|
|
Post by CharlesX on Apr 28, 2024 16:55:46 GMT
There have been only a minority FF where you play a normal guy who isn't setting out on an adventurous quest, and only even fewer where you play a bad or neutral guy. Seas Of Blood and Midnight Rogue come to mind, with Scorpion Swamp being an addition. Scorpion Swamp is a relatively polarising, some fans really don't take to it and others like the difference. Of course playing a bad guy, even a misunderstood one, can lose the support of the very young - I was certainly put off by casual slave-holding in Seas Of Blood and it's not something that could be done nowadays. Will\should there be more FF where you play as Neutral or borderline Evil? There were a number sketched as possibilities from professional authors that could have happened before FF's cancellation, and a number of amateur ones online. One other thing is Sir Ian might be great at gamebook writing but he arguably isn't the most innovative of FF\gamebook writers, perhaps not alongside Steve J and Jon G. A lot is about commercial considerations - Eye Of The Dragon and Trial Of Champions sell a lot on the strength of name and series recognition, not necessarily a bad thing but undoubtedly a factor. So CYOA and Give Yourself Goosebumps churn out books of distinctly variable quality as well as length, Falcon doesn't sell etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueswift on Apr 28, 2024 18:25:46 GMT
Another example of a morally questionable main character is featured in Caverns of the Snow Witch. The main character smiles and asks for 50 gold pieces to track down the Yeti for Big Jim. Its one thing to ask for a substantial financial reward in return for undergoing a dangerous task but the smile makes the protagonist come off as a slimy opportunist. As user scouserob detailed on the Caverns of the Snow Witch thread on this website, the protagonist mistreats the frost giant, as well as the gnome and the neanderthal. Makes one wonder if the healer would have been quite so generous had he known of these infractions.
My supposition is that as long as a future book is a high-quality product, readers would not balk at the prospect of playing as a neutral character or as a knave. They may even appreciate the author trying to do something unusual.
I would think that readers would rather be a sinister character than an incompetent or foolish one. I conjecture that one of the reasons why Eye of the Dragon is viewed so scornfully by the fandom is because the main character is a fool who willingly drinks poison presented by a shady denizen. Can anyone make a sincere case to justify the protagonist knowingly consuming poison? I’d be very intrigued to hear it.
|
|
|
|
Post by schlendrian on Apr 28, 2024 19:02:43 GMT
Will\should there be more FF where you play as Neutral or borderline Evil? No. (I was thinking really hard to give you some good reasoning on this, but no, I don't have anything. I just feel very strongly about this and don't really want it in FF:) |
|
|
|
Post by scouserob on Apr 28, 2024 19:59:30 GMT
I’m not sure. 🤔
I could see being an over the top cackling villain out on some quest being a fun novelty.
I very much enjoy playing a villain in Scorpion Swamp on the Grimslade Quest, stealing those amulets from the Masters and often murdering them in cold blood to do so.
What I don’t like is playing as the hero who does outright evil acts to complete his quest.
In addition to Caverns of the Snow Witch there is the old fellow you can murder during the heist in the Temple of Fell-Krinla.
It is very beneficial to do so, even appearing as the correct option in Champskees solution.
Yet I ALWAYS spare him on my play-throughs.
Because on that quest I AM THE HERO.
Hypocritical?
Probably.
|
|
|
|
Post by thealmightymudworm on Apr 29, 2024 4:29:36 GMT
For some of the adventures it's a matter of interpretation how good your character is. In Demons of the Deep for example, your success is measured by the extent of your revenge and how much gold you can hang on to. No one could really say that your wish to take out the pirates is unjustified, but it's not as though your character is doing any handwringing over stopping them before they do the same to others that they did to you. In Lich Lord you are clearly on a noble quest, but the text has you tell someone (Elindora, I think) that you're there for the money.
