|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 15, 2023 14:39:30 GMT
Sometimes in a gamebook, you get presented with some options where taking the correct one is vital to winning (or at least the wrong choice is problematic), but it's only something that the character would only ever do if they had some prior information or clue to prompt them to take it. To give some examples: House of Hell: You're given some possible password options to open the secret chamber, but you'd only say the correct one if you'd spoken to Shekou and obtained brandy to give to him. Chasms of Malice: At the end you have to accuse one of the five knights of being the traitor. Earlier in the book there are a couple of clues you can use to identify who it is, but otherwise you've a four in five chance of randomly accusing an innocent man of treason. Master of Chaos: You're given the option to hold out an object before opening the portcullis. Anything other than 'metal torch' triggers a trap and a fight. The clue about magical fire can only be gained by giving an evil book to an evil man and losing a Luck point, but without it there's no reason to wave a metal torch while unlocking a portcullis just because of a suspicious pulley. Of course, after coming across this paragraph once you know what you to hold next time anyway even if you never find the clue. The thing here is that you don't have to take the paths to the clues to arrive at the point where they become useful, and may not even want to. But if you don't then the character's actions make no sense at all. It's not cheating, strictly speaking, but for me it doesn't sit right so I always make the effort to get the clue in these kinds of circumstances. Am I the only one? |
|
|
|
Post by scouserob on Feb 15, 2023 14:50:28 GMT
I'd say using pre-playthrough foreknowledge for a choosing amongst options is fine.
If you are given options to choose from then it is just like choosing the right path to take, picking the non-cursed item, or randomly selecting the name Kyltrogg at the start of Citadel of Chaos.
You wouldn't think twice about using foreknowledge for those even though your adventurer wouldn't have a clue what to do.
(Otherwise every option would be an early Creature of Havoc like dice roll.)
It isn't hard for the author to make the options refer to whether or not you saw the clue if the intent was to always end the adventure of those who hadn't.
(Steve Jackson was a master of that mechanic.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 15, 2023 16:37:06 GMT
But what I'm talking about isn't really equivalent to those kinds of decisions. (For me Kyltrogg may easily be the Ogre equivalent of 'Dave', so no qualms there!)
Stuck in a passage with a locked gate, two levers. It's pretty natural for the character to pull one of them even if they've not been told which is the fatal trap. Using foreknowledge so that your character 'guesses' right is the nature of the game.
Faced with a featureless passage like all the other featureless passages you've walked down, but this time you're given the choice of walking down it normally or hopping backwards. The only reason to hop backwards would be if you'd fought a Skill 10 demon to save the dwarven Trap Designer who then rewarded you with a warning about the need to do this, but if you hadn't met him...your character decides Hey, I might hop backwards down this passageway, y'know, just out of boredom?
If it's considered not cheating, then how about e.g. in Crypt of the Sorcerer, where at one point you're asked a sequence of questions, the answers to which are numbers that you'll have learned over the course of the adventure. You're not presented with the options, it's 'turn to that reference, if it makes no sense then you're dead'. If I learned playing previously that one of the answers is 117, is it cheating to skip on learning that information next time round while playing and have the character 'guess' 117, and do the same with all the other references that follow?
