Complexity or simplicity in gamebook systems?

[Pete Byrdie]

So, after a traumatic few years, for very bad reasons I now find I have a bit of time on my hands. Why not revive some of those gamebook ideas, write me a gamebook, and perhaps release it on Kindle or something? I've got plots and maps and encounters largely written out, but before I go further, I need to pin down a system that provides the options I want to include but that isn't just the biggest headache to use.

And that's where, after many iterations of a system I've designed, I approach this forum for advice. Having spent two weeks modifying, simplifying, play-testing, I'm still trying to remember what to do while actually using it, so what chance anyone else would have I don't know.

Recently, after watching the second Alice movie with Mr Depp as the Hatter (spoiler alert: it's rubbish), I had another crack at Jonathan Green's Alice's Nightmare in Wonderland. It's a few years since I played this last, and I'd forgotten that the combat system was just that little bit tricky. Basically, it's FF's combat system with a couple of modifications.

FF is renowned for its simplicity. Yet playing Alice, remembering little details like who has initiative requiring a point to be added to their attack strength, and to roll a die to determine whether equal attack strengths are misses or damage to both combatants, just made it feel too fiddly. Both simple additions, and I can see the reasoning for both, especially making equal attack strengths sometimes wounds on both combatants. Any HEMA practitioner, LARPer of person who's fought with plastic swords as a kid knows it happens lots that both fighters will score hits at about the same time. But they also seemed unnecessary complications for the purposes of playing a gamebook.

So my question is this. Should I be concerned by how complicated a system I've created is? More to the point, would you be put off? I haven't read a wide range of gamebooks myself. What ones do you think are too complex, too simple, or in the Goldilocks zone?

EDIT I suppose another thing I should ask is, who's ever been put off playing a gamebook because it's too unwieldy?

[Jonathan Green]

Take a look at how Aconyte Books handle combat and skill checks in the Marvel: Multiverse Missions gamebooks. The instructions for carrying them out are always described in the text when they are required.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 4, 2023 9:34:46 GMT Jonathan Green said:

Take a look at how Aconyte Books handle combat and skill checks in the Marvel: Multiverse Missions gamebooks. The instructions for carrying them out are always described in the text when they are required.

I've considered something like that. Almost don't have a firm system, not that's described to the reader anyway, just tell them what they need to know at the time. That will almost certainly be part of my approach, but I'll check the Marvel thing out. Thanks.

[CharlesX]

It depends what you're after when you play a gamebook. Gamebooks have recieved a lot of criticism for being 'unliterary' 'juvenile' and 'un-christian', yet even if they are niche a range continue to be sold and appeal and resonate to some young people via apps as well as sales. I personally think this is at beast misunderstanding and at worst jealousy, and for every few gamebooks of dubious quality there are maybe two of good quality and one that is outstanding. When I was young I was effectively reading a novel that happened to be non-linear, and because it was non-linear it could be more original and interesting than 'mainstream' books. Yes, it did get me reading more English literature, from the FF universe Trolltooth Wars and Titan, and also developing my interest in Sci-Fi and Fantasy. I enjoyed CYOA, Endless Quest and Virtual Reality throughout my young years because they could be well-written, the system wasn't limiting. I enjoyed Golden Dragon because of its simplicity and pace. So, I like fast-paced gamebooks, particularly when I was just young. I like Lone Wolf and Fighting Fantasy both for their systems, each arguably imperfect, but more for the way they were written. Finally, I like Gamebook Adventures, but their gamebook system has the same problem FF has in terms of having too wide a range of starting stats and difficulty.

   What I haven't liked in Real Life Gamebooks, which both aren't that well-written and have the problem you apply a number of pool points to attributes. Problem being some attributes are far more important than others. Jon Green can do this quite well, so as I've implied before there's a lot to be said for execution over systems. Aside from that, I sometimes prefer simpler and more escapist systems, and I reckon as well many gamebooks have frankly outrageous difficulty, and it's a real elephant in the room otherwise good writers such as Green and Dever assume without rhyme or reason their readers will\should cheat.

