Talk:Gamebook

Dungeons & Dragons books?
I vaguely remember reading some Dungeons and Dragons gamebooks years ago. I don't think they were by the same publisher as the "Choose You Own Adventure" books, though. I've been trying to find these books in the D&D series lately, but I've had no luck. If anybody knows titles, authors, or publishers of these books, please tell me. --Lance E Sloan 15:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it the Endless Quest series of books that you're thinking of? EvilRedEye 16:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are absolutely right! Thank you very much.  :)  Now to see if they are still available anywhere...  --Lance E Sloan 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They are long out of print. You'll have to look for them at science fiction conventions or in used book stores. -- Orange Mike 13:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New online zombie movie: survivetheoutbreak.com
A new online zombie movie, which allows the user to choose which path they want is available at: http://www.survivetheoutbreak.com/


 * 1) Does anyone else know of anymore of these types of choose your own adventure movies?
 * 2) Is there such thing as a Gamemovie yet? Other than Interactive_fiction?

I can imagine that in the future, when everything is downable, movie theaters can have Gamemovie's, where the audience chooses the outcome of the movie, to help them stay afloat. travb (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Gamevideos have appeared on Youtube, allowing the viewer to progress the story through videos that branch off of the start. They don't yet seem notable enough for this article, however. Mvxzw (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interactive movies are, by definition, never going to be covered by an article on "gamebooks". Just saying. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent
Is it "the fall of communism" or "the fall of socialism"? I'm pretty sure it should be the former, anyways. 75.76.65.246 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're certainly right, socialism is still alive and kicking in Europe. Good spot.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Further information re Dennis Guerrier
Dennis Guerrier's "political simulation" is presumably State of Emergency by Dennis Guerrier & Joan Richards (William Heinemann [Hbk] & Penguin Books [Pbk] 1969 [simultaneous publications]), whose (Penguin) front cover proclaims it to be "A Programmed Entertainment. The first do-it-yourself novel in which the reader directs the course of action" and the back cover blurb ". . . the very first of its kind, combines a conventional novel with the technique of programmed learning."

According to the author descriptions inside, Guerrier, a UK civil servant, had led been put in charge of a programmed learning research team in his own ministry in 1964, pioneered its application to clerical job instructions, and lectured on the subject to the Civil Service and other organisations; he is also described as having "programmed a thriller" – presumably the "interactive thriller" of the article: Richards was also a civil servant.)

The novel describes the fraught political, diplomatic and economic transition of a fictional African nation from the British colony of "Eastern Victoria" to independence as the Commonwealth country of "Lakoto", and presents many points at which the reader may "advise" Prime Minister Toumi Okobo which of two or more alternative courses to take, whose different outcomes are continued on different pages. Aside from its Gamebook structure and direct addressing of "you, the reader", at decision points, the novel's prose is conventionally written in the third person.

In view of its prominent publishers, this work may perhaps be worthy of a longer description in the article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.26 (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Touch-based mobile
It is apparent the gamebook is undergoing something of a revival on platforms such as iOS and Android. If you can find a good source discussing this, I'm much obliged.

Also, the more successful of these attempts take the gamebook further, incorporating interactive elements such as new combat rules (see for instance inkle's version of the Fighting Fantasy gamebook Shamutanti Hills). Again, to avoid OR I am not adding in any text to this efffect until a reputable source can be found. CapnZapp (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

ability to retrace your steps
A noticeable difference between gamebooks and computer games is that all gamebooks give you the ability to retrace your steps and do things you overlooked, while nearly no computer games allow this.

I would argue most gamebooks do not "give" anything of the sort. If anything, they keep completely silent on the possibility. Instead, I would say it is the physical format of the gamebook that makes backtracking possible.

Making a stab at fixing this now, CapnZapp (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the comparison between computer games and gamebooks was added. I'm actually kind of surprised it's lasted this long and been edited instead of just being whacked. I'm +1 for removing the following two paragraphs:

"A noticeable difference between gamebooks and computer games is that by the very nature of their physical format (i.e. being a book), reading a gamebook allows you to retrace your steps and do things you overlooked. Computer programs, on the other hand, must be specifically programmed to accomplish retracing and backtracking, with the result that for most computer games the only way to change a decision once made is by restarting the game. Some computer games, including electronic game books, do allow you to 'undo' your progress, sometimes in a way meant specifically to simulate how you read a physical gamebook. Unlike a computer game (where the computer handles things for you) a gamebook requires external implements (such as a paper and pencil or figures... or merely all your ten fingers) to keep track of changes that the player makes to the state of the game. Many gamebooks offer a reduced form of state change by having the user keep an inventory of items that unlock certain branch points, but most do not, so most branches can only be visited once."