As to whether I'd be interested in FF with unpleasant or downright evil protagonists... mostly not. I could imagine an adventure in which you are one of many amoral characters and you try to kill them before they kill you. That could be fun if done well. More easily, an adventure in which you start as an amoral person but become a better one (although isn't that sort of what The Crimson Tide is about?) But a noble quest gives you more of a sense of purpose and conversely slaughtering innocents doesn't strike me as fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Apr 29, 2024 7:46:40 GMT
As much as I like Sea of Blood, it's doesn't do this aspect well. It's utterly dismissive of the implications of piracy and slavery. The world of the Inland Sea could have been set up with clearly mostly good and pretty evil citystates, and the player could have been more of a privateer, focusing their piracy of those nefarious citystates, while Abdul the Butcher could have been a more unscrupulous pirate.
Generally, I would say no, the hero of an FF should be a hero. I suppose fan made adventures could be done more experimentally. If someone wanted to make a Fighting Fantasy Dark series of adventures, there might be fun to be had playing a vampire, or an evil sorcerer seeking some mcguffin that would allow them to subjugate large swathes of Allansia, or perhaps an assassin on a mission to kill a noble king. But how tempting would it be to write the vampire as cursed, just trying to cure their condition, or make the sorcerer competing against a much more evil sorcerer, or make the assassin's target a tyrant?
I think the Scorpion Swamp example is an interesting one. You have the option of being an ask-no-questions sword-for-hire, but you also have the option of being not that, if not actually a good guy, at least not an evil guy. Gamebooks are about choice, and whether you do the right thing is a valid choice. The Grimslade mission is a fun romp, but I always felt more satisfied doing the other missions.
I have a dark side like most people, and as fun as it can be to explore that, it only ever serves to prove to me I find doing the right thing more fulfilling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Apr 29, 2024 8:18:31 GMT
I think there's a fair few books where the main character is arguably neutral or may (for all we know) have a less than honourable background. In Deathtrap Dungeon you're only in it for the money while in the sequel you've no choice. House of Hell you stumble in and would in all probability be happy just to get out alive without stopping the evil. Forest of Doom and City of Thieves you appear to be motivated by reward, Space Assassin and Star Strider it's the job you've been given and you seem to be little more than a mercenary. Creature of Havoc I often think is the most interesting one: there's no indication at all that you used your position as captain of the Galleykeep for any heroic purposes, you can join with Marr if you choose to, and you hesitate about destroying his mirror in case you can't be turned back human again and then go through with it only because you realise he was playing you. If you were a bad guy it would also explain why his "brainless creatures" respect your authority so readily! Another example of a morally questionable main character is featured in Caverns of the Snow Witch. The main character smiles and asks for 50 gold pieces to track down the Yeti for Big Jim. Its one thing to ask for a substantial financial reward in return for undergoing a dangerous task but the smile makes the protagonist come off as a slimy opportunist. In fairness, the only reason Big Jim requests you to hunt down the Yeti is because otherwise "his business will be ruined forever". Nothing particularly noble about his motives for making request, so why not rinse him for it! Maybe the smile is at his cheek in asking you to go off and hunt down the Yeti for free to save his income stream  |
|
|
|
Post by paperexplorer on Apr 29, 2024 8:43:26 GMT
You can be a jerk in Demons of the Deep and still win the quest despite attacking Mermen, Dolphins etc for no reason. So technically this book you could be a bad guy who just isn't the worst guy. Also, not sure how many good guys sail the sea with an undead crew...
The Warlock of Firetop Mountain you can easily see the main character as just a bloodthirsty treasure seeker. I don't think Zagor was necessarily evil at that point.