|
|
|
|
Post by scouserob on Feb 15, 2023 17:08:28 GMT
But what I'm talking about isn't really equivalent to those kinds of decisions. (For me Kyltrogg may easily be the Ogre equivalent of 'Dave', so no qualms there!) If it's considered not cheating, then how about e.g. in Crypt of the Sorcerer, where at one point you're asked a sequence of questions, the answers to which are numbers that you'll have learned over the course of the adventure. You're not presented with the options, it's 'turn to that reference, if it makes no sense then you're dead'. If I learned playing previously that one of the answers is 117, is it cheating to skip on learning that information next time round while playing and have the character 'guess' 117, and do the same with all the other references that follow? I would say if you are given the option to guess then using foreknowledge is not cheating even if you only have about a 1 in 400 chance of guessing correctly. Otherwise why be given the chance to guess? Are you expected to guess wrong despite knowing the answer? What is stopping your adventurer guessing 117, which doesn't stop him guessing left, left, right, opening the door, picking the bronze helmet, passing the next two doors, going South, etc.? The odds of doing that are even more unlikely in some books with very narrow solution paths. You only need nine 50-50 choices that you have to guess right to get to a 1/512 chance. Requiring the clue is an easy mechanic to implement, for example you are asked if you know the door combination before being given the option of going to the paragraph number in Citadel of Chaos. Of course I am being a tad silly and would, myself, always go and get a known clue if I knew it would help later. (Even going to see the fishwives at the end of Port Blacksand's docks to get the hint about randomly deciding to go down into the sewers.) |
|
|
|
Post by terrysalt on Feb 15, 2023 19:25:56 GMT
For me, it's all a matter of how they phrase the question. "Is the password A, B, C or D?" means you can guess. "If you've found the book of passwords, you may try one. Do you try A, B, C or D? If you haven't found it or don't wish to try one, you have to fight." means you need to have found the book to even be able to guess. But unless you're playing competitively, it doesn't really matter. If you consider it cheating, don't do it.  |
|
|
|
Post by paperexplorer on Feb 15, 2023 22:40:17 GMT
I think if you have bypassed clues then you aren't on the correct path.
The question is: Is prior knowledge the same as saying you have an item you don't have?
I think in your Chasms of Malice example, the book probably shouldn't give you a 1 in 5 chance with no prior knowledge, but require a name or reference instead. House of Hell is the same: it's gamebook design at fault. I think this is different from knowing whether or not to pull a certain lever
|
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Feb 16, 2023 0:07:23 GMT
I think if you have bypassed clues then you aren't on the correct path. The question is: Is prior knowledge the same as saying you have an item you don't have? I think in your Chasms of Malice example, the book probably shouldn't give you a 1 in 5 chance with no prior knowledge, but require a name or reference instead. House of Hell is the same: it's gamebook design at fault. I think this is different from knowing whether or not to pull a certain lever I take it you’re not familiar with the Chasms example. What actually happens there is, right at the end of the adventure five people greet you. You are aware that one of them is a traitor who intends to murder you, but unless you followed the ‘correct’ path and caught sight of an identifying feature, you can only guess which it is (or use prior knowledge). Should a player who took a slightly different route be denied all opportunity to defend themselves because they don’t know which potential assassin to attack? As you say, the design is at fault (especially as the ‘correct’ path contains more ‘pure randomness determines if you live’ than some other viable-until-the-end routes), but a lucky guess is far more justifiable here than with the password in House of Hell. |
|
|
|
Post by paperexplorer on Feb 16, 2023 2:40:32 GMT
Yes I'm familiar with the Chasms scene, you know the Traitor by the design on his chest. What I am saying is if you missed the clue, you should fail rather than be able to guess because you didn't follow the correct path. After all, would you as a hero randomly accuse someone of being a Traitor because their eyes look shifty? But that comes down to book design allowing you to still accuse and have 1 in 5 chance of being correct
EDIT: actually, I should add my overarching view is play the book however you want. Dice, no dice, your own rules, etc, it's all in good fun. I was just answering on what I would consider the technically correct way to approach it if you were a stickler for rules and doing it right
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Feb 16, 2023 9:12:28 GMT
