Post by raid on Jun 19, 2020 12:41:16 GMT
Just signed up to this forum after rekindling my interest in Fighting Fantasy. I've been replaying quite a few of the books recently, and I was interested to know what people's thoughts are on the different layouts / 'map designs' of the gamebooks. By this I don't mean the physical drawing of the maps that sometimes comes at the start of a gamebook, but the layout of your journey and how many routes you can take to get to the end.
A lot of FF gamebooks state they have 'one true path,' which naturally makes your options for finding different ways through the book more limited. The 'fun' of these books is in finding that one true path, which can allow for sometimes a little variation, or sometimes no variation at all. This can have advantages and disadvantages, one advantage being that sense of accomplishment when you do find the one true path. The disadvantages of course include encounters that you will never see on a winning playthrough, which in some books results in worse quality writing.
A lot of the books can be reduced to this one true path style. Basically every Ian Livingstone book seems to follow this, sometimes with more variation (City of Thieves doesn't have any required items in the first part before the bridge if I remember correctly, and Forest of Doom again has some options on where you go between the two hammer parts), or sometimes with very little (Crypt of the Sorcerer).
Steve Jackson does this as well in some books - House of Hell has a one true path that barely explores the house, making much of the challenge and enjoyment of House of Hell being mapping out the house and working out which rooms are best avoided (which is the vast majority of them). Creature of Havoc is a similar puzzle where wrong turns often mean death, whether delayed or immediate.
Jonathan Green also does this with some books - Spellbreaker has an extremely narrow true path, so you are forced to ignore some of the fun encounters that diverge from this path.
So aside from one true path styles where little deviation is encouraged, there are other archetypal layouts, such as the 'hub and spokes' design. The book that stick out here (that I have played) is Legend of Zagor, which I believe is attributed to Keith Martin? You go from zone to zone, with various rooms that you can explore in any order, and you can sometimes go back and forth between zones. So the goal here is to explore as much as possible, and then work out which rooms are worth exploring and which ones best avoided.
Personally the best approach that I enjoyed the most was Jonathan Green's in Howl of the Werewolf. This book had a more branching path, divided into different zones/encounters, that could often be approached from several directions. Some paths were much shorter, some much longer, letting you explore more and more depending on what route you took. The 'true' route here is killing all bosses, which takes you through most of the map, but you can ignore this and as long as you find a Silver Dagger or the Wulfen Sword you are capable of killing the final boss, which means there are many routes that can lead to success. This has the advantage of less tedium in finding the one true path, but the true fun is in replaying the book to explore all the encounters. In the true path, you only miss 4 encounters, and I'd say only one of them is really interesting, the other is just meeting a character who can augment a later section.
Jonathan Green employed a mix of hub and spokes and his branching paths style in Night of the Necromancer too, another personal favourite. While I prefer Howl, I really liked this mixed approach too that allowed for more exploration. The only 'problem' with hub and spokes for me personally is that once I do finish, feel somewhat exhausted and not interested in playing the book again, as they are often longer journeys than other FFs, and you can explore basically everything in one playthrough.
Finally, there is Sword of the Samurai. The approach here is the only one I have encountered of its kind (I'm not sure if another FF has used its map design style again), which has two independent paths, one easier and one harder, that converge close to the final boss encounter. This is really fun as it means there are basically two playthroughs, with two true paths. A downside of course is that it is shorter, and there could be a case for going a more Jon Green approach and combining both paths to give a lengthier adventure where you can see most but not all encounters.
Wow, what a wall of text. Honestly I just love talking about FF's map design and layouts, and I really enjoy seeing the guys like champskees and johnbrawn write solutions for them! Following their solutions with a flowchart and book in hand is great fun after I've finished a gamebook, seeing what I missed and how they work out the best routes.
What are your thoughts? Do you prefer the one true path? If so, how much variation do you like in terms of where you can go and still win? Or do you like Hub and Spokes, where you're encouraged to explore most of the book in one go? Or the branching paths approach in Howl of the Werewolf? Or something else?
A lot of FF gamebooks state they have 'one true path,' which naturally makes your options for finding different ways through the book more limited. The 'fun' of these books is in finding that one true path, which can allow for sometimes a little variation, or sometimes no variation at all. This can have advantages and disadvantages, one advantage being that sense of accomplishment when you do find the one true path. The disadvantages of course include encounters that you will never see on a winning playthrough, which in some books results in worse quality writing.
A lot of the books can be reduced to this one true path style. Basically every Ian Livingstone book seems to follow this, sometimes with more variation (City of Thieves doesn't have any required items in the first part before the bridge if I remember correctly, and Forest of Doom again has some options on where you go between the two hammer parts), or sometimes with very little (Crypt of the Sorcerer).
Steve Jackson does this as well in some books - House of Hell has a one true path that barely explores the house, making much of the challenge and enjoyment of House of Hell being mapping out the house and working out which rooms are best avoided (which is the vast majority of them). Creature of Havoc is a similar puzzle where wrong turns often mean death, whether delayed or immediate.
Jonathan Green also does this with some books - Spellbreaker has an extremely narrow true path, so you are forced to ignore some of the fun encounters that diverge from this path.
So aside from one true path styles where little deviation is encouraged, there are other archetypal layouts, such as the 'hub and spokes' design. The book that stick out here (that I have played) is Legend of Zagor, which I believe is attributed to Keith Martin? You go from zone to zone, with various rooms that you can explore in any order, and you can sometimes go back and forth between zones. So the goal here is to explore as much as possible, and then work out which rooms are worth exploring and which ones best avoided.
Personally the best approach that I enjoyed the most was Jonathan Green's in Howl of the Werewolf. This book had a more branching path, divided into different zones/encounters, that could often be approached from several directions. Some paths were much shorter, some much longer, letting you explore more and more depending on what route you took. The 'true' route here is killing all bosses, which takes you through most of the map, but you can ignore this and as long as you find a Silver Dagger or the Wulfen Sword you are capable of killing the final boss, which means there are many routes that can lead to success. This has the advantage of less tedium in finding the one true path, but the true fun is in replaying the book to explore all the encounters. In the true path, you only miss 4 encounters, and I'd say only one of them is really interesting, the other is just meeting a character who can augment a later section.
Jonathan Green employed a mix of hub and spokes and his branching paths style in Night of the Necromancer too, another personal favourite. While I prefer Howl, I really liked this mixed approach too that allowed for more exploration. The only 'problem' with hub and spokes for me personally is that once I do finish, feel somewhat exhausted and not interested in playing the book again, as they are often longer journeys than other FFs, and you can explore basically everything in one playthrough.
Finally, there is Sword of the Samurai. The approach here is the only one I have encountered of its kind (I'm not sure if another FF has used its map design style again), which has two independent paths, one easier and one harder, that converge close to the final boss encounter. This is really fun as it means there are basically two playthroughs, with two true paths. A downside of course is that it is shorter, and there could be a case for going a more Jon Green approach and combining both paths to give a lengthier adventure where you can see most but not all encounters.
Wow, what a wall of text. Honestly I just love talking about FF's map design and layouts, and I really enjoy seeing the guys like champskees and johnbrawn write solutions for them! Following their solutions with a flowchart and book in hand is great fun after I've finished a gamebook, seeing what I missed and how they work out the best routes.
What are your thoughts? Do you prefer the one true path? If so, how much variation do you like in terms of where you can go and still win? Or do you like Hub and Spokes, where you're encouraged to explore most of the book in one go? Or the branching paths approach in Howl of the Werewolf? Or something else?