We need more games about knights

[warty goblin]

And not just dudes in armor mind, but proper Arthurian romance knights. Jousts, castles held by disgraced knights, the occasional dragon, fighting for the honor of your lady, it'd be great.

I want to smite a knave with a shining brand! Why is this not a thing?

[Grinner]

Ever heard of Mount & Blade?

[Hootman]

Ever heard of Mount & Blade?

I haven't, and am suddenly eager to know more, because heroic knights are awesome.

[warty goblin]

I haven't, and am suddenly eager to know more, because heroic knights are awesome.

M&B is an absolutely fantastic game that everybody with an interest in stabbing, dudes, and horses, or pretty much any combination thereof*. It's a bit too gritty for what I'm thinking though.

*And get your mind back out of the gutter.

[Grinner]

I haven't, and am suddenly eager to know more, because heroic knights are awesome.

Here's the demo (http://www.atomicgamer.com/file.php?id=73009).

It's a game by the studio Taleworlds Interactive and is renowned for its gameplay, chiefly combat. There's also a fairly active modding community around it, having produced campaigns for nearly every setting imaginable.


It's a bit too gritty for what I'm thinking though.

How about Oblivion mods? There's an Oblivion mod for everything.

[Slipperychicken]

If you mean tabletop games, you could try Pendragon. The rulebooks are expensive (although some wicked peasants will acquire it illicitly but without cost), the combat is quite lethal, but it strongly encourages roleplay and chivalric ideals.

[Flickerdart]

Crusader Kings kind of counts, but it's not an action game. There's a new game, Chivalry, which is about medieval combat, but I don't know if it's all that knightly.

[MLai]

And not just dudes in armor mind, but proper Arthurian romance knights. Jousts, castles held by disgraced knights, the occasional dragon, fighting for the honor of your lady, it'd be great.
I want to smite a knave with a shining brand! Why is this not a thing?
Since you didn't specify a genre, but I know you play PC games... perhaps you forgot about this one and its sequel?
http://www.blogcdn.com/news.bigdownload.com/media/2009/12/kingarthur_topimage.jpg

[Ailurus]

There's a new game, Chivalry, which is about medieval combat, but I don't know if it's all that knightly.

Chivalry is multiplayer-only, so while it would allow smiting knaves but none of the other stuff.

I think M&B is probably the closest thing out there, especially when their modding community is taken into account.

[Brother Oni]

Since you didn't specify a genre, but I know you play PC games... perhaps you forgot about this one and its sequel?
http://www.blogcdn.com/news.bigdownload.com/media/2009/12/kingarthur_topimage.jpg

It's got Arthurian themes and lots of knightly flavour text, but the game plays like a modded Rome:TW with a minor Old Faith/Christianity and Righteous/Tyrant character map that unlocks new units at certain milestones, so I don't think it's what warty is after.

A M&B mod would probably be better, especially if you turn down the lethality to make it less gritty.

The First Templar maybe, but I don't think it's as freeform as warty wants, plus the game is somewhat mediocre judging from the reviews.

[Triaxx]

Some of the best mounted combat I've played was in Two Worlds, but it's not exactly knightly, nor is it really the sort of Heavy Cavalry tactics a joust implies.

Granted, I've yet to see a game that doesn't treat Heavy Cavalry as 'Light Cavalry with more hit-points'.

I'd love to see some Knightly Combat though.

[Grinner]

Granted, I've yet to see a game that doesn't treat Heavy Cavalry as 'Light Cavalry with more hit-points'.

Warrior Kings?

[Brother Oni]

Granted, I've yet to see a game that doesn't treat Heavy Cavalry as 'Light Cavalry with more hit-points'.

Some of the later Total War games differentiate between heavy and light cavalry.

For a certain definition of Heavy Cavalry, Company of Heroes also fits the bill. :smalltongue:

[Hiro Protagonest]

For a certain definition of Heavy Cavalry, Company of Heroes also fits the bill. :smalltongue:

What, you mean MBTs aren't in everybody's definition of heavy cavalry?

[Slipperychicken]

Some of the later Total War games differentiate between heavy and light cavalry.


Yeah, when fighting AI it makes you kind of balance your forces. Getting harassed by horse-archers and light cavalry is horrible when all you can do is wait for them to screw up so you can engage.

I would recommend Medieval 2, but it's not Arthurian. It's more of a gritty dark ages feel, with the player controlling a nation. It focuses much more on combat and squeezing the peasants for all they're worth. Although a chivalrous leader (one who doesn't slaughter all his POWs, and doesn't have an extortionate tax policy) gets better morale for his troops, you'll find an equally chivalrous general on the end of your sword in short order. You also find the game heavily encourages use of spies to gather intelligence and break sieges, which isn't very chivalrous at all.

[Triaxx]

I guess Rome isn't sufficiently late in the Total War series.

MBT's are, but don't fit this definition because of the severe lack of hooves.

I also notice that many of the 'single character' type games end you up with light cavalry tactics due to horses seeming to be an after thought. And no one studio is to blame either. Two Worlds, Skyrim, Sacred, Legend of Zelda, Assassin's Creed, all of them end you up making long turns and having to slash at the enemy as you go by. Admittedly, Sacred did give you the opportunity to activate a Horse Charge with which to barrel through the center of an enemy group, but then you're stuck surrounded by enemies when it wears off.

On the other hand, I suppose part of the problem is that no one has built a control scheme which can handle light cavalry without micro management. Such as being able to draw a line and have them follow it attacking anything along the way while not stopping to get bogged down.

[Brother Oni]

What, you mean MBTs aren't in everybody's definition of heavy cavalry?

I know, right?
They travel faster than infantry so they must be cavalry, plus they got lots of armour and weapons, making them heavy. :smalltongue:


MBT's are, but don't fit this definition because of the severe lack of hooves.

Would it help if some lucky horseshoes got welded to the hull? :smalltongue:



On the other hand, I suppose part of the problem is that no one has built a control scheme which can handle light cavalry without micro management. Such as being able to draw a line and have them follow it attacking anything along the way while not stopping to get bogged down.

I'm sure you're well aware of it, but Mount&Blade has this sort of control system.
Horseback archery in Zelda, at least in Ocarina of Time, also followed this pattern, but I don't think you could actually fight with your sword. I can't remember whether it was the same in Twilight Princess and I haven't played Skyward Sword.

[Closet_Skeleton]

A M&B mod would probably be better, especially if you turn down the lethality to make it less gritty.

You're immortal in M&B. Its not lethal at all. You can knocked off your feet by a lucky crossbow bolt when victory was almost in your hands forcing your army to retreat but that doesn't kill you. I had my entire army slaughtered and got captured by bandits several times but eventually rose up again and conquered the entire map.

NPC nobles are also immortal and can only be captured and sold for ransom and never executed or die in battle. If that's not chivalric I don't know what is.



Granted, I've yet to see a game that doesn't treat Heavy Cavalry as 'Light Cavalry with more hit-points'.


Light and heavy cavalry are completely different in CK2, but its abstract combat system doesn't make that very clear.

[Triaxx]

Actually, I've not played Mount and Blade yet. I downloaded the Demo last night to give it a shot though.

You could indeed fight with your sword from horse back in Twilight Princess, but you'd either stop and get hit and knocked off, or have to make long sweeping attacks to be able to hit the target.

[warty goblin]

It's got Arthurian themes and lots of knightly flavour text, but the game plays like a modded Rome:TW with a minor Old Faith/Christianity and Righteous/Tyrant character map that unlocks new units at certain milestones, so I don't think it's what warty is after.

A M&B mod would probably be better, especially if you turn down the lethality to make it less gritty.

The First Templar maybe, but I don't think it's as freeform as warty wants, plus the game is somewhat mediocre judging from the reviews.

Ooh, good call on the King Arthur games, I'd forgotten about them. I seem to remember the text adventures being marvelous. First Templar isn't bad actually, if you like mediocre third person button mashers. I do.

[Flickerdart]

I guess Rome isn't sufficiently late in the Total War series.
I find that Napoleon handles light and heavy cav pretty well. Your average wedge of hussars will crumple horribly against a fresh unit of line, but they're great at covering ground quickly for flanking or taking out artillery. Slow curaissiers kick all sorts of ass even if you just run them into infantry head-on.



Admittedly, Sacred did give you the opportunity to activate a Horse Charge with which to barrel through the center of an enemy group, but then you're stuck surrounded by enemies when it wears off.
That's kind of accurate, though, no? Without the momentum of the charge, you're not that much better off than infantry.

[Kizor]

Ooh, good call on the King Arthur games, I'd forgotten about them. I seem to remember the text adventures being marvelous.

I enjoy the first game a lot, and don't see myself going back to Total War. TW was getting old for me anyway, the fact that you can't even throw lightning bolts just seals the deal.

That said, it's enjoyment I forcibly extract. When I play the game, I don't savescum, I scout: I repeatedly play a few turns forward of my main, "committed" save, trying out different paths, checking that I don't trigger any scripted events that would screw me over. I also keep plenty of saves just in case the Welsh pull three full stacks of archers out of nowhere and bowl me over.

But the text adventure elements are great for fluff, even when they're just pasted thinly over the combat. There's a world of difference between just going to fight some fairies and going to fight some fairies, but first visiting a monastery where they tell you: "Give us the taxes from this province for ten years, and we'll bind their spells", finding an ageless child who says: "Stay on my island for three years and serve me, and I'll clear the minds of their slaves", and meeting the queen of the fae, who says: "Bring me five hundred children under the age of five, and we'll leave you in peace."

[endoperez]

So, there aren't these types of games in the market? Interesting.

There's too many ways to create that sort of game, though. It's an interesting theme, but there are so many different genres of games where you could take it.

