure. In criticism, this is why there is so much hatred for Eye Of The Dragon - every false move could be seen from space like The Great Wall Of China (except for choose left\choose right style options). I don't think the 'book' in 'gamebook' is Livingstone's trump suit, but Forest Of Doom has many memorable encounters everywhere. The irony of that being the encounter in the Fire Demon's cave is a great set piece and the most interesting part of the book, but it's not on the true path. The many false paths in Deathtrap Dungeon are great though, and it's one of the reasons I rate it far higher than the sequel Trial of Champions since that one has very throwaway encounters on the the false paths. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Mar 3, 2022 12:25:16 GMT
There's an interesting issue here in terms of how 'true' the true path is. If, as a gamebook writer, you just stress the 'game' angle, then you're going to be thinking that the winning path is correct and everything else is filler. As this thread demonstrates, though, that's a mistake, because the non-true parts of the books are just as important as the true parts. Take them away and what you're left with isn't a gamebook, just... a book. The non-true path elements are already frustrating -- on account of them preceding failure -- and making them lacklustre just increases the frustration. So why not make them interesting as some sort of compensation? Also, although the point of playing a gamebook is to win, it's not the only point. Sometimes a tragic ending can be good. I think successfully completing a gamebook feels better if some of the false endings had some sort of an impact. I have just finished watching the BBC drama Chloe, and there was a bit at the end where the main character -- through whose eyes and imagination we had been perceiving events -- basically imagined how the story would have ended if it had a happy ending. I found it really moving. Some critics complained about the ending, because it wasn't 'explosive'. They are the sort of people who want God Almighty to show up, shower you with gold and say 'Jolly well done!'...
|
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Mar 3, 2022 12:37:39 GMT
The non-true path elements are already frustrating -- on account of them preceding failure -- and making them lacklustre just increases the frustration. So why not make them interesting as some sort of compensation? A very good point, though there are some who will complain if a favourite encounter isn't on the 'true path'. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Mar 3, 2022 12:54:34 GMT
The non-true path elements are already frustrating -- on account of them preceding failure -- and making them lacklustre just increases the frustration. So why not make them interesting as some sort of compensation? A very good point, though there are some who will complain if a favourite encounter isn't on the 'true path'. Regarding those people, for some reason I am reminded of a long ago and far away TV programme in which appeared the catchphrase 'You want the moon on a stick!' By amazing coincidence, I was mentioning Simon Quinlank, King of Hobbyists, and his weak lemon drink, to my wife only a day or two ago. |
|
|
|
Post by nathanh on Mar 3, 2022 13:05:55 GMT
There is probably balance to be struck, since I also generally don't think too highly of paths that are impossible to reach outside the winning path, yet have a bunch of options and sub paths that all lead to failure anyway. I like the model where entering a "failure path" can still end up back on the winning path, but without the ability to pass an obstacle further down the path (which leads either to quick defeat or the same model repeated).
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Mar 3, 2022 13:24:04 GMT
There is probably balance to be struck, since I also generally don't think too highly of paths that are impossible to reach outside the winning path, yet have a bunch of options and sub paths that all lead to failure anyway. I like the model where entering a "failure path" can still end up back on the winning path, but without the ability to pass an obstacle further down the path (which leads either to quick defeat or the same model repeated). Your point reminds me that the term 'true path' can be a bit ambiguous anyway. The 'true path' could just as easily be a tangle of paths. If a 'failure' path ends up back on the winning path, then it isn't a failure path. This thread is about those paragraphs which, once you've reached them, it isn't possible to get back on track. But they might very well lead on to a bunch of options and sub paths because of the way a gamebook network works. In other words, you may rejoin the 'true' path, but because you've done something or missed something, you will be unable to follow the true path at some later branching. Personally I think gamebooks would be rather dull (not to mention easy!) if they ended immediately after you made a decision that meant you couldn't finish. Edit: And yes, sorry Nathan, I missed the point you were making about coming back on to the 'winning path' without being able to progress further along. It's just that I don't view the 'winning path' as just paragraphs. If you are at a paragraph that's on the winning path, but you don't have an essential McGuffin to win, then as far as I'm concerned you aren't on the winning path! |
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Mar 3, 2022 15:28:53 GMT
