Pendragon: Narrative Tactics

I have always liked Inkle games for their story telling ( Socery and 80 days) and I expected a well told turn based story with this game, and if this is what you are expecting your going to be disapointed. I can't put my finger on what is off about this game, but if I was to try to identify what the most serious flaw is, it would be the story feels undeveloped, the fighting parts feel confusing with visual clues missing ( e.g some characters can attack diagonal and some can't, which ones can and can't are pure guess work) and the ending is just so dissapointing. It looks nice but feel more of an empty experience, did i dislike it , not really but did I like it , no not really , this game could of been much more but in the end it's just so average and unfinished.

There is not much game in this narrative adventure game. The combat consists of chess-like moves, you move into the square of an enemy, the enemy is defeated and vice versa. If so, I can read Thomas Malory instead. The redeeming features are the atmosphere and the style of the artwork.

Short, Should have Point n' Click or Visual Novel tag instead of Strategy. If You're looking for a turn based battling game this is not the game.

It's a great game with an interesting concept. I do think it did not execute the concept very well. The game overall needs improvement. The morale system is unintuitive. It's a combat game but if you spend too long in combat you lose. Except sometimes there's way too many stalemates going back-and-forth with nothing happening. Sacrificing characters is encouraged by the developers in order to break stalemates, but there is nothing in the game that intuitively encourages that. You will always want to win the battle and not die. The concept of dialogue based on how you move the character is intriguing. But again, it's not very intuitive. I see Pendragon as a really good proof-of-concept. And I do have a lot of fun playing it. But don't expect a supreme masterpiece. If you are interested in hidden gems, then this is for you.

EUROGAMER Recommended, must be the same ones that voted for Brexit 3/10 tossed into the game with no idea how to play or what to do tutorials dont tell you much oops i miss clicked on a friendly guy and killed him, game didn't think it should ask me if i'm sure i want to do that like it does randomly +music I have the high ground and still lose I cant attack i can attack… i dont get this game at all… Game runs are really short Game wont let me click on anything anymore How do i get more food? Finished the game twice and i have no idea How long is a day?? Sometimes people 1 hit you for all your health, other times they dont… how i finished the game https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2909602030

This is a creative storytelling device with some chess-like encounters. I enjoyed it as something different, but it's clearly not worth the $20 price tag by any stretch. A playthrough is completed in about 45 minutes and while there are separate paths that you can select, playing as different characters doesn't change much beyond the nature of the insults hurled about and unlocking new characters happens very frequently even without intending to do so. It's unique, but there isn't much meat here.

I really love this game. It's difficult enough to feel challenging, but I feel like the story and particularly the characters, are the main part of the game. So many characters stories are told and character interaction is really well done. It really forces you to slow down and can be really relaxing to play. The fireside stories can be hilarious and add depth to the characters and story. It's replayable. The quest is the same each time but many things change between playthroughs which makes for an interesting experience. Choice of characters changes. Skills you are offered varies with the story choices and people you meet. Maps change so you don't get the same character interaction or challenges over and over. The difficulty can be increased with successive playthroughs making it perfect for people with varying skill at turn based strategy. The whole thing is crafted in a really interesting and immersive way.

Pendragon, developed and published by inkle Ltd., is a strategy game that quietly reshapes expectations of what the genre can be, blending tactical decision-making with a deeply reactive narrative structure. Set during the final, fractured days of Arthurian legend, it doesn’t retell the familiar myth in a straightforward way. Instead, it fragments the story into multiple perspectives, placing the player in the role of different characters whose journeys intersect as they move toward the inevitable confrontation at Camlann. The result is a game that feels less like a single campaign and more like a tapestry of overlapping stories, each shaped by the player’s actions. The tactical layer is built on a grid-based system, but it deliberately avoids complexity in favor of clarity and immediacy. Units move in fixed patterns—some along straight lines, others diagonally—and combat is resolved quickly, often in a single decisive exchange. This gives encounters a sharp, almost board game-like quality where positioning matters more than micromanagement. There is very little room for error, and even a small miscalculation can result in the loss of a character. However, rather than punishing the player in a traditional sense, these outcomes feed directly into the narrative, turning defeat into a meaningful part of the story rather than a simple failure state. What makes Pendragon stand out is how seamlessly it merges these tactical decisions with storytelling. Every action on the battlefield—whether it’s sacrificing a unit to protect another, retreating from an unwinnable fight, or pressing forward at great risk—has narrative consequences. Characters react to events, relationships shift, and new paths open or close depending on what happens during play. Dialogue is woven into the experience in a way that feels natural rather than intrusive, often appearing between or even during encounters, reinforcing the idea that the story is unfolding in real time alongside the gameplay. The structure of the game follows a roguelike format, with each run representing a different attempt to reach the final battle. These runs are relatively short, encouraging experimentation and making it easy to explore different choices and outcomes. Progression comes not from grinding or accumulating resources, but from uncovering new storylines, characters, and abilities. Each playthrough adds context to the larger narrative, gradually building a broader understanding of the world and its inhabitants. This approach makes repetition feel purposeful, as even unsuccessful runs contribute to the overall experience. The writing is one of the game’s strongest elements, showcasing inkle’s expertise in interactive storytelling. Characters are distinct and often complex, with motivations and personalities that evolve based on player decisions. The game takes creative liberties with Arthurian mythology, reinterpreting familiar figures in ways that feel fresh while still grounded in the themes of loyalty, betrayal, and fate. Conversations are concise but impactful, and the branching nature of the narrative ensures that no two playthroughs feel exactly the same. Visually, Pendragon adopts a striking art style inspired by medieval stained glass, giving the game a unique and cohesive identity. Characters are stylized yet expressive, and the environments, though minimal, effectively support the tone of the story. The presentation emphasizes clarity, ensuring that important information is easy to read during combat, while still maintaining a strong aesthetic presence. The audio design is understated, providing atmosphere without overshadowing the dialogue and gameplay. Despite its strengths, the game’s simplicity can also be a limitation. The tactical system, while elegant, may feel too light for players seeking deeper mechanical complexity. Its focus on narrative means that combat serves more as a vehicle for storytelling than as a fully developed system in its own right. Additionally, the game does not always clearly explain how certain mechanics or narrative triggers work, which can lead to moments of confusion, particularly for players trying to understand the consequences of their choices. The variability inherent in its roguelike structure also leads to some inconsistency. Not every run carries the same emotional weight, and some storylines are more engaging than others. The randomness of events can occasionally result in pacing that feels uneven, with certain playthroughs offering richer experiences than others. However, this unpredictability is also part of the game’s appeal, reinforcing the idea that each journey is unique. Ultimately, Pendragon succeeds by committing fully to its vision. It does not try to compete with traditional strategy games on complexity, nor does it rely solely on narrative to carry the experience. Instead, it finds a balance between the two, creating a system where gameplay and story are inseparable. It turns tactical decisions into narrative moments and treats every outcome as part of a larger, evolving tale. In the end, Pendragon stands as a thoughtful and innovative interpretation of both the strategy and roguelike genres. It offers a distinctive experience that prioritizes character, choice, and consequence, delivering a game that feels as much like an interactive storybook as it does a tactical challenge. For players willing to embrace its approach, it provides a memorable and rewarding journey through a reimagined legend. Rating: 7/10

