
(If you're interested in reading Sophocles' version, click here; it's probably worth noting that my ludization of the tragedy originates in my own highly contentious reading of its plot and themes. Above all, I believe that the Athenian audience would have recognized that Creon is in fact attempting to seize the throne from Oedipus.)
The game begins with a fade in from a screen upon which appear only the words “You are a citizen of Thebes. A man named Oedipus is now the king of your city. Almost everyone in the city has been infected by a plague, and no one knows why.”
The player’s character is indeed a citizen of Thebes, in the time of a terrible plague. At the start of the game, he or she can choose to go with a mass of other citizens to the house of Oedipus, tyrant of Thebes, or simply to explore the city. The gates of the city are closed and under quarantine, but, other than that spatial limit, and the increasing percentage chance that the player character will be infected with the plague and grow gradually weaker, at last becoming immobilized with the disease until the resolution of the story finally frees him to lead a perfectly uninteresting but potentially endless life in the city, he can go to a large variety of ordinary places and do a large variety of ordinary things.
On the other hand, if the player chooses to follow the crowd, he or she may become involved in the story of Oedipus’ attempt to solve the mystery of the murder of his predecessor—and, it will turn out, father—, Laius. The player is able to question a large variety of NPC’s along elaborate dialogue trees—trees so elaborate that it is practically impossible to exhaust them (and the player is told as explicitly as possible that he or she should NOT try; indeed, NPC’s eventually refuse to keep talking if the player seems intent on exhausting the dialogue; moreover, talking too long to NPC’s will cause the player to miss parts of the ongoing story); pieces of dialogue are frequently enhanced by brief cutscenes that illustrate the back-story; these, and the final cutscene of the game, are the only traditional cutscenes.
The rest of the story plays out in real-time, whether the player character is there or not; it is occasionally difficult for the player to find the location of the story-action.
The player’s only task in the game—and this task is hidden from the player until he or she uncovers evidence of the conspiracy against the tyrant—is either a) to convince Oedipus that he is not guilty of the murder of Laius, by discovering the crucial pieces of information necessary, and thus to become the trusted advisor of what remains of him after the story’s disaster, or b) to join with the conspirators and bring him or herself into power along with Creon and Teiresias. That is, the main quest is simply to bring the story to its conclusion, by interfering in it effectually. Doing so brings a cutscene contextualizing the story, and then the credits.
It is more than possible—in fact it is easy—to avoid participating in the action of the game completely. The action unfolds over a game time-frame of approximately 10 hours. Progress-saving checkpoints occur only when the player has completed a piece of the story—something that must be done on the game’s internal schedule. Returning to the last checkpoint is at the discretion of the player; when he or she does, he or she is then free to attempt to continue with the story, or to wander off its path again.
With only a little bit of work on the main quest, however, it becomes clear to the player that something is wrong with the case mounting against Oedipus. From that point on, the game is a gradual but very fast-paced build towards the decision of whether Oedipus is in fact worth saving, and how to go about saving him. It turns out that there is no way to prevent Jocasta from committing suicide or Oedipus from blinding himself, but that bribing the herdsman and/or Teiresias (who, it turns out, have been bribed already by Creon) precipitates a scene in which Oedipus is shown the ultimate horror: the folly of his self-conviction.
If the player does not accomplish this bribery, he or she may instead go to Creon and threaten to expose his treachery, in which case Creon introduces the player as the new second-in-command of Thebes at the close of the action, as Oedipus is herded back inside the palace blind and polluted. If the player is watching, he or she will also see Creon talking to Teiresias, obviously planning the player-character’s downfall.
The central idea of this game might be called “tragedy by other means”—that is, in sketching it out I’ve attempted to create the opportunity for the player to experience tragic identification with Oedipus. I have no idea whether anyone but me would ever want to play it, of course. Above all, I want to thank Corvus for the topic!

16 comments:
Hello I am very interested, is this a real game you are referring to, or how you would imagine an RPG would play out?
If so, would it also be possible to have an RPG where you have to interrogate the characters or perform certain Ancient Greek style behaviors - to find out which role you actually have?
Hi Erik! It's an idea for how Sophocles' tragedy might function as an RPG, in response to Corvus Elrod's provocation, part of his Blogs of the Round Table series.
I think it would make a great deal of sense to promote deeper identification with the characters by forcing the player to learn how to act like an ancient Greek. Perhaps NPC's could respond with necessary information only if the player plays his or her part correctly. Very interesting thought!