   Yes, I have been put off by overly-complicated rules, I haven't read those sorts of books myself but I dislike the bookkeeping in Legend Of Zagor, which is combined with a number of other flaws.

[a moderator]

J.H. Brennan's Sagas of the Demonspawn series had one of the most complex gamebook systems published (or, given that rules were added or changed as the series went on, maybe that should be 'some' of the most complex). While there are some readers who appreciate the storyline, I don't think anybody has anything good to say about the system.

[CharlesX]

Dec 4, 2023 9:34:46 GMT Jonathan Green said:

Take a look at how Aconyte Books handle combat and skill checks in the Marvel: Multiverse Missions gamebooks. The instructions for carrying them out are always described in the text when they are required.

I hope they are consistent. FF rules on fighting multiple opponents at the same time are like medieval spelling in that there are 5 or 10 different variants, sometimes more than one in the same gamebook.

[kieran]

Dec 4, 2023 13:39:58 GMT a moderator said:

J.H. Brennan's Sagas of the Demonspawn series had one of the most complex gamebook systems published (or, given that rules were added or changed as the series went on, maybe that should be 'some' of the most complex). While there are some readers who appreciate the storyline, I don't think anybody has anything good to say about the system.

I think that was less an issue with the complexity of the system and more an issue with it being incredibly badly designed.

[kieran]

I generally prefer less complexity rather than more. Fighting Fantasy is fine as are Lone Wolf, Way of the Tiger, Fabled Lands etc. But the likes of Bloodsword is just a bit too cumbersome for me which is why I only play it with my own simplified rules.

Of course, you can have a simple system which is still very effective - Golden Dragon had a very simple system but it made it very easy (in theory though not in practice) for the author to balance battles.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 4, 2023 17:02:52 GMT kieran said:

I generally prefer less complexity rather than more. Fighting Fantasy is fine as are Lone Wolf, Way of the Tiger, Fabled Lands etc. But the likes of Bloodsword is just a bit too cumbersome for me which is why I only play it with my own simplified rules.

Of course, you can have a simple system which is still very effective - Golden Dragon had a very simple system but it made it very easy (in theory though not in practice) for the author to balance battles.

It's a while since I played Bloodsword but I remember not finding the rules at all a problem. However, I was playing it with friends I used to play RPGs with. I think I'd assumed a bigger overlap between gamebook players and RPG players than perhaps there is, probably because that's been my personal experience. Yet I know that there's no need for a gamebook to have a 'cut down' RPG style system at all. Which is what FF and I imagine most gamebook systems are. The actual requirements of the two formats are different in important ways.

[kieran]

Dec 5, 2023 8:46:45 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Dec 4, 2023 17:02:52 GMT kieran said:

I generally prefer less complexity rather than more. Fighting Fantasy is fine as are Lone Wolf, Way of the Tiger, Fabled Lands etc. But the likes of Bloodsword is just a bit too cumbersome for me which is why I only play it with my own simplified rules.

Of course, you can have a simple system which is still very effective - Golden Dragon had a very simple system but it made it very easy (in theory though not in practice) for the author to balance battles.

It's a while since I played Bloodsword but I remember not finding the rules at all a problem. 

Eh, it just seems such a faff to me - drawing out a grid and moving tokens about for every fight. I don't much care for the magic system either. I agree that it probably would be more fun multiplayer but doing it all solo is a pain in the proverbial imo.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 5, 2023 9:56:50 GMT kieran said:

Dec 5, 2023 8:46:45 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

It's a while since I played Bloodsword but I remember not finding the rules at all a problem. 

Eh, it just seems such a faff to me - drawing out a grid and moving tokens about for every fight. I don't much care for the magic system either. I agree that it probably would be more fun multiplayer but doing it all solo is a pain in the proverbial imo.

It helps having a coffee table with a top tiled with about 3cm square tiles.

[Per]

A gamebook designer should decide what they want to do, then design the gamebook structure and system both to match that intent. If you do an elaborate system with lots of modifiers and adjustments, then the adventure's structure should reflect this and the player should get to live or die by how they manage this system. Mismatched systems will be bad gamebook design.

