There is a question here for those of us who play historical RPG's. Do we let the PC's change major historical events or are fate and destiny irrevocable? There are two schools of thought on this. First, there is the idea that part of the fun of historical games is being present at great events, and by changing them we not only lessen the enjoyment, but create an alternative history that negates some of the subsequent events. On the other hand, there is the theory that if the PC's are doomed to fail or succeed, some of the enjoyment of role-playing is lost. Asking and answering this question is one of the first things one must do when planning a historical campaign.

A Frank and Open Discussion

The game master and the players must, before setting out on a historical campaign, sit down and discuss a few issues. The question of changing history must be addressed. More than likely there will be a mixture of opinions. A common middle ground needs to be found. For example, allow the PC's to rescue Charles I, but also make it clear that history will right itself. Instead of dying on the scaffold on January 30, 1649, he instead dies of a fever contracted after his bold escape across the frozen Thames. Or maybe he falls in, as the ice breaks around him and his rescuers look on in horror. You still have a dead king, and though some aspects will be changed, the overall outcome will still be Cromwell's Protectorate. Sure the party's long term goals may be for naught, but moving past cruel setbacks are what good role-playing is all about.

Sorting this out allows a group to move on to further questions. One of the common aspects of historical RPG's is anachronisms. In short, how much behavior, technology, etcÖ will be allowed that are from a latter period? One of the sticking points in historical games set before the modern period is that of the role of women. No one wants to play the party's chattel or loyal camp follower, ever in the background and beholden to the men folk for direction and support. Now, that's an extreme example, however historically, women have been forced into secondary roles, if not outright forced off the stage entirely. Most groups will accept some anachronistic handling of gender issues, as well as racial issues in order to allow everyone to participate on some sort of equal footing.

Which leads to another question that must be asked, does the era have anything that will make the players uncomfortable? History, especially recent history, is politically charged. Once, we were sitting down to play a game of Recon (a game set during the Vietnam War). Who knocks on the door, but or Vietnamese friend, Q, who was away at college. Naturally we were all uncomfortable with the proposed campaign, even after Q explained to us that his father had been in the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and he'd love to waste some (expletive deleted followed by racial slurs). In this case the person we expected to be the most uncomfortable turned out to be the least, but his zeal made the rest of us even more uncomfortable. That night we played Traveler instead.

Application, the Third Tier of Cognitive Skills

You want to run an English Civil War based game, you've done the research, sketched out the adventures, and are ready to talk to your players about it. The era involves some serious political, religious, racial, and gender questions. The conflict can be told as one of democracy versus monarchy, or even the rights of man versus the divine rights of kings. The religious aspect cannot be ignored, as the parliamentarian forces became increasingly under the influence of Calvinistic Puritan beliefs. The anti-Catholic bias of the war also needs to be addressed, especially when deciding which side to play with. This was also a time when women and anyone not Anglo-Saxon will meet with a great deal of prejudice. A choice needs to be made as to how much of that prejudice is going to show up in the game. Simply ignoring these issues changes the campaign to one of historical action, to one of funny costumes and strange hats.

Now the meat of the issue, is history going to be altered, and if so, by how much? If the PC's are royalists then there are many opportunities to change things. Their actions may yield more resources for the royalist cause, change the outcome of a battle, or even save the King from the axe and lead a brilliant campaign of restoration a decade early. If playing parliamentarians, their failures may just as strongly change history. Alternately, the players may be entirely happy fighting for a doomed cause.

The next time your group embarks on a historical campaign, don't forget to ask some hard questions about a bit of history.