More Thoughts on The Knight of Destiny

I completed my first game of Ganesha Games' The Knight of Destiny. I give a report on my Tales of the Templars blog.

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Conclusion

After a full game, what are my feelings?

Pros

• It does a great job of evoking the atmosphere of Arthurian legends. The encounters that my character faced seemed appropriate for the theme.
• As I mentioned in my initial thoughts, random encounters seem more appropriate and more logical for wandering the countryside as opposed to exploring a dungeon.
• It uses the Four Against Darkness base rules, which allow for quick and easy resolution of combat.
• It creates wonderful, coherent stories. One reason I like solo gaming is the opportunity to write up the story of the battle or adventure. My adventure with Sir Rowan seemed tailor made for telling the tale.

Neutral (could be a pro or con depending on your preferences)

• KOD strikes me as more challenging than 4AD. Your character may find himself facing a difficult opponent all alone whereas 4AD pits a group against the boss. This makes boss fights more difficult in KOD.
• KOD is less concerned with accumulation of treasure and more about saving the kingdom. If you like playing a hero (as I do) then this objective will be more satisfying than 4AD's hunt for treasure.

Cons

• My character seemed more subject to the whims of fate, with less chance to make decisions that matter.
• Mapping the dungeon in 4AD gives a sense of decision-making and control. Do I go this way or that way? Of course, due to the random nature of encounter determination, it doesn't really matter which way your characters go, but it does make it feel like your in control. In KOD, there is no mapping so the encounters seem thrust upon you as opposed to choosing your fate. Admittedly, you can make some decisions (e.g. if I roll a 1 on the Journey table my character may go to the inn or seek an encounter). In my adventure, the chooses were pretty cut-and-dry, however, so it just felt like I had no decisions to make.
• One aspect of 4AD that allows decision-making is the push-your-luck nature of the dungeon. When my characters are wounded, I need to decide when the characters should head back to the exit. Do they leave with their gains or try to do one more room? In KOD, your character is pretty much locked into the quest - either win (find the Grail) or die trying.
• Resource management (especially with respect to healing magic) seems less subject to control in KOD. In 4AD, you need to decide when to expend the party's healing but in KOD you are dependent on finding an inn (on a random roll).
• My assessment may be a little harsh. There are opportunities for decisions - certain rolls on the Journey table allow you to choose the path your character takes, resource management comes out in the hiring of retainers, gathering rumors will allow you to modify the results on the encounter table, giving you control over the type of encounter you face. I just had bad luck so I never had enough resources to hire many retainers or use rumors.
• Battles vs. bosses took a lot longer than in 4AD. This is because my character and the boss had a lot of life points. With a 1-on-1 battle, attrition slowly whittled away those points over a number of turns. I'd like to see a mechanism to speed those battles up (perhaps allow multiple attacks per turn).

Overall Assessment

While I feel that there are pros and cons, will I play this game again?

YES!

Above all, this game creates wonderful stories. Some may not have nice, happy endings but they will be suspenseful and entertaining. And that is my main reason for solo gaming.

The Knight of Destiny

My Initial Thoughts

When Ganesha Games released Four Against Darkness a few months ago, I bemoaned the lack of a paladin character class. Well, Ganesha has rectified that oversight with its new 4AD adventure, known as The Knight of Destiny.

KOD is an adventure set in Arthurian England. You play one of the King's knights questing for the Holy Grail. The game's random tables generate a variety of encounters that your character will need to overcome. I haven't finished a game yet but I assume that your character will either finish the quest and save Camelot or else rebellion shall destroy the kingdom.

KOD uses the base rules for 4AD. Encounters are determined randomly, based on a series of tables (although KOD has its own tables). To attack or defend requires a modified roll vs. the opponent's level. Minions typically have 1 life point so your character will usually steamroll through them. "Bosses" will require greater exertion to defeat.

There are a number of differences. First, you only play a single character instead of a party of 4. Your character may hire retainers during his or her quest, but they will likely only be temporary additions. Also, you are not exploring a dungeon; instead you are meandering through the English countryside. Finally, your goal is not the accumulation of wealth. Rather, you are shooting for something more noble - finding the Holy Grail and saving the kingdom.