The "means to an end, doesn't make any difference" option doesn't make a lot of sense to me, unless the respondent means to say that the end, whatever it is, doesn't matter - if it does matter, then clearly it matters whether and how you achieve it. (I mean, the end isn't to roll dice or write down numbers regardless of thematic significance or mechanical effect, right?)

I'm one of those who found the combined multiple characters + combat grid aspects of Blood Sword daunting (while I loved some flavour aspects). I think I only played the first book once, this was back when I just joined the community and before I got parts of the FF back catalogue sent to me so I had to make do with amateur adventures and the odd book/magazine downloaded from Home of the Underdogs (before most of you people were even born etc.). Under different circumstances I guess I would have kept at it, though the rules didn't seem entirely clear to me anyway.

[slloyd14]

I make systems as complex as they need to be. Rulers of the NOW had no randomness, one numbered attribute and skills. This is because I wanted to tell a story and give a message. I made the bare minimum system that would serve the message. One reason why it took 10 years to write between it being a Windhammer entry and it being completed is that it was important to me, so I wanted everything in it - a complex system, lots of branching paths, lots to explore. And then it was too bloated to actually write. When I stripped it down to the core of what I wanted, I was able to bang it out in a few months.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have SCRAWL, which is a really complex system which takes into account tons of actions that the player would want to do ranging from crafting to getting a job to breaking the law to selling items. This is because I want to write gamebooks with it that a player can transfer characters between and also cover pretty much anything that has come up in a fantasy gamebook. There is no story. You are simply dropped into a fantasy world to explore and go on site based adventures.

Demonspawn was needlessly complex. I heard HJ Doom play it in his Fantastic Fights podcast - several stats, calculations based on those stats and also needlessly multiplying everything by 8. I don't think JH Brennan is great with game systems. Grailquest is not so bad but has a lot of holes in it and requires interpretation at times, but I also thought that was due to the wacky nature of the books.

Per, with Blood Sword, the rules may not seem clear because the maps for combat were forced on Dave Morris by the editors (he has a post about it where the story is basically:

Editors - "We want something new in this gamebook."
Dave - " How about multiple characters?"
Editors - "That's right, a combat map!"
Dave -"But no other book has multiple...."
Editors -"So we are all agreed, a combat map!"

I think Dave's vision of multiple characters is in the Heroquest book, Fellowship of Four where there is no map, but a battle order.

[CharlesX]

Dec 5, 2023 22:00:04 GMT Per said:

A gamebook designer should decide what they want to do, then design the gamebook structure and system both to match that intent. If you do an elaborate system with lots of modifiers and adjustments, then the adventure's structure should reflect this and the player should get to live or die by how they manage this system. Mismatched systems will be bad gamebook design.

The "means to an end, doesn't make any difference" option doesn't make a lot of sense to me, unless the respondent means to say that the end, whatever it is, doesn't matter - if it does matter, then clearly it matters whether and how you achieve it. (I mean, the end isn't to roll dice or write down numbers regardless of thematic significance or mechanical effect, right?)

I'm one of those who found the combined multiple characters + combat grid aspects of Blood Sword daunting (while I loved some flavour aspects). I think I only played the first book once, this was back when I just joined the community and before I got parts of the FF back catalogue sent to me so I had to make do with amateur adventures and the odd book/magazine downloaded from Home of the Underdogs (before most of you people were even born etc.). Under different circumstances I guess I would have kept at it, though the rules didn't seem entirely clear to me anyway.

I voted "really just means to an end" and still would for several reasons. I believe the emphasis was on the player rather than the designer (i.e. the question is about what is the game-system designed for, not why is the game-system designed the way it is) which seems to be the polar opposite of what you've taken away. There is no (other) "multiple\variable gamebook system" option and I sometimes play all kinds of system, Fighting Fantasy, Lone Wolf, Golden Dragon, CYOA, the pool system in Real Life gamebooks etc; I only dislike very complicated game-systems, and then only because they make the game more complicated, as we've mentioned about Sagas Of Demonspawn (unplayed by me) it's also key whether the game itself is well-written.

