Talk:List of Fighting Fantasy gamebooks

Trolltooth Pass

What kind of fictional location is this redirect? It shouldn’t be in Category:Fictional locations since it’s a container category. 165.91.12.97 (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a more appropriate category? Apokrif (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

New talk page

Hi everyone. I've archived the talk page and have added an infobox to each talk page for the individual articles recommending that the articles are discussed here. This is because few people seem to use the individual talk pages and it seems to make more sense to have one common talk page - its more convenient to keep an eye on and hopefully it will encourage discussion on the individual pages. Enjoy! (EvilRedEye 16:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC))

Basic articles complete

Basic articles now exist for all of the (at present) 62 Fighting Fantasy gamebooks. EvilRedEye 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

25th yearbook

Does the 25th anniversary yearbook actually exist? There's no data about it at all, I attended the Ian Livingstone signing at the Bath Festival of Literature today and they didn't have it, and I can't find it on amazon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.48.236 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If it exists it hasn't been released yet. The only information so far is a mention on the official website. If it's going to be released it'll be at the end of the year, so there's time. EvilRedEye 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It does not exist. For the 25th Anniversary a special edition of The Warlock of the Firetop Mountain was released only,

Myriador d20 books?

Should they be listed here? Ladril (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD discussion

A discussion on the changes to this page is taking place. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citadel of Chaos Szzuk (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Adventures of Goldhawk

This four-part mini-series should be listed too. It was titled as sub-series "First Fighting Fantasy Adventures", written by Ian Livingstone, illustrated by Surr Nicholson. Published in 1995.

The four titles in order: Darkmoon's Curse, The Demon Spider, Mudworm Swamp, Ghost Road. Unsigned comment by 89.133.24.176 on 19 June 2012, 10:09

Thanks. Done. Richard75 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I know its pedantic but...

The description for Titan - The Fighting Fantasy World reads as follows.

Describes the history of the planet Titan, the three major continents and locations of all Fighting Fantasy adventures

As I stated, it is pure pedantry, but there were many non-fantasy genre gamebooks which took place on earth, or in space, or wherever, which had nothing to do with Titan at all. I am going to change the above from "all" to "most". If, however, this is the publisher's description or something, then please revert. WookMuff (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that I must be a pedant too, because that still doesn't seem quite accurate. I think what the sentence is indicating is that Titan lists the parts of Titan in which different books are set. I've updated it accordingly. Euchrid (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

electronic versions

I noticed Big Blue Bubble is mentioned in a footnote.

I suggest any information on apps is either updated or removed entirely. Do be aware I have expanded the "Other media" section on the main FF page, so perhaps it would be easiest if this page would focus on the paper editions (originals + rereleases)? CapnZapp (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is about gamebooks not paperbacks, so apps ought to be mentioned. The Big Blue Bubble entry is still valid as long as we make it clear that their apps are no longer available -- after all, we don't delete references to books which are no longer in print. Richard75 (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I might not have managed to convey my point: there is nothing wrong with the Big Blue Bubble entry per se. However, listing only Big Blue Bubble is woefully inadequate - it gives off the impression BBB is (was) the only provider of electronic gamebook versions, which could not be further from the truth.

Thus, I have nothing against that entry in itself. However, I repeat my suggestion: either (substantially) expand the coverage of gamebook apps, or - perhaps easier - replace that entry with a general note saying something like "electronic versions also exist, see Fighting Fantasy#Touch-screen mobile", for example.

I might also point out that while the page currently does not have a "paperback focus", it most certainly could. Again, I leave it up to you editors how to proceed, and how to present the wealth of gamebook apps. Here or there doesn't matter, as long as the reader clearly can tell if the information is reasonably complete or very incomplete (like right now). At the very least, a "needs expansion" template is needed. However, since I am not convinced this information is best conveyed by laborious footnotes (I am convinced apps deserve a section or page of their own), I refrain from doing so, preferring instead to discuss the approach here first.

Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh I see. In that case a seperate section should mention it, even if it is just a couple of sentences and a link to the FF "other media" section instead of a comprehensive list. Richard75 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO, the page does not need to include full details of electronic games - computer- or phone-based. Its title is List of Fighting Fantasy gameBOOKS. This suggests paper books to me not electronic games. These should be detailed in the main article or on a dedicated page with a suitable link in the See Also section. Deagol2 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You can call them games but they contain all the text of the books. The only difference is that the dice are included. Richard75 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I still see electronic media as being something entirely different to what is currently listed here, but if you have fairly comprehensive details of what has been published then I don't see a huge problem with including it. My main concern would be that the new entries should list all of the publishers and all the books they published - otherwise the additions would degrade what is a fairly comprehensive article. Deagol2 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your last point, and if we can't get all of the details then that would be a very good reason to just mention that they exist and then link to the other article. Richard75 (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

How about a separate page for each gamebook?