Let's see... what would it take to change an existing game into a knight game?

Zelda - you're a heroic swordsman in green tunic shining armor, your goal is to save the princess, and you ride the horse occassionally all the time.
Mechanics-wise, it basically needs maybe a better mounted combat system, perhaps slightly different art direction, but it's almost there already.

Shadow of the Colossus - you're a heroic, horse-riding swordsman in worn clothing shining armor battling colossi dragons. To kill them, you have to use a bow use your lance to hit it in its weak spot for massive damage, stunning it so you can start heroically climbing up the poor creature's backside.
Mechanics-wise, ditching the bow means you'll put yourself into more danger to stun the monsters. It also means you're too close to the monster when it starts falling, and don't get to see the cool animation at an appopriate distance.

Skyrim - you're a masterless, ruthless dude without anything better to do, so you wander around doing whatever suits you - it mostly involves killing things, taking their stuff, or both.
I guess you could rewrite Skyrim so that you're a specific character, limit your character customization options, limit the ways you can approach problems, etc to force the player to be a knight. It's silly, though, since Skyrim is about being free to try different stuff, while the goal of a knightly game is to be a knight. It could be done, but it'd be better to look at different games to see how it should be done.

Witcher - you're a great warrior with monster-slaying sword and mystical powers derived from alchemical experiments and other nasty stuff your devotion to everything good. You wander around, killing monsters and choosing what's best for you what's best for people in a world where you can't please everyone a good man can vanquish evil. Occassionally, you, ahem-hem, court the pretty ladies. Now, if you could only find a horse...
Mechanics-wise, it needs a horse, something to replace the mystical component and potions and stuff, and a new writing team.


Jade Empire - you're a young monk in training squire whose monastery master's manor was attacked, his master was killed, and he's now on a quest to avenge his master, while incidentally learning kung fu swordsmanship and discussing philosophy with the quest-givers.
Mechanics-wise, it needs a horse.

Final Fantasy Tactics - it's very, very close. A different writing team could do this with mostly the same maps, even.


The more I think of it, the more I keep thinking that there are games out there that COULD do this rather handily. The only missing part is a horse, really, and Mount & Blade is a pretty good inspiration in that regard.
Fantasy games aren't going away, Sui Generis and War of the Roses have the knight's looks but not the mindset...

I guess you might get this on a Nintedo console the next time someone tries to challenge Zelda for dominance. A far shot, yeah, but the stereotypical Nintendo games are more naive/happy/chivalric, and I could see the Wiimote drawing in developers interested in swordplay, bows and stuff. The nunchuck might even work decently for the horse-riding.

[Triaxx]

While looking up M&B:Warband on Steam, I noticed an 'if you like this' for a game called Chivalry:Medieval Combat. I know nothing more about it than the title though.

[Hiro Protagonest]

While looking up M&B:Warband on Steam, I noticed an 'if you like this' for a game called Chivalry:Medieval Combat. I know nothing more about it than the title though.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

There's a new game, Chivalry, which is about medieval combat, but I don't know if it's all that knightly.


Chivalry is multiplayer-only, so while it would allow smiting knaves but none of the other stuff.

[Triaxx]

Yeah, totally over-looked that. :smalltongue:

Glad I only downloaded the demo to Mount & Blade. Otherwise I'd be so addicted I'd never get anything DONE. Of course, I will get it, but not just now. Too much fun though, particularly once you learn the secret to combat. (DON'T GET OFF THE HORSE.) Big, two handed weapon to start with until you can get a fast enough horse to couch the lance, and then it's all over for the foot soldiers.

Still haven't solved the riddle of mounted opponents, but I'll figure it out eventually, probably after I buy the full version.

[Brother Oni]

Glad I only downloaded the demo to Mount & Blade. Otherwise I'd be so addicted I'd never get anything DONE. Of course, I will get it, but not just now. Too much fun though, particularly once you learn the secret to combat. (DON'T GET OFF THE HORSE.) Big, two handed weapon to start with until you can get a fast enough horse to couch the lance, and then it's all over for the foot soldiers.

Still haven't solved the riddle of mounted opponents, but I'll figure it out eventually, probably after I buy the full version.

Yeah M&B is good fun. It's the only game I've played where I've physically ducked when an arrow sailed past my character's head.

A suggestion - try and get M&B:Warband as it has several refinements and improvements from the original that make it good enough not to get the original game (unless you want access to non-Warband compatible mods).

Stay away from With Fire & Sword, unless you're a fan of the novel it's based on, or have a hankering to go wandering around Medieval Eastern Europe with early firearms.

[Reynard]

I wouldn't call Chivalry a particularly chivalric game, though. It's two opposing groups of angry men armed with heavy/sharp implements, in a large tract of land, beating the ever-loving snot out of each other.

The closest it comes are the rare occasions when people let the last member of the enemy team fight a series of 1v1s rather than just being bludgeoned to death by 4 people.

[Grinner]

I wouldn't call Chivalry a particularly chivalric game, though. It's two opposing groups of angry men armed with heavy/sharp implements, in a large tract of land, beating the ever-loving snot out of each other.

Add some maidens and some pedestals, and that's about what chivalry amounts to. :smalltongue:

[warty goblin]

Yeah, totally over-looked that. :smalltongue:

Glad I only downloaded the demo to Mount & Blade. Otherwise I'd be so addicted I'd never get anything DONE. Of course, I will get it, but not just now. Too much fun though, particularly once you learn the secret to combat. (DON'T GET OFF THE HORSE.) Big, two handed weapon to start with until you can get a fast enough horse to couch the lance, and then it's all over for the foot soldiers.

Still haven't solved the riddle of mounted opponents, but I'll figure it out eventually, probably after I buy the full version.

Mounted dudes can be tricky. My general tactic is to have a faster horse - I always go for speed over armor - and lots of ride-by attacks. A lot of this has to do with learning the timing of the attack animations, and figuring out when to swing so you can preempt an enemy attack. The other key trick is to make sure they never box you in.

There's also good fun to be had in finding a disturbingly large axe and chopping horses out from under guys. Ditto shooting them in the head just as they ride up.

You want a real skill challenge? Try horse archery. It's bloody hard starting out when your proficiencies are low, and M&B's ballistics simulation is rigorous enough it takes some real practice to compensate for your the velocity of your horse. Once you get good at it though, you're a murder machine on an open field.


If I was to design my chivalrous game from the ground up, I'd do it as follows.

After you create a knight, you pick the flavor of your quest. There's a lot of different sorts of knightly story, so let's allow the player to choose whatever suits their mood. Some ideas off the top of my head:


The Fair Unknown. You start without respect - except for a secret ally who knows your true identity - and must earn renown as you go on an adventure. Your ending will be happy as even your enemies are forced to concede your place in the world is well-earned.

The Waters of Love run Smooth. You must protect your beloved Lady from a series of dangers and defend her honor against false knights, dragons, etc. Another happy ending as your live out your days in prosperity and respect

The Waters of Love n'er run Smooth. Some insurmountable obstacle stands between you and your beloved Lady; she's probably married to the man you're sworn to serve, or you're already married. In either case, you must honor and uphold her honor as long as possible. Eventually however you will be forced to make a choice with no honorable answer, hinging on your forbidden romance. This quest ends in sorrow and the dishonor of you or your love.

Safeguard the Helpless. Someone less puissant needs your aid! It could be supernatural creatures wrecking havok, or false knights seizing a castle or river crossing. In either case you must ride to the rescue. A happy ending as you once again uphold chivalry across the fair land.

The Impossible Quest. A challenge has arisen that in honor you cannot pass up, but you will not succeed at. Struggle manfully, and meet your failure with held held high. An unhappy, but proud ending.

Chivalry's Fall. The knighthood is broken from within, and brother wars against brother. Whichever side you choose, only grief will flow from your sword as the world you sought to build comes to an end. A sad ending as the kingdom falls back into decay and barbarism.


And so on.

The key is that each of these quest flavors is randomized to some degree. While the overall tone will be the same between different runs, what characters you meet, what enemies you face, and your eventual rewards change from game to game. This keeps the experience fresh, but gives consistent tone.

Furthermore, these missions can be linked together, so the same character can be used for multiple quests. Some choices could be mutually exclusive, e.g. you cannot pick both the Waters of Love run Smooth and its opposite since you can't be happily married to the Lady you cannot marry. Others could require unlocking, since some options will not be available until you have a certain renown. Picking Chivalry's Fall would effectively end the game for any particular knight, at which point you can look back on your complete knightly epic.

I'd think the gameplay should be kept fairly variable. So the actual knave-smiting could be a third person action game, the adventuring a matter of text adventure, and so on. The goal is to capture the flavor of an Arthurian romance, and different parts of that will require different tools.

[BRC]

If I was to design my chivalrous game from the ground up, I'd do it as follows.

After you create a knight, you pick the flavor of your quest. There's a lot of different sorts of knightly story, so let's allow the player to choose whatever suits their mood. Some ideas off the top of my head:


The Fair Unknown. You start without respect - except for a secret ally who knows your true identity - and must earn renown as you go on an adventure. Your ending will be happy as even your enemies are forced to concede your place in the world is well-earned.

The Waters of Love run Smooth. You must protect your beloved Lady from a series of dangers and defend her honor against false knights, dragons, etc. Another happy ending as your live out your days in prosperity and respect

The Waters of Love n'er run Smooth. Some insurmountable obstacle stands between you and your beloved Lady; she's probably married to the man you're sworn to serve, or you're already married. In either case, you must honor and uphold her honor as long as possible. Eventually however you will be forced to make a choice with no honorable answer, hinging on your forbidden romance. This quest ends in sorrow and the dishonor of you or your love.