   A gamebook can be either a risk\combat-orientated game or a non-linear story were the player determines alternate outcomes, or some kind of mix. I don't see what's wrong with Keep Of The Lich-Lord, where Dave Morris felt his story and game were strong enough that it could be in both Fighting Fantasy and Fabled Lands.

   OTOH I hear about gamebooks that have been transferred say from FF to a D&D format with variable results.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 6, 2023 8:27:37 GMT CharlesX said:

Dec 5, 2023 22:00:04 GMT Per said:

A gamebook designer should decide what they want to do, then design the gamebook structure and system both to match that intent. If you do an elaborate system with lots of modifiers and adjustments, then the adventure's structure should reflect this and the player should get to live or die by how they manage this system. Mismatched systems will be bad gamebook design.

The "means to an end, doesn't make any difference" option doesn't make a lot of sense to me, unless the respondent means to say that the end, whatever it is, doesn't matter - if it does matter, then clearly it matters whether and how you achieve it. (I mean, the end isn't to roll dice or write down numbers regardless of thematic significance or mechanical effect, right?)

I'm one of those who found the combined multiple characters + combat grid aspects of Blood Sword daunting (while I loved some flavour aspects). I think I only played the first book once, this was back when I just joined the community and before I got parts of the FF back catalogue sent to me so I had to make do with amateur adventures and the odd book/magazine downloaded from Home of the Underdogs (before most of you people were even born etc.). Under different circumstances I guess I would have kept at it, though the rules didn't seem entirely clear to me anyway.

I voted "really just means to an end" and still would for several reasons. I believe the emphasis was on the player rather than the designer (i.e. the question is about what is the game-system designed for, not why is the game-system designed the way it is) which seems to be the polar opposite of what you've taken away. There is no (other) "multiple\variable gamebook system" option and I sometimes play all kinds of system, Fighting Fantasy, Lone Wolf, Golden Dragon, CYOA, the pool system in Real Life gamebooks etc; I only dislike very complicated game-systems, and then only because they make the game more complicated, as we've mentioned about Sagas Of Demonspawn (unplayed by me) it's also key whether the game itself is well-written.

   A gamebook can be either a risk\combat-orientated game or a non-linear story were the player determines alternate outcomes, or some kind of mix. I don't see what's wrong with Keep Of The Lich-Lord, where Dave Morris felt his story and game were strong enough that it could be in both Fighting Fantasy and Fabled Lands.

   OTOH I hear about gamebooks that have been transferred say from FF to a D&D format with variable results.

Yes, the idea of that option is that I thought some people might not care how complicated a system might be, it's just the rules for playing that gamebook, and they'll learn them to play the gamebook.

I haven't had enough coffee and don't have the time this morning to read all the comments right now, but thank you for everyone who's responded so far, I can see there's much food for thought.

[kieran]

Dec 6, 2023 8:07:22 GMT slloyd14 said:

I think Dave's vision of multiple characters is in the Heroquest book, Fellowship of Four where there is no map, but a battle order.

My simplified Bloodsword rules essentially play like Fellowship of Four

[Per]

Dec 6, 2023 8:07:22 GMT slloyd14 said:

Per, with Blood Sword, the rules may not seem clear because the maps for combat were forced on Dave Morris by the editors

As far as I remember the main ambiguity was movement: there was no movement allowance specified, but if anyone could zip to any square at will, did the layouts serve much of a purpose? Maybe a little less importantly I also seem to remember that combat wasn't based on differentials, so if two powerful enemies fought each other they'd take turns swinging for huge damage, there was no blocking. I could be wrong about that though.

Dec 6, 2023 8:52:06 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Yes, the idea of that option is that I thought some people might not care how complicated a system might be, it's just the rules for playing that gamebook, and they'll learn them to play the gamebook.