Are you a good guy in Daggers of Darkness or just someone who is one of the select? Not all the select are going to be good people.
|
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Apr 29, 2024 11:43:25 GMT
As much as I like Sea of Blood, it's doesn't do this aspect well. It's utterly dismissive of the implications of piracy and slavery. The world of the Inland Sea could have been set up with clearly mostly good and pretty evil citystates, and the player could have been more of a privateer, focusing their piracy of those nefarious citystates, while Abdul the Butcher could have been a more unscrupulous pirate. Generally, I would say no, the hero of an FF should be a hero. I suppose fan made adventures could be done more experimentally. If someone wanted to make a Fighting Fantasy Dark series of adventures, there might be fun to be had playing a vampire, or an evil sorcerer seeking some mcguffin that would allow them to subjugate large swathes of Allansia, or perhaps an assassin on a mission to kill a noble king. But how tempting would it be to write the vampire as cursed, just trying to cure their condition, or make the sorcerer competing against a much more evil sorcerer, or make the assassin's target a tyrant? I think the Scorpion Swamp example is an interesting one. You have the option of being an ask-no-questions sword-for-hire, but you also have the option of being not that, if not actually a good guy, at least not an evil guy. Gamebooks are about choice, and whether you do the right thing is a valid choice. The Grimslade mission is a fun romp, but I always felt more satisfied doing the other missions. I have a dark side like most people, and as fun as it can be to explore that, it only ever serves to prove to me I find doing the right thing more fulfilling. I thought Dave Morris does the concept better in Virtual Reality Down Among The Dead Men and Fabled Lands. They're nuanced and highly enjoyable. |
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Apr 29, 2024 11:53:41 GMT
Will\should there be more FF where you play as Neutral or borderline Evil? No. (I was thinking really hard to give you some good reasoning on this, but no, I don't have anything. I just feel very strongly about this and don't really want it in FF:) Totally respect that, but here's my reply.
Just FF or gamebooks as a whole? Many gamebooks more intended for younger people have dark writing which present you with choices to be evil that very much do not tend to end well. That's great when you're young, but I say there's something to be said for open worlds where you don't have to be a Paladin. Take Howl Of The Werewolf or Deathmoor (among others) where you can choose to be ambitious or just deal with the threat. Like paperexplorer says my brother used to joke about The Warlock Of Firetop Mountain you were slaughtering a harmless, misunderstood man for the money. |
|
sylas
Baron
"Don't just adventure for treasure; treasure the adventure!"
Posts: 1,679 
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy, Way of the Tiger
|
Post by sylas on Apr 29, 2024 15:26:59 GMT
You are also supposed to be the bad guy in Black Vein Prophecy as intended by your father. Many of your actions can be dubious or even downright evil. Your path to success and redemption, sometimes with fate lending a helping hand, is you choosing to avoid those actions as you learn more about yourself and your past.
|
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,472
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Apr 29, 2024 15:57:43 GMT
More easily, an adventure in which you start as an amoral person but become a better one (although isn't that sort of what The Crimson Tide is about?)
I don't think The Crimson Tide is about morals as such, more about letting go of revenge for your own sake. |
|
kieran
Baron
Posts: 2,472
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy
|
Post by kieran on Apr 29, 2024 16:00:23 GMT
Are you a good guy in Daggers of Darkness or just someone who is one of the select? Not all the select are going to be good people. Perhaps not all of the Select, but I would say YOU at least are because good guy Astragal likes you and wants you to succeed. I doubt he'd do that for an evil person, even if they were being denied their rights as a member of the Select. |
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Apr 29, 2024 17:43:27 GMT
As much as I like Sea of Blood, it's doesn't do this aspect well. It's utterly dismissive of the implications of piracy and slavery. The world of the Inland Sea could have been set up with clearly mostly good and pretty evil citystates, and the player could have been more of a privateer, focusing their piracy of those nefarious citystates, while Abdul the Butcher could have been a more unscrupulous pirate. Generally, I would say no, the hero of an FF should be a hero. I suppose fan made adventures could be done more experimentally. If someone wanted to make a Fighting Fantasy Dark series of adventures, there might be fun to be had playing a vampire, or an evil sorcerer seeking some mcguffin that would allow them to subjugate large swathes of Allansia, or perhaps an assassin on a mission to kill a noble king. But how tempting would it be to write the vampire as cursed, just trying to cure their condition, or make the sorcerer competing against a much more evil