Safeguard the Helpless. Someone less puissant needs your aid! It could be supernatural creatures wrecking havok, or false knights seizing a castle or river crossing. In either case you must ride to the rescue. A happy ending as you once again uphold chivalry across the fair land.

The Impossible Quest. A challenge has arisen that in honor you cannot pass up, but you will not succeed at. Struggle manfully, and meet your failure with held held high. An unhappy, but proud ending.

Chivalry's Fall. The knighthood is broken from within, and brother wars against brother. Whichever side you choose, only grief will flow from your sword as the world you sought to build comes to an end. A sad ending as the kingdom falls back into decay and barbarism.


And so on.

The key is that each of these quest flavors is randomized to some degree. While the overall tone will be the same between different runs, what characters you meet, what enemies you face, and your eventual rewards change from game to game. This keeps the experience fresh, but gives consistent tone.

Furthermore, these missions can be linked together, so the same character can be used for multiple quests. Some choices could be mutually exclusive, e.g. you cannot pick both the Waters of Love run Smooth and its opposite since you can't be happily married to the Lady you cannot marry. Others could require unlocking, since some options will not be available until you have a certain renown. Picking Chivalry's Fall would effectively end the game for any particular knight, at which point you can look back on your complete knightly epic.

I'd think the gameplay should be kept fairly variable. So the actual knave-smiting could be a third person action game, the adventuring a matter of text adventure, and so on. The goal is to capture the flavor of an Arthurian romance, and different parts of that will require different tools.
What might be fun is to make it a sort of succession game.Really focus on the "Legend" aspect of the story.

It goes like this, the game has five "Ages". Let's set this in a fantasy setting to make things easier.

The Age of Collapse: Tail end of some Rome-equivalent Empire getting pushed back by Barbarian hordes.
The Age of Heroes: The leaders of said Barbarian Hordes, plus the Imperial survivors, have carved the land into many small Kingdoms. The Thousand Kings are usually too busy fighting border wars to actually patrol their lands, so Banditry runs rampant.
The Age of Kings: The Thousand Kingdoms have collected into three or four large Kingdoms, they take turns fighting wars and marrying each other's children.
The Age of Glory: Whether through marriage or conquest, the four Kingdoms have recombined into a single Kingdom. However, invaders mass at the borders, threatening to destroy it, meanwhile the Nobility, having gained lots of power, does what it will with the people.
The Age of Strife: The Invaders were either repelled, or took their loot and went home. Now, a Civil War threatens to rip tear the land asunder as two siblings vie for the throne. One of them may have the support of some foreign power/ The People, while the other is supported by a coalition of nobles ,or they could have just split the Nobility between them.

Now, in this game you actually play FIVE Knights. Each with their own quest, with the legend of each Knight inspiring the next.

For example, for the Age of Collapse, you choose "The Impossible Quest", playing a Centurion-equivalent who defends a fortress against the Barbarian Hordes. The Empire is collapsing, he is cut off from any relief, yet he does his duty and holds the fort against attack after attack, eventually falling under his enemies blades. However, Bards record his valiant struggle in Song.

Then, it cuts to the Age of Heroes. You select "Safeguard the Helpless". You are now a young man, inspired by the tale of the Steadfast Centurion. Because of this, your receive certain mechanical bonuses depending on how well the Centurion did (If the Centurion fell in the first battle, you receive only minor bonuses, if the Centurion lasted three years before falling, you receive Significant bonuses). Now you are a Prince, the heir to a fallen kingdom, one that was conquered by a cruel warlord. Your Quest is to save your people by defeating the Warlord. You could succeed or fail.

If you Succeed, your Kingdom becomes one of the four Kingdoms in the next age, and Bards sing songs of your strength, if not, Bards sing songs of your courage and conviction.

Then, it cuts to the Age of Kings. You select "The Waters of Love Ne're Run Smooth". You get reduced bonuses for the Centurion, and full bonuses depending on what/how well you did in the Age of Heroes. You are now a Knight, Helplessly in love with the princess of a Kingdom your Kingdom is on the brink of war with. You must attempt to bring peace between the Kingdoms in some way, even if it means eternally patrolling the borders, slaying headstrong Knights from each kingdom who seek to start a conflict.

And so on and so on. Each Age having several potential Quests, with the nature of the Age changing depending on the outcome of your previous quests, and with your character in each Age being inspired by the gallantry of the previous age, with the better you do in each Age giving you more bonuses in the following Age.

Of course, which character you are in a given Age changes depending on the quest you select. In the Age of Collapse, you could be a warrior from one of the "Barbarian" tribes, rather than a Centurion. In the Age of Heroes, you could be a faithful Knight serving your lord, rather than a Prince seeking revenge on the warlord who destroyed your home.

You can also influence the development of the land. If, in the Age of Glory, the Invaders succeed, then they marry into the Monarchy and take over the kingdom, so the Age of Strife becomes the story of a rebellion against the foreign monarchy, rather than a simple succession crisis. If, in your previous quests, you play a humble Commoner who rises to Greatness, then the power of the nobility and the monarchy is reduced in later Ages, so the Age of Strife could be the story of a popular uprising, using your "Humble Commoner" as their example. A clever Knight who tricks his foes means the society values intellect more. When the Foreign Invaders come, the defenders have Crossbows and Cannon rather than Shortbows and catapults.

And of course, in each age you can leave Relics for Heroes in the next age. There may be a tunnel into a castle that is only discoverable in the Age of Heroes, but once you've discovered it, you can use it to sneak into the same castle in the Age of Glory. Or that Centurion from the Age of Collapse could have died with such glory that the Barbarians built him a tomb out of respect, and your Knight in the Age of Strife can go into that tomb and find the Centurion's still-functional Sword.

Edit: Of course, the natural conclusion of this would be a "Bad Ending" of "Your Tale will be forgotten", if you set out to rescue your One True Love, only to fall off your horse and get murdered by the first group of bandits you encounter. Nobody ever talks about you and your next Quest gets no bonuses from this one.

Edit II: Not to mention the way each age can influence the Values of the next.

If in one age, your Brother is rebelling against your Lord. You are forced to choose between supporting your Brother or your Liege. If you choose the Brother, then from that on part of the Chivalric code is to defend one's family above all else. If you choose to support your Liege, then from that point on Loyalty to one's King becomes a paramount part of the Code.

You could even mold the gender politics of the Land. If, in the Age of Collapse, you might be given a choice to either arm some women who are willing to fight, or send them away. If you choose to arm them, and win the battle, then in a later age you may be given the choice to play a female Knight (A Dame?), probably in a sort of "Mysterious Knight" Type arrangement. If you succeed in THAT age, then later ages have a tradition of gender equality.


The game's Credits are set in the modern age, with the Credits scrolling past clips from ridiculously inaccurate film dramatizations of your various Quests.

[Ailurus]

What might be fun is to make it a sort of succession game.Really focus on the "Legend" aspect of the story.


I'd buy and play that.

[endoperez]

That's an interesting idea, but it seems more suited to casual gameplay. It is an interesting idea though. Single-player strategy games have random map option where you can create e.g. a random map with lots of wilderness and few enemy nations and play through the development of a civilization; or you can start a game with good tech in the beginning and lots of nations so you get to the fighting sooner.

There's no reason why that sort of "choose your quest" style shouldn't work for non-strategy games, but I can't think of a non-multiplayer game where you'd do that...

Although combining that with quests that end badly even when you do them right sounds quite weird.

The succession game idea is kinda cool. If it was done the other way around it'd create recursive legends. The Brave Knave starts the Centurion quest to unlock a defensive skill; the Centurion finds an old love letter starting a Waters of Love quest, the fair maid's father starts recounting his rise from a Fair Unknown into a nobleman...


What about multiplayer? The combat is simple enough. Meeting another human randomly only works if there's some sort of overworld or central server keeping track of all the players, so that isn't very feasible... well, it might work with player-hosted servers, but it's still rather unlikely.

Co-op gameplay would be awesome, though. Knight and squire, maybe; whenever you're playing as a knight, any friends that want to can instantly join the game as a Squire who assists his master in fights and stuff.

I wonder if two (or more) knights could co-operate on a quest...

[BRC]

The succession game idea is kinda cool. If it was done the other way around it'd create recursive legends. The Brave Knave starts the Centurion quest to unlock a defensive skill; the Centurion finds an old love letter starting a Waters of Love quest, the fair maid's father starts recounting his rise from a Fair Unknown into a nobleman...

Eh, that sort of Recursion would REALLY mess with the flow of gameplay.
You start as a Knight, and then you're a Centurion, and then you're somebody else. Once you finish that Somebody Else, you go back to the Centurion, then, only once those other stories are complete, do you get to go back and be the Knight, by which point you've forgotten what is going on.
It also prevents you from forging the story of the land with the characters. You meet Baron BlahBlahBlah as the Knight, now you can't kill his ancestor as the Centurion.

[Grinner]

Okay. Let's do it.

...

No. I'm totally serious.

We've already got what is essentially a game design document. I know the Quake source code well enough, and we might be able to combine it with the Hexen II source fairly easily. We just need people to do some modelling, texturing, and animating. Some dedicated mappers would be great as well.

Edit: Also, concept artists. The beginning of a unified artistic vision is a good concept artist.

[endoperez]

Okay. Let's do it.

...

No. I'm totally serious.

We've already got what is essentially a game design document. I know the Quake source code well enough, and we might be able to combine it with the Hexen II source fairly easily. We just need people to do some modelling, texturing, and animating. Some dedicated mappers would be great as well.

Edit: Also, concept artists. The beginning of a unified artistic vision is a good concept artist.