Yes I'm familiar with the Chasms scene, you know the Traitor by the design on his chest. What I am saying is if you missed the clue, you should fail rather than be able to guess because you didn't follow the correct path. After all, would you as a hero randomly accuse someone of being a Traitor because their eyes look shifty? But that comes down to book design allowing you to still accuse and have 1 in 5 chance of being correct EDIT: actually, I should add my overarching view is play the book however you want. Dice, no dice, your own rules, etc, it's all in good fun. I was just answering on what I would consider the technically correct way to approach it if you were a stickler for rules and doing it right That last point is the definitive answer; they can design the book howsoever they wish, but once your money has crossed the counter it's yours to enjoy how you want. It strikes me that this question has more to do with what feels correct in any given situation. However, realistically, if you're in possession of knowledge from a previous playthrough, would you not choose what you know to be the correct option? Someone mentioned the clue about hags in sewers in City of Thieves. I recently played that book for the first time in years, and the hag's hair was the one item I could remember where I got it, but I couldn't remember where the entrance to the sewers was. So, while playing, even before meeting Nicodemus, I was thinking about finding the sewers. When I encountered the fisher wives and got the clue that hags were in the sewers, I just thought, 'Cheers, much help, I know that already.' I didn't think, 'I must return here for this clue next attempt.' I don't think prior knowledge is cheating if the book has been written to allow you to make perplexing choices based on knowledge you've picked up in previous attempts. It takes very little to put in an option of, 'Did you get the dragon's pet rabbit's number from Dooshbarg the ogre in the Swamp of Wet Slimy Nasty Things? If so, turn to that reference.' Then that's a direct question, and pretending you have if you haven't is as clearly cheating as pretending to have the rabbit grooming comb when asked, even though you didn't even go to the Grooming Salon of Terror in that attempt. Otherwise, I don't think it's any more cheating than knowing which doors to ignore or paths to take from previous attempts. |
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 16, 2023 10:26:41 GMT
It strikes me that this question has more to do with what feels correct in any given situation. However, realistically, if you're in possession of knowledge from a previous playthrough, would you not choose what you know to be the correct option? This is what I'm getting at! What feels right when playing? Some are looking at it from a technical point of view, loopholes in the wording, lucky guesses and so on, but let's face it if there's an inscription you're meant to read to learn a reference to turn to later then you know that the author's "true solution" is meant to include going to read that inscription. If you complete the book by bypassing some parts of that path, do you not feel the slightest niggle that you didn't win entirely fairly? What is stopping your adventurer guessing 117, which doesn't stop him guessing left, left, right, opening the door, picking the bronze helmet, passing the next two doors, going South, etc.? The odds of doing that are even more unlikely in some books with very narrow solution paths. You only need nine 50-50 choices that you have to guess right to get to a 1/512 chance. Well in Crypt of the Sorcerer you do need to 'guess' four such answers in a row (plus a combination to make five guesses), which extends the odds massively...Incidentally, the Champskees' solution for Crypt includes taking all the (costless) side paths to learn these numbers, whereas for Master of Chaos it omits the sidepath that warns you of the nature of the trap (at a cost of 1 Luck point). Related to this, for those okay with the idea of using prior knowledge in "turn to reference that's your answer" cases, here's a hypothetical: imagine there were a gamebook where there is a Path B that leads to certain death but is the only way to learn this kind of number/reference answer to a question that is vital to winning the book along Path A. i.e. you need to follow Path A to win the book, but you'll never be able to win unless you had taken Path B on a previous playthrough - and it was written that way deliberately. Would you consider such a book flawed/broken? |
|
|
|
Post by scouserob on Feb 16, 2023 11:10:04 GMT