I'm quite new to Wikipedia. Would it be all right if we created a separate article for each Fighting Fantasy gamebook, with a link from this list to that gamebook article? There is already a separate article for "Island of the Lizard King", for example, but there isn't an article for "Scorpion Swamp", for example. Perhaps I could create a separate article for "Scorpion Swamp" and other books.

What do people think?

Transcendentalist01 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If you check the history of these articles many already have existing content. They were re-directed back to this page by a troll who was subsequently banned along with his sock puppets. If you wish to recover the material go ahead. Szzuk (talk) 23:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made a start. Richard75 (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a major discussion re: these articles. So long as the article cites independent sources such as the original seven titles in the series (thanks to BOZ), there's no issue. Otherwise, it is just a case of a former fan of the series adding their interpretation, which smacks of original research, bias and trivia. As it is, I'm in the process of pulling the fan-made maps from the articles as they fail on all the above reasons (in fact it is the same user who originally uploaded the images just re-listing them). I'm as nostalgic as the next person re: the series, but the information has to be encyclopedia standard. I've leave it for a week, and if no one steps up look at re-directs. Asgardian (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I did find sources for several of the FF gamebooks. I'm sure that reviews for these books can be found in magazines like Dragon, Different Worlds, Space Gamer, or any of the other gaming magazines from back in those days. Unfortunately, at this time and probably for the next few months, I will not have the capacity to check. I will say that, at the very least, RPGgeek and RPGnet - especially when taken together - are fairly comprehensive about listing reviews for game products, so at least we will know where to find them. BOZ (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments BOZ. Richard75 and I have "upgraded" Caverns of the Snow Witch. I think only 1-2 others really deserve the full treatment as the titles themselves were truly terrible, but we'll see how we go. Asgardian (talk) 06:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Asgardian, I am reverting the redirect for Beneath Nightmare Castle and believe it's better to let the community decides whether to keep or redirect the article ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ ^(Talk) 15:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

With respect, reading the back story first might have helped - we've had several discussions and unfortunately the bottom line is most of the series has no credibility, despite feelings of nostalgia. That particular page is a good example: the links are all to fan reviews, which are not considered independent, reliable sources. The real clincher, however, is the fact that the title - like many others - was not considered for reprinting by Wizard. This goes to the lack of notability. Many of these latter titles are almost gone forever, with a recent search revealing some not showing up at all on either Ebay or Amazon, and only 1-2 copies appearing in their place of origin (the UK). Soon the defunct titles will only exist in electronic form on fan pages, which again are not credible. If there was a plethora of sources and each title could be as polished as the original seven, then great. Unfortunately this is not the case.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to pick ntis, but many of those titles are not quite as difficult to come across as one would think. I run one of those fan blogs, and was able to amass a complete collection with relatively little difficulty. I do agree that the majority of the titles do not require notoriety, perhaps limiting it to the first, Warlock of Firetop Mountain, is the better option. However, some of the books have been adapted to tablet/PC apps, which are widely available - perhaps those ones might warrant a page for themselves, if the consensus were to determine that they did. Just a thought. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

That's good to know, but unfortunately fan blogs are not considered reliable sources. I do, however, agree that only some deserve attention - which is usually those with sources. The Wizard initiative (those chosen for reprinting) seems to be a telling factor.

Asgardian (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't citing my work as a source, that was just a personal touch :) I do, though, disagree with Wizard being a factor in which of the series would require closer detail - a more useful means of determining notoriety would be to look at which books have been reworked or adapted to a digital format such as by Tin Man Games and others. I think this is a stronger factor as this required significant adaptation and occasionally reworking to the existing material, which a reprinting did not. I'd argue that this reworking constitutes notability. What are your thoughts? It would mean fewer books considered to be noteworthy, but I'm okay with that. Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point. This is tough, as be it a print or electronic revamp someone is ultimately making a subjective decision as to what is "noteworthy" and what is not. This of course means our decisions are tainted with grey: but, as we have to find some middle ground, then perhaps the Tin Man option is a good choice. This might be above and the standard sources that exist for those key titles. Do you want me to do the homework or do you want to try first?

Regards Asgardian (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia, not third parties, decide what is notable or not. The fact that a book has been adapted for another medium means that there is slightly more to say about it and it may be easier to find a source for it, but it can not be decisive. Wizard Books didn't choose which Penguin FF books they thought were "notable" by Wikipedia's definition of the word, they just went through all the books by Livingstone and Jackson, followed by books by Jonathan Green. It was author-based not book-based. Richard75 (talk) 08:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently, here is what we have. I've put together a list of books that 'could' be considered notable and why they might be, hopefully that may narrow down the discussion a bit. I am NOT advocating for a page for each of these, I should mention, simply narrowing the field down a bit -

Warlock of Firetop Mountain - The first book, most reprinted, adapted into video games, board game and other merchandise.

