Arthur Antônio Soares de Oliveira (Federal University of Espírito Santo)
Many widely successful and influential historical videogames present their narrative in a rather simplistic manner: the player’s action guide a given nation or other historical subject from point A to point B. It’s the only option: failing to comply means losing, bringing everything to an abrupt end. Similarly to a book or a movie, the player agency in these cases is severely restricted: other than just giving up, the player cannot do much to change the outcome.
However, historical games can aim to become to exact opposite. By its own nature, a videogame is a great tool to represent the past structurally. Crusader Kings III is an example of a game which employs this kind of strategy: instead of offering a carefully tailored narrative, it offers a carefully tailored set of systems.
It could be argued that most of systems and subsystems of CK3 are, in fact, simulations of social structures. It is definitely the case of its Iberian struggle system, designed to represent the complex period known as Reconquista not as an endless clash between Muslims and Christians, but as a dynamic one, with periods of war and peace, hardship and prosperity.
Specifically, we are dealing with a structuralism that is very akin to Pierre Bourdieu’s approach. Instead of conceiving History, societies and its individuals as a mere result of social structures, Bourdieu proposed that, while social structures are a very real thing, they aren’t almighty – every historical subject has a certain degree of agency, which, under the right circumstances, may allow him to act against any given social structure.
During each phase of the struggle, the player is presented with a broader regional conjecture. The key factor that approaches Bourdieu’s perspective and CK3 one is that the player retains agency no matter what social structure is in place. For instance, while the “Conciliation” phase heavily incentivizes friendly and diplomatic actions and put severe restrictions on war, a player resolute on declaring war can still take hostile actions and invade its neighbors. Conversely, the “Hostility” phase offers plenty of incentives to declare war, but a player may always choose to keep the peace instead.
More than a simple “flavor” addition, the struggle system/structure actively requires the player to engage and think about the historical past structurally, since it constitutes not an “eye-candy” or a vague theme, but a core gameplay mechanic. Thus, the player may find itself asking: how this given conjuncture affects my decisions? Am I strong enough to go against the tide? Can my actions (as a ruler) influence the broader conjecture? If yes, how? And if no, why not?
These (and dozens of others possible questions) are analogous to the line of thought a structuralist historian follows during its research. Thus, CK3 and other games that simulate social structures through its systems promotes a structuralist approach to the historical past, differing not only from other media, but also from other historical games.
Suggested readings:
BOURDIEU, Pierre. Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. 1979.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. The Rules of Art: genesis and structure of the literary field. 1992.
CARVALHO, Vinicius Marino. History and Human Agency in Videogames. 2016.
CHAPMAN, Adam. Digital Games as History: how videogames represent the past and offer access to historical practice. 2016.
CHAPMAN, Adam. Privileging Form Over Content: Analysing Historical Videogames. 2012.
GRUFSTEDT, Ylva. Shaping the Past: Counterfactual History and Game Design Practice in Digital Strategy Games. 2022.
HAAHR, Mads; LUCAT, Bertrand. What Makes a Successful Emergent Narrative: The Case of Crusader Kings II. 2015. HOUGHTON, Robert. Awesome, but Impractical? Deeper Engagement with the Middle Ages through Commercial Digital Games. 2023.
Tema super interessante, Arthur!
This reminds me of a statement (by John Sturrock, I think), that says the difference between formalism and structuralism is precisely the acknowledgment of the dynamics within a system.
Have you had the opportunity to check out Jeremiah McCall’s latest paper (“Agents, Goals, and Action-Choices”)? He takes historical game analysis into a very explicitly structuralist direction. Might be of interest to you, I think.
Thanks for the comment, Vinicius!
I’m familiar with McCall’s Historical Problem Space Framework concept, which indeed takes a structuralist approach to games. I haven’t read this paper yet, but I’ll surely add to my ever-growing to-read list! Thanks for the suggestion.
There’s so much to unpack about the struggle mechanic, but I think the question I have is whether you have any thoughts on the bounded nature of it? The Iberian Struggle presupposes that Iberia is an inherent unit with its own dynamics that will naturally matter to anyone who holds land there, which is an interesting encoding of a certain sort of geographical-historical argument about how cultures relate to one another and how legitimacy and political thought work (which is something CK3 does a lot, of course, e.g its continually presupposing that there is by definition a Kingdom of X even when it hasn’t been unified yet).
Thank you for the question, James! It is a crucial point to take in consideration in any historical game.
The way I see it, any game needs to tie itself to the historical past in order to represent itself as historical. In fact, even other genres usually resort to some degree of historical knowledege and representation, including sci-fi (like Civilization: Beyond Earth), alternative history (like Frostpunk), and fantasy (like Warcraft).
CK3, thus, has to be bounded to historical facts to some degree. In fact, this is something Paradox Development Studio deliberately aims towards in its historical Grand Strategies: giving not only historicized tools, but also a “meticulously researched” historical starting point to their players.
