u/CrownOfSand

Hi everyone,

I've been wondering about something for a while.

It feels like there are very few choice based narrative games that are set in real history. Most of the ones I've played are fantasy, sci fi, or alternate history. Even when they're inspired by real events, they usually take a lot of liberties.

I'm a big fan of both history, especially the Middle Ages, and choice driven games, so it made me wonder if those two audiences just don't overlap that much.

If there was a text heavy gamebook style RPG set during the Third Crusade, with no fantasy at all, just real historical figures, documented events and difficult choices based on the reality of the time, would that be something you'd be interested in?

One thing I'm especially curious about is how you'd want the story to handle history.

Would you rather your choices stayed within the limits of what could realistically have happened, even if history always reached the same major events? Or at some point would you want your decisions to completely change history and turn the story into an alternate timeline?

I'd love to hear what people here think.

Last week I asked whether strict historical settings were too restrictive for interactive fiction: https://www.reddit.com/r/choiceofgames/comments/1udjznw/is_a_strictly_historical_setting_too_restrictive/

600 people voted, and the biggest takeaway was that real historical constraints actually make choices feel more meaningful.

Here's how we're applying that feedback.

***

Acre has fallen to the Crusaders. You serve as King Richard’s diplomat. You have just returned from Saladin’s camp, where negotiations regarding the exchange of Muslim hostages completely failed.

King Richard is furious and impatient to march south. He cannot afford the logistics of guarding, feeding, or escorting 3,000 prisoners. His order is cold and immediate: execute them all on the spot.

The lives of 3,000 people depend on your next words. You know Richard is inflexible, but you also know his triggers.

***

In our custom branching system, your choices are strictly tied to your background paths and attributes (such as Obediant, Rebel, Valor, or Cunning). If you were holding the controller right now, which path would you take?

1. [Valor +1 / Richard Affinity -1] Appeal to his pride: Argue that slaughtering unarmed captives will stain his legendary reputation as a chivalrous king forever.

2. [Cunning +2] Offer a logistical compromise: Suggest using the prisoners as forced labor to rebuild Acre's walls.

3. [Rebel +1 & Faith +1] Defy the order on religious grounds: Denounce it as a mortal sin that will strip God's favor from the Crusade, refusing to take part in it.

4. [Obediant +2 / Richard Affinity +2] Bow your head and organize the execution: Accept the brutal reality of military logistics to secure your standing with the King, locking yourself out of future Muslim diplomacy.

Which option would you choose, and more importantly, why? Would you try to change history, or accept the brutal constraints of the time?

Every time I look for a new text-heavy interactive story, it feels like I'm choosing between elves, spaceships, or the post-apocalypse.

Don't get me wrong, I love those genres, but I often wonder why we don't see more pure, gritty historical interactive fiction. Navigating the brutal logistics of the 12th-century Mediterranean, managing merchant politics, and dealing with real religious tensions sounds like a goldmine for complex, morally grey branching choices.

Do you think the lack of history is due to a lack of interest from readers, or because the research required is too daunting for writers? Would a highly authentic, choice-driven historical epic be an instant read for you, or do you feel interactive stories need a touch of the supernatural to maintain momentum?