I like the model where entering a "failure path" can still end up back on the winning path, but without the ability to pass an obstacle further down the path (which leads either to quick defeat or the same model repeated). [...] If a 'failure' path ends up back on the winning path, then it isn't a failure path. I think Nathan was referring to situations like the two paths leading from the Goblins' room in Deathtrap Dungeon. Both paths converge at a later point, but on one of them it's possible to acquire two essential items. The section after the convergence is on the winning path, but anybody who chose the wrong exit from the Goblins' room is still on a failure path (on account of having missed those vital plot tokens) even though they've reached a section that's on the winning path. There is a gamebook model that has multiple winning paths, though each can be quite narrow in its own way. Say the opening section offers paths A, B and C. Those paths rejoin at encounter D, after which it's possible to take path E, F or G. Those paths also converge, but it's impossible to survive E without an item acquired on A, F is certain death to anyone who didn't grab the McGuffin at B, and something from C is essential for getting through G. Thus, no individual encounter is automatically on a failure path, but there is still potential to go wrong and wind up dooming yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Mar 3, 2022 15:51:06 GMT
[...] If a 'failure' path ends up back on the winning path, then it isn't a failure path. I think Nathan was referring to situations like the two paths leading from the Goblins' room in Deathtrap Dungeon. Both paths converge at a later point, but on one of them it's possible to acquire two essential items. The section after the convergence is on the winning path, but anybody who chose the wrong exit from the Goblins' room is still on a failure path (on account of having missed those vital plot tokens) even though they've reached a section that's on the winning path. There is a gamebook model that has multiple winning paths, though each can be quite narrow in its own way. Say the opening section offers paths A, B and C. Those paths rejoin at encounter D, after which it's possible to take path E, F or G. Those paths also converge, but it's impossible to survive E without an item acquired on A, F is certain death to anyone who didn't grab the McGuffin at B, and something from C is essential for getting through G. Thus, no individual encounter is automatically on a failure path, but there is still potential to go wrong and wind up dooming yourself. You are right that I hadn't picked up correctly on what Nathan was writing about. But what you describe above is what I was meaning with the 'tangle of paths'. When I wrote 'If a "failure" path ends up back on the winning path, then it isn't a failure path.' I meant that if you get back on the winning path with a possibility of winning then you were not on a failure path. If you get back on the 'winning path' but have no chance of winning, then you are not on the winning path. You may be visiting paragraphs that are on the winning path, but you aren't on it! But I don't see much practical difference between this, and the scenario Nathan was describing. In both, you continue to make choices, even though you will fail no matter what you choose. If you don't have options on dead-end routes, then it will quickly become obvious that it's a dead-end route. Added to which, of course, personally I like some 'dead-end' routes. |
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 3, 2022 15:53:40 GMT
[...] If a 'failure' path ends up back on the winning path, then it isn't a failure path. I think Nathan was referring to situations like the two paths leading from the Goblins' room in Deathtrap Dungeon. Both paths converge at a later point, but on one of them it's possible to acquire two essential items. The section after the convergence is on the winning path, but anybody who chose the wrong exit from the Goblins' room is still on a failure path (on account of having missed those vital plot tokens) even though they've reached a section that's on the winning path. There is a gamebook model that has multiple winning paths, though each can be quite narrow in its own way. Say the opening section offers paths A, B and C. Those paths rejoin at encounter D, after which it's possible to take path E, F or G. Those paths also converge, but it's impossible to survive E without an item acquired on A, F is certain death to anyone who didn't grab the McGuffin at B, and something from C is essential for getting through G. Thus, no individual encounter is automatically on a failure path, but there is still potential to go wrong and wind up dooming yourself. Alternately, we have the 'collect the required number or die later' present in Trial of Champions and Assassins of Allansia, which feels very slightly more linear, slightly like a driving test. in Warlock of Firetop Mountain, you don't know in advance which keys are correct, and scouting for new keys somehow feels more satisfying than say the silly City of Thieves 'guess the mixture'. |
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Mar 3, 2022 16:02:59 GMT
I think Nathan was referring to situations like the two paths leading from the Goblins' room in Deathtrap Dungeon. Both paths converge at a later point, but on one of them it's possible to acquire two essential items. The section after the convergence is on the winning path, but anybody who chose the wrong exit from the Goblins' room is still on a failure path (on account of having missed those vital plot tokens) even though they've reached a section that's on the winning path. There is a gamebook model that has multiple winning paths, though each can be quite narrow in its own way. Say the opening section offers paths A, B and C. Those paths rejoin at encounter D, after which it's possible to take path E, F or G. Those paths also converge, but it's impossible to survive E without an item acquired on A, F is certain death to anyone who didn't grab the McGuffin at B, and something from C is essential for getting through G. Thus, no individual encounter is automatically on a failure path, but there is still potential to go wrong and wind up dooming yourself. Alternately, we have the 'collect the required number or die later' present in Trial of