Thus, regarding the Iberian struggle specifically, it certainly pertained to the historical pasts depicted on both start dates (9th and 11th century). Its continued existence, however, is not a given – a player or even the AI may end the struggle. While a social structure rarely “vanishes”, instead changing towards something new, having an ending option to the struggle is step in the right direction for a game focused on representing a historicized albeit counterfactual past.
Thank you for this interesting paper! I am fascinated by the idea of the system of social structure provided/reflected in the game. You also proposed interesting questions in the paper. Based on them, I wonder how the structuralist rules recreated in CK3 affect the player’s personal engagement with the historical society’s development from a narrative angle (though it is not tailored). How does engaging the game’s structure influence our understanding of the relationship between the personal and societal in the Medieval world through the specific Iberian struggle as a contemporary player?
Thank you for the question, Yujia!
This is a key point to bear in mind, indeed. Understanding how the past is represented is only half of the job; the other half must deal with reception. And this second half poses its own set of challenges – mostly, different players will receive things differently.
Most of literature regarding receptions of historical pasts in historical Grand Strategies focus on After Action Reports (AAR), which is a valuable insight on these players receptions, albeit focused mostly on the narrative and factual side. Also, only the most dedicated fraction of the playerbase takes the time to write down and share a narrative based on their gameplay. It still leaves the question on how the “regular” player (I find it hard to classify a Grand Strategy player as “casual”, given the amount of time required) perceives it all.
As far as I’m aware, there isn’t yet a reception study focusing on structure perceptions. Perhaps the closest thing so far are studies done in educational settings, where the structures and systems are highlighted thanks to a teacher/professor.
My current research has yet to plunge into player reception, but when it does, I hope to be able to shed some light on how these receptions affects the players perceptions of the past. I’d like to add that this is not just a matter of academic curiosity, but also a legitimate social inquiry. As Antoine Prost said, every kind of History is a Present Time History – by investigating how our contemporaries perceives this complex period known as Reconquista, we gather insights on how themes like Religion, Tolerance and Migration are being perceived in the 21st century.
Very interesting paper! And very aking to the subject I decided to deal with at this conference too. I’m particularly fascinated by your statement (which I agree with), that CK offers “a carefully tailored set of systems”. That’s probably one of the best descriptions of the game I’ve ever heard of.
I wonder, if we keep this definition, how it could also help us focus on specific systems (like you did, after all), to tailor them for our purposes, e.g. for promoting a better understanding of the workings of each specific system, like the southern Lombard one.
Thanks for your question, Arturo! Indeed, very akin to your submission!
As it is, a few CK3 systems can be very valuable as a teaching tool (or even a more general, non-formal education approach). Factions, marriage & inheritance, travels, plagues – all of them forces the player to take actions based on a historicized setting. Albeit not perfect, they present some very interesting insights in the power dynamics of middle ages.
The main problem, which you covered on your presentation, is that CK3 aims to simulate a vast space over a vast time. Thus, generalizations are needed, and some results are just awful. In addition, the more historicized a system is, the more convoluted it gets. Somewhere, the studio has to dial back to ensure the game is still fun, and not just a chore – after all, they’re still in the enterteinment business.
Nevertheless, the set of systems that is CK3 still provides a very robust tool to engage the past, especially if dealing with the Western Europe. Taken together, these systems showcase not only limited scenarios (like “how do I keep my vassals in line?”), but they offer a glimpse that sometimes escapes non-historians: how complex the reality was, with multiple scenarios happening at the same time and interefering with each other (for instance, a heresy appears, which creates a divide between vassals, which stars a civil war, which deplets the liege treasury…). Being myself a middle and high school teacher, I know firsthand how often students struggle to put all these pieces together. To play CK3, you must develop the skills to deal with all of these at the same time.
Now, the effects of generalization are more damaging if we’re talking about a more specific region. The way I see it, there are two possible approaches to these shortcomings. The first one are tutored game sessions, where gameplay is accompanied by lectures, discussions and texts. Many scholars wrote in great lenghts about this, including McCall. I consider this an easier to implement approach; however, the downside is that it detracts from a “pure” ludical experience.
The second approach is modding the game. Paradox Development Studio promote and support modding, and the entry-level barrier is much lower than other games. By the use of mods, one could propose a more historicized version of a system. As an example, I made a personal little mod for the Iberian Struggle to include a few religions (including Jewish ones) as involved. It has the obvious advantage of keeping a ludic-only experience. However, creating or heavily modifying complex systems requires time and a diverse skill set that can include programming, 3d modelling, digital art, sound effects…
[…] The Iberian struggle as a structuralist representation of the Reconquista in Crusader Kings III – Arthur Antônio Soares de Oliveira (Federal University of Espírito […]