Sorry, but that's not going to work at this point.

We do NOT have a game design document. We have two dozen ideas, some of which are incompatible.

There's no clear view about gameplay mechanics beyond "probably 3rd person with melee".

Is an inventory needed? Is a skill tree / leveling needed? Dialogue trees? There are probably enemies.
Are the humanoids all human, or are there other races as well? Only faeries and nymphs other old stories, or elves and orcs too?
Are the non-humanoids natural, mythical or fantastical? Natural would be a wild boar, mythical would be a wild boar the size of a horse with red-goldish mane, mythical would be the previous with wings and fireballs.
There would probably be a dragon in there at some point. Is it Satan, is it an animal, is it a clever beast, can it talk, can it be good? Is it a crocodile? Is it what we now would call a wyvern, does it spit fire or breath fire, does it fly?
If the knight finds a magic sword, will it deal +136 more damage, warn him whenever monsters come near, sing a song, does it mark him as a prince or king, does it heal his wounds, is it a holy relic or is it the only thing that can cut through a monster's hide?

There are lots of interesting ideas in this thread, but not enough for a full game. Not yet, at least. But some of the ideas are really nice.

[Grinner]

There are lots of interesting ideas in this thread, but not enough for a full game. Not yet, at least. But some of the ideas are really nice.

Yeah, you're right. I was just trying to say that what's here is a great starting point for something other than wishful fantasy.

As for your questions:

Is an inventory needed? Is a skill tree / leveling needed? Dialogue trees? There are probably enemies.

Probably. As an action RPG, I can't see what that would contribute to the overall experience. Yes. Okay.


Are the humanoids all human, or are there other races as well? Only faeries and nymphs other old stories, or elves and orcs too?

My vote would be definitely including fairies but no Tolkienesque elves or orcs.


Are the non-humanoids natural, mythical or fantastical? Natural would be a wild boar, mythical would be a wild boar the size of a horse with red-goldish mane, fantastical would be the previous with wings and fireballs.

I was thinking Arthurian romance, so in my mind, it would probably be mostly natural with regular mythical elements.


There would probably be a dragon in there at some point. Is it Satan, is it an animal, is it a clever beast, can it talk, can it be good? Is it a crocodile? Is it what we now would call a wyvern, does it spit fire or breath fire, does it fly?

A Wyvern, perhaps? Kind of like Monster Hunter's Rathalos.


If the knight finds a magic sword, will it deal +136 more damage, warn him whenever monsters come near, sing a song, does it mark him as a prince or king, does it heal his wounds, is it a holy relic or is it the only thing that can cut through a monster's hide?

Discussion of this would need to come as levels are designed. What purpose would the artifact serve in the greater context of the game?

[Nepenthe]

I love the general idea, but I'd like for the choice of flavors to be hidden in the background. How about choosing one of five (or six) playable knights at the beginning of each age. Every knight's story would impact the story of each of the knights of the following age so that no matter who you choose, you can see results of the previous knight's actions. So, for example, Age 3: Knight 2's quest might be either "Defend your lady's honor" or "Rescue your love from the dragon's lair" depending on whether Age 2: Knight 4 was successful at his quest of "Steal a dragon egg."

[warty goblin]

I love the general idea, but I'd like for the choice of flavors to be hidden in the background. How about choosing one of five (or six) playable knights at the beginning of each age. Every knight's story would impact the story of each of the knights of the following age so that no matter who you choose, you can see results of the previous knight's actions. So, for example, Age 3: Knight 2's quest might be either "Defend your lady's honor" or "Rescue your love from the dragon's lair" depending on whether Age 2: Knight 4 was successful at his quest of "Steal a dragon egg."

Nah, I very much like the explicit choice of flavor. We have a lot of games about the player as a character, but very few that set the player as author. Besides which, there's limited returns in plotting out sequences of discrete choices. I think there's significant reward for adjusting the tone of the story moreso than its actual content.

[Triaxx]

Agreed, what's the point in playing a free-world game where all your choices are made for you, and those that aren't affect nothing?

(Not a word about Skyrim.)

On the other hand, the more individual character choices you can make, the more interesting the quests. For example Love runs Smoothly. Perhaps it does if you're already nobility, but perhaps you've started life as a street urchin apprenticed as a squire. You can still get the lady, but you've got to win yourself a knighthood to do it. In the Age of Kings it might be by expanding one lords territory, by capturing another lord.

Another option is to vary the fantastical elements. Those times when the nobility is the least in control the most fantastical elements exist. So in the first age you have many dragons rampaging through the country side, and in the second they've bred out of control, while in the third, the armies are organized enough to not only fight them, but bring them down. And in the fourth the army has all but driven them away, and in the last they might be back if the countryside fell to the invaders, since the army is no longer able to fight them.

[BRC]

Agreed, what's the point in playing a free-world game where all your choices are made for you, and those that aren't affect nothing?

(Not a word about Skyrim.)

On the other hand, the more individual character choices you can make, the more interesting the quests. For example Love runs Smoothly. Perhaps it does if you're already nobility, but perhaps you've started life as a street urchin apprenticed as a squire. You can still get the lady, but you've got to win yourself a knighthood to do it. In the Age of Kings it might be by expanding one lords territory, by capturing another lord.

Another option is to vary the fantastical elements. Those times when the nobility is the least in control the most fantastical elements exist. So in the first age you have many dragons rampaging through the country side, and in the second they've bred out of control, while in the third, the armies are organized enough to not only fight them, but bring them down. And in the fourth the army has all but driven them away, and in the last they might be back if the countryside fell to the invaders, since the army is no longer able to fight them.

Well, if we're going with the "Crafting the feel of the story", then rather than one could question whether the Fantastical elements exist, based on how frequently you choose to encounter them, with later Ages shifting depending on how fantastical things are.

For example, in the Age of Collapse you can do battle with a Druid. Later on, in the Age of Kings, you must defeat an evil Dragon named Scarion. In another playthrough, you never encounter the Druid in the Age of Collapse. In the Age of Kings, you go to fight Scarion, but he's just an evil Knight who bears a Dragon on his standard. His cave full of goblins has become a keep full of mercenaries. In the latter case, there never WAS a druid, just a guy with antlers on his hat who claimed he possessed mystical powers.

[Grinner]

I don't quite grasp what's being suggested...This "Crafting the Feel of the Story" thing, how would that work? How is that different from scripting a branching storyline? If it's not a branching storyline, then the game is ultimately linear...

[BRC]

I don't quite grasp what's being suggested...This "Crafting the Feel of the Story" thing, how would that work? How is that different from scripting a branching storyline? If it's not a branching storyline, then the game is ultimately linear...
It IS a branching storyline, it just goes a little bit further. From a Gameplay Design standpoint, the implementation would be identical, the Player makes choices that mean a different story is told.
From a Writing standpoint, the implementation is different. Rather than telling one story multiple ways, you have multiple types of stories. Is it a story of strength and glorious heroism, or a tragic story of devotion to an impossible quest?

It's basically just Branching Storylines, with a special focus on making different, not just the events, but the feel of the story different depending on Player actions.

[warty goblin]

It's basically just Branching Storylines, with a special focus on making different, not just the events, but the feel of the story different depending on Player actions.

Sort of like how you choose endings in Spec Ops: The Line. The material differences between most of them are minescule, but the thematic ramifications, what you are saying you think about Walker, are quite large.

Obviously this game should be nowhere near as bleak as Spec Ops.

[BRC]

Sort of like how you choose endings in Spec Ops: The Line. The material differences between most of them are minescule, but the thematic ramifications, what you are saying you think about Walker, are quite large.

Obviously this game should be nowhere near as bleak as Spec Ops.

If this theoretical game used by "Ages" idea (What do you think about that idea Warty?), one interesting thing may be to have a "Code" that develops as the game goes on, based on your actions in previous Ages. I hinted at it earlier, but I think it would make an interesting idea.

If our Centurion, driven by his Duty, defends the fortress to his death, then the Code would have a paragraph somewhere about "A Knight does as he is commanded", whereas if the Centurion leads an attack, intentionally allowing the Fortress to fall, but giving refugees a chance to escape, The Code instead says "A Knight protects the weak and innocent". The Code could also receive some randomized paragraphs from quests you didn't do.

Also, each Age would have a "Bad Ending" perhaps even worse than "Your Tale is Forgotten": You are remembered, but as the Villain.
For example, if you have the Age of Heroes, you are playing the Prince of a fallen kingdom. Depending on what is permissible by the Code, there are several outcomes.
If you behave Honorably and Succeed, the Code is reinforced according to your actions, and you are remembered as a Hero and the founder of a great dynasty.
If you behave Dishonorably and Succeed, then the Code changes according to your actions (if, say, you sneak into the fortress and ambush the Warlord, rather than facing him in single combat, the Code changes to allow a Hero to employ cunning against a foe), you are remembered as a Hero.
If you behave Honorably and Fail, then you are a tragic hero, the Code changes/ is Reinforced anyway, but to a lesser degree.
If you behave Dishonorably and Fail, then you are remembered as the Villain. You're not the brave prince who defeats the evil warlord, you are the vile Assassin, or the bloodthirsty Brute who attempts to kill the wise King.

[Grinner]

If this theoretical game used by "Ages" idea (What do you think about that idea Warty?), one interesting thing may be to have a "Code" that develops as the game goes on, based on your actions in previous Ages. I hinted at it earlier, but I think it would make an interesting idea.

If our Centurion, driven by his Duty, defends the fortress to his death, then the Code would have a paragraph somewhere about "A Knight does as he is commanded", whereas if the Centurion leads an attack, intentionally allowing the Fortress to fall, but giving refugees a chance to escape, The Code instead says "A Knight protects the weak and innocent". The Code could also receive some randomized paragraphs from quests you didn't do.

