So back in September, I posted a post about food an water in gamebooks
, where I decided that mechanics involving food that punish you for not eating it were quite irritating, which lead to this tweet from Jamie Thomson:
Which lead me to think about applying my statement to wider situations. I asked myself if there should never be mechanics in gamebooks that do nothing good, but might do something bad, and then extended it to ‘scenes’ in gamebooks – should every encounter in a gamebook have the potential of a reward. I decided, that actually, no. There should be situations where no good thing could happen, and, in some cases, you to choose between a lesser of two evils.
This is an interesting concept, and one that has been mentioned by a few people in the comments sections of this blog and also in Alexis Smolensk’s book on DMing
. It is the idea that the player should not feel comfortable in the game. One way of doing this is by making sure that their stats are never at full strength (in Fighting Fantasy, lowering someone’s skill is a good way to stress someone out) or by throwing little obstacles at them that constantly chip away their resources. It is for this reason that Fighting Fantasy heroes might start with stats way above their opponents. It creates more tension to have high stats that are always depleted rather than low stats that are not. Having an initial skill of 10 and a current skill of 8 has a different psychological effect than having an initial skill of 8. So it might be worthwhile giving characters high scores just to lower them to create tension. Having tension in the game will make victory all the sweater and may bring on some interesting decisions.
There are different types of bad things that can happen. If you couple a no win situation with options for character creation, then you could create a situation that is only bad for certain characters. Need to get across a river? Swimming is no problem for the hero who picked swim or the hero who bought an axe so that they can fell a tree to make a bridge, but it might be for other people. This can also lead to situations where you might have to decide to use your potion of invisibility or fight the tought guard. Which leads to…
So you are going to lose out on a resource whatever you decide, but maybe the winning situation is
losing out on the resource that matters least. Sure, Lone Wolf is going to lose 3 endurance if he doesn’t eat a meal, but he needs to save the gold to buy a coach ticket, rather than buy food and he has the healing skill anyway, so he can take the hit.
Say the bad thing’s severity is determined by a random element. This helps you with your skill of mitigating that random element somehow (sure I will get into combat with the troll, but I can test my luck to reduce the damage) or maybe you might get offered the choice between losing 3 stamina or losing 1-6 stamina and you have to decide whether you want to certainly lose a medium amount of stamina or whether you should risk the chance of losing 6 stamina for the chance of losing 1 stamina.
Links to the story
Sure something bad happened, but it was so entertaining, you enjoyed it all the same. The orc funeral in Battleblade warrior is one example. Dreamtime in Grailquest is another. The severity of the damage/bad thing might detract from the enjoyment of the situation (sudden death paragraphs have to be very
good to make me forget my frustration. Beneath Nightmare Castle got it right for me. Sky Lord did not).
Going through a combat or a situation might teach you several things that could be helpful. On one
level, it could teach you about the mechanics of the game, so an early combat might be there just to show you how combat plays out. It also might be helpful later on, in the sense that a vaccine is helpful by exposing you to a small amount of a disease. Sure you might take a minor punishment now, but you might learn something that will prevent a bigger punishment later (for example, in Caverns of the Snow Witch, you have to take 4 stamina points of damage to get an amulet of courage, but that is preferable to becoming food for a brainslayer).
This might have no bearing on the story, but how you deal with a bad situation in the books might tell me something about my character or my way of thinking.
So in conclusion, there are plenty of good reasons to have bad things happen in gamebooks, but I
always need to decide whether they are worthwhile to add. Sure, I could be adding to the experience in some way, but there is a risk that it might go wrong, for a couple of reasons that I can think of.
The first is bookkeeping. If I have a mechanic or a situation where something bad could happen, I will probably be asking a player to keep track of something. I find that too much bookkeeping detracts from the experience and turns the enjoyment of the game into an accountancy exercise. Keeping track of provisions in Legend of Zagor or Night Dragon is such an example.
The second is frustration – if I can’t see the flavour or the entertainment value of a mechanic or a situation, then I might get annoyed with it existing, especially if it comes at a point in the story that really derails my plans. Or maybe the mechanic is out of my control and I have no way of mitigating it, so I just have to watch helplessly whilst bad things happen. The phobia mechanic in Temple of the Spider God
was a bit like that. You had a phobia score of 7. Every time you fought a spider, if you rolled equal to your phobia score or higher, your fear kicked in and your offence score was reduced by 1. There was no way of increasing your phobia score or avoiding spiders, so it got a bit annoying.
lurching from crisis to disaster with each encounter slowly depleting my resources, I might find that draining. So as usual, there is a balancing act involved, but as Skinner has shown us,
from Lloyd of Gamebooks http://ift.tt/1uPU0LP