#5: To Save the King

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/abitofhis...history5.phtml

Summary:

To change history or not?

Go to the column for more information.

[Craig Oxbrow]

It's an interesting piece on history and politics, but doesn't address what I expected an article on whether or not to change history to address - i.e. the knock-on effects of alternate history scenarios. If the Musketeers save King Charles, is that the end of the series as run? Is it ever a good idea to send PCs out on a history-changing mission if you don't want them to change history? There might be an article in that as well.

(I would also suggest fixing the text formatting.)

[Lundse]

Easy :-)

Change history and let the players fix it. In your example, the king escapes and must be brought back for his execution (or a suitable prisoner found to take his place, after which the PCs must track down the king in Germany or whereever he is looking for allies).
Or, if you want to be royalist, play the kings historical escape and then overthrow Cromwell after the execution when he is captured again.

In short, introduce some obstacles which are non-historical and let non-historical player actions return the timeline to its "known and proper course".

[smascrns]

This is an issue in historical fiction as much as in rpgs. The best historical fiction - including the authored by Dumas - handles this daftly by understaning something about fiction and something about history:

The point about fiction. It's a conflict, and the best conflicts have interesting characters in both sides. Take D'Artagnan or Ivanhoe. Interesting characters. But both face interesting oponents. None of them are historical characters, though. Both the hero and the villain are fictional characters. And critically, the story is about their conflict. Since both are fictional characters, whatever happens to them doesn't change history. The hero wins? Then the villain looses. But both the victory and the defeat have no impact in history because they are not part of it, they are part of fiction.

The point about history. History is a narrative. No narrative is complete since there are always many facts that left no trace and many ways of interpreting and looking at history that show it in a different light. We can write interesting new things about history because we can add new facts or new perspectives.

When we bring these two together we get plenty of scope for historical fiction without changing history, and that's the point.

D'Artagnan may not save Charles I, but is that really the purpose? As you say, the musketeers attempts fail due to two causes: "only to have bad luck or the actions of their long time foe, Mordaunt, foil them". But is the book really about saving Charles I? Or is it about retired men that come back to action and have to face the impact of aging, in other words, about a conflict with themselves? Or is about the conflict with Mordaunt?

Take Ivanhoe. His conflict is with the Knight Templar, that's the reald focus of the book. England and the conflict between Richard and John provide the backdrop. The issue is not if Richard depends on Ivanhoe to get is crown back, the issue is: Will Ivanhoe defeat is foe? Will he deny John of the support of the Normans? Will Ivanhoe get his people to fight by the side of Richard?

Let's translate this into rpgs. Supposing the Musketeers book is a rpg: The real conflict is between the PCs and Mordaunt. Charles I still dies, but the Musketeers may still be able to defeat Mordaunt. If they do, they "win the game".
Or a rpg centered on Ivanhoe. If he is able to defeat the knight templar, to avoid the local Normans from siding with John, and if he is able to be at the final battle between Richard and John with his countrymen, he "wins the game". If he fails in doing this, he looses the game. In game terms: In the first case the game ends with Richard giving lots of honours and mercies to Ivanhoe. In the second case the game ends with Ivanhoe joining the victorious side in an humble position, devoid of honours and mercies.

In other words, if one wants to play an historical rpg, then we will have fictional PCs; in a conflict with a fictional NPC; and that should be the focus of the game.

(Note: I'm writing this from the perspective that the game is to stay an historical rpg, in other words, that it will not turn into alternate history since alternate history is another mather.)

[Sand Rodent]

All very interesting comments. The point I was trying to make was that certain things need to be discussed beforehand if planning a historical game. Another example that I did not include was the game Pendragon. It is an underlying assumption that events will happen that the PCs are present for, involved in, but not actually in control of. As smascrns pointed out:

In other words, if one wants to play an historical rpg, then we will have fictional PCs; in a conflict with a fictional NPC; and that should be the focus of the game.

Which works and is a good way to handle things. It is not the only way, and a fun game can be built around playing historical figures or being heavily involved in historical events. And yes, Twenty Years After is about these guys coming out of retirement and facing the son of their former nemesis.

Craig Oxbrow brings up a good point:

If the Musketeers save King Charles, is that the end of the series as run? Is it ever a good idea to send PCs out on a history-changing mission if you don't want them to change history? There might be an article in that as well.

I wold think if you are running a well thought out musketeer game (or mouseketeer game?), and these things were discussed beforehand, then the campaign takes a turn with history and goes on. I really think it should be up to the group to decide if history can be changed. I have seen historical games breakdown over this very issue, mid game, with all the dice on the table.