*snip*

So, the player would have a journal entitled "The Knight's Code" or something like that. After each Age, the journal would be modified based upon the actions and success of the player character, and the evolution of this journal would document the players progress. At the end of the final age, the state of the journal would decide the legacy of the chivalric ideal?

[BRC]

So, the player would have a journal entitled "The Knight's Code" or something like that. After each Age, the journal would be modified based upon the actions and success of the player character, and the evolution of this journal would document the players progress. At the end of the final age, the state of the journal would decide the legacy of the chivalric ideal?
Basically. Perhaps it's just the History Major in me, but the idea of ending the game with a record of how your actions have influenced the values of a Society really appeals to me.

Mind you, I'm also picturing things as going from Greek/Roman mythological Hero (Though maybe not quite) in the Age of Collapse to Arthurian Knight in the Age of Heroes, Kings, and Glory, with Alexandre Dumont style Swordsmen in the Age of Strife.

[endoperez]

Here's my take on this (wall of text incoming):


Premise: The game should have successive gameplay, previous playthroughs affecting the current one. This has several very important implications.

The game should be designed from the ground up to support repeated playthroughs.
Traditional 3rd-person games are crafted for one playthrough. The other option is to create an open world where the player is free to do different things at different times. Doing a Skyrim-world is too expensive.

For multiple playthroughs, we need randomness in the world and gameplay.
Seeing the same few scenes over and over again will get boring quickly. Randomizing the game world would be one of the most important things. It can be actual randomness, or an illusion of randomness created by throwing the player into one of a set number of instances with only minor variation (think new X-Com).

Fighting the same enemies does NOT get old as fast, assuming the combat is fun. Also, once there's a pool of enemies, they can be combined in different ways rather easily - 5 goblins is different from 3 goblins + centaur, or an ogre + 3 goblins, or a scene where an ogre is fighting a centaur and you can help either, or fight both. So providing random environment should be good enough.

Another important things for multiple playthroughs is some sort of a reward. Diablo's "boss runs" for loot, unlocking different endings, unlocking items or skills, unlocking new quests
"Bad ends" from the previous playthroughs could also have an effect. E.g. Waters of Love ending in a tragedy should still 'reward' the player.


Game mechanics should be inspired by games that do repetitive playthroughs extremely well. There are several contenders:

1) Roguelikes. They've been borrowed heavily into some successful and recent games, like FTL. The actual mechanics needn't be top-down turn-based dungeon delving.
2) Skill-based games with ramping difficulty curve - shoot-em-ups, running games, tetris, games with waves of enemies that unlock upgrades that make killing further waves easier. These mechanics probably won't stand on their own.
2.5) Skill-based racing games etc, where the reward of winning is that you get to try yourself in more challenging races.
3) Text adventures with forking paths that lead to different outcomes. Alternate text for a static number of characters is reasonably fast/cheap to write.
4) Strategy games with skirmish maps. Also city sim games etc. Basically, games which can repeatedly provide an intellectual challenge thanks to the game mechanics being very open about the ways you can approach a problem, and the enemy/terrain/alternate win conditions/random events giving the player incentive to try out different things.


From roguelikes, it's best to draw on world randomization. Incursion is perhaps the best I've seen so far, and Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup is nice too. They both spice up the random dungeons by adding in player-created specials. In Dungeon Crawl, your might start the game in a small island, or in a room with glass walls, or inside a spiral-like structure. Incursion goes a step further: the maps are a series of rooms and tunnels chosen from a wide variety of possibilities. Barracks are spartan and hold more weapons, kobold tunnels and small and tricky, mushroom forests are open but the visibility is poor.
http://www.incursion-roguelike.net/

From 2 - skill-based games, I'd like to point at Elona Shooter.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/noanoa/elona-shooter
It's made interesting by all the choices you get to make between the fighting. If the chivalric game were to follow a single knight through several randomized locations or encounters or events, having this kind of screen between each fight would really help the gameplay. Instead of equipment, the focus could be on followers, knightly virtues, and the dialogue would also take place here.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be a separate screen, the important thing is in having the options there. the mechanical bonuses the choice will have should be visible before the player makes a decision, unless it's random, in which case the player should know that the result will vary.

2.5 - The best example I can think of here is actually another roguelike
Desktop Dungeons.
http://www.desktopdungeons.net/
It's a minimalistic game. The depth comes in with the fact that with every playthrough, you get access to new class - that is more challenging than the previous one.
You also unlock an enemy that's especially good against the character type that you won the game with. If you play a Wizard and complete the level, new magic-resistant monsters will appear in future playthroughs. And finally, you also unlock new special levels, which require different tactics than the usual ones, but have less variation.

This is easy to adapt to the chivalric game. With every playthrough, more chivalric codes or virtues will be made known to the player, and new quests/scenarios focusing on different aspects of chivalry will be accessible.

Early on, the player would be playing a swordsman and trying to learn how the fighting works, and is likely to choose th dialogue options that give him the best gear and best combat bonuses.
After some tries, as the player has learned the ropes, he has to do that AND balance it with his knightly Honor, which might disallow things such as crossbow ambushes.
An experienced player will be generously donating away his money, will switch horses with a nobleman who would otherwise be late from his lord's summons, chose to go to the forest to save the old couple and thus never met the armorsmith, and so on. He will have forgone most of the mechanical advantages, but he'll be a truly saintly knight, virtuous in word and deed. Only a knight near perfection could become the dragon-slayer, be a king's trusted advisor through war and famine, or be noble enough to receive a magic sword from the Lady of the Lake.

That then leads to 3) and varying story paths. The player will be presented choices in the various "quests", and specific choices lead the story towards a certain conclusion. For example, completing the Centurion quest by loyally defending the castle until you die, you unlock Loyalty. Completing the same quest by saving the villagers will unlock Mercy. In all further games, you start Loyal and Mercy, and can now choose thosey dialogue/story paths.

The trick here is making these a challenge - you will start every scenario as Loyal, yes, but if you do the wrong choices you'll break your vow of loyalty. So you're now playing the Waters of Love, and you have to choose between your lord's orders to drive serfs from their homes and his beautiful lady's wish to help the poor. If you choose to stay Loyal, your lord will in a later event overlook the claims that you're wooing his lady - but how can you woo her when she considers you a heartless brute?


I'm not sure what sort of gameplay mechanics would best fit here. A prototype would be easiest to do in 2D, with RPG maker or whatever. All the story paths and forks and dialogue could be tested there, and then if they show promise, it would be possible to recreate them in a different engine.

[BRC]

The real focus of the game should be on one's Decisions, rather than their Abilities, however there should be mechanical representations for those decisions.

Ideally I think an RPG would work best here, with different types of decisions giving you various stat bonuses. Let's group things into general categories, like so:

Loyalty: Defensive abilities
Defined as obedience to one's Liege
Mercy: Special Abilities
Protection of the Weak. Gives you status-effect type abilities
Skill at Arms: Offensive Abilities
One's ability to kick ass and take names.
Faithfulness (need a better word): Personal Special abilities
Defined as how true one is to one's own quest or motivation. For example, Obeying the wishes of your lord or Obeying the wishes of the lady you love would be a choice between Loyalty and Faithfulness.

Random Encounters are usually minor quests (save this village from bandits, accept the Challenge of a braggart hedge knight, enforce your Liege's Law,) usually themed to one of the Knightly Virtues, giving you minor stat bonuses depending on which one. You can always reject these Minor Quests, passing up on the Bonuses and continuing on your journey.

The trick is that you would not have many of these, and some of them might be simple decisions rather than Combats. For example, you could be called in to arbitrate a dispute between a Tax Collector and a Peasant. The Tax Collector is technically in the right, but is perhaps being cruel, you can side with the Peasant (Mercy) or the Tax Collector (Loyalty).

You could also have a Mass-effect-ish system where being high enough in a given stat can open up new options. For example, with the Peasant vs Tax Collector, having a sufficiently high Loyalty means you can convince the Tax Collector to let the peasant off the hook this once, while having a high Mercy means you can convince the peasant to pay up without threatening him by promising to intercede on his behalf with the local lord.

The challenge will be having enough of these, appropriate to different Ages, to avoid getting repetitive.

[Grinner]

Faithfulness (need a better word): Personal Special abilities
Defined as how true one is to one's own quest or motivation. For example, Obeying the wishes of your lord or Obeying the wishes of the lady you love would be a choice between Loyalty and Faithfulness.

Perhaps you're looking for the term "Fidelity"?

I recall that Piety was also seen as knightly virtue. I'm not sure what sort of abilities that would entail, though. Healing, perhaps?

[BRC]

Perhaps you're looking for the term "Fidelity"?

I recall that Piety was also seen as knightly virtue. I'm not sure what sort of abilities that would entail, though. Healing, perhaps?
Maybe. It's like Loyalty, but a Loyalty to one's personal cause rather than to one's Liege.

Piety would imply Loyalty to the Church, which is too similar to "Loyalty to one's Liege" in my book.

Hrmm, in this ruleset, Robin Hood would be the ultimate Glass Cannon. High Fidelity, Skill at Arms, and Mercy, with an extremely low Loyalty.

[endoperez]

The real focus of the game should be on one's Decisions, rather than their Abilities, however there should be mechanical representations for those decisions.

Ideally I think an RPG would work best here, with different types of decisions giving you various stat bonuses. Let's group things into general categories, like so:

Loyalty: Defensive abilities
Defined as obedience to one's Liege
Mercy: Special Abilities
Protection of the Weak. Gives you status-effect type abilities
Skill at Arms: Offensive Abilities
One's ability to kick ass and take names.
Faithfulness (need a better word): Personal Special abilities
Defined as how true one is to one's own quest or motivation. For example, Obeying the wishes of your lord or Obeying the wishes of the lady you love would be a choice between Loyalty and Faithfulness.