The potential problem with that though is that anyone who's chosen an "I prefer X" option could reasonably go, "I do prefer X, but I guess I'd rather play a well executed Y than a bad X, so I'll pick the means to an end option", and to the extent that they do, you're not getting any useful answers. But it's your poll, so I'm sorry if I'm just overthinking it.

[slloyd14]

Here's the post. Turns out I was wrong. Dave thought of the maps himself when the bosses thought that multiple characters was not a USP.

fabledlands.blogspot.com/2012/10/we-need-to-talk-about-blood-sword.html?m=1

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 6, 2023 22:07:40 GMT Per said:

Dec 6, 2023 8:07:22 GMT slloyd14 said:

Per, with Blood Sword, the rules may not seem clear because the maps for combat were forced on Dave Morris by the editors

As far as I remember the main ambiguity was movement: there was no movement allowance specified, but if anyone could zip to any square at will, did the layouts serve much of a purpose? Maybe a little less importantly I also seem to remember that combat wasn't based on differentials, so if two powerful enemies fought each other they'd take turns swinging for huge damage, there was no blocking. I could be wrong about that though.

Dec 6, 2023 8:52:06 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Yes, the idea of that option is that I thought some people might not care how complicated a system might be, it's just the rules for playing that gamebook, and they'll learn them to play the gamebook.

The potential problem with that though is that anyone who's chosen an "I prefer X" option could reasonably go, "I do prefer X, but I guess I'd rather play a well executed Y than a bad X, so I'll pick the means to an end option", and to the extent that they do, you're not getting any useful answers. But it's your poll, so I'm sorry if I'm just overthinking it.

Ha, yeah, I just added the poll because everyone seems to be adding polls to threads these days. I'm more interested in the conversation generally. And it's raised points I hadn't considered, and given me a lot to think about. It's obvious now, but people don't really want crunchier mechanics in a gamebook. What can't be achieved with fairly simple, intuitive rules is perhaps not worth achieving.

[a moderator]

Dec 7, 2023 10:36:18 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I just added the poll because everyone seems to be adding polls to threads these days. I'm more interested in the conversation generally.

Polls can get in the way of conversation. At least one person who's voted in the poll has not posted in the thread.

[CharlesX]

Dec 7, 2023 10:36:18 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Dec 6, 2023 22:07:40 GMT Per said:

As far as I remember the main ambiguity was movement: there was no movement allowance specified, but if anyone could zip to any square at will, did the layouts serve much of a purpose? Maybe a little less importantly I also seem to remember that combat wasn't based on differentials, so if two powerful enemies fought each other they'd take turns swinging for huge damage, there was no blocking. I could be wrong about that though.

The potential problem with that though is that anyone who's chosen an "I prefer X" option could reasonably go, "I do prefer X, but I guess I'd rather play a well executed Y than a bad X, so I'll pick the means to an end option", and to the extent that they do, you're not getting any useful answers. But it's your poll, so I'm sorry if I'm just overthinking it.

Ha, yeah, I just added the poll because everyone seems to be adding polls to threads these days. I'm more interested in the conversation generally. And it's raised points I hadn't considered, and given me a lot to think about. It's obvious now, but people don't really want crunchier mechanics in a gamebook. What can't be achieved with fairly simple, intuitive rules is perhaps not worth achieving.

That is one way of looking at it. It also heavily depends on the audience, while the like of CYOA and Give Yourself Goosebumps has had a variable critical reception they have done well at attracting both high sales and a considerable run, because they've got a big young people audience. It's probably easier to write a 'populist' gamebook in the CYOA vein than a 'semi-cerebral' one such as Falcon or Black Mirror's Bandersnatch where the intent is to thrill the reader\watcher rather than provide comedy or kids' entertainment. Take Life's Lottery, where despite many set-pieces and skillful writing the gamebook doesn't seem brilliant partly because it has not got a clear purpose.

[tyrion]

Dec 7, 2023 11:43:59 GMT a moderator said:

Dec 7, 2023 10:36:18 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I just added the poll because everyone seems to be adding polls to threads these days. I'm more interested in the conversation generally.