sorcerer, or make the assassin's target a tyrant? I think the Scorpion Swamp example is an interesting one. You have the option of being an ask-no-questions sword-for-hire, but you also have the option of being not that, if not actually a good guy, at least not an evil guy. Gamebooks are about choice, and whether you do the right thing is a valid choice. The Grimslade mission is a fun romp, but I always felt more satisfied doing the other missions. I have a dark side like most people, and as fun as it can be to explore that, it only ever serves to prove to me I find doing the right thing more fulfilling. The Grimslade mission arguably doesn't have a good ending (reason why you and many others wouldn't feel satisfied by it). If you settle with his accursed money the description makes it clear you won't enjoy it at all, whereas if you kill him you can't enjoy any of his fortune. That's the difference between choosing to be absolutely good and working for money, and just having no moral compass whatsoever. The last one is fine for video games, works for RPGs, but not for literature. |
|
|
|
Post by paperexplorer on Apr 29, 2024 23:53:46 GMT
Are you a good guy in Daggers of Darkness or just someone who is one of the select? Not all the select are going to be good people. Perhaps not all of the Select, but I would say YOU at least are because good guy Astragal likes you and wants you to succeed. I doubt he'd do that for an evil person, even if they were being denied their rights as a member of the Select. The same Astragal that chose an assistant chef to save Gorak and was happy to take whoever was silly enough to volunteer to save Zamarra? Can we really trust this guy's instincts? |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Byrdie on Apr 30, 2024 7:14:54 GMT
Yeah, I'm pretty sure my lack of satisfaction with the Grimslade mission is about wandering about the place with the specific mission to find some people where they live in about as out of the way place as possible, slaying them even though some seem entirely benign as far as we can tell (how are these guys even associated? Does this forum have a FF loose ends and plot holes thread?), to rob them of their most prized possession. To be honest, in the couple of times I've played this mission, I reckon my response to getting shafted by Grimslade was, 'Fair enough.' |
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on Apr 30, 2024 7:40:49 GMT
The same Astragal that chose an assistant chef to save Gorak...? He didn't have much choice on that one. It had to be a direct descendant of Tancred and you were the only one to be found, assistant skinner or not! |
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on Apr 30, 2024 16:51:16 GMT
Echoing a number of people on here already, but I wouldn't want to play a deliberately evil character.
But what FF could do, and do well, is provide more moral choices rather than the standard 'east or west?' or 'the black pot or the blue'? options.
|
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Apr 30, 2024 19:14:11 GMT
I’m not sure. 🤔 I could see being an over the top cackling villain out on some quest being a fun novelty. I very much enjoy playing a villain in Scorpion Swamp on the Grimslade Quest, stealing those amulets from the Masters and often murdering them in cold blood to do so. What I don’t like is playing as the hero who does outright evil acts to complete his quest. In addition to Caverns of the Snow Witch there is the old fellow you can murder during the heist in the Temple of Fell-Krinla. It is very beneficial to do so, even appearing as the correct option in Champskees solution. Yet I ALWAYS spare him on my play-throughs. Because on that quest I AM THE HERO. Hypocritical? Probably. In my book brutally having to kill The Bonekeeper in Crypt Of The Sorceror is at least as evil as the same's difficulty curve, especially as there is no clue at all for you to do so, not to mention Livingstone possibly hypocritically admonishes you after you kill him and deals you a multi-point Luck loss. But, of course, he a travelling salesman\shopkeeper, so  . Compare this - or drinking the poison, not even a choice in Eye Of The Dragon - with a Steve Jackson gamebook such as Creature Of Havoc, House Of Hell or Citadel Of Chaos where encounters and enemies tend to feel more nuanced, with characterisation, more logic and so on. I was surprised growing up when I was supposed to turn down Hannicus's request for the ring, because gamebooks aimed at younger people were very moralizing and the selfish option was always the wrong one. Secrets Of Salamonis you have choices, some like Charisma aren't necessarily for the best, some others like selling the Medusa Grass or cutting the unicorn's horn seem ill-advised, but the game doesn't end when you make them.
|
|
|
|
Post by thealmightymudworm on May 2, 2024 4:35:58 GMT
I’m not sure. 🤔 I could see being an over the top cackling villain out on some quest being a fun novelty. I very much enjoy playing a villain in Scorpion Swamp on the Grimslade Quest, stealing those amulets from the Masters and often murdering them in cold blood to do so. What I don’t like is playing as the hero who does outright evil acts to complete his quest. In addition to Caverns of the Snow Witch there is the old fellow you can murder during the heist in the Temple of Fell-Krinla.