So far, I am enjoying the game. I like having a single character instead of keeping tabs on an entire party. I also like the theme - I'm a fan of the legends of Arthur, the Round Table, etc. I also prefer the objective of saving the kingdom vs. naked acquisition (a point I discussed a couple of years ago).

One weakness of the 4AD staple of games is the randomness of the encounter tables. It is possible to get nonsensical or overly repetitive results. So far in KOD, I've been experiencing the latter, which has resulted in my feeling that my character is not getting anywhere. To be fair, though, the random tables are also a strength, as they create "fog of war" that make the game interesting. I must add that the tables seem to make more sense with KOD. I always found it a bit unnatural that a contained environment like a dungeon would house so many disparate creatures. A wide variety of encounters seems more realistic when your character is roaming through the countryside. While I have been a bit frustrated so far by the random encounters in my KOD adventure, I am not ready to eschew them altogether. In the long run, I believe that they'll work out fine.

I have started an adventure, which I am recording on my Tales of the Templars blog, As I progress through it, I will share more impressions of KOD.

Review of Down in Flames

Down in Flames (by Dan Versenn Games) is a series of card games that re-create aerial combat during World War II (although there are versions for other eras). I owned the original version of the game, which came out in the 90s, but I got rid of it after I bought a PlayStation and started playing aviation video games. Now that I am eschewing electronic games in favor of some old school fun, I recently purchased Down in Flames – Aces High, the first game in the new edition.

 Players “pilot” one or more planes, which are represented by aircraft cards. Movement is handled abstractly; instead of plotting on a hex map or board, the relative positions of the aircraft are represented. For example, if I make a successful maneuver and find myself tailing my enemy, my aircraft card is placed behind the enemy’s, with my nose facing its tail. There are 5 positions: neutral (facing each other), advantaged, disadvantaged (the advantaged plane faces the side of the disadvantaged one, tailing, or tailed (tailing is behind the tailed).

For each plane, players draw a hand of action cards, which they play to maneuver or to shoot at the enemy. Cards can also be used to react to an opponent’s card, negating their attempted maneuver. A player needs the right card to be able to shoot, so you may be tailing your opponent but still may not be able to line them up in your sights.

The games is quick (a 1 vs. 1 dogfight only takes a few minutes to play) and fairly simple. Yet it still manages to create the feel of a chaotic dogfight. You may make a maneuver (play a card), but then your enemy responds with a maneuver of his own, however he fails to counter your next maneuver! You have him in your sights – fire away! The give and take is quick and exciting. One possible drawback of the game is that, like all card games, you may find yourself without a card you need. Hand management is a big part of the strategy of the game. Knowing when to use your cards and how to bide your time until you get the card you want is key. In a sense, it seems realistic. Fighter pilots are trained to manage their aircraft’s energy to make effective attacks or defenses. In this game, cards represent energy. Note that, like real life, you will gain energy (cards) when diving and lose it while climbing.

The game includes bomber cards, but they serve best during the included campaign scenarios. Each scenario (such as the Battle of Britain or Midway) involves a series of missions. Players choose the specific target and the resources (e.g. aircraft, anti-aircraft artillery, etc.) committed to each mission. The mission is played out using the dogfight rules. Unlike the older edition, flak and bombing are not random but are based on chosen bombing and artillery patterns. This is designed to remove lucky draws from impacting the campaign results. I haven’t tried a campaign with this edition yet, but it also seems that the new rules will speed up the game (I remember getting bogged down drawing cards to resolve AA and bombing when I played the older version).

One other improvement is that the new version includes aircraft and campaigns from all theaters of the war. The original edition only covered the Battle of Britain. Later expansions added the late war Allied bombing campaigns and the Pacific War. If you wanted to jump around, you needed the expansions. Now, you only need one set (although they do have expansions that add more planes; but it seems that all the most popular planes are in Aces High).

After getting it, I have played 2 games with my wife Elizabeth. Both were 1 vs. 1 dogfights. In the first, her Messerschmitt flamed my Spitfire but I retaliated in the second when my Messerschmitt shot down her Russian fighter (I wish I could remember which one it was). I remember playing the original version solo, and that is my plan. I also began one of the campaigns. Overall, this is a clever game that replicates the feel of a dogfight. I highly recommend it.

Rating: 4.5/5