|
Post by petch on Nov 7, 2021 8:51:04 GMT
What next? A Blind Date-esque character summary of the prisoners in the cells when you're trying to decide which of them to approach? And how about making the torturer's quiz a bit more like Family Fortunes? "We asked you for a word related to this house beginning with 'M'. You answered 'Mephisto'. Our survey said..." EHH-ERR! There's certainly room for a Monty Hall type show there, if only to have some goat-headed cultists instead of actual goats behind the wring doors. Let's Make a Deal (With the Devil)? Or if you just wanted to include the musical numbers, you could call it Drumer on the Dancefloor. Alternatively, if you prefer a British host, how about Bob's Full House (of Hell)? That last one could be interesting for the audience banter, at least. 'My wife's cooking's so horrid that the dog has to lick its bum to get the taste out of its mouth. So I flayed her skin, pulled her lungs out through her nose and sacrificed her to the dark one.'
|
|
|
Post by schlendrian on Nov 7, 2021 22:12:14 GMT
Had to look these up as I really only know the Monty Hall problem and have no idea of the shows behind it
|
|
lt
Squire
Posts: 18
|
Post by lt on Nov 11, 2022 4:09:25 GMT
He probably should have used the A=1, B=2 formula instead, but to be fair that was never used in any of the books before Sword of the Samurai if I recall correctly. I think there is a somewhat valid reason for not using the A=1, B=2 formula in this case, which is that the password is never explicitly revealed to the player from the clues given. It wouldn't make sense if after receiving the clue, someone guessed the password to be "Uerrmd" and still have it be accepted. I know this discussion is kind of dated, but maybe SJ could have asked to turn to a paragraph with the sum of 3 of the letters in the avatar cracked password, e.g. the 1st, 3rd and last letter, etc. This could minimize the possibility of accepting a muddled up anagram as stated.
|
|
lt
Squire
Posts: 18
|
Post by lt on Nov 15, 2022 21:36:55 GMT
I had finally beat House of Hell on the 9th run, just lean and mean, just rush to checkpoints w/o dilly dallying, great book and atmosphere. I just added 6 skill points to my skill (8), allowing myself to go over initial skill (11) that brings me to 14 (8+6), as I reckon I won't be dual wielding and +6 damage (8 damage) would kill the demon in 2 strokes. Thus bringing my skill the same as the final boss demon. Now that I sit down and think of it, wielding a special blade won't add skill right? Well, I still consider I beat it.
|
|
|
Post by soulreaver on Feb 7, 2023 21:43:43 GMT
Although this discussion was held a very long time ago, I'd like to point out something interesting from pg 13 of the the rules that some people might have missed (bolded for emphasis): "Do not, however change your Initial SKILL, as this is still used to determine the maximum SKILL you have, and is also used if you must make rolls against your SKILL."
In other words, in House of Hell, your 'current' Skill is supposed to be used exclusively for combat (which makes sense, as all other Skill rolls would be unaffected by if you had a weapon/had injured your hand etc etc)
The above is handled really inconsistently by the book though. The Skill test at (79) actually explicitly reminds you to roll against your Initial Skill, but all other Skill rolls in the book (at (34), (231) and (384)) omit that instruction and tell you to roll against your Skill, with no mention of 'Initial'. It's an unfortunate oversight in this case, especially as it runs contrary to what pretty much every other book in the series does.
I also noticed that unlike every other weapon in the game, the most important one - the Kris Knife - never actually says it's a WEAPON, even though it very plainly is. That just further muddies the water when you are later told to add Skill when using it in combat (which, as stated by others, should clearly be an Attack Strength bonus instead, or at least should let you exceed your Initial value). Is that Skill/Attack Strength bonus on top of the +3 Skill you should very obviously get for using a WEAPON (probably yes, since the text stresses just how great and fancy the Kris Knife is as a weapon)? Or does the bonus incorporate the usual WEAPON bonus? Who knows! I guess QA is for losers!
(I've added some stuff to the Errata for the book in Titannica based on the above).
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Feb 8, 2023 10:04:57 GMT
Although this discussion was held a very long time ago, I'd like to point out something interesting form pg 13 of the the rules that some people might have missed (bolded for emphasis): "Do not, however change your Initial SKILL, as this is still used to determine the maximum SKILL you have, and is also used if you must make rolls against your SKILL."