It is very beneficial to do so, even appearing as the correct option in Champskees solution.
Yet I ALWAYS spare him on my play-throughs. Because on that quest I AM THE HERO. Hypocritical? Probably. I generally spare him too. Playing an FF adventure is partly a matter of finding your way through to the win, but it's also creating and reading an account of your own actions in a fantasy world. Participating in straight-up murder for marginal advantage is too jarring. I wonder whether it was deliberate to make cold-blooded killing statistically preferable. The reason it is, is because whilst you lose a LUCK point if you allow the murder, if you don't the alarm is raised, meaning that you have to Test your LUCK (costing a LUCK point as always) and if you're Lucky, you get an extra fight before Hawkana (a failed roll takes you to one of the dead-but-not-really save points). It reminds me of economists and philosophers arguing about the distinction between a fee and a fine. The LUCK point deduction indicates pretty clearly that the decision you made was shameful and regrettable, whereas the point lost by Testing your LUCK is implicit – just a standard cost. I'd say that it's a reasonable assumption that whenever (an) author(s) 'fines' you a LUCK point for being heartless or dishonourable, that's not the way they want you to play. However... In my book brutally having to kill The Bonekeeper in Crypt Of The Sorceror is at least as evil as the same's difficulty curve, especially as there is no clue at all for you to do so, not to mention Livingstone possibly hypocritically admonishes you after you kill him and deals you a multi-point Luck loss. But, of course, he a travelling salesman\shopkeeper, so . Compare this - or drinking the poison, not even a choice in Eye Of The Dragon - with a Steve Jackson gamebook such as Creature Of Havoc, House Of Hell or Citadel Of Chaos where encounters and enemies tend to feel more nuanced, with characterisation, more logic and so on. ...Ian Livingstone might be an exception to that!
(Of course, there is a way of easing the Bonekeeper dilemma if you play Decrypting of the Sorcerer. Not that I'm looking for opportunities to mention it or anything. It's still probably not on the statistically optimal solution, but letting him live need not necessarily be the near suicidal decision to add a whole extra layer of difficulty to CotS's essential cruelties.) |
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on May 2, 2024 12:29:47 GMT
Echoing a number of people on here already, but I wouldn't want to play a deliberately evil character. But what FF could do, and do well, is provide more moral choices rather than the standard 'east or west?' or 'the black pot or the blue'? options. This 'echoing' may provide a partial explanation of why my books rate relatively OK here, but low on the Good Reads, 'cos as I remember, the idea of making choices with a moral dimension, and this having some effect on your relationship with the world, ranked reasonably high on my agenda. But I suspect many Goodreads readers just wanted 'an adventure'. In my experience, back in the day many role-players were resistant to the idea that there may be some sort of moral dimension (or, even worse, a political dimension), to heading off down a hole in the ground, killing its residents and stealing their treasure. It's probably a good thing The Wailing World never got published (as an FF, anyway; it is a Japanese AFF RPG adventure) as, in its later stages, the hero has to grapple with whether to commit genocide or not... |
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on May 3, 2024 18:04:42 GMT
In my experience, back in the day many role-players were resistant to the idea that there may be some sort of moral dimension (or, even worse, a political dimension), to heading off down a hole in the ground, killing its residents and stealing their treasure. As you say, there is no moral aspect to this. I have played RPGs where the aims of the players are the gaining and spending of treasure, and the gaining an spending of experience points to 'level up' your character. Quite transactional and mechanistic, really. In a lot of FF [and this is not meant as a criticism] i get the impression that for many readers and writers, the encounters can be looked on as simply either helps or hindrances. Help in the form of a friendly wizard or elf who gives you a gift or some advice, and monsters which are generally obstacles - sometimes extremely dangerous ones like a Manticore, or something that barely registers as a speedbump like some puny Goblin, but which nevertheless may randomly drop an object that will affect the whole adventure later on. There are traps and puzzles galore and the books can be seen and approached simply as a puzzle to be solved. Like a Rubik's Cube or a cryptic crossword. As an example of the sort of thing that I would like to see in gamebooks - Let us say YOU are trying to track down some sort of demon or vampire or werewolf (or whatever) that has been terrorising a village and the outlying local area. YOU have somehow found out the details of where the next attack is going to be - an isolated family in a farmstead in the hills. Do you (a) Play it safe, warn the family, evacuate them and hope for a better opportunity to come up later. (b) You and some volunteers secretly take the place of the family, lie in wait and hope the switch does not somehow get found out. (c) Use them as live bait. And if asked by them if they are safe, lie and tell them that they are. Does FF (or any other gamebooks, really) do much of this?