Random Encounters are usually minor quests (save this village from bandits, accept the Challenge of a braggart hedge knight, enforce your Liege's Law,) usually themed to one of the Knightly Virtues, giving you minor stat bonuses depending on which one. You can always reject these Minor Quests, passing up on the Bonuses and continuing on your journey.

The trick is that you would not have many of these, and some of them might be simple decisions rather than Combats. For example, you could be called in to arbitrate a dispute between a Tax Collector and a Peasant. The Tax Collector is technically in the right, but is perhaps being cruel, you can side with the Peasant (Mercy) or the Tax Collector (Loyalty).

You could also have a Mass-effect-ish system where being high enough in a given stat can open up new options. For example, with the Peasant vs Tax Collector, having a sufficiently high Loyalty means you can convince the Tax Collector to let the peasant off the hook this once, while having a high Mercy means you can convince the peasant to pay up without threatening him by promising to intercede on his behalf with the local lord.

The challenge will be having enough of these, appropriate to different Ages, to avoid getting repetitive.


I agree on the high virtues giving new options. Personally, I don't agree on the virtues being stat bonuses. It becomes too easy to think of these as Constitution, Strength etc instead of philosophical virtues. I was thinking more along the alignments of D&D, or what Jade Empire tried with Open Palm/Closed Fist. The four humors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments) could be an inspiration: pleasurable, ambitious, thoughtful, and maybe kind.
I'd also think that a game about chivalry would be about making moral choices, and if being good means you kick ass, it kind of misses the point. Gamers tend to base decisions on in-game rewards, not morals, and it might be hard to break that habit if they start thinking of virtues as stats.



Also, it's impossible to create so many unique situatios that there's no repetitiveness. King of Dragon Pass has random events with decision trees, but there was a relatively limited amount of them. Even with a few plays you started to see specific ones pretty often. This doesn't mean they need to become instantly boring.
Since the player can only choose one outcome at once, trying out the different ones could keep him entertained for a while. To make that more interesting than just saving/trying/loading, there could be a chance of a later event that depends on the original choice.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'd imagine that one could mine the Pendragon tabletop game for a lot of ideas. The concept of succession gaming is actually baked into it.

[Grinner]

I agree on the high virtues giving new options. Personally, I don't agree on the virtues being stat bonuses. It becomes too easy to think of these as Constitution, Strength etc instead of philosophical virtues. I was thinking more along the alignments of D&D, or what Jade Empire tried with Open Palm/Closed Fist. The four humors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments) could be an inspiration: pleasurable, ambitious, thoughtful, and maybe kind.
I'd also think that a game about chivalry would be about making moral choices, and if being good means you kick ass, it kind of misses the point. Gamers tend to base decisions on in-game rewards, not morals, and it might be hard to break that habit if they start thinking of virtues as stats.

Then how about plot-based, non-mechanical rewards? As the player goes through the game, he's presented with a number of moral quandaries. Based upon his decisions, he's given points in one of four virtues and certain plotlines either close or open, depending on his score in the virtues.

For example, say the player has been ordered to unconditionally kill an enemy lord of his liege, but the lord cedes to him. Should he choose to kill him anyway, he demonstrates Loyalty, but if he chooses to accept the surrender, he instead shows Mercy. The first option would add a point to Loyalty, while the second would add a point to Mercy.

As the player would progress through the game, he would find that certain NPCs would require that the player have a certain score in one or more of the virtues to progress along their plotlines.

Also, while the player earns these points, a legend is built up in the player's journal. Part of it manifests as the Knight's Code of whatever Order he works for, with Orders in later Ages inheriting and modifying that Code (dependent upon the player's actions). However, each individual Knight also has his own story built up around him.

Edit: Lastly, failures, while they reflect poorly on his Legend and Code, do not hinder the player. When the player fails a quest, where failure is a possibility, the game automatically demerits the virtue the player had been working on and instead merits another one, with an appropriate outcome.

This has got me thinking though. If this is based on ethical values, then why is Skill at Arms a virtue? Sure, it's historically valid, but Piety strikes me as being more appropriate to a game.

Protection of the Weak, loyalty to the people
Loyalty, loyalty to the liege
Piety, loyalty to the tenets of the Church
Mercy, loyalty to your fellow man


Forgive the terminology. It does need work.

[endoperez]

That's pretty close to what I imagine.

I'd differentiate between Failures (game overs, you screwed up!s) and Bad Ends (forbidden love, chivalry's fall and the Impossible quest suggested by Warty).


The first ones come from the player's failings. They are negative, ending the game, or causing him to lose some resource (virtues, equipment, status...) if the game continues.

The second ones are written into the story. The player can't avoid them, or if he can, it's going to be late-game stuff, closer to how New Game+ works.. These should reward the player. Riding alone to fight an unbeatable foe is a Bad End... but it's the knight's duty, and the world will be better for it.

Oh damn. You remember the game where, in a cutscene, an ally or a party member makes a Heroic Sacrifice? Imagine if you could be the one to do that, to CHOOSE to do that! And the game lets you! :smallbiggrin:

[BRC]

Then how about plot-based, non-mechanical rewards? As the player goes through the game, he's presented with a number of moral quandaries. Based upon his decisions, he's given points in one of four virtues and certain plotlines either close or open, depending on his score in the virtues.

For example, say the player has been ordered to unconditionally kill an enemy lord of his liege, but the lord cedes to him. Should he choose to kill him anyway, he demonstrates Loyalty, but if he chooses to accept the surrender, he instead shows Mercy. The first option would add a point to Loyalty, while the second would add a point to Mercy.

As the player would progress through the game, he would find that certain NPCs would require that the player have a certain score in one or more of the virtues to progress along their plotlines.

Also, while the player earns these points, a legend is built up in the player's journal. Part of it manifests as the Knight's Code of whatever Order he works for, with Orders in later Ages inheriting and modifying that Code (dependent upon the player's actions). However, each individual Knight also has his own story built up around him.
That could work. It would also be pretty easy to make modular, since various Scenarios could just test for the Knight's Reputation and Honor in order to open up different options. Some of these could turn into mechanical benefits, but the nature of the game means there is no way to know what Virtues will lead to which Benefits. For example, if Knights in the land are known to be kind and merciful, then there may be a random encounter later where you meet a Blacksmith who gives you a Sword, because years ago a Knight, following the Code (A Code inspired by your actions in previous Ages), saved his village. You had no way of knowing you would encounter this Blacksmith when you chose to be Merciful in earlier Ages.

Hrmm, with this in mind, it might be better to make the Virtues, Each with two mirroring Flaws (one for too few points in that Virtue, one for too many)
Loyalty
Obeying the Commands of your Liege.
Mercy
Protecting the innocent and weak.
Honor
Following through when you have given your word. Note, this is different than Loyalty. Loyalty is obeying your Liege, these are personal Oaths, stuff like " I promise to see you safely to the other side of the valley" or "I Promise to fairly arbitrate this dispute". This could also be stuff like defending the honor of your king/lady/family in the face of insult.

The Flaws would then be

Disloyalty or Servitude
An especially low Loyalty score means that Knights in this land have a reptuation for being little more than disloyal, mercenary Thugs. You will receive little assistance from your Liege Lord. Servitude means that Knights of the land are known for being unthinking brutes obeying any command given them. People who may once have sought to bargain or negotiate now attack outright, and you are personally blamed for any crimes of your Lord.

Merciless and Cowardly
An especially low Mercy score means that Knights are seen as being bloodthirsty monsters always looking for their next kill. Too high a Mercy score means that you (or Knights in general) have a reputation for being unwilling to get their hands dirty.

Dishonest and Proud.
An especially low Honor score means that nobody trusts you, you are expected to go back on your Word and do whatever you feel is necessary to fulfill your objective. An especially high Honor score means that you are seen as being hubristic and proud, easy to trick and manipulate.

As you progress to a new Age, your Knight starts with Virtues based on the current standing of the Code, but your individual actions can change that, as you develop a reputation beyond that of a Knight.


Hrmm, with this in mind it might be better to make things a little more free-roaming. Your Knight wanders around each age doing Quests until you Die. You only have one or two "Classes" to choose from in each Age, each of which comes with different abilities, different Great Quests, and perhaps some different (or slightly modified) Minor Quests. Minor Quests can usually be handled with a swap of who the bad guys are (Dudes from Kingdom A are stealing our crops vs Dudes from Kingdom B are stealing our crops), or just left unchanged.


Eventually, your Knight will start to age, or will acquire serious Wounds which reduce your stats, meaning that, eventually, you will Die and move on to the next age. The Quest in which you Die is given more importance than others (So it's usually best to Die while on a Great Quest).
For example

Example Classes

Age of Collapse
Centurion: Barbarians are your enemies, Imperials are your allies. More focus on Defense and Social.
Champion: Imperials are your enemies, Barbarians are your allies. More focus on Offense.

Age of Heroes
The Prince: Start with better equipment, worse penalties for Disloyalty. Code-Standard starting Virtues
The Peasant: Gains more from leveling up, worse penalties for failing to show Mercy. Starts with a higher Mercy, lower Honor.

Age of Kings
The Knight Errant: The son (or daughter) of a Noble in service to one of the four Kings. Code-Standard starting Virtues.
The Noble Sellsword: A foreigner who came to this land and has pledged loyalty a King. Starts with higher Loyalty, reduced Honor. While your personal Virtues rise faster than most (As you are distinct, and therefore more easily remembered), your influence on the Code is less than normal (As you are not seen as a "Standard" Knight).