In other words, in House of Hell, your 'current' Skill is supposed to be used exclusively for combat (which makes sense, as all other Skill rolls would be unaffected by if you had a weapon/had injured your hand etc etc)
The above is handled really inconsistently by the book though. The Skill test at (79) actually explicitly reminds you to roll against your Initial Skill, but all other Skill rolls in the book (at (34), (231) and (384)) omit that instruction and tell you to roll against your Skill, with no mention of 'Initial'. It's an unfortunate oversight in this case, especially as it runs contrary to what pretty much every other book in the series does.
Also noticed that unlike every other weapon in the game, the most important one - the Kris Knife - never actually says it's a WEAPON, even though it very plainly is. That just further muddies the water when you are later told to add Skill when using it in combat (which, as stated by others, should clearly be an Attack Strength bonus instead, or at least should let you exceed your Initial value). Is that Skill/Attack Strength bonus on top of the +3 Skill you should very obviously get for using a WEAPON (probably yes, since the text stresses just how great and fancy the Kris Knife is as a weapon)? Or does the bonus incorporate the usual WEAPON bonus? Who knows! I guess QA is for losers!
(I've added some stuff to the Errata for the book in Titannica based on the above).
I agree both with this inconsistency and that its a big enough error to add to Titannica. I believe I noticed at the time, and chose to disregard it (except for the explicit instruction) on the basis one, most other books don't do that, two, it's just as likely you would be injured in say your leg or arm rather than your hand (there are few Skill losses in HOH, but I don't remember whether they are to your hand), three, as you say the book applies it inconsistently both with regard to any reminders and the Kris Knife. I imagine Jackson's reasoning was different rules might apply in an Earth-based gamebook. Perhaps a reprint could make SJ's true intention clear, or perhaps, like Creature Of Havoc's missing reference link, we will never know.
|
|
|
Post by soulreaver on Feb 8, 2023 20:37:35 GMT
Although this discussion was held a very long time ago, I'd like to point out something interesting from pg 13 of the the rules that some people might have missed (bolded for emphasis): "Do not, however change your Initial SKILL, as this is still used to determine the maximum SKILL you have, and is also used if you must make rolls against your SKILL."
In other words, in House of Hell, your 'current' Skill is supposed to be used exclusively for combat (which makes sense, as all other Skill rolls would be unaffected by if you had a weapon/had injured your hand etc etc)
The above is handled really inconsistently by the book though. The Skill test at (79) actually explicitly reminds you to roll against your Initial Skill, but all other Skill rolls in the book (at (34), (231) and (384)) omit that instruction and tell you to roll against your Skill, with no mention of 'Initial'. It's an unfortunate oversight in this case, especially as it runs contrary to what pretty much every other book in the series does.
I also noticed that unlike every other weapon in the game, the most important one - the Kris Knife - never actually says it's a WEAPON, even though it very plainly is. That just further muddies the water when you are later told to add Skill when using it in combat (which, as stated by others, should clearly be an Attack Strength bonus instead, or at least should let you exceed your Initial value). Is that Skill/Attack Strength bonus on top of the +3 Skill you should very obviously get for using a WEAPON (probably yes, since the text stresses just how great and fancy the Kris Knife is as a weapon)? Or does the bonus incorporate the usual WEAPON bonus? Who knows! I guess QA is for losers!
(I've added some stuff to the Errata for the book in Titannica based on the above).
I agree both with this inconsistency and that its a big enough error to add to Titannica. I believe I noticed at the time, and chose to disregard it (except for the explicit instruction) on the basis one, most other books don't do that, and two, it's just as likely you would be injured in say your leg or arm rather than your hand (there are few Skill losses in HOH, but I don't remember whether they are to your hand), three, as you say the book applies it inconsistently both with regard to any reminders and the Kris Knife. I imagine Jackson's reasoning was different rules might apply in an Earth-based gamebook. Perhaps a reprint could make SJ's true intention clear, or perhaps, like Creature Of Havoc's missing reference link, we will never know.
There aren't many Skill tests in House of Hell. Two are 'physical' tests (one for trying to ram down a door - which fails in either case - and the other for escaping some suffocating animated bedsheets) while the other two are for psychological things (one for trying to convince someone of something, and one for having the strength of will to resist a book that wants you to open it). Meanwhile the Skill penalties are for injuring your hands/wrists, getting drunk and strength-sapping poison. Only the strength-sapping poison would arguably have an impact on the physical tests, and I think by the time you can encounter that in the book, the physical tests are all already behind you.