I don't know about other people, but I'd like to see more of it. Plus more character and motivation given to NPCs. |
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on May 3, 2024 18:26:23 GMT
In my experience, back in the day many role-players were resistant to the idea that there may be some sort of moral dimension (or, even worse, a political dimension), to heading off down a hole in the ground, killing its residents and stealing their treasure. As you say, there is no moral aspect to this. I have played RPGs where the aims of the players are the gaining and spending of treasure, and the gaining an spending of experience points to 'level up' your character. Quite transactional and mechanistic, really. In a lot of FF [and this is not meant as a criticism] i get the impression that for many readers and writers, the encounters can be looked on as simply either helps or hindrances. Help in the form of a friendly wizard or elf who gives you a gift or some advice, and monsters which are generally obstacles - sometimes extremely dangerous ones like a Manticore, or something that barely registers as a speedbump like some puny Goblin, but which nevertheless may randomly drop an object that will affect the whole adventure later on. There are traps and puzzles galore and the books can be seen and approached simply as a puzzle to be solved. Like a Rubik's Cube or a cryptic crossword. As an example of the sort of thing that I would like to see in gamebooks - Let us say YOU are trying to track down some sort of demon or vampire or werewolf (or whatever) that has been terrorising a village and the outlying local area. YOU have somehow found out the details of where the next attack is going to be - an isolated family in a farmstead in the hills. Do you (a) Play it safe, warn the family, evacuate them and hope for a better opportunity to come up later. (b) You and some volunteers secretly take the place of the family, lie in wait and hope the switch does not somehow get found out. (c) Use them as live bait. And if asked by them if they are safe, lie and tell them that they are. Does FF (or any other gamebooks, really) do much of this?
I don't know about other people, but I'd like to see more of it. Plus more character and motivation given to NPCs. This brings to mind when I first read Masks Of Mayhem as a 30-something. I noticed not only the shorter writing, but expressions such as "your next obstacle\problem is" and it would talk about the fire, I think the whole gamebook is machine-like in terms of both whom you encounter as well as the ways encounters resolve. An adventure such as you describe might be best online or on home computer rather than print, as it would multiply the length of an adventure. A decent adventure might need more than 400 references to a thousand without this complexity. I believe you can do this sort of thing in video RPGs such as Fable, Lionheart, Red Dead Redemption, or Elite and Star Wars. The ultimate problem comes down to it being OK to play a bad guy for 5 minutes, but ultimately being good or neutral tends to be more satisfying. So I like something like the Evil\Veil mechanism in Dead Of Night, like presenting you with golden opportunities to "go dark side".