Related to this, for those okay with the idea of using prior knowledge in "turn to reference that's your answer" cases, here's a hypothetical: imagine there were a gamebook where there is a Path B that leads to certain death but is the only way to learn this kind of number/reference answer to a question that is vital to winning the book along Path A. i.e. you need to follow Path A to win the book, but you'll never be able to win unless you had taken Path B on a previous playthrough - and it was written that way deliberately. Would you consider such a book flawed/broken? Good one. 😀 The hypothetical book has been deliberately designed so that, barring an unfeasibly fortunate actual guess ,it cannot be successfully completed in a single playthrough so it is certainly flawed in that respect. It is also designed so that a successful adventure seen as a self-contained storyline forces the protagonist to make that ridiculous guess (that the player discovered on a previous play through). So I would say flawed in that respect. I would reserve the term broken for books that are impossible, or practically impossible due to the probability of winning with the highest possible statistics being worse than say 1 in 50. So if the same hypothetical book instead asked if you had found that number reference, with death being the penalty of not encountering it, before asking you to go to that reference then I would say it is broken. Creature of Havoc treads the line of being broken/flawed and is practically impossible to complete on a first playthrough. It is obviously designed to be solved piecewise over multiple playthroughs by building up knowledge of the very narrow path through. (I don't even remember if there is a clue to help in guessing which of the 5 doors to take on the Galleykeep.) [Edit: It does have a clue. Weaseltongue has the end of Fire v Ice riddle. What a book!]Yet it does so in a way that when you have built up that knowledge, the final playthrough, as a story, feels natural and pretty damn amazing. I think that is the main problem with using foreknowledge for such unlikely guesses. Whilst I wouldn't class it as cheating, it just wouldn't feel a natural part of the adventure. I'd win the game but the sense of adventure would be spoiled to some degree. Lots of little guesses with 2 or 3 options with the odd 4-6 option choice can maintain believability, despite the ridiculous combined odds, whilst having our protagonist make a 1 in 400(ish) guess just shatters the immersion. |
|
|
|
Post by hallucination on Feb 16, 2023 11:39:56 GMT
I reckon prior knowledge is not cheating (and does not feel like cheating).
The rules always say something to this effect: draw a map and make notes as you go, this will be invaluable in future adventures.
If the option is there to hop backwards down a dungeon corridor, then as long as it doesn’t come with the caveat that you must have received a clue to do so by some particular means, then hop away, happily so, even if it makes you feel kinda silly.
I am usually one for collecting the clues. In case it is costly to do so (eg Master of Chaos) and not explicitly necessary i don’t feel bad about skipping the clue - especially since we are talking about prior knowledge, clues encountered on a previous playthrough.
Maybe where the clue is quite hefty (eg to learn an entire symbolic alphabet) I’d agree it feels a little better not to skip the clue, even if a puzzle using those symbols could in principle be painstakingly deduced later. But since feeling better comes with a cost, prior knowledge of encountering the symbol system on a previous playthrough does the trick as much as creating a map as you explore does for knowing which turns and insta deaths to avoid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Feb 16, 2023 11:42:13 GMT
It strikes me that this question has more to do with what feels correct in any given situation. However, realistically, if you're in possession of knowledge from a previous playthrough, would you not choose what you know to be the correct option? This is what I'm getting at! What feels right when playing? Some are looking at it from a technical point of view, loopholes in the wording, lucky guesses and so on, but let's face it if there's an inscription you're meant to read to learn a reference to turn to later then you know that the author's "true solution" is meant to include going to read that inscription. If you complete the book by bypassing some parts of that path, do you not feel the slightest niggle that you didn't win entirely fairly? What is stopping your adventurer guessing 117, which doesn't stop him guessing left, left, right, opening the door, picking the bronze helmet, passing the next two doors, going South, etc.? The odds of doing that are even more unlikely in some books with very narrow solution paths. You only need nine 50-50 choices that you have to guess right to get to a 1/512 chance. Well in Crypt of the Sorcerer you do need to 'guess' four such answers in a row (plus a combination to make five guesses), which extends the odds massively...Incidentally, the Champskees' solution for Crypt includes taking all the (costless) side paths to learn these numbers, whereas for Master of Chaos it omits the sidepath that warns you of the nature of the trap (at a cost of 1 Luck point). Related to this, for those okay with the idea of using prior knowledge in "turn to reference that's your answer" cases, here's a hypothetical: imagine there were a gamebook where there is a Path B that leads to certain