Neither paragraph has a single citation, they seem like original research (or something similar) and I'm not sure if the best way to describe gamebooks (or anything for that matter) is the format "A noticeable difference between x and y."

Trojainous (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just went ahead and deleted those two paragraphs. If anyone feels they're crucial to this page, let's have the discussion here. Thanks! Trojainous (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nintendo's books are missing? Why?
I have fond memories of reading the Castlevania based tale where you help defeat Dracula with Simon Belmont. The series was something like Paths Of Power - Nintendo had a thing about the word Power in the 80s/90s! - Too tired to recall code for my IP address if it's missing from here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.208.191 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These are not branching-path books. Therefore, they are not relevant to this page. Ladril (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Also with Nintendo
Lone Wolf has had a form of unofficial resurrection on the Nintendo DS in a two page (DS held sideways) "gamebook" format, where you can read, but also use the game rules interactively for equipment, skills, etc. On a side note, great fun! Only problem is unless I'm mistaken, you need an unofficial device like an Acekard to play the Lone Wolf titles. I never got clarification after I tried it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.208.191 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

History synthesis
Night of January 16th by Ayn Rand is the current first example of a branching narrative. Before that it was Jorge Luis Borges short story An Examination of the Work of Herbert Quain. Problem is, we need a source that ties this to gamebooks! We can't just claim the existence of branching narratives is an influence contributing to the development of gamebooks. Not only is it OR - it's preposterous to think gamebooks couldn't have come up with the idea of an IF...OR branch unless Borges or Rand did it first.

Treasure Hunt is okay, on the other hand. We have a source tying it to gamebooks. Also Skinners materials. (Always assuming sources check out, of course.) Giving examples of various multiple path fiction is IMHO okay even without sources labeling this gamebooks. Our definition is so close to "multiple path fiction" I can't see a problem with us including them. But I do see a problem when we branch out (no pun intended) to talk about novels with multiple endings. Again, the mere concept of a branch needs a source to tie to gamebooks. Without a source, the connection between a multiple ending novel and a book that is also a game is very spurious indeed.

"these influences may have contributed" - this phrase is almost a weasel wording. Let us prune the section to only contain those works our sources tell us have indeed contributed!

Regards CapnZapp (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete what you will. Whatever I think is valid will be moved to a site off-Wikipedia so people can still access it. Ladril (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A few comments, though: your criticisms may very well apply to the entire article, not just to the origins section. I find it funny that you picked what is perhaps the most thoroughly cited section in the entire article to raise complaints about lack of citations. Let's put aside for a moment the question of whether your interpretation of the policies and guidelines is indeed the "correct" one; assuming it is, the consequence of going with it is that we would have to bulldoze the article practically in its entirety. Few if any of the claims made can be 100% substantiated with sources; most are anecdotes submitted by multiple contributors to the page. Are we going to reduce the article back to a stub for this reason? Ladril (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * What would you say is the difference between a branching narrative in book form and a 'gamebook'? Oh, it looks like someone's found a 1930 example, which included the branching diagrams. Lovingboth (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Ladril removed my Synthesis template (without meaningfully adressing the issues raised) with the following edit summary: "Removing unnecessary template; user who raised issue no longer participating in talk page discussion" . A few things you need to keep in mind, Ladril:


