Talk:Fighting Fantasy

Other Media

Any word on which future DS titles from Fighting Fantasy that would be released? In particular, it would be nice if 'House of Hell' aka 'House of Hades' (US) would be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.153.56 (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Corben Images?

I really dislike the fact that this article shows a bunch of relatively insignificant cover changes of the various editions of one of the books, but there is no example of a Richard Corben cover. Those are the covers I am most familiar with (at least, living in the United States) and have fond childhood memories of. Not that I dislike the original covers, but I thinks it's important to show at least one of the Richard Corben covers since they are so stylistically different. --RainbowWerewolf 04:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There was one, which I removed, basically because it forced the gallery onto two lines and made the layout 'less pretty' - which was perhaps a bit of a poor reason for doing that! That section of the article is a pretty chunky block of text, perhaps it would be good to add a US cover as a regular image to pretty it up a bit. EvilRedEye 12:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, I've added the original cover of The Warlock of Firetop Mountain and the American cover to the section. Is this alright? EvilRedEye 12:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I've archived the previous discussions. (EvilRedEye 18:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

first or not first - whatever!

I found the following in the heading introduction: "Despite common claims to the contrary, Fighting Fantasy was not the very first series of gamebooks. The gamebook format used in Fighting Fantasy was previously seen in a series of solitaire adventures released for the Tunnels and Trolls role-playing game, the first of which was Buffalo Castle [1]. "

It has no place in that prominent location, so I moved it down into the "Importance" section. I can add I don't like the tone of it, but I have kept it completely unchanged (in its new location).

85.227.226.168 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call CapnZapp (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Role of luck in game system

This a very minor point, but in the "System" section on the page, failing a Luck test does not *always* have negative consequences. If I remember rightly, it's impossible to complete Siege of Sardath without failing a luck test near the beginning. For this reason, I changed the statement that says failing a luck test has "invariably negative" consequences to having "almost invariably negative" consequences. Okay, so I'm bored! 86.53.69.81 (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Warlock 25th.jpg

The image Image:Warlock 25th.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Computer game - possible source

The computer game based on these books is described in Matt Barton's Dungeons and Desktops: the History of Computer Role-playing Games (viewable at Amazon) in a paragraph on pages 91-92. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please very, and present evidence to which an external link to Titannica is appropriate.

Nice to meet you. I am a person who is editing this article on a Japanese version. The image used for Titannica is evidence without the problem of the copyright. Are there evidence etc. for Titannica to have results?Please answer of how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motunabetachyon (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Style issues

Hi. Over the last few days I've repeatedly made edits to this article to revert what appear to be style errors an IP editor keeps (in good faith) introducing. They are:

• I have changed "Fighting Fantasy is the term for" in the opening paragraph to "Fighting Fantasy is". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and articles in general deal with the concept directly, not the linguistic descriptor of the content. See WP:LEAD.
• Skill, Stamina and Luck, in Fighting Fantasy, are reserved words with special meanings distinct from their traditional English ones, and hence should be capitalised in accordance with their usage throughout the series.
• Changed "normal linear" to "linear". The word "normal" here is redundant, and, in the context of gamebooks generally, inaccurate.
• Repeated references to a "dice system" have been removed. The game does not feature a "dice system" per se; it's more accurate simply to say that the player is occasionally called on to roll dice.
• A generalised statement about all the books being standalone with the only exceptions being the Firetop Mountain books has been edited as being misleading and, in some respects, outright wrong.

Please discuss these matters before re-inserting them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Titannica

I have reinstated the external link to the wikia devoted to Fighting Fantasy (Titannica). I am unclear as to why it was removed. The reason given was "Link to incomplete and repetitive page.". The page seems to be a front page of an extensive wikia devoted to the subject of Fighting Fantasy. It appears to be complete in terms of portal linking to various topics regarding Fighting Fantasy.