This is a really interesting idea. One reservation I have is that I think the freedom you suggest in the design is sort of at odds with the inevitability of fate that's at work in the play. It's been a while since I read Oedipus, but my recollection is that everyone tries to escape their ordained fate, and in the attempt runs right into it. The inexorable march of events fits that feeling, but the Grand Theft Thebes structure isn't so much in line. Perhaps the errands of daily life could keep sending the player character across the mob?
Hi Sparky! Yeah--this is where my strange (but obviously correct :D) interpretation of the tragedy comes into play (as it were). I think the point of the drama is not that everybody gets what's coming, but that they actually create their own downfalls BECAUSE they're trying to get out of it.
We're left to imagine that they could have led normal lives if they hadn't tried to game everything out so much, and trusted the oracles.
One key piece of evidence is that the Athenian audience would have been very, very familiar with stories of how oracles could be bribed to give responses favorable to the bribing parties.
So in fact the game structure suits my reading really well, but probably not the traditional one.
You make a good point, sir, especially in light of the topic. Since the game should precede the play it should employ a contemporaneous understanding of oracular statements.
I think it is possible, I wrote about some options in the first issue of IJRP (http://journalofroleplaying.org/) just out.
Creating a special mod using the Oblivion game engine and simple scripting for NPC dialogue (*not the actual game itself*) may be help develop a form of classical role playing game, but Half Life 2/Source also has some nice features and is not just a single-player.
I note your claim about the audience knowledge-perhaps they were more homogeneous than in Shakespeare's time, but how do we know the public understanding of a Greek playwright's irony? Someone as sophisticated as Kierkegaard wrote his doctorate on the subject-Most difficult!
Personally I think shape-changing, identity hiding, truth-bending, and fates competing may all be of interest in such a game but it may not fit well with the aim of teaching Clssical literature.Could not Homeric translations fit nicely with counterfactual realities and the poetic nature of Ancient Greek?
If in a game, players learn to speak like Homer rather than as Homer would that be an advance or a distraction?
ah sorry, virtualheritage is me, Erik.
You may be interested in this article, “’The Peripatos Could Not Have Looked Like That,’ And Other Educational Outcomes From Student Game Design.”
Chapter 6 in The Design and Use of Simulation Computer Games in Education (Paperback) by Brett E. Shelton (Editor), David A. Wiley (Editor), Sense Publishers, 2007. 316 pages. ISBN-10: 9087901550.
--There was a free online copy but it seems to have disappeared.
Thanks, Erik! I'll try to track the article down. Any chance you could summarize it, since the title is so intriguing?
I'm not sure exactly what you mean in the paragraph about the shape-shifting and identity-bending, but I think I see what you're saying about the homeric translations, and that's a lovely idea.
Also, my own reading of the tragedy is I think actually less dependent on a homgeneous audience than the traditional reading, which presumes that everybody thinks the same pious thing about the gods. My own reading relies on the historical context to be found in Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato, to argue that the Athenian audience's views of the oracles, the gods, and the factional struggle for power in the city-state, was very heterogeneous indeed, and that to accept Creon's claim of innocence would have been very far from the only possible response. Given that Creon at the end of the tragedy actually disobeys the oracle he himself brought from Delphi, by not killing or exiling Oedipus, things seem a bit more complex than they're usually given credit for.
Hi I have mailed you the PDF so I don't have to summarize! (See chapter 6).I am not connected to them but their Aristotle Assassins Aurora game project may interest you.
Shape-changing: gods, dryads, is it not common in Greek myth?!
Identity-changing: see above, gods masquerading as mortals, pantheistic god-nature forms (rivers, cattle, dolphins etc), half-gods unsure of parentage (often adopted), common classical motifs I thought!
Many layered interpretations to plays and philosophy from the point of view of game design offers great opportunity to counterfactuality-the issue is then with rules and judgment: who (teacher, computer, students) decides which interaction is more accurate, authentic or meaningful!
I wonder what the effect of having a time constraint on the actual plot is. Dead Rising comes to mind of having a limited amount of time to accomplish the story in-game, but that tends to break from the mold quite a bit. Most games, and I think to an extent that players expect this, allow the player to move at his/her own pace. I know that I, for one, take a very long time to move through games (Mass Effect is a great example here) because I tend to end up exploring every area and pick up every side quest and distraction possible.