Polls can get in the way of conversation. At least one person who's voted in the poll has not posted in the thread.

That would be me. In terms of complexity I think fighting fantasy has it about right, despite the flaws in character creation. ACE gamebooks, demons bane series and imaginarium gamebooks all use pretty much the same system with minor tweaks and all work fine. Fabled lands has a simple system as well, with some added depth with character classes. Blood sword is too complicated with the battle maps and is unbalanced (sages are too powerful, enchanters too weak). 5e is similarly too reliant on battle maps and despite the simplicity of rolling d20 and trying to succeed there are lots of other things to factor in. Lone wolf has a simple system but is again broken when it comes to character creation and advancement.

I've written a fair few gamebooks using the Dragon Warriors rules, which are about as far as I'd like to go in terms of complexity, although for an rpg it is a basic set of rules. I'm currently writing a gamebook using the gnat rules www.teuton.org/~stranger/gnat_core which has a simple system enhanced with skills and spells.

[thealmightymudworm]

I hesitated on this before voting 'moderate complexity'. TBH I'm not familar with a wide range of systems and certainly wouldn't want to be using a system much more complex than FF. Also its most famous flaw – the difficulty in balancing an adventure for high and low statted characters – is not really a matter of complexity. 

However, given that the first word of FF is 'fighting', it seems a bit unfortunate how mind-numbing combat is:
– You get one choice every attack round: use LUCK or not (OK there are two ways you can use it but still)

– Any round in a given fight (or with the same SKILL difference) in which you don't use it is the same as any other round in that fight apart from whether you win lose or draw, including the amount of damage

– For about 90% of the rounds, using LUCK is clearly the wrong choice

– Sometimes when using LUCK is not clearly the wrong choice, it's an absolute no-brainer than it's the right choice e.g. you take a hit on STAMINA 2 or score a hit while facing the final boss with a SKILL deficit but a decent LUCK score.

It is absurd that if you have e.g. a Sk 9 St 16 hero taking on a Sk 9 St 12 opponent and the hero won't or can't use LUCK, the number of rounds can be predicted at the start to be at least six (very likely more) and could be indefinite. Is it fair to say that on a playthrough of any adventure having to fight anything approaching 100 rounds of combat is a significant crimp on your enjoyment? Even much over 50?

A little more ability to make tactical choices in battle and some more overall variation regardless would make things a lot more enjoyable.

(I tried to write a book with rules that do that with an otherwise FF-ish system but procrastination has locked it away for a long time like a number of things.)

[CharlesX]

Dec 22, 2023 3:00:01 GMT thealmightymudworm said:

I hesitated on this before voting 'moderate complexity'. TBH I'm not familar with a wide range of systems and certainly wouldn't want to be using a system much more complex than FF. Also its most famous flaw – the difficulty in balancing an adventure for high and low statted characters – is not really a matter of complexity. 

However, given that the first word of FF is 'fighting', it seems a bit unfortunate how mind-numbing combat is:
– You get one choice every attack round: use LUCK or not (OK there are two ways you can use it but still)

– Any round in a given fight (or with the same SKILL difference) in which you don't use it is the same as any other round in that fight apart from whether you win lose or draw, including the amount of damage

– For about 90% of the rounds, using LUCK is clearly the wrong choice

– Sometimes when using LUCK is not clearly the wrong choice, it's an absolute no-brainer than it's the right choice e.g. you take a hit on STAMINA 2 or score a hit while facing the final boss with a SKILL deficit but a decent LUCK score.

It is absurd that if you have e.g. a Sk 9 St 16 hero taking on a Sk 9 St 12 opponent and the hero won't or can't use LUCK, the number of rounds can be predicted at the start to be at least six (very likely more) and could be indefinite. Is it fair to say that on a playthrough of any adventure having to fight anything approaching 100 rounds of combat is a significant crimp on your enjoyment? Even much over 50?

A little more ability to make tactical choices in battle and some more overall variation regardless would make things a lot more enjoyable.