 * 1) Don't try to sneak in any changes. If you refer to me, don't just say "user who raised issue" in an edit summary. Instead post your actions on the talk page (here, that is) and ping me, giving me the courtesy of informing me of an action related to one of my edits. In other words, giving me a clear and honest shot at responding. One easy way to "ping" is to simply link the user, like this: User:CapnZapp. Note how I started this reply by pinging you, Ladril.
 * 2) What do you mean by "no longer participating"? You asked no questions back in June. Read the above, it's just commentary and nothing I felt needed my reply. Thus you can't and should not conclude I have left the discussion. Have a nice day, CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, I would like to clear the air between us and mention that I appreciate your good intention in trying to improve the page. Secondly, how could I be trying to "sneak anything in", when the changes I or anyone else makes are in plain sight? I have worked and will always work with complete transparency. And I think I was justified in removing the template - putting a template on a page and then disengaging from talk page discussion for months could be perceived by others as trying to get the last word in without making any effort to resolve the issues at hand. Finally, we are under no obligation to notify any user when we revert the edits they made. That is just a courtesy some people like to have, but you shouldn't expect it from everyone. Ladril (talk) 09:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Back to the issue at hand, and despite your claims otherwise, people have asked you at least two questions (see above). Not responding to other users for months could justifiably be seen as conceding to their points. If you disagree with other editors, the onus is on you to be explicit about it in a timely fashion. We cannot just read your mind. Ladril (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are certainly right in that silence is (generally, there are exceptions) to be taken as agreement. But that only applies to each specific topic you're silent on (like most other talk pages, this one discusses many different issues simultaneously). If I'm understanding you correctly, you took the fact that I didn't respond to some other user in a different talk page section than this one to mean I'm also no longer participarting in this issue. While perhaps understandable, that is an incorrect assumption. More specifically, me "conceding to their points" has no bearing on my stance to this point. Even more clearly: I still think the Synthesis template is warranted - no substantive edits has been made since I added it. Thank you, and I'm glad we could clear that up. CapnZapp (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * CapnZapp (hope that satisfies your request for a ping), the article does not claim that Night of January 16th is a gamebook and History sections may well wish to add in forerunners. Additionally my understanding is that synthesis is not placement. As a result I think that this would be better covered by . Thank-you for reading.
 * El komodos drago (talk to me) 16:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The section pretty openly suggests the Ayn Rand play influenced the development of the gamebook format. The source, however, (meaning Routledge, can't access LA Times from the EU) only uses her play as an example to define "multi-path narrative", not explain its roots. That the play is an example of a "multi-path narrative" is not disputed (in fact, that a play with two endings is multi-path is kind of obvious). But Routledge isn't talking about game book history! The step that the earliest gamebook writers had Ayn Rand in mind is utterly unsourced.
 * That said, if you feel this complaint is better conveyed by another template, feel free to change it. Just as long as we're clear on the fact that no individual step is unsourced or disputed, only that the connection between steps is baselessly inferred. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Having read the template documentation again, I feel that Content is only intended for use in the event that their is not active talk page open and so is not for use here. Still don't agree that the current text implies that Night of January 16th lead on to future gamebook development but I don't have a problem if you would like to add text to the article to make that more clear.
 * El komodos drago (talk to me) 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * First off, let us be clear and precise. I don't subscribe to your chosen expression. I do think it is clear as day what the text does do: it starts by saying Several influences contributed to the development of the gamebook format during the twentieth century and then goes on to list examples. I can't see how you can't conclude the text is claiming the Rand play is one such influence. Assuming we are misunderstanding each other and you do agree to this basic point, I maintain that this implication remains unsupported by the source (at least the one I can still access).
 * Actually, what I think happened (just my speculation) was that an editor saw an earlier version of the text claiming The earliest known example of the form is Consider The Consequences! by Doris Webster and Mary Alden Hopkins. and wanted to expand this to include more works of art from that decade, not fully realizing the text isn't just talking about "early branching narratives" in general - it is discussing them specifically in the context of being influences on the development of the gamebook format! Thus each example does not only need to be correct "yes, this work was indeed early". It must also be sourced to have that influence on gamebooks. The lack thereof is what led me to the synthesis template. Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Grouping (in Description section)
This is really problematic. Not only is "Demian's Gamebook Web Page" a dubious source, it essentially separates "solitaire adventures" from "adventure gamebooks" merely by the lack of included game rules. I find this odd, and I find it not useful. (Also note that this division has led editors to exclude the third grouping from the history section in past revisions of our article!).

I really don't think there is grounds for such a neat division (there really isn't much scholarly attention paid to the subject at all), and will edit the section correspondingly (and boldly). CapnZapp (talk) 09:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

With regards to the UK history section
Can we remove the needs expansion template from the UK history section now it is roughly the same size as the US history section? (talk to me) 14:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My personal answer would be: that depends. The state of the section when I added the expansion tag read:


 * Note while each of the three other notables has had some detail and references added, the section doesn't actually present more items than in April. So it's up to you all: is the "UK scene" adequately covered, or do the tag still serve its function as a call for more comprehensive coverage? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm calling it adequate with regards to coverage though it could do with fleshing out. However, it sourly needs more (and better) sources and unless they can be provided expanding it is pointless. As a result, I'm changing the template to refimprove section. El komodos drago (talk to me) 13:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Online CYOA's
Should the description for these be extended? Modern versions seem to have a lot less information then there is written. Rake2005 (talk) 16:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As it stands, I'd say that it is more in need of citation than expansion. The second paragraph in particular reads like a violation of WP:OR.  The writer evidently believes that these examples are close enough to count, but what aside from their own opinions corroborates that?  It waxes poetic about its 'rapid evolution', but given the surrounding context that feels like opinion-based puffery from someone trying to talk up the topic.  It cites a few 'better known examples', but this runs into the problem of WP:Notability.  Where's the coverage that these examples are pulled from?  Or are they just the personal favorites of whoever added that paragraph based on the subreddits they frequent? I say this section needs some quality control first and foremost.
 * 2603:6080:2D05:D7E6:6DD3:5588:C0A3:CBEC (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)