|
|
|
|
Post by sleepyscholar on May 4, 2024 3:06:36 GMT
This brings to mind when I first read Masks Of Mayhem as a 30-something. I noticed not only the shorter writing, but expressions such as "your next obstacle\problem is" and it would talk about the fire, I think the whole gamebook is machine-like in terms of both whom you encounter as well as the ways encounters resolve. An adventure such as you describe might be best online or on home computer rather than print, as it would multiply the length of an adventure. A decent adventure might need more than 400 references to a thousand without this complexity. I believe you can do this sort of thing in video RPGs such as Fable, Lionheart, Red Dead Redemption, or Elite and Star Wars. The ultimate problem comes down to it being OK to play a bad guy for 5 minutes, but ultimately being good or neutral tends to be more satisfying. So I like something like the Evil\Veil mechanism in Dead Of Night, like presenting you with golden opportunities to "go dark side".
While you are right in saying that a lot of paragraphs would be needed to explore all the complexities of such a situation, I don't think it's impossible to take this approach with a shorter book. You just have to make sure that choices simultaneously fulfil mechanistic and moral roles. And this allows you to dabble in the idea of people making bad choices here and there ( bloodbeasthandler's 'live bait' option for example) and later encountering the consequences. Personally I'm much more interested in showing the consequences of actions than 'punishing' people for them, and I think it makes a book a better read. This is why I'm such a fan of Heart of Ice. (So much so I not only published it when it went out of print, but I recently bought the crowdfunded deluxe edition from Poland). |
|
|
|
Post by bloodbeasthandler on May 4, 2024 9:54:02 GMT
An adventure such as you describe might be best online or on home computer rather than print, as it would multiply the length of an adventure. A decent adventure might need more than 400 references to a thousand without this complexity. I believe you can do this sort of thing in video RPGs such as Fable, Lionheart, Red Dead Redemption, or Elite and Star Wars. Understood. I would propose to make the entire adventure revolve around this central plot - the tracking and defeat of the monster. Not have it as a side quest. Once in a while FF could do without 'The fate of the entire planet rests on YOUR shoulders' sort of quests and instead focus more closely on something less epic, where the stakes are 'lower'. In this case 'merely' a little local area. Of course to the inhabitants of the place it will NOT be considered 'low stakes' . On the contrary. And the reader will feel it too, because the author will have time to set the scene, to develop the NPCs and make the reader care for them. The ultimate problem comes down to it being OK to play a bad guy for 5 minutes, but ultimately being good or neutral tends to be more satisfying. So I like something like the Evil\Veil mechanism in Dead Of Night, like presenting you with golden opportunities to "go dark side". Yes. Warhammer 40K has this sort of dilemma presented to Inquisitors who feel the temptation to use Chaotic technology to achieve their aims. It would be easy to do in FF. While you are right in saying that a lot of paragraphs would be needed to explore all the complexities of such a situation, I don't think it's impossible to take this approach with a shorter book. You just have to make sure that choices simultaneously fulfil mechanistic and moral roles. And this allows you to dabble in the idea of people making bad choices here and there ( bloodbeasthandler 's 'live bait' option for example) and later encountering the consequences. Even the 'live bait' option (which on the face of it seems callous and against our ethics) could be nuanced. Would informing the family of the danger run the risk of them fleeing willy-nilly? What would be the upshot of that? Has your character a strong personal grudge against the creature and feels this is the LAST opportunity to get it? Would the end here justify the means? Would this sort of approach to FF be changing it fundamentally and would that be a good thing? Personally I'm much more interested in showing the consequences of actions than 'punishing' people for them, and I think it makes a book a better read. Spot on. |
|
Per
Traveller
AHAHAHA!