Age of Glory
The Knight Protector: The son (or daughter) of a Nobleman sent out to battle with the Invaders. Code-Standard starting Virtues.
The Veteran: A Common Man-At-Arms who showed extraordinary courage and virtue in defending against the Invaders, the King has knighted you and sent you back out into the land. You start with higher Statistics, but all your Virtues are begin lower than normal.

Age of Strife
The Captain: A Noble who has pledged his service to one of the factions in the Civil War. Code-Standard Starting Virtues.
The Swashbuckler: A skilled Swordsman, perhaps a Mercenary, who has pledged to serve one of the factions. Reduced Loyalty and Honor, but higher starting Stats.

Edit: A Player should be Motivated to find a fitting end to their Hero. Perhaps various Great Quests have different bonuses for being the Knight's Final Hour. If you die slaying a Dragon, then, in later Ages, a Hero may encounter a blade made from the bones of that Dragon.

That said, it should also be possible to succeed in a Quest, and not survive it. If the quest is to slay some foe, then "Slay the Foe, but succumb to your Wounds" is certainly an option.


Hrmmm...maybe "Final Quests" should be a catagory in of themselves.

"Minor Quests": randomly generated stuff you do to grind for loot and glory. Stuff like "Help, Bandits are raiding our farms". It's really hard to die on one of these (though you can acquire permanent Wounds), and doing so nets you a big failure.

"Great Quests": More Epic challenges, the stuff Bards sing about. Stuff like "Slay a Dragon" or "Storm a Fortress" or "Duel an evil Knight". You CAN die on these, and doing so nets you some bonuses.

"Final Quests": There is no hope for victory here, and the player knows it. Stuff like "Defend this fortress from an overwhelming foe", or "Seek this Lost Relic". Dying on these gives you lots of bonuses.

Separate from Quests there can be something like "Purpose". Which could be to Woo a fair maiden, or defend a kingdom, with some Quests advancing that purpose. Some Purposes may come with a Great or Final Quest that will resolve them (Rescue the Maiden, Slay the man who killed your father, find the ancient Relic)

Edit II: Perhaps each of the Characters I describe above comes with it's own Purpose. The Prince's purpose may be to Defend his Kingdom (Ending with a Final Quest to unite several nearby states and assume the Throne), while the Peasant may be seeking to woo the Lord's daughter (no Final Quest, maybe a Great Quest that ends with the Daughter confessing her love for you, but knowing you can never be together).

[warty goblin]

That's pretty close to what I imagine.

I'd differentiate between Failures (game overs, you screwed up!s) and Bad Ends (forbidden love, chivalry's fall and the Impossible quest suggested by Warty).


The first ones come from the player's failings. They are negative, ending the game, or causing him to lose some resource (virtues, equipment, status...) if the game continues.

The second ones are written into the story. The player can't avoid them, or if he can, it's going to be late-game stuff, closer to how New Game+ works.. These should reward the player. Riding alone to fight an unbeatable foe is a Bad End... but it's the knight's duty, and the world will be better for it.

Oh damn. You remember the game where, in a cutscene, an ally or a party member makes a Heroic Sacrifice? Imagine if you could be the one to do that, to CHOOSE to do that! And the game lets you! :smallbiggrin:

Exactly. Usually when you do the Heroic Sacrifice thing in games, the story cheats and you live, or else makes your defeat easily avoidable. Which misses the brilliant catharsis of a good inevitable tragedy. Half of the punch of Arthurian romance comes from knowing the fall that follows the rise and joy of early Camelot. It's the inevitable destruction from within that makes the story work in the first place.

I'd argue that any game trying to mimic that tone has to end in failure, and the player has to know it from minute one. If they have an expectation or hope they can 'win', the loss will feel arbitrary and annoying. It's got to be clear from the opening scene that ultimately they will fail, but can define the course of that failure.

[endoperez]

Exactly. Usually when you do the Heroic Sacrifice thing in games, the story cheats and you live, or else makes your defeat easily avoidable. Which misses the brilliant catharsis of a good inevitable tragedy. Half of the punch of Arthurian romance comes from knowing the fall that follows the rise and joy of early Camelot. It's the inevitable destruction from within that makes the story work in the first place.

I'd argue that any game trying to mimic that tone has to end in failure, and the player has to know it from minute one. If they have an expectation or hope they can 'win', the loss will feel arbitrary and annoying. It's got to be clear from the opening scene that ultimately they will fail, but can define the course of that failure.

Thanks, I was hoping you'd clarify on this. I'm not that familiar with Arthurian mythos, so this helps me understand what you were going for.


Also, thanks for starting the thread, it's turning out great!

[Grinner]

Edit: A Player should be Motivated to find a fitting end to their Hero. Perhaps various Great Quests have different bonuses for being the Knight's Final Hour. If you die slaying a Dragon, then, in later Ages, a Hero may encounter a blade made from the bones of that Dragon.

That said, it should also be possible to succeed in a Quest, and not survive it. If the quest is to slay some foe, then "Slay the Foe, but succumb to your Wounds" is certainly an option.


Hrmmm...maybe "Final Quests" should be a catagory in of themselves.

"Minor Quests": randomly generated stuff you do to grind for loot and glory. Stuff like "Help, Bandits are raiding our farms". It's really hard to die on one of these (though you can acquire permanent Wounds), and doing so nets you a big failure.

"Great Quests": More Epic challenges, the stuff Bards sing about. Stuff like "Slay a Dragon" or "Storm a Fortress" or "Duel an evil Knight". You CAN die on these, and doing so nets you some bonuses.

"Final Quests": There is no hope for victory here, and the player knows it. Stuff like "Defend this fortress from an overwhelming foe", or "Seek this Lost Relic". Dying on these gives you lots of bonuses.

Separate from Quests there can be something like "Purpose". Which could be to Woo a fair maiden, or defend a kingdom, with some Quests advancing that purpose. Some Purposes may come with a Great or Final Quest that will resolve them (Rescue the Maiden, Slay the man who killed your father, find the ancient Relic)

Edit II: Perhaps each of the Characters I describe above comes with it's own Purpose. The Prince's purpose may be to Defend his Kingdom (Ending with a Final Quest to unite several nearby states and assume the Throne), while the Peasant may be seeking to woo the Lord's daughter (no Final Quest, maybe a Great Quest that ends with the Daughter confessing her love for you, but knowing you can never be together).

I'm thinking that each Age should have a Main quest series for each character, which culminates in a dramatic Final quest. This Main Quest is in keeping with the character's Purpose, but it follows a branching storyline in which the player's decisions regarding the knightly virtues alter its ultimate outcome.

The Minor quests would serve to reinforce a theme of the Age as well as provide the player opportunity to influence the Knightly Code.

[warty goblin]

Thanks, I was hoping you'd clarify on this. I'm not that familiar with Arthurian mythos, so this helps me understand what you were going for.

As I said I'm a real sucker for that feeling of inevitable downfall, which you can certainly tease out of Arthurian legend without much difficulty.

Take for instance the story of Gareth and Lynette. His mother wants to dissuade him from becoming a knight, since she fears for his life. Eventually she lets him go to Camelot, but on the condition he work in the kitchens and reveal his true name - he's Gawain's cousin - to nobody until he earns respect. He does this, since its the only way he'll be allowed to go. Lynette travels to Camelot to seek assistance against the three false knights that have imprisoned her sister. Gareth requests the honor of the quest, and it is granted.

Lynette is understandably a bit ticked off that instead of Lancelot, she gets a kitchen boy. Lancelot, wanting to make sure things go down well, follows secretly behind. There's the usual deeds of valor and smiting of false knights, to whom Gareth shows knightly mercy, and he frees the sister. In some versions Lancelot reveals himself to Gareth, and lends him his armor and shield for the final battle, in all I've seen he's duly impressed by the younger knight's achievements. Lynette slowly realizes that Gareth's a good guy, and in quite a few versions they marry. In other, less fun ones, Gareth weds her sister. It's a fun little quest, everybody gets their just rewards, and even the false knights are given the chance to atone. It's all set for the happily ever after.

Except Lancelot kills Gareth when he rescues Guinevere from being burned at the stake for adultery.

Which is to me a tidbit that captures what makes the fall of Camelot so perfectly tragic. Lancelot has no honorable choice but to save Guinevere, but to do so was itself dishonorable. He was after all turning on his brothers, betraying his oaths. By upholding chivalry he inevitably destroys it.


Also, thanks for starting the thread, it's turning out great! This has really been a lot of fun!

[Anteros]

As I said I'm a real sucker for that feeling of inevitable downfall, which you can certainly tease out of Arthurian legend without much difficulty.

Take for instance the story of Gareth and Lynette. His mother wants to dissuade him from becoming a knight, since she fears for his life. Eventually she lets him go to Camelot, but on the condition he work in the kitchens and reveal his true name - he's Gawain's cousin - to nobody until he earns respect. He does this, since its the only way he'll be allowed to go. Lynette travels to Camelot to seek assistance against the three false knights that have imprisoned her sister. Gareth requests the honor of the quest, and it is granted.

Lynette is understandably a bit ticked off that instead of Lancelot, she gets a kitchen boy. Lancelot, wanting to make sure things go down well, follows secretly behind. There's the usual deeds of valor and smiting of false knights, to whom Gareth shows knightly mercy, and he frees the sister. In some versions Lancelot reveals himself to Gareth, and lends him his armor and shield for the final battle, in all I've seen he's duly impressed by the younger knight's achievements. Lynette slowly realizes that Gareth's a good guy, and in quite a few versions they marry. In other, less fun ones, Gareth weds her sister. It's a fun little quest, everybody gets their just rewards, and even the false knights are given the chance to atone. It's all set for the happily ever after.