(I tried to write a book with rules that do that with an otherwise FF-ish system but procrastination has locked it away for a long time like a number of things.)

I agree with this, and I'd add I often play an FF where we both have high Skill and Stamina in the 20s and the combat will drag on for far too many rounds, especially if you've already been bookkeeping throughout the game. Perhaps there's something to be said for a D&D style system where different weapons do different damage (rare in FF), or you have some kind of "fighting skill" attribute you can test to cause more damage, not unlike Gamebook Adventures.

   Combat is often the first way an encounter is resolved in FF and I might prefer a more RPG-esque system where you have several attributes, such as Charisma or Intellect, which you can test, this would probably mean longer and more ambitious gamebooks aiming at a high age range. This might require publishers to not constantly try to pander to who they know is their audience * gasp * and take a bit of a chance * gasp      again *.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 22, 2023 3:00:01 GMT thealmightymudworm said:

I hesitated on this before voting 'moderate complexity'. TBH I'm not familar with a wide range of systems and certainly wouldn't want to be using a system much more complex than FF. Also its most famous flaw – the difficulty in balancing an adventure for high and low statted characters – is not really a matter of complexity. 

However, given that the first word of FF is 'fighting', it seems a bit unfortunate how mind-numbing combat is:
– You get one choice every attack round: use LUCK or not (OK there are two ways you can use it but still)

– Any round in a given fight (or with the same SKILL difference) in which you don't use it is the same as any other round in that fight apart from whether you win lose or draw, including the amount of damage

– For about 90% of the rounds, using LUCK is clearly the wrong choice

– Sometimes when using LUCK is not clearly the wrong choice, it's an absolute no-brainer than it's the right choice e.g. you take a hit on STAMINA 2 or score a hit while facing the final boss with a SKILL deficit but a decent LUCK score.

It is absurd that if you have e.g. a Sk 9 St 16 hero taking on a Sk 9 St 12 opponent and the hero won't or can't use LUCK, the number of rounds can be predicted at the start to be at least six (very likely more) and could be indefinite. Is it fair to say that on a playthrough of any adventure having to fight anything approaching 100 rounds of combat is a significant crimp on your enjoyment? Even much over 50?

A little more ability to make tactical choices in battle and some more overall variation regardless would make things a lot more enjoyable.

(I tried to write a book with rules that do that with an otherwise FF-ish system but procrastination has locked it away for a long time like a number of things.)

Aye, the random range of stats and the problems this raises are not only wildly accepted, they're easily dealt with by just not doing that.

And I agree you have little in the way of tactical choices in FF. I was hoping to deal with that, and that's still my intention. However, I remember loving the Way of the Tiger fights to begin with, but when I had to keep having the same fights as I played a book over again, particularly the early fights, the constant flicking through the references got tiresome. So I don't want a system that adds complexities that give options, but becomes a drag when battling an opponent for the fifth time.

I'm reminded of the cyclops fight in Seas of Blood. It's a classic, but if you think about it, in any other situation, having a fight after losing your sword would just mean a SKILL penalty. But would you want a whole book with a cyclops type combat system? Finding a way to keep it simple but still give options is a goal.

Yes, you're rarely in a position where you have LUCK points to spare for use in combat.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 23, 2023 17:24:45 GMT CharlesX said:

Combat is often the first way an encounter is resolved in FF and I might prefer a more RPG-esque system where you have several attributes, such as Charisma or Intellect, which you can test, this would probably mean longer and more ambitious gamebooks aiming at a high age range. This might require publishers to not constantly try to pander to who they know is their audience * gasp * and take a bit of a chance * gasp      again *.