death but is the only way to learn this kind of number/reference answer to a question that is vital to winning the book along Path A. i.e. you need to follow Path A to win the book, but you'll never be able to win unless you had taken Path B on a previous playthrough - and it was written that way deliberately. Would you consider such a book flawed/broken? Yes, I would have a niggle that I hadn't won fairly if I didn't follow the path to a clue that my character should absolutely require to win, such as a reference number. And yes, I would consider a book broken if you had to collect info on a fatal path that's required on a true path. Curiously, I think some of those reference number collecting events are intended as an anti-cheating mechanic, but they really only work as such if it's assumed a player will only play once. It might be better to just ask the player whether they have a certain object or have gained a clue from somewhere, and someone playing by the rules will unambiguously play properly, and someone cheating will cheat as they've done throughout. |
|
|
|
Post by scouserob on Feb 16, 2023 11:58:52 GMT
Curiously, I think some of those reference number collecting events are intended as an anti-cheating mechanic, but they really only work as such if it's assumed a player will only play once. It might be better to just ask the player whether they have a certain object or have gained a clue from somewhere, and someone playing by the rules will unambiguously play properly, and someone cheating will cheat as they've done throughout. Agreed, I imagine that they are probably intended as an anti-cheating device, especially in cases where you are asked if you have the information before given the chance to use it. Though they are a cool mechanic to some degree. Who doesn't like getting items or clues involving numbers in the range 1-400? They do make it harder to cheat, relying on information found and noted on prior playthroughs or adding in a search for numbers in random paragraphs to the 5 fingered bookmark, especially if combined with other obfuscations like the clue being in code or being split into multiple pieces. I imagine cheating your way to a full play through of Creature of Havoc, without many prior attempts at the book and notes taken. It would require a lot of work, deciphering other languages and closely reading paragraphs for if X happens then go to Y+Z type clues. |
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Feb 16, 2023 12:35:14 GMT
Yes I'm familiar with the Chasms scene, you know the Traitor by the design on his chest. What I am saying is if you missed the clue, you should fail rather than be able to guess because you didn't follow the correct path. After all, would you as a hero randomly accuse someone of being a Traitor because their eyes look shifty? So instead you just stand there and let the traitor murder you? Very heroic. |
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 16, 2023 13:07:20 GMT
After all, would you as a hero randomly accuse someone of being a Traitor because their eyes look shifty? So instead you just stand there and let the traitor murder you? Very heroic. When you identify the traitor he runs off and gets blown to bits by the wizard. I suppose given the choice between identifying an innocent man who might panic and get blown to bits or doing nothing and letting the traitor expose themselves by murdering you, the latter is the more heroic option by far. Though just standing there isn't an option anyway. |
|
CharlesX
Baron
Posts: 2,207 
Member is Online
|
Post by CharlesX on Feb 16, 2023 13:15:28 GMT
Related to this, for those okay with the idea of using prior knowledge in "turn to reference that's your answer" cases, here's a hypothetical: imagine there were a gamebook where there is a Path B that leads to certain death but is the only way to learn this kind of number/reference answer to a question that is vital to winning the book along Path A. i.e. you need to follow Path A to win the book, but you'll never be able to win unless you had taken Path B on a previous playthrough - and it was written that way deliberately. Would you consider such a book flawed/broken? Good one. 😀 The hypothetical book has been deliberately designed so that, barring an unfeasibly fortunate actual guess ,it cannot be successfully completed in a single playthrough so it is certainly flawed in that respect. It is also designed so that a successful adventure seen as a self-contained storyline forces the protagonist to make that ridiculous guess (that the player discovered on a previous play through). So I would say flawed in that respect. I would reserve the term broken for books that are impossible, or practically impossible due to the probability of winning with the highest possible statistics being worse than say 1 in 50. So if the same hypothetical book instead asked if you had found that number reference, with death being the penalty of not encountering it, before asking you to go to that reference then I would say it is broken. Creature of Havoc