Except Lancelot kills Gareth when he rescues Guinevere from being burned at the stake for adultery.

Which is to me a tidbit that captures what makes the fall of Camelot so perfectly tragic. Lancelot has no honorable choice but to save Guinevere, but to do so was itself dishonorable. He was after all turning on his brothers, betraying his oaths. By upholding chivalry he inevitably destroys it.

This has really been a lot of fun!

I'd disagree that the honorable choice is to save Guinevere. Especially considering that he's the one who is responsible for her being in that situation in the first place.

[warty goblin]

I'd disagree that the honorable choice is to save Guinevere. Especially considering that he's the one who is responsible for her being in that situation in the first place.

As a knight, Lancelot is bound to aid women in peril, particularly his lady. It's one of the major aspects of the chivalric code. Note also that in most versions Lancelot never admits to having slept with Guinevere - in La Morte d'Arthur I believe he only states that he will fight anyone who claims he has. Which itself cannily underlines the contradiction at the heart of a system that both relies on prowess at arms and the infaliability of trial by combat. As the best of Arthur's knights, Lancelot would of course win any such challenge, except that if both he and Guinevere are guilty he would by necessity lose.

(It's also worth observing that the only definitely proved illicit sex is Arthur's dalliance with Morgan le Fay, which is not only out of wedlock, but incestuous to boot. While this is never brought to any direct trial, its progeny is of course pivotal to Arthur's later fall. Camelot's undoing was as much its King's doing as its Queen's.)

The entire code Arthur's knights operate under is awash with contradiction and yet it is what allows Camelot to exist and thrive in the first place. It's what gives the whole thing tragic momentum.

[MLai]

There is no inherent contradiction in the actual code of chivalry. There is however, contradiction between the code and human nature/ real-life practices. Part of Arthurian mythos is in describing how the human knights strive but fail to live up to the perfect ideals of chivalry. But for the perfect knight who actually manages it (Galahad), he navigates the code just fine.

Also, piety absolutely should be one of the traits. It is just as big, if not bigger, than loyalty or courtly love. Atheism did not exist as a concept in those days; God was as real as the wind. One of the Main Quests/ Impossible Quests should definitely be an analog for the Quest of the Holy Grail.

As for the text adventures... They shouldn't be text adventures! They should be choose-your-own-adventure type cutscenes with dialog/action options. No QTEs, but the events should play out cinematically.

[Andre]

Warrior Kings?

Well, light cavalry was effectively mounted archers in there.

But was that game fun. Blamming that "bwahaha I just summoned abaddon" grin off your friends' face with gunners was just priceless. Plus, best voiceover ever. Ever.

[endoperez]

As for the text adventures... They shouldn't be text adventures! They should be choose-your-own-adventure type cutscenes with dialog/action options. No QTEs, but the events should play out cinematically.

I think I've been the only one talking about text adventures, and I was talking about what to take from them. I never meant for the final game to be a text adventure, but the events and diverging storylines are mostly seen in text adventures.

Cutscenes with dialogue options are impossible, BTW. Animations are rendering are way too expensive to make, especially when the alternative is a dialogue tree -> text.

[MLai]

Cutscenes with dialogue options are impossible, BTW. Animations are rendering are way too expensive to make, especially when the alternative is a dialogue tree -> text.
Oh right, you're talking about making an indie game.
I meant in the ideal world if a game developing house was making this game as a commercial project.

[warty goblin]

I think I've been the only one talking about text adventures, and I was talking about what to take from them. I never meant for the final game to be a text adventure, but the events and diverging storylines are mostly seen in text adventures.

Cutscenes with dialogue options are impossible, BTW. Animations are rendering are way too expensive to make, especially when the alternative is a dialogue tree -> text.

Using text adventures as a cheap bridge between bits of 'regular' animated gameplay does work quite well though. Add maybe a couple of sketches for flavor, and a couple words can paint a great mental picture. The King Arthur games (at least the first one that I'm playing now) do this marvelously. The quest adventure texts wouldn't be nearly a game on their own, but as filler and motivator between the overland map and the tactical battles it works like a charm.

Space Rangers 2 also has text adventure segments. Of course being Space Rangers 2 they're completely insane, but they are also quite fun. Many of them center around the use of illegal stimulants for cockroach racing.

[Anteros]

As a knight, Lancelot is bound to aid women in peril, particularly his lady. It's one of the major aspects of the chivalric code. Note also that in most versions Lancelot never admits to having slept with Guinevere - in La Morte d'Arthur I believe he only states that he will fight anyone who claims he has. Which itself cannily underlines the contradiction at the heart of a system that both relies on prowess at arms and the infaliability of trial by combat. As the best of Arthur's knights, Lancelot would of course win any such challenge, except that if both he and Guinevere are guilty he would by necessity lose.

(It's also worth observing that the only definitely proved illicit sex is Arthur's dalliance with Morgan le Fay, which is not only out of wedlock, but incestuous to boot. While this is never brought to any direct trial, its progeny is of course pivotal to Arthur's later fall. Camelot's undoing was as much its King's doing as its Queen's.)

The entire code Arthur's knights operate under is awash with contradiction and yet it is what allows Camelot to exist and thrive in the first place. It's what gives the whole thing tragic momentum.

There were no witnesses cause he murdered the people who caught him boinking his best friend/King's wife! So honorable! Also, before aiding women, he's also bound to obey his oaths and his King. One consistent thing about Lancelot? He does what's best for Lancelot. Honorable he is not.

Also Arturian legends are full of illicit sex. Tristram and Isolde, Lancelot and Guinevere, Lancelot and whoever Galahad's mom was...Morgan and Arthur (although in Arthur's defense, he was under a spell.) Those are just the most major ones I can think of. There are dozens of minor characters having illicit sex as well in just Le Morte D'Arthur alone.

[Hiro Protagonest]

There were no witnesses cause he murdered the people who caught him boinking his best friend/King's wife! So honorable! Also, before aiding women, he's also bound to obey his oaths and his King. One consistent thing about Lancelot? He does what's best for Lancelot. Honorable he is not.

Except Lancelot doesn't pretend to live up to the code. He tries to live up to the code. Same end result, very different implications.

And no, "try" doesn't mean "well, he could try harder, so no excuse". By that definition, then only Galahad is really trying.

[Anteros]

Except Lancelot doesn't pretend to live up to the code. He tries to live up to the code. Same end result, very different implications.

And no, "try" doesn't mean "well, he could try harder, so no excuse". By that definition, then only Galahad is really trying.

By this standard every single person to ever exist is trying to live up to a code of some sort. If you're only trying when it's convenient for you, you don't get credit for it. At least not from me.

The only reason he's viewed as honorable at all is because he's such a great fighter and he's constantly beating up on people weaker than him. I'm not calling him a villain or anything...but calling him honorable is a definite stretch.

Off the top of my head Knights who are easily more honorable than Lancelot: Galahad, Percival, Bors, Gareth, and Arthur himself. I don't think any of these are even debatable. After this, there's about 40 other knights who are arguably equally or more honorable than him. I'd even put Tristram over Lancelot and Tristram's whole story was basically about adultery. At least Tristram was honest about it though, and didn't do it to his best friend.

[endoperez]

Discussing what is honorable and how a knight should act is relevant to the discussion, but throwing around names of knights without quoting their deeds goes over at least my head.

I looked into Lancelot, and ended up reading some knightly stories. This one has Lancelot in a support role, discussing honor with a young man.


"And how if a man be entangled in love," said Martimor, "yet his love be set upon one that is not lawful for him to have? For either he must deny his love, which is great shame, or else he must do dishonour to the law. What shall he then do?"
At this Sir Lancelot was silent, and heaved a great sigh. Then said he: "Rest assured that this man shall have sorrow enough. For out of this net he may not escape, save by falsehood on the one side, or by treachery on the other. Therefore say I that he shall not assay to escape, but rather right manfully to bear the bonds with which he is bound, and to do honour to them."
"How may this be?" said Martimor.
"By clean living," said Lancelot, "and by keeping himself from wine which heats the blood, and by quests and labours and combats wherein the fierceness of the heart is spent and overcome, and by inward joy in the pure worship of his lady, whereat none may take offence."

It seems like denying one's love is also considered a fault. I don't know why that would be though.

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/hvdymill.htm

I really liked this one. I've been thinking of running an Ars Magica game, and the supernatural in this one is perfect for that.

[Triaxx]

One of my favorite fictional Knights is from David Edding's Belgariad. Mandorallen, who is brave, and loyal, entirely to a fault. He's in a Love Ne'er runs Smoothly situation, though, since the other man is much older, he does get the girl in the end. Not without fighting off some impudent family members though.

[MLai]

Be careful with more modern interpretations of Lancelot. Because naturally those are stories adapted to more modern sensibilities, rather than the original ideas regarding chivalry and courtly love. For example, the story referenced above was written in 1905. However, it was pretty much verbalizing the original (i.e. Le Morte D' Arthur) Lancelot's method of rationalization/ atonement, so that's accurate.

Also keep in mind in those days, ppl (especially royalty/ nobility) did not marry for love. So there was not as big a problem, in itself, that Lancelot and Guinevere loved each other; it's not as if that treaded on Arthur's toes. The problem is that they're having sex, cuz of all the complications with children and inheritance. Courtly/ platonic love was a Thing.

[GungHo]

While looking up M&B:Warband on Steam, I noticed an 'if you like this' for a game called Chivalry:Medieval Combat. I know nothing more about it than the title though.

It's Team Fortress with swords.