In terms of justifying why there should be a link. What should be linked, using WP:EL as a starting point, under the section "What should be linked":
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

Titannica has dozens of users, over 7000 articles on Fighting Fantasy and from a review of activity, an active administration of the content is performed. The key articles are referenced to source material. It is far more detailed than is justifiable in wikipedia but contains a wealth of subject matter that is presented in a neutral and referenced fashion. Neither does it fall foul of any of the "Links normally to be avoided" areas.Kwib (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are passionate about it. The point of contention is that the majority of the information over there has been lifted from this article in its old form, which contained some massive generalizations and unsourced statements. I'd argue that the other site is neither neutral or accurate. It is essentially a fan site. The fact that there are over 7,000 users is neither here nor there if the information is flawed. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• And in any case, Titannica doesn't meet our content policies on reliable sources (which prohibits user-edited sites) or external links (which, other than official sites or full copies of the subject media, requires external links to meet our policy on reliable sources for accuracy). It is specifically deprecated by WP:EL "link to be avoided" # 11 (fansites), which goes on to explain how exceptionally limited the exceptions to this policy are. (Titannica does not fall within any of the exceptions.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Addressing each of the above points in turn -

1. the majority of the information over there has been lifted from this article in its old form - Titannica consists of thousands of articles that could not possibly have been lifted from this one wikipedia article. If you are referring to the one article on Fighting Fantasy itself within Titannica, I am not sure that the external link is in place to refer to that, but rather to the complete Titannica resource as a way of further exploring the subject beyond that which could be contained within wikipedia.
2. I'd argue that the other site is neither neutral or accurate.. If you could highlight the inaccuracies in Titannica that would be helpful. As for neutrality, what POV is being put forward by Titannica? It appears to simply be a focussed repository of information on the subject of Fighting Fantasy. That it is exclusively concerned with Fighting Fantasy is the point of that site.
3. It is essentially a fan site. There is no doubt that it must have been started and is maintained by fans of the subject. Is this not true of most open wikis? Given it is open to be edited by anyone without membership a precursor to editing I believe it more accurately would fall under the definition of an open wiki rather than a fansite. Fans use it, but it is not limited or controlled exclusively by them.
4. Titannica doesn't meet our content policies on reliable sources (which prohibits user-edited sites). This of course would prohibit many other wikia hosted sites such as Memory Alpha or Wookieepedia. However, limiting the dicussion to Titannica, is this not a discussion about an External Link rather than using Titannica as a source?
5. It is specifically deprecated by WP:EL "link to be avoided" # 11: I would strongly contend, as stated previously, that it is in fact an open wiki. This would therefore mean that WP:EL "link to be avoided" # 12 would apply. However, point 12 goes on to say: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." How stability is measured is not something I am completely familiar with. However, Titannica since its foundation in 2007 has been constantly on-line. It appears to have been administered constantly and is hosted by Wikia. In terms of a substantial number of editors, again I am not sure of the criteria. An examination reveals around 40 registered users and many edits by unregistered IP addresses. This would appear to be a substantial number.Kwib (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with DustFormsWords. I'm willing to make exceptions with fan-wikis in cases where the site itself is extremely popular and has close links with the subject, such as Wookieepedia in the Star Wars article, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. ThemFromSpace 17:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Titannica appears to be a wiki completely devoted to Fighting Fantasy. This would appear to be an extremely close link to the subject. Also, I am not certain of the algorithms used by Google, but I just typed Fighting Fantasy into the Google search and Titannica was on the front page (tenth position). I then did the same for Star Wars, and Wookiepeedia comes up on the front page also at seventh. This is not scientific I know, but it would seem to suggest some degree of popularity and relevance.Kwib (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I 100% agree that the information at Titannica is relevant, and that it's almost certainly the premiere Fighting Fantasy fansite. It's certainly where I'd go for information. It doesn't matter; it's not encyclopaedically relevant, and it's not reliable within the Wikipedia meaning of the term. Fansites simply don't fall under the categories of allowable external links. If you feel the external links policy treats fansites poorly, feel free to lobby for a change to that policy. Re: "open wikis", Wikipedia has thousands of editors and reasonable stability, and it still isn't stable enough to comply with our own policy on external wikis, so it's really hard to argue that Titannica passes that bar. You are correct that Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia are, quite specifically, two other well known and high-quality fan wikis that are also not acceptable external links. Feel free to remove links to them wherever you see them. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've just refreshed my memory on Titannica, and it's a bit of a joke to compare it to Memory Alpha or Wookiepedia. Much of the site consists of unattributed quotes, or quotes sourced to online discussion forums. Administrative control does not appear to be very active and quality and accuracy varies wildly across the site. It's good for a fansite, but it's simply not accurate to present it as a high-quality or premium open wiki. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for your blessing to go ahead and remove links to Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia, although, as you may have gleaned from the discussion above, I am unlikely to do so given my support for linking to them. However, I have been interested to read your interpretation of Wikipedia's policy as it applies to Memory Alpha and Wookieepeedia. If I may I would point you in the direction of two articles that I am sure you would be keen to remedy in this respect, namely Star Wars and Star Trek, if only to make them compliant. There are links in the External links section of both articles to open wikis. I shall follow with great interest any discussion that ensues from your deletion of the aforementioned links.Kwib (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The inclusion of Memory Alpha on the Star Trek page dates back to 2003, before the external links policy was formalised in its current form[2], and as far as I can tell has not been challenged since.[3] The link probably isn't compliant with policy, but to be honest the Star Trek guys keep their section of the project relatively neat and it's simply not worth picking a fight with them. It's a similar situation over at Star Wars. In any case, these are two of the world's largest, most well-maintained and most reliable wikis. Whatever the policy is for them, Titannica simply isn't in the same league. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A quick glance shows that the FF page is just a version of the older page here: full of opinions and unsourced statements and very "in-universe". It really isn't a case of identifying what sections are wrong - almost all of it is unsuitable. 125.7.71.6 (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Description of Titan