Would the player of Oedipus the RPG become frustrated that ultimately it would take quite a few play-throughs in order to get the entirety of the story? To explore all of Thebes?
Hi Kevin! I thought for quite a while about the time limit, and I decided that it would accomplish two things: 1) break players out of their expectations about how you're supposed to complete the main quest of an RPG; 2) (more important) convey within the game-mechanics themselves the idea of necessity, which I think is fundamental to "the Tragic" (whatever the heck that is). My experience of time-constrained moments is that if they're handled right they can be some of the most powerful in any game, even if you have to go back and do them over and over to get them right.
Intriguing concept and very well written!
I agree with Sparky about the "living a normal live" part. It sounds plausible on paper but it is quite impossible to pull off. In order to make that simulated "normal live" a valid alternative it would need to receive the same amount of attention as the Oedipus quest. It would need a gameplay, a goal, an ending etc. Otherwise, it would clearly feel as the "wrong" choice.
On a fundamental level, it is in a way implied that you follow the plot. You are playing the game to play the game - you can always lead a normal live simply by quitting the game. There was a similar discussion on the "Can Slavery be A Game?" post. I understand what you are trying to bring across but I don't think this particular solution would work as you described it.
Also: why have you decided for alternative endings? From what I understand the original has only one ending doesn't it?
I like how you specified the length of the game. I somehow don't have a clear understanding of what exactly the player would do during those 10 hours? Only talk with other characters?
Having an alternative endings in a 10 Hour game is also a bit problematic. So assuming a player spent 10 hours and have seen and ending. What is he supposed to do now? Play yet another 10 hours to see another and accepting that much of the content will be redundant?
Also, the game playing out in real-time with the player possibly missing scenes: again, great on paper but the experience might be not so great. You are struggling to get a grip on what is going on and then after 10 hours, while you walk down a street to visit another NPC the game suddenly freezes and it says "You finished the Game. Thank you for Playing." - That would be QUITE confusing.
Finally:
It turns out that there is no way to prevent Jocasta from committing suicide
How would the player find that out? Would it be actually spelled out or is that something the player would find out after multiple playtroughs trying different things? If it is the second: how often do you think the player will have to complete the game to arrive at that conclusion?
Thanks for the comment, Krystian!
As you can tell, I'm not a designer, so anything I say on design issues has to be taken from the perspective of an interested critic, but I think you're looking at the concept from within a set of rules of game-design that I'm hoping are going to change radically as time goes by.
On the "normal life" issue: it's not my intent that it feel like a valid choice within the game; that is, it doesn't have to be fun or even diverting; it just has to be there. It's supposed to be boring, so that the player will want to go back and do something about the events of the narrative.
On the multiple endings: to grasp the full meaning of the story as I see it, the player needs to play both endings, and realize that the message of the story is the same: thinking you know who you are leads suffering.
On Jocasta's suicide: the player has to figure this out for him or her self, an experience designed to teach him or her about the unavoidability of suffering.
Well, nobody is really a game designer but that's quite ok. I think we are all doing just fine ^_^
normal life - hm, I understand. But still, it seems to me like the feature would be a waste of time. I think players wouldn't perceive not leading a normal life as a choice they consciously made because the alternative is clearly less attractive and less thought-out. So they wouldn't imagine that they could have led normal lives - the game implies that they would do something.
As for the inability to stop the suicide - that also might not create the reaction you anticipate. You see, usually players are very adapt at separating the things they have control over and the things that they don't have control over. Player respond to the things they have over much more emotionally. The other events are pretty much accepted as they were meant to happen anyway. There are already plenty examples of events in games players have no control over - their impact is mostly very mild. So having no control over the suicide probably won't have the same tragic meaning as it had in the literary original. I wrote a short article about it some time ago.
But there is another problem with that setup: you are talking about a 10 hour game where players are supposed to find out for themselves that they can't stop a single, particular even during those 10 hours from happening. Let's assume there are 3 things they could try. This means that players would need to re-play the game at least 3 times until they can be certain that they exhausted the possibilities. It will take them 30 hours and they would have to go trough the same dialogue over and over again. I'm concerned about the kind of experience you plan on sending players trough. We discussed this in the upcoming podcast. I think this particular part would work only if the game was WAY shorter so players could try different things within a single play session.
But maybe someone will address those nitpicks in the following roundtable. I'm excited!
I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Ruth
http://ramupgrade.info
Post a Comment