I've noticed one more odd inconsistency: almost all the WEAPONS you find in the game state they add 3 to your Skill when used in a fight (except one silver dagger that's clearly described as being inferior and only adds 2 Skill, and the Kris Knife which, as above, says nothing at all). However, the Letter Opener (found at 81) instead says it restores your SKILL to its Initial value when you use it in a fight. That suggests that having it lets you effectively ignore any penalties to your Skill that you might suffer during your adventure, since all those penalties are to your current, not Initial, Skill. I'm pretty sure this is an error too as there's absolutely no reason why the Letter Opener would be a better weapon than, say, a meat knife, so I might add it to the Titannica Errata later as well.
|
|
|
Post by evilwizard on Feb 8, 2023 21:41:16 GMT
The problem is one of the two people who wrote the rules didn't know - or more likely didn't care - enough to make them work within his own writing. The fact the same author produced the half arsed and clearly unfinished Star Trek rip off Starship Traveller (and the other one made the utterly impossible even after an edited reprint Blood of the Zombies that had even more simple rules) should tell you everything: rather than debate the intention of what was written, you should follow the rules as written exactly. Or just ignore them all and blatantly cheat as that is the only way you can win Creature of Havoc, Crypt of the Sorceror, Spelbreaker and Blood of the Zombies anyway.
|
|
|
Post by soulreaver on Feb 9, 2023 10:28:09 GMT
The problem is one of the two people who wrote the rules didn't know - or more likely didn't care - enough to make them work within his own writing. The fact the same author produced the half arsed and clearly unfinished Star Trek rip off Starship Traveller (and the other one made the utterly impossible even after an edited reprint Blood of the Zombies that had even more simple rules) should tell you everything: rather than debate the intention of what was written, you should follow the rules as written exactly. Or just ignore them all and blatantly cheat as that is the only way you can win Creature of Havoc, Crypt of the Sorceror, Spelbreaker and Blood of the Zombies anyway. Whoa! Suddenly, an evilwizard out of nowhere!
I definitely agree that some of the books are in sore needs of playtesting/proofreading, and also that a lot of the authors (not just Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone, though both are bad offenders) seem to have a poor grasp of the rules or things like 'probability'.
That said, I find it an interesting exercise to see how a flawed book might be improved to make it even better - and interestingly, in may cases if we apply 'common sense' rules or go by what it seems like the author 'probably meant', it often makes previously useless paths suddenly interesting or rewarding and in some cases makes statistically improbable books actually able to be completed, balancing them far better...
...and then there's books like The Gates of Death.
|
|
|
Post by soulreaver on Mar 26, 2023 9:36:27 GMT
I've been thinking about paragraph 79, and I've become fairly certain that the reference results for succeeding and failing the test for skill are actually swapped around (in error) but nobody's really picked up on it because the results are so similar (ie, both of them cause you to fail to batter the door down and both lose you 2 stamina).
As written, succeeding at the skill roll not only does the above, but gives you the option to try again - which fails again (taking you to the paragraph that you would go to if you had initially failed the test), where you lose 2 stamina and realize the door is too strong to break down.
I don't really think this makes sense. From a gameplay perspective, it makes it objectively worse to succeed at the skill test, as all that does is set you up to possibly lose another 2 stamina points, so success is actually worse than failure.
From a narrative perspective it doesn't really make sense either. What are you making the Skill roll for exactly? If it's to see if your character manages to hit the door as hard as possible, then surely succeeding at that and finding ourselves still unable to open the door would be more convincing that the door cannot be broken down (and thus make you give up) than failing would (and thus leaving you feeling like you might need to try again, just harder this time)? Or maybe the skill test isn't about how hard you can ram the door, but rather your ability to tell that it can't be broken down no matter how hard you try... where again, it only makes sense to let us try again if we fail the roll. I can't really see any scenario where succeeding in the Skill test would make us think that a second attempt would be more likely to work than the first, but a failure would make us automatically decide it was futile.
|
|
|
Post by vastariner on Mar 26, 2023 9:46:51 GMT
If you succeed on your Skill roll, then you make a better fist of charging the door down, so you may feel that a second go will break through. Whereas if you fail, you do not know you've made a bodge of trying, so assume that it's an impossible job.
|
|
|
Post by soulreaver on Mar 26, 2023 19:52:35 GMT
If you succeed on your Skill roll, then you make a better fist of charging the door down, so you may feel that a second go will break through. Whereas if you fail, you do not know you've made a bodge of trying, so assume that it's an impossible job. That doesn't make sense to me though, on the basis that both characters COULD give it another go. If the 'fail' character does not know they've made a bodge of trying, then the 'succeed' character either thinks they've done well (in which case their inability to budge the door in any way should be a clue that another attempt isn't going to help) or they think they've made a bodge of trying (in which case the outcome should be the same as the 'fail' character).