To describe Titan as "fictional and medieval" does not make sense. "Fictional" refers to things that do not exist in reality. "Medieval" refers to things that existed in the middle ages, which thus of course does not include things that are fictional. So "fictional and medieval" is a contradiction in terms. One can of course have a fictional world that is inspired partly by the middle ages, but that is not what the words "fictional and medieval" mean taken at face value. It's simply an illiterate expression, and I'm sorry to see that someone restored it to the article. It is exactly the kind of language a real, respectable encyclopedia would never use. CapnZapp, if what you want to say is that Titan is a fictional world inspired by the middle ages, then please find a better way of saying it. Even "fictional medieval" would be better than "fictional and medieval". ImprovingWiki (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your concern. CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Blurbs on book pages

Picking up a thread from Talk:Creature of Havoc which applies to other FF book articles, so is perhaps best discussed here - should we be including back-of-book blurbs in the Story sections? I took the one out on Havoc and had it reverted because quoting the blurb in full was "the norm with other articles", but it seems to contradict WP:COPYQUOTE, and isn't something I've seen on any other book articles.

It looks like blurb quotes were added unilaterally to many gamebook articles by User:EvilRedEye in November 2006, so it's perhaps just one editor's decision rather than a consensus. Is there any more to it than that? --McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can only repeat what I've said before: these blurbs are an integral part of the FF mythos. These paragraphs are what drew the young boys in - the mention of YOU (the reader) being the hero of the story. This is at the core of the series' appeal, and helps explain the phenomenon it was at the time. Food for thought. Asgardian (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That seems like something better explained in this article about the overall series; so far it's implied in the lede section that the phrase is significant, but that's all. I can't see that flatly-quoted paragraphs of "YOU are the hero" on individual book articles explain anything to somebody reading that article in isolation. Lots of books have catchy blurbs which would give the Wikipedia reader a sense for what it might feel like to pick that book up, but policy seems to be against using this kind of quotation without analysis. --McGeddon (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As much as I love the FF series, I have to say no to this, and that's despite me having been at the convention this weekend and picking up a copy of the 'You are the hero' book (signed by Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone, naturally). Sorry, bragging. In all honesty, the reason that the books were a huge success had more to do with playing out like a game, and less to do with the second-person narrative, although that certainly did help to draw the reader into the action. It's the gameplay element that sets the FF books seperate from the CYOA books, for instance. Most of the blurbs are, in fact, little more than "evil wizard X is raising an army of Y to invade the kingdom of Z", it's really only the secondary part (the 'You are the hero' part, which is largely the same from book to book) that explains the gameplay, and that part is already described adequately in the articles. I vote no to the blurbs. Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