treads the line of being broken/flawed and is practically impossible to complete on a first playthrough. It is obviously designed to be solved piecewise over multiple playthroughs by building up knowledge of the very narrow path through. (I don't even remember if there is a clue to help in guessing which of the 5 doors to take on the Galleykeep.) [Edit: It does have a clue. Weaseltongue has the end of Fire v Ice riddle. What a book!]Yet it does so in a way that when you have built up that knowledge, the final playthrough, as a story, feels natural and pretty damn amazing. I think that is the main problem with using foreknowledge for such unlikely guesses. Whilst I wouldn't class it as cheating, it just wouldn't feel natural part of the adventure. I'd win the game but the sense of adventure would be spoiled to some degree. Lots of little guesses with 2 or 3 options with the odd 4-6 option choice can maintain believability, despite the ridiculous combined odds, whilst having our protagonist make a 1 in 400(ish) guess just shatters the immersion. This is exactly the sort of thing about Creature Of Havoc which appeals to me, as someone who likes puzzles and mysteries. Combined with the extra length, you have numerous false dead-end paths, signs swapped around, red herrings in the introduction and seeimngly elsewhere, as well. It's ultimately linear with a single true path through, and I would say few variables, but the rich atmosphere and the dice rolling at the start mean one can overlook such a possible defect. I don't always like Jackson's penchant at this time for horror-esque grisly deaths, but here it seems to work rather well. Apppointment With F.E.A.R. also has a number of distinct true paths, but there isn't the same logic or air of mystery about it (a slightly Eye Of The Dragon style choice between rescuing one person or another with no clue and often no rhyme or reason imho). Amusingly I was able to just guess where to meet the contact point - and password - at the end on at least one playthrough, which may or may not be intentional, I'm pretty sure that's not the way you're supposed to play though. I didn't mind spending months mapping out Creature Of Havoc because the great atmosphere combined with an unbroken difficulty level makes for an enjoyable game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 16, 2023 13:18:58 GMT
For me, it's all a matter of how they phrase the question. "Is the password A, B, C or D?" means you can guess. "If you've found the book of passwords, you may try one. Do you try A, B, C or D? If you haven't found it or don't wish to try one, you have to fight." means you need to have found the book to even be able to guess. (Plus other similar comments on the technical wording in the books in these situations.) So now Creature of Havoc has been mentioned, this also gets me thinking: early on in the book speech is mangled into code and you need to find a certain item to learn how to decode it. When you have the code, the speech is always along the lines of "Blah blah blah" If you can understand this, turn to reference 400. "Blah blah blah" Well, I can understand it, because I know the code from a previous play. It's not asking if I found the item in question or anything of that nature. So does that make it okay to play through Creature of Havoc without taking the path to find the item in question? |
|
CharlesX
Baron
Posts: 2,207
Member is Online
|
Post by CharlesX on Feb 16, 2023 13:24:00 GMT
For me, it's all a matter of how they phrase the question. "Is the password A, B, C or D?" means you can guess. "If you've found the book of passwords, you may try one. Do you try A, B, C or D? If you haven't found it or don't wish to try one, you have to fight." means you need to have found the book to even be able to guess. (Plus other similar comments on the technical wording in the books in these situations.) So now Creature of Havoc has been mentioned, this also gets me thinking: early on in the book speech is mangled into code and you need to find a certain item to learn how to decode it. When you have the code, the speech is always along the lines of "Blah blah blah" If you can understand this, turn to reference 400. "Blah blah blah" Well, I can understand it, because I know the code from a previous play. It's not asking if I found the item in question or anything of that nature. So does that make it okay to play through Creature of Havoc without taking the path to find the item in question? It would make absolutely no narrative sense and as I've just mentioned I personally love Creature Of Havoc and wouldn't do that - like not bothering to read the helpful book in Citadel Of Chaos and pretending your adventurer just spun the combination lock and by a thousand to one got the combination correct. Scouserob below has made a similar point to mine more elegantly than I. |
|
|
|
Post by scouserob on Feb 16, 2023 13:24:38 GMT