Champions and Assassins of Allansia, which feels very slightly more linear, slightly like a driving test. in Warlock of Firetop Mountain, you don't know in advance which keys are correct, and scouting for new keys somehow feels more satisfying than say the silly City of Thieves 'guess the mixture'. Of course, for the writer it's often surprisingly difficult when coming up with what is, essentially a puzzle, to figure out what's going to be fun, and what's going to be annoying. Especially as -- and this is attested to by this board! -- people find different things fun and annoying. I don't know if you are familiar with Douglas Adams' Hitch-hiker's computer game, a very early text adventure. It starts by telling you 'It is pitch black'. If you look it says something very similar about it being pitch black. Look again a couple of times and it finally relents and lets you see a chink of light or something (it was 1984: I can't remember that clearly!). I can see that Adams thought this was really funny and clever, but it pissed me off mightily. And I write this knowing that out there are people just as pissed off with something in my books as I am with Douglas Adams being clever and funny. |
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,451
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Mar 3, 2022 17:06:10 GMT
My sister and I still quote that to each other. Haven't seen the actual sketch since it was first on TV but for some reason it sticks in the memory. |
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Mar 3, 2022 18:45:15 GMT
Personally I think gamebooks would be rather dull (not to mention easy!) if they ended immediately after you made a decision that meant you couldn't finish. Dull, certainly. That kind of thing is one of the problems with the F.E.A.R. Adventures series - one 'wrong' decision and you're whisked straight back to section 1 to try again. If you don't have options on dead-end routes, then it will quickly become obvious that it's a dead-end route. Added to which, of course, personally I like some 'dead-end' routes. A chain of option-free sections eventually ending in defeat would be a low blow. Strangely, while an inescapable loop is essentially just a better-disguised version of that, such tricks tend not to be so unpopular, whether they be as simple as the endlessly spawning Chaos Warriors in Creature of Havoc, or more elaborate versions like the incorrect routes through the forest in Slaves of the Abyss. Elaborate dead ends can be fun when done well. I know the kitchen in House of Hell has its fans. But sometimes they just annoy people - I remember someone at rpg.net getting quite angry when they realised that in The Legends of Skyfall book 4, if you ended up in the dungeons, every available option ultimately led to death. |
|
|
|
Post by petch on Mar 3, 2022 18:52:30 GMT
My sister and I still quote that to each other. Haven't seen the actual sketch since it was first on TV but for some reason it sticks in the memory. That brings back some good memories. I still have an old Fist of Fun annual where Simon details his Christian Church Crawl hobby that they weren't allowed to air on TV, in which he attends as many communions as possible to get free bread and wine. Taking Jesus to be the size of an average Nazarene man, Simon calculates that so far he has eaten seven whole Jesuses plus one of Jesus's legs. A rival claims to have eaten twelve, but Simon points out that he was including bread and wine consumed at non-Catholic churches where they do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation whereby the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus, so his rival is wrong and Simon is still the Jesus eating king. The weak lemon drink is used to take the taste of cheap wine out of the mouth (but you have to drink it surreptitiously in case a vicar accuses you of making a travesty of the eucharist). |
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on Mar 4, 2022 1:50:04 GMT
My sister and I still quote that to each other. Haven't seen the actual sketch since it was first on TV but for some reason it sticks in the memory. That brings back some good memories. I still have an old Fist of Fun annual where Simon details his Christian Church Crawl hobby that they weren't allowed to air on TV, in which he attends as many communions as possible to get free bread and wine. Taking Jesus to be the size of an average Nazarene man, Simon calculates that so far he has eaten seven whole Jesuses plus one of Jesus's legs. A rival claims to have eaten twelve, but Simon points out that he was including bread and wine consumed at non-Catholic churches where they do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation whereby the bread and wine literally become the body and blood of Jesus, so his rival is wrong and Simon is still the Jesus eating king. The weak lemon drink is used to take the taste of cheap wine out of the mouth (but you have to drink it surreptitiously in case a vicar accuses you of making a travesty of the eucharist). That book is available for free from the Fist of Fun website. Can't help feeling that Quinlank was wrong to consider transubstantiation to work by volume rather than by weight... It's amazing to think how long ago it was: Quinlank hated the Internet! |
|
|
|
Post by nathanh on Mar 4, 2022 12:52:00 GMT
I wrote a long reply but it got eaten. Abridged version: I prefer the "wrong decision gets you back to the same references as the winning path, but you fail later" to "wrong decision gets you onto a unique multi-thread route where every decision leads in failure" because, although it is similar in the moment, it has a better feeling once you're done (if you explore all the failure routes before you realise you shouldn't be on this path, it is an annoying feeling afterwards sometimes), and also you tend to get better feedback on what you're doing wrong and what you should be looking for.