So any objections to cutting the blurbs from individual book articles, if we keep (and maybe even expand) the "YOU are the hero" line in the main Fighting Fantasy article? It looks as if the original-content plot summaries can stand alone in every case, so the blurbs can simply be deleted without needing to rewrite the rest of the sections. --McGeddon (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

In thinking about it, it does make sense. I would suggest one template is used in the parent article as an example (complete with explanation), and then if required 2-3 lines in each article setting the scene if something is now lacking. Asgardian (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep of the Lich Lord

It seems that the Fighting Fantasy gamebook The Keep of the Lich Lord was reprinted in the Fabled Lands Quest series in October 2014 [4]

The Keep of the Lich Lord. Fabled Lands Publishing. ISBN 978-1909905214. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help).

A collector edition is also mentionned on the website of the publisher Megara Entertainment.

As I don't know how it fits in the global work, I let someone else include it in the article.

cdang|write me 13:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Fighting Fantasy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.fightingfantasy.com/ffbadv2.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fightingfantasy.com/fffaq.htm#format
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fightingfantasy.com/fffaq.htm#sold
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fightingfantasy.com/fffaq.htm#version
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.fightingfantasy.com/fffaq.htm#Concept

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What distinguished the series

Contrary to the current text, it was not

a) that they "provide an original twist on traditional fiction in that the reader takes control of the story's protagonist, being required to make choices that will affect the outcome" - that's been in branching plot novels since the 1940s if not before. (Ah, I see someone claims to have found an example from 1930.)

b) "mixing Choose Your Own Adventure-style storytelling with a dice-based role-playing element" - that was first done with Buffalo Castle in the 1970s. Games Workshop, then a general games shop owned by Jackson and Livingstone, sold this and the other T&T solo adventures. I also probably still have a copy of Richard Bartle's Solo Dungeon for using with D&D rules from 1978.

What it did do was include simple dice-based role-playing rules within the book rather than, as with Buffalo Castle et al, expect the reader to have bought a separate rule set.

I will try an alternative way of making these clear, but the current version is not supportable by any reliable source. Lovingboth (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

System

While a gamebook reader needs to know the specifics of character creation first, a reader of an encyclopediac entry does not. You being a hero is all you know at the top level. The main difference between a game book and a game or a book is the non-sequential numbering and that should be explained first. Sections for system and setting follow, and my intent was to expand (and readd back) enough info to justify stand-alone subsections. CapnZapp (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think your criteria is rather arbitrary over and above being non-chronological and currently muddling the section's context (I think, for instance, that having a character creation system and related mechanics in a book is just as significant a departure as the irregular sequencing), but if you're planning on rewriting it to make it flow in a logical order (as it no longer does, with "killed in combat" now making no sense until and assuming the reader consults the System subsection), then I have no problem waiting to see what you're planning. Palindromedairy (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

First off, thank you for engaging in discussion. Now, if I say to you "Sir Percival is a knight" I expect you to not be confused by me next saying "He died while battling a dragon", without me first going into detail about dice, hit points, wound levels or (in this case) STAMINA. I hope you see my point? (My point is that we can reasonably expect readers to take in the fact that heroes can be killed in combat without any knowledge about combat details or indeed if there's a combat resolution system at all!) After all, it's also common that "killed in combat" happens "off screen" through the character being "stopped by the story" ("you're eaten by a grue" being the most famous non-FF example) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to solicit the advice of a neutral third party if you still disagree with me? CapnZapp (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the order is more is less ok as is, but could do with a little expansion and polishing. Deagol2 (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Naw, I wouldn't say it's that important, and the article section is so small that, even though I think my approach is better, it's not important enough for me to raise petty hell over, especially since you said you were planning on revising it anyways. Thanks for the talk. Palindromedairy (talk) 16:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The Riddling Reaver (Steve Jackon)

No mention of the follow up to 'Fighting Fantasy: The Introductory Role-playing Game'?

'The Riddling Reaver' included four pre-written scenarios based on the same FF game system but with a few extra rules. Set in southern Allansia, the four scenarios were linked by the thread of a common antagonist, the Riddling Reaver, who the players hunt from Kallamehr, across the the Glimmering Sea and Gulf of Shamuz aboard the 'Twice Shy', until they reach the Reaver's retreat in the jungle near Rimon. 81.178.250.141 (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)