So now Creature of Havoc has been mentioned, this also gets me thinking: early on in the book speech is mangled into code and you need to find a certain item to learn how to decode it. When you have the code, the speech is always along the lines of "Blah blah blah" If you can understand this, turn to reference 400. "Blah blah blah" Well, I can understand it, because I know the code from a previous play. It's not asking if I found the item in question or anything of that nature. So does that make it okay to play through Creature of Havoc without taking the path to find the item in question? I'd say that in that specific case, the question of whether you can understand it, refers to the character's understanding rather than the player's. In the same way as the book asking if you have a length of rope is not referring to the contents of your shed. I'm probably contradicting myself multiple times in this thread but I'd count getting a necessary clue from the coded text in Creature of Havoc, without opening the Vapour of Tongues, as cheating. 😬😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 16, 2023 13:28:30 GMT
It is obviously designed to be solved piecewise over multiple playthroughs by building up knowledge of the very narrow path through. The rules always say something to this effect: draw a map and make notes as you go, this will be invaluable in future adventures. I just want to emphasise in case the point gets away from the discussion, I'm not suggesting any prior knowledge is some kind of cheating. The question is, is it never cheating in any situation? (This is cheating from the personal satisfaction point of view, i.e. does it take the shine off the victory, even if only a little.) |
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 16, 2023 13:42:38 GMT
I'd say that in that specific case, the question of whether you can understand it, refers to the character's understanding rather than the player's. In the same way as the book asking if you have a length of rope is not referring to the contents of your shed. I'm probably contradicting myself multiple times in this thread but I'd count getting a necessary clue from the coded text in Creature of Havok, without opening the Vapour of Tongues, as cheating. 😬😂 Indeed you are  In Crypt of the Sorcerer, you're asked if "you" know the answer in regard to each question, so your suggestion of earlier guessing wouldn't be permitted. It would make absolutely no narrative sense and as I've just mentioned I personally love Creature Of Havoc and wouldn't do that - like not bothering to read the helpful book in Citadel Of Chaos and pretending your adventurer just spun the combination lock and by a thousand to one got the combination correct. Indeed not, but that's been my point from the beginning. It would make no narrative sense either to hold out a certain item in Master of Chaos, or to call out a certain password in House of Hell, or to accuse a random knight of being the traitor without taking the steps necessary to get the clue in that play of the book. But a lot of people are saying that it's no problem at all. |
|
|
|
Post by scouserob on Feb 16, 2023 14:18:06 GMT
Indeed you are In Crypt of the Sorcerer, you're asked if "you" know the answer in regard to each question, so your suggestion of earlier guessing wouldn't be permitted. That doesn't surprise me. 😬 In my defence that particular contradiction was due to ignorance and assumption. (Backtracking time....) I haven't played Crypt of the Sorcerer and my erroneous assumption was that when you said 'if it makes no sense then you're dead', that you were given the option of guessing and getting the answer wrong, like the riddle of Bigfoot's sons in Kharé. (Rather than being asked if you know the answer before being able to go to the reference, like the requiring the knowledge of the combination in Citadel of Chaos which I mentioned as an example of a mechanic to forbid the guess.) |
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 16, 2023 14:50:56 GMT
(Not read Sorcery yet, so no spoilers please.)
It doesn't explicitly say you can guess, or that you can't. In the book the character asks you a question like "how much is this thing?" and is very clearly going to instantly kill you if you get it wrong, so it's fair to say whatever else, you'll shout out some guess.
But again, it strays from the point to argue it from a semantic basis. The authors were trying to write entertaining books rather than constructing legal-length text to cover all loopholes. It's about intent and the spirit of the thing, otherwise nobody ever got out of the dungeon in Creature of Havoc without cheating. Clearly in House of Hell you're supposed to learn the clue to password to the Kris knife room because nobody would ever guess that particular word randomly, but learning that clue costs 1 Fear point, 1 Luck point (through a test) and potentially 1 Skill point (if the Luck test fails) so the temptation to skip out on learning it is there. Is it okay to spoil the narrative because a literal reading of the text permits it? As I said at the beginning, strictly speaking it's not cheating, yet for me a victory that way still feels kind of tainted.