Posts: 165
Favourite Gamebook Series: Morris VR, some FF, Chalk LW
|
Post by Per on May 4, 2024 17:50:18 GMT
(c) Use them as live bait. And if asked by them if they are safe, lie and tell them that they are. Not sure how relevant, but here's an excerpt from my review of the second Forbidden Gateway book: To my recollection, no player agency involved in that, or any dwelling on the subject on the book's part. It's set in the 30s though, so it may have just been standard operating procedure. |
|
|
|
Post by thealmightymudworm on May 7, 2024 3:01:31 GMT
I’m not sure. 🤔 I could see being an over the top cackling villain out on some quest being a fun novelty. I very much enjoy playing a villain in Scorpion Swamp on the Grimslade Quest, stealing those amulets from the Masters and often murdering them in cold blood to do so. What I don’t like is playing as the hero who does outright evil acts to complete his quest. In addition to Caverns of the Snow Witch there is the old fellow you can murder during the heist in the Temple of Fell-Krinla. It is very beneficial to do so, even appearing as the correct option in Champskees solution. Yet I ALWAYS spare him on my play-throughs. Because on that quest I AM THE HERO. Hypocritical? Probably. I suppose the difference between the Masters and the old temple servant is just that the Masters are powerful beings who can defend themselves (plus they've located themselves somewhere where they'll be surrounded with dangerous things). It's like the difference between setting out to use a machete to kill a tiger compared to killing a house cat. There might not be any justification for going out of your way to kill a member of an endangered species like that but it's still kind of an awesome feat, whereas someone doing that to Fluffykins would just simply be scum.
It's perhaps worth saying the obvious about Scorpion Swamp: SJ (USA) allows you to do evil but not to be evil. While the fact that your conscience prevents you from enjoying Grimslade's gold is the most noted example, it follows on naturally from the heavily worthy tale of you altruistically helping an old woman in the introduction. (An adventurer naturally suited to Grimslade's mission would probably have finished her off and looted the corpse.) If you hold off from attacking them, both the Master of Gardens and the Mistress of Birds tell you that you are not a bad person despite your master. This is with some justification from the MoB as you are 'unable to lie to her' which shows a certain lack of commitment to villainy. Likewise, if you kill the giant you may later return to find his wife weeping and experience regret (to the tune of 2 LUCK points). That's not exclusively on the Grimslade mission, but still. I find it a bit jarring given that it could not be more explicit that you're picking an evil mission – even if you didn't have the brass ring burning your finger off – and so clearly you're happy with it. Maybe if SJ wasn't comfortable with that he should have had a neutral wizard have all his amulets stolen by a bunch of evil wizards so it could be a swashbuckling 'I'm probably the good guy but who the hell cares – blood and gold!' mission instead. |
|
|
|
Post by Wizard Slayer on May 8, 2024 7:46:33 GMT
Likewise, if you kill the giant you may later return to find his wife weeping and experience regret (to the tune of 2 LUCK points). I wonder if a gamebook where you played an evil character would be so brave as to flip the mechanic? e.g. Playing a Dark Elf (they always struck me as the most 'nuanced' of the evil types in Titan): |
|
IoannesKantakouzenos
Traveller
Being slowly eaten alive by a Ghoul
Posts: 111
Favourite Gamebook Series: Fighting Fantasy (Aventuras Fantásticas)
|
Post by IoannesKantakouzenos on May 8, 2024 15:32:12 GMT
I have my doubts whether that could go well in today's society. Plus, there's the thing when you print in the cover "YOU ARE THE HERO!" and then you have an adventure where you are, in fact, a villain, would probably make most people throw away said adventure and look for something else. Sure thing, it would be appealing for a small niche of players to go full dark side, but nothing more.
(probably the reason why Seas of Blood wasn't released in Portugal...)
|
|
Per
Traveller
AHAHAHA!
Posts: 165
Favourite Gamebook Series: Morris VR, some FF, Chalk LW
|
Post by Per on May 8, 2024 16:05:18 GMT
I'm not sure what it says about me that I never gave much thought to Seas sticking out from the other books in this regard (while still calling the main character a hero in blurbs and such). It bothered me much more that the protagonist and other people in Midnight Rogue were not nearly devious and disorganized enough for what we've come to know of Port Blacksand.
|
|
. Compare this - or drinking the poison, not even a choice in Eye Of The Dragon - with a Steve Jackson gamebook such as Creature Of Havoc, House Of Hell or Citadel Of Chaos where encounters and enemies tend to feel more nuanced, with characterisation, more logic and so on.