If you fail, and you don't know that you've made a bodge of trying and the door doesn't open or weaken in any way, that's not really any different than succeeding and the door not opening or weakening in any way. Succeeding doesn't mean you've made more progress toward breaking the door down, as the door simply cannot be broken down at all, but does result in you misjudging your chances of doing so.
The only real explanation would be if the 'success' character shows worse awareness/judgement of the situation than the 'fail' character, which seems backwards to me.
|
|
|
Post by a moderator on Mar 26, 2023 21:50:43 GMT
Steve Jackson does have form for getting the outcomes of Skill rolls the wrong way round - Starship Traveller has that bit where the Medical Officer discovers a cure for the poison that's killed several crew members if she fails her Skill roll, but dies testing out her antidote if she succeeds at the roll.
Anyone care to give a justification for that one?
|
|
|
Post by terrysalt on Mar 27, 2023 3:55:53 GMT
Steve Jackson does have form for getting the outcomes of Skill rolls the wrong way round - Starship Traveller has that bit where the Medical Officer discovers a cure for the poison that's killed several crew members if she fails her Skill roll, but dies testing out her antidote if she succeeds at the roll. Anyone care to give a justification for that one? She was so committed to the cure that she gave her life perfecting it. But it turns out the mediocre cure was good enough so even a failed roll allows you to proceed.
|
|
|
Post by CharlesX on Mar 28, 2023 11:35:43 GMT
Steve Jackson does have form for getting the outcomes of Skill rolls the wrong way round - Starship Traveller has that bit where the Medical Officer discovers a cure for the poison that's killed several crew members if she fails her Skill roll, but dies testing out her antidote if she succeeds at the roll. Anyone care to give a justification for that one? She was so committed to the cure that she gave her life perfecting it. But it turns out the mediocre cure was good enough so even a failed roll allows you to proceed. Perhaps the crew members who die actually matter instead of being stereotypical redshirts? You might even say, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
|
|
|
Post by vastariner on Oct 28, 2023 20:08:06 GMT
The unique answers thread gave me a thought... ... what if Drumer is the GOOD guy?
After all, look at the logic. The House of Drumer has been the focus of diabolical activity for centuries; we see that from the ancestry and the room names. Including a red hellish room. There is also a cabal of initiates. Given the number of people involved, the level of secrecy must be towering. Especially given that there are human sacrifices. That district nurse is going to be missed. Surely the Police are either paid off or even involved to avoid any suspicion of the household? And the media? They would find out that the house was on her rounds.
And why would all this be necessary? There is a GREAT BIG DEMON in the house. And, presumably, has been for centuries as well, hence the history. A demon like that would be world-conquering if it were able to escape to the world outside.
So why doesn't it?
Is that because Drumer keeps the secret of how to control it? An hereditary task? The King's Own Demonarch? Able to control the demon via sacrificial offering? Dressed up in a coven-like atmosphere to bring in the randoms who add bulk to the cult? Those who think they are merely joining the Masons or something, and do not get with the programme of small evils to prevent a greater one, are themselves doomed to become offerings. And for anyone who has any hidden doubts, at some point they may well SEE the demon. Why would one worship an invisible God rather than a visible Devil?
The one factor against this is that the means for destroying the demon are in the house itself, albeit well hidden. Is that though because a Sk14 boss is going to marmelize any "normal" human being? If you don't get an attack strength bonus, it's hugely unlikely that any mere mortal would be able to slay the demon. Hence the need to ensure that the crucial weapon is close - but not SO close and easy to get that any idiot could give it a go, and blow the whole thing sky high, or risk releasing the demon to the world at large.
Just that when the PC turns up the past centuries recognize that, yes, this IS the person who might be able to rid the world of this evil for ever; or, given that Drumer is the last of his line, you might be the final chance, as there will be nobody with the secret after Kelnor himself dies. And Kelnor does not notice your capabilities, or is so engrossed in his task, like in Bridge over the River Kwai, that he cannot see past his own small concerns; or he has the strong suspicion that you will fail and therefore cause more harm than good, to the extent that, at the end, he is willing to sacrifice himself. Especially given that if you lose the final fight, then, well, good luck to the world.
And...maybe those tears at 400 are tears of joy...
|
|
|
Post by stevendoig on Oct 29, 2023 20:51:37 GMT
Nice post. Fun theory!
|
|