The Forest of Doom - Adapted to digital. Otherwise nothing else.

Starship Traveller - Adapted to digital. Sci-fi (unusual for this series). Otherwise nothing else.

Deathtrap Dungeon - Video game based on this. Part of a loose 'series', but otherwise nothing else.

Island of the Lizard King - Adapted to digital. Otherwise nothing else.

Caverns of the Snow Witch - Adapted to digital. Otherwise nothing else.

House of Hell - Adapted to digital. Modern setting (unusual for this series). Title changed for US release. Small controversy in tabloid newspapers.

Space Assassin, Sky Lord, Robot Commando, Freeway Fighter, Rings of Kether, Rebel Planet - Sci-fi (unusual for this series). Otherwise nothing else.

Appointment with FEAR - Adapted to digital. Superhero genre (unusual for this series). Otherwise nothing else.

Creature of Havoc - Player takes role of monster. Otherwise nothing else.

Return to Firetop Mountain - Sequel to the first book and the series' 50th book. Otherwise nothing else.

Legend of Zagor - Concluded the 'Firetop Mountain trilogy', had a board game based on it and featured 4 selectable playable characters. Otherwise nothing else.

Revenge of the Vampire - Very rare, expensive on the secondary market and reputably of very poor editing quality. Otherwise nothing else.

Bloodbones - Scheduled for Puffin release but cancelled, later released by Wizard. Otherwise nothing else.

Howl of the Werewolf, Stormslayer, Night of the Necromancer, 'Eye of the Dragon' - Not released by Puffin, 'Eye' was mostly completed but not published, the others were written specifically for Wizard (to the best of my knowledge). Otherwise nothing else.

Sorcery series - Adapted to digital. Forms a four-part series.

Clash of the Princes - A box set including two books intended to be played by two players.

Blood of the Zombies - Anniversary publication, set in modern world, adapted to digital.

My personal opinion would be to include pages for Warlock of Firetop Mountain, House of Hell, Appointment with FEAR, Sorcery and Blood of the Zombies, possibly with Deathtrap Dungeon if there was a high enough demand for it. I tend to be a bit conservative with new pages, I think that the rest of the ones listed above would only really appeal to fans of the series. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Legend of Zagor also led to a series of four novels featuring the characters from the gamebook. Richard75 (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Richard - true, Wikipedia determines notability, but that is in essence us, the editors. We attempt to decipher market factors such as reprints and electronic adaptions to determine the relevance of information (and the fact that this isn't a hotbed of discussion is also telling) Justin, that's a good list. I'd strike the aci-fi as that in itself is not notable. BOZ and I found a source or two for Starship Traveller and of course Appointment with F.E.A.R., but beyond that nada. Rarity is also not notability in itself here. Unless someone can put a case for titles such as Beneath Nightmare Castle, they have no relevance. Asgardian (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Creature of Havoc

If you are not already aware, the article for Creature of Havoc is being considered for deletion due to a lack of references. Deagol2 (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has access to this German magazine, it looks like there's a review there. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

New Fighting Fantasy book

Ian Livingstone announced in December 2016 that he is writing a new book, set to be published in August 2017 for the 35th anniversary. He teased it on Twitter , confirming it here and here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smt42 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That's good news. Unfortunately we don't use social media sites as sources, so we'll have to find another one. Richard75 (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

References

A full list of original releasess? What about aborted/cancelled books?

How about an unified list in chronological (real life) order of all of the books? Regardless of publisher.

After all, some books got re-released several times.

What do you think? A full list of books, by order of when they were first published.

And how about books that were announced but that never got released? 2804:14D:5C21:9A23:5198:9347:102F:B5DC (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

German fighting fantasy gamebooks

I seem to recall at the least four fighting fantasy gamebooks in german. Three are larger ones, e. g. the story of Valkyre/Wagner, one of King Arthur, last one I forgot. And a fourth one, based on Wolfgang Hohlbein's Sternenbestie (Del and Scar story). I think the wikipedia article here should be a bit more incusive. Right now it seems to focus only on the two UK authors, I think. While they may be the most popular ones, I think the table listing here should include more gamebooks. 2A02:8388:1643:D680:886D:AF5:AD33:A4E2 (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This article isn't about gamebooks in general, it's about the Fighting Fantasy franchise. Richard75 (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)