中文版本（繁體中文)：按此閱讀
中文版本（简体中文)：按此阅读
A.R.C.H. is a game about investigating historical anomalies.
So, naturally, one question that comes up when I talk about the setting is: how historically accurate are the missions?
The short answer is: I care about historical accuracy, but probably not in the way you might expect.
Historical accuracy isn’t the selling point of A.R.C.H. I’m not trying to create an academic simulation of history, nor am I trying to recreate every detail of a particular historical period with scholarly precision.
But the Protectors are travelling into actual history.
That means I do want the history underneath an A.R.C.H. mission to be credible.
The Big Picture Matters
For me, historical accuracy matters most at the big-picture level.
When I place an A.R.C.H. mission in a particular time and place, I want to have a reasonable understanding of what was happening there.
When was this?
Where exactly are the Protectors?
What major historical events are happening around them?
Who are the important historical figures?
What is the broader political or social situation?
Those things matter because they establish the context in which the anomaly exists.
If the Protectors are sent into a particular historical period, I don’t want the setting to feel like a generic fantasy world that happens to have historical names attached to it.
The history needs to provide the foundation for the mission.
At the same time, my standard for this isn’t particularly high by academic standards.
For the big-picture history, my standard is roughly the level of a Wikipedia article.
I want to know enough to understand the historical context and avoid getting the major facts wrong.
That’s generally sufficient for what A.R.C.H. is trying to do.
A.R.C.H. Isn’t Academic History
This is probably worth stating explicitly because I am working in academia still (but I’m an economist, not a historian), and designing an A.R.C.H. mission is simply not the same activity.
If I were doing academic research, I would approach the subject very differently.
I would be concerned with sources, historiography, competing interpretations and the level of evidence supporting particular claims.
That’s not what I’m doing when I design an A.R.C.H. mission.
I’m creating a fictional scenario for people to play at a table.
The historical research exists to support that scenario.
I need to know enough history to establish a believable situation, identify the historical event being disrupted and understand what the Protectors are dealing with.
I don’t need to reconstruct an entire historical period in exhaustive detail.
And, frankly, I couldn’t.
I’m one person making an indie RPG. I have limited time, limited resources and very human limitations when it comes to how much research I can do for every mission.
A.R.C.H. has to be designed within those constraints.
History Is the Foundation, Not the Product
This is also why I don’t consider historical accuracy to be the main selling point of A.R.C.H.
The history is important because of what the game does with it.
The interesting part isn’t simply that a mission takes place in Pisa, or that it involves a particular historical figure or event.
The interesting part is that something has gone wrong.
The Protectors have to investigate what happened.
They have to understand the anomaly.
And depending on the mission, they have to decide what to do about it.
History provides the setting in which all of this happens.
The investigation is the game.
That’s an important distinction for me.
If someone wants an academically rigorous reconstruction of a historical period, A.R.C.H. probably isn’t the product they’re looking for.
But if they want to investigate a historical anomaly while having enough real history underneath the scenario to make that experience meaningful, that’s what I’m trying to provide.
Getting the Important Things Right
This doesn’t mean that I treat historical details as unimportant.
Quite the opposite.
The major historical circumstances surrounding a mission’s deployment should be accurate.
If the Protectors arrive at a particular point in history, that historical starting point needs to make sense.
The broad chronology needs to work.
Major historical events shouldn’t casually be moved around simply because doing so would make the mission more convenient.
And when a mission depends on a particular historical event, that event needs to be grounded in what actually happened.
Once the anomaly is introduced, of course, things can become much less straightforward.
That’s the entire premise of A.R.C.H.
Something has interfered with history.
The players are there to investigate what changed and determine what to do next.
The fictional elements of the mission therefore exist alongside the historical ones.
The important thing is knowing where that boundary is.
I Have to Accept My Limitations
There is also a practical consideration here.
History is enormous.
No matter how much research I did, there would always be more that I could learn about any period, location or historical figure.
At some point, I have to decide that I know enough to write the mission.
That’s not me saying that historical research doesn’t matter.
It’s me recognising that A.R.C.H. is a game rather than an academic project.
I don’t need to know everything.
I need to know enough.
And for the way I’ve chosen to design A.R.C.H., that distinction matters.
The missions are deliberately lean.
I’m not trying to fill them with pages of historical background. I’m trying to give the GM enough information to run an investigation and let the table get on with playing.
That means the historical research has to serve the mission rather than overwhelm it.
So, How Much Does It Matter?
Quite a lot.
Just not infinitely much.
I want the big-picture history to be accurate enough that the mission has a credible historical foundation.
I want the major events, people and circumstances that matter to the mission to be grounded in actual history.
But I don’t expect myself to approach every A.R.C.H. mission like an academic research project.
That would be a completely different kind of product, and frankly, it would make A.R.C.H. much harder to create.
For me, the goal is a balance:
Real history provides the foundation. Fiction provides the anomaly. Investigation provides the gameplay.
That’s enough.
A.R.C.H. doesn’t need to be a history textbook.
It just needs to give you a believable piece of history for the Protectors to investigate.
P.S. If you are keen to follow my discussion of how I designed A.R.C.H, subscribe to my newsletter at the Home page for mostly quarterly updates on various behind the screen things I will share as well as early announcement of upcoming products.
Leave a Reply