[/div][/quote]


I think the approach of inventing a monster name and description and dropping a stat block and saying to the reader, 'There you go, turn here when you've killed it,' is always going to be popular in gamebooks. I hadn't given too much thought to age range. Anything I write will be idiosyncratic, I'm not too interested in getting inside the head of a reader. But I also feel that the system should not be (too much of) a barrier to people. If a simple roll-and-compare-stats allows for the telling of the story, then so be it. However, I have the advantage that I'm not interested in a career in writing. In fact it would probably be a pain in my backside if I got any money from this. I don't need to attract a publisher to my project. If I complete this (if life leaves me alone for a bit, and I can get it done before parkinsons robs me of my ability to type), it'll be going on kindle. I know (at least, I'm pretty sure) gamebook players prefer physical gamebooks to kindle, so straight away I'm not likely to have much of an audience. It also means I can be experimental with the system, write the story and create the world I want to, release updated editions cheaply if it becomes obvious some things just aren't working, and sell the whole thing cheap.

[vastariner]

Dec 23, 2023 17:24:45 GMT CharlesX said:

   Combat is often the first way an encounter is resolved in FF and I might prefer a more RPG-esque system where you have several attributes, such as Charisma or Intellect, which you can test, this would probably mean longer and more ambitious gamebooks aiming at a high age range. This might require publishers to not constantly try to pander to who they know is their audience * gasp * and take a bit of a chance * gasp      again *.

What inhibits that is the number of references required.  Think of the fight with Balthus Dire for instance.  Can't keep within 400 paras if you have 4-5 combats which require 4-5 paras each.  Arguably Skill includes Charisma and Intellect anyway - in that a Test your Skill might avoid a combat with a bit of an improvised explanation, or a lumbering giant having a comparatively low Skill might impute a very basic fighting style with no feints or dodges.

[Pete Byrdie]

Dec 26, 2023 9:07:38 GMT vastariner said:

Dec 23, 2023 17:24:45 GMT CharlesX said:

   Combat is often the first way an encounter is resolved in FF and I might prefer a more RPG-esque system where you have several attributes, such as Charisma or Intellect, which you can test, this would probably mean longer and more ambitious gamebooks aiming at a high age range. This might require publishers to not constantly try to pander to who they know is their audience * gasp * and take a bit of a chance * gasp      again *.

What inhibits that is the number of references required.  Think of the fight with Balthus Dire for instance.  Can't keep within 400 paras if you have 4-5 combats which require 4-5 paras each.  Arguably Skill includes Charisma and Intellect anyway - in that a Test your Skill might avoid a combat with a bit of an improvised explanation, or a lumbering giant having a comparatively low Skill might impute a very basic fighting style with no feints or dodges.

I don't know how kindle books work in terms of file size and cost, I'll do some research. But if the physical size of the book no longer matters, staying within 400ish references is perhaps less important. Of course, all this makes a lot of extra work for the writer compared to 'WEREGERBIL SKILL 9 STAMINA 12, off you go.' But, if it works, the effort might be worth it.

[CharlesX]

Dec 4, 2023 9:34:46 GMT Jonathan Green said:

Take a look at how Aconyte Books handle combat and skill checks in the Marvel: Multiverse Missions gamebooks. The instructions for carrying them out are always described in the text when they are required.

Thank you for responses here about my earlier suggestions, in their defence having multiple attributes could have the advantage (or disadvantage, depending on the pov) you could be asked to roll different numbers of dice and modifiers dependent upon difficulty. I haven't read the Marvel books Jon Green has written or provided technical assistance for but it sounds as though that's how they'd work.

[vastariner]

Dec 26, 2023 10:58:54 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

I don't know how kindle books work in terms of file size and cost, I'll do some research. But if the physical size of the book no longer matters, staying within 400ish references is perhaps less important. Of course, all this makes a lot of extra work for the writer compared to 'WEREGERBIL SKILL 9 STAMINA 12, off you go.' But, if it works, the effort might be worth it.

There's also another factor involved which will be relevant - randomness.  The simple 2d6 and variable skill means that the gamebook experience may differ with each fight.  It does however need an ingenious design to make that work to the full potential, so it's not simply that you come up against an unstoppable force just because you're Sk<12.  Things like the judicious use of Escaping which does not cost you a key item, so it makes you think about picking fights, or the Demons of the Deep thing where you can get a skill bonus to a poor skill help.

However if you could Dire your way past fights through paragraph choice, then it becomes mechanistic.