"Aim for the moon and you'll land among the stars." ... if you reach escape velocity. Pendragon doesn't, unfortunately. And, for a TLDR: the game is very similar in concept to Wildermyth (which is very good), but is simpler to the point of lacking any interesting. So, if the idea sounds interesting, I'd heartily recommend playing Wildermyth instead (which has a procedural story where events are varied and character interactions are remembered and play crucial roles in how events develop in the future). Inkle are consistently interesting and I really respect their originality, but I can't say the execution always hits the mark. Pendragon is a fairly simple turn-based tactical game with a layer of procedural (combinatorial) narrative around the death of King Arthur. The writing is cool and the person and place names make it feel very authentic. Some of the other aspects of world-building feel a bit too anachronistic (how Mordred is portrayed as a populist who is gaining the disgruntled and disillusioned peasants' support despite lacking any constructive policies other than "shaking things up"... yeah). The biggest problem is that the runs are very short and lack any room for interesting events. Every run ends up playing like every other, especially narrative. In my short time, gameplay was still somewhat varied because I was starting with different characters. In later difficulties (which you unlock by completing runs, successfully or not), runs are longer, but I feel like the game is designed with the shorter length in mind, so they never really solved the interesting event issue. The only event I really found was that you could get Excalibur, which requires you to first meet a certain character who tells you how they got rid of the sword, followed-up by looking into that place. I didn't get to complete it because I "failed" the mission in that place (it involved cutting a bunch of bushes, not very interesting, but the game has a time-limit to missions tied to a "morale", but anyway). In Wildermyth, the procedural narrative works well because the game is centered around fairly long campaigns (5-8 hours, not 0.5-1 hour), which have many more events that can develop over multiple encounters and create relationships between characters (maybe X sacrificed his left arm for Y, which later leads into Y finding a spell that gives X a super powerful arm or whatever). I feel like this is what Pendragon wanted to achieve, but the short runs really prevented this. So you are left with just very superficial differences, essentially influencing only which characters you encounter, which more or a mechanical and flavor change. Another problem I had with the game is that the last battle is very quick and easy to make mistakes in, which results in a failed run, despite how strong you arrive to it. And repeating the whole thing is just not interesting, in my opinion. Even the achievements are somehow off the mark. For example, the game has like 8 difficulty levels, but only has achievements for 3 or 4. And if you beat the game in a higher difficulty, you don't get the achievement for the previous difficulties. It's not a very important part of the game, but it's yet another decision that just works against what game seems to want to do. The combat was mostly okay, but the game also had an annoying mechanic where battles drain your morale and eventually cause you to lose if you fail to defeat the enemies/reach the exit. But every hit is a kill (for both sides), so you need to play very safe - as do the enemies. So you can easily get stuck in a position where you really can't do anything other than move back and forth and wait for the enemy to make a mistake. Which sometimes just doesn't happen and then you "fail" (you don't lose the run, but flee into another mission in a more or less random direction). I think the intention is to let characters "take a hit" (characters have multiple lives, but a single hit removes them from the specific mission) to break the deadlock. It can be an interesting tactical puzzle, but not interesting enough to replay the otherwise very repetitive loop, for me. Cool concept, but the scope was too small to let the narrative breathe and be interesting, in my opinion. It's not terrible and unplayable, but I can't really recommend it. Especially when Wildermyth exists as a much deeper game tackling the similar problem of combinatorial/procedural narrative within a turn-based tactics/strategy game.