|
|
|
|
Post by terrysalt on Feb 16, 2023 20:11:24 GMT
I'm very firmly on team literal. I can guess what the author's intention was but I can never actually know it. I do, however, know exactly what was written. If a literal reading of the text allows a loophole, I will use it. This cuts against me just as often where I'm forced to pass up advantageous options due to a literal reading not allowing it so I don't know if it's cheating as much as an alternate playstyle. And I play it that "you" always refers to the character, not the player. Otherwise things get too silly even for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Feb 16, 2023 21:46:06 GMT
I'm very firmly on team literal. I can guess what the author's intention was but I can never actually know it. I do, however, know exactly what was written. If a literal reading of the text allows a loophole, I will use it. This cuts against me just as often where I'm forced to pass up advantageous options due to a literal reading not allowing it so I don't know if it's cheating as much as an alternate playstyle. And I play it that "you" always refers to the character, not the player. Otherwise things get too silly even for me. So you can't ever get out of the dungeon in Creature of Havoc then? |
|
|
|
Post by terrysalt on Feb 17, 2023 0:50:19 GMT
I'm very firmly on team literal. I can guess what the author's intention was but I can never actually know it. I do, however, know exactly what was written. If a literal reading of the text allows a loophole, I will use it. This cuts against me just as often where I'm forced to pass up advantageous options due to a literal reading not allowing it so I don't know if it's cheating as much as an alternate playstyle. And I play it that "you" always refers to the character, not the player. Otherwise things get too silly even for me. So you can't ever get out of the dungeon in Creature of Havoc then? Not without cheating, no. |
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Feb 17, 2023 2:09:29 GMT
So you can't ever get out of the dungeon in Creature of Havoc then? Not without cheating, no. Unless you're playing the first Wizard edition. |
|
|
|
Post by pip on Feb 17, 2023 15:47:53 GMT
I'm willing to bet the authors usually didn't put that much thought into this... Surely they had no idea that, 40 years later, some people would still be reading the books and debating about them. IMO, what is fair or not in those situations likely depends on you, the context, and the author's opinion, but since it's not always possible to get the author's opinion, it'll probably just depend on you and the context.
I think everybody will agree that if you didn't obtain a key with the number "123" written on it, and you use knowledge from previous playthroughs to unlock a door by going to paragraph 123 even though you didn't obtain the key in this playthrough, that's not legit. You just don't have the key.
But if you remember from a previous playthrough that Yaztromo won the troll ears eating contest by eating 400 of them, and answer correctly even though you didn't get the information in this playthrough, I'd say that's legit. The typical FF introduction does encourage you to take notes and use prior knowledge in your next attempts, after all. Your character could have gotten the information before the book's adventure took place. And deciding that your character knows some pop culture trivia can make sense (unlike deciding he can unlock a door without the key, because he remembers a number).
|
|
|
|
Post by johnbrawn1972 on Feb 17, 2023 16:25:44 GMT
I'm willing to bet the authors usually didn't put that much thought into this... Surely they had no idea that, 40 years later, some people would still be reading the books and debating about them. IMO, what is fair or not in those situations likely depends on you, the context, and the author's opinion, but since it's not always possible to get the author's opinion, it'll probably just depend on you and the context. I think everybody will agree that if you didn't obtain a key with the number "123" written on it, and you use knowledge from previous playthroughs to unlock a door by going to paragraph 123 even though you didn't obtain the key in this playthrough, that's not legit. You just don't have the key. But if you remember from a previous playthrough that Yaztromo won the troll ears eating contest by eating 400 of them, and answer correctly even though you didn't get the information in this playthrough, I'd say that's legit. The typical FF introduction does encourage you to take notes and use prior knowledge in your next attempts, after all. Your character could have gotten the information before the book's adventure took place. And deciding that your character knows some pop culture trivia can make sense (unlike deciding he can unlock a door without the key, because he remembers a number). I am not sure about this. In Warlock if you do not have the right keys then you cannot win the book. In Citadel if you have not visited the library then you cannot win the book. There is no difference. |
|
In Crypt of the Sorcerer, you're asked if "you" know the answer in regard to each question, so your suggestion of earlier guessing wouldn't be permitted.