In passing, this second point is one of the reasons I also don't like the "if you find yourself at a paragraph with xxx, deduce 50 from the reference and go there".
|
|
|
|
Post by petch on Mar 4, 2022 19:06:51 GMT
In passing, this second point is one of the reasons I also don't like the "if you find yourself at a paragraph with xxx, deduce 50 from the reference and go there". It's certainly a tricksy approach to book design. When trying to solve Creature of Havoc, I can remember exhaustively exploring Thugruff's training camp, convinced it was on the right path and I was just missing one of those hidden paragraph triggers somewhere, partly because it was so well realised and partly because it linked prominently with the story told in the extended Background section. In a similar vein, I can remember aimlessly exploring the myriad intertwining paths of The Crimson Tide during my many, many failed attempts before it even occurred to me that those code words were spelling out a phrase necessary for victory (although, as some the comments above point out, whether TCT can be considered to have one true 'victory' ending is open for debate). While exasperating at the time, in both of those cases it only increased my admiration for the books as their clever design (and consistently quality writing of those false paths) had so thoroughly bamboozled me. |
|
|
|
Post by nathanh on Mar 5, 2022 12:13:02 GMT
I think it's less annoying in Creature of Havoc because you don't really know what you're supposed to be doing, so game mechanics and structures that support that are appropriate. I have a similar opinion of Black Vein Prophecy---I had no idea whether I was actually making any progress in this book, but since I didn't know what "progress" actually meant in this context, I was tolerant of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 5, 2022 12:35:45 GMT
I think it's less annoying in Creature of Havoc because you don't really know what you're supposed to be doing, so game mechanics and structures that support that are appropriate. I have a similar opinion of Black Vein Prophecy---I had no idea whether I was actually making any progress in this book, but since I didn't know what "progress" actually meant in this context, I was tolerant of this. Creature of Havoc is fair in numerical terms, where Livingstone isn't - if i have several tries to get likelihood, and after that I am doomed to die in some different ways, without knowing it is the wrong path, that's both fairer and more atmospheric than 50 50 do-or-dies. Compare that with Livingstone's Forest of Doom, where the whole book repeats itself if you fail, making no sense from a descriptive, gameplay or narrative pov (don't have the app, but I imagine it wasn't altered). It might be understandable for the target audience of young people but it's ugly and doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Mar 5, 2022 18:01:47 GMT
I can remember exhaustively exploring Thugruff's training camp, convinced it was on the right path and I was just missing one of those hidden paragraph triggers somewhere, partly because it was so well realised and partly because it linked prominently with the story told in the extended Background section. It doesn't surprise me, you mentioning this. The training camp was the very first thing I thought of when I saw the thread title. Also House of Hell - the kitchen .. but especially the human sacrifice scene and afterwards. The non-true path elements are already frustrating -- on account of them preceding failure -- and making them lacklustre just increases the frustration. So why not make them interesting as some sort of compensation? They could be used to show all sorts of things that would add to the story or the 'world' which you might not see on the 'true path'. For example, you might get more of an insight into the villain's motivation [assuming he's not just a bland and 2-dimensional 'I must take over the world' sort of character]. There's a series of sections in Lone Wolf 3 Caverns of Kalte which sees you exploring the sorceror's laboratories where he's carrying out awful experiments which you would never see on the victory path. |
|
