The Tyranny of Player Choice

A good many rpgs pit you into the role of a hero struggling against overwhelming odds, but these stories easily fit the narrative of an overlord’s rise to power

Playing through Obsidian’s dark rpg Tyranny, I found myself crafting a narrative that felt familiar to me. I was mediating in a civil war between two equally abhorrent factions, and forced to side with one or the other, having to weigh the pros and cons of each. Factions are a popular staple in the story-driven role-playing game, particularly ones that advertise branching player choices as a selling feature. It’s easier to craft a branching narrative when the protagonist’s options are limited to following along one or two factions. No matter which faction you choose, the affected region is doomed to horror and oppression beneath the victor. Some games give you the option to kick both of these factions to the curb, but many do not, leaving you complicit in allowing monsters to rule.

What made Tyranny feel so fresh and interesting was in how explicitly it frames the actions of the player-character as following in the footsteps of tyrants. No matter how benevolent a ruler you attempt to be, as you conquer the tiers in the name of the Overlord, it’s still very much a fascist takeover. You have inserted yourself into these people’s lives, destroyed their rulers, and begun exploiting them for resources. Even if you take care to ally yourself with the least worse faction in the Overlord’s army, your actions have still aided a great evil, and inflicted suffering.

And I have to say, it felt nice to have a game actually point that out. A common complaint regarding Tyranny is that outside of certain dialogue options, it’s very easy to play the game the way you would any normal rpg. Some of the choices don’t feel all that different. The “good” choices involve solving people’s problems, and the “bad” ones involve being an absolute dick and kicking a potential party member off the top of your very tall spire. There are fabulously villainous options in the game, don’t get me wrong, but the level of amorality here is mostly within the framing. Choices in Tyranny that are still shadowy and suspect are portrayed as heroic and orderly in games like Mass Effect or Skyrim.

Consider other rpgs and how similar they are. You play a remarkably powerful individual exerting their will upon a region, deciding which factions should rise and which should fall, and your choices guide the fate of millions of people whether they asked you to or not. They did not choose for you to come in with your spells and your warhammers. They didn’t ask you to depose of their leaders and alter their way of life. They certainly didn’t ask you to come in when they weren’t looking, loot their entire household and sell their own belongings back to them at a steep price. I mean seriously, who does that?

And we’re the hero in these games? We topple entire governments and institute factions of our own choosing after leaving swathes of destruction in our wake. Have you ever thought to consider how many people you’ve probably murdered in Skyrim?

In Mass Effect 2, you’re given the option to either rewrite a group of sentient being’s coding in order to enslave them, or see them all murdered for their beliefs.

These are not the choices made by good men. These are not options good men would even consider. These are the choices of tyrants and oppressors.

So for me a game where outright villainy is a bit more colorful than your standard renegade option, but for the most part creating an rpg with similar choices drenched in standard gray morality was refreshing in how it confronts the concept of the all-powerful hero and their band of stalwart companions. Maybe the person coming in and blowing up everyone with fireballs isn’t the nicest person around. Seems a tad anti-democratic to put them in charge simply because they managed to defeat a somehow even bigger jerk.

I’m not against the idea of players being able to make epic choices in roleplaying games. It’s very exciting to be able to craft your own narrative, but I would love a little bit more nuance and self-awareness when these choices come down to a singular person’s actions. We should be conscious about framing these individuals as heroes. Empowered yes, but power isn’t necessarily a good thing. The ability to shape the world as you see fit isn’t exactly all smiles and roses. For those who dwell within that world, it can be a nightmare.

We justify these actions by pointing to whatever evil threat that we use our powers and our alliances to defeat. But isn’t there always some great evil threat? We come into a region uninvited with our spells and our swords and our drones and our bombs and our boots on the ground and we exert our will onto that place. Most rpgs end without ever fulling exploring the consequences of our actions. At most we get a tidy little bit of flavor text and accompanying illustration. It must be convenient to never have to see the far-reaching effects of what happens when you disrupt an entire region.

Dorian Dawes is the author of Harbinger Island and Mercs. Their non-fiction work has been published by Bitch Media, YourTango, and the Huffington Post. You can support their writing at patreon.com/doriandawes