You wake up in the back of a horse-drawn cart. Your hands are bound. A man across from you whispers, “Hey, you. You’re finally awake.” In that instant, you are born. More precisely, you manifest into a world that needs you. You don’t know why. You don’t know who you are. But somehow, you're the center of everything.

This is how Skyrim begins. No backstory, no relationships, no memory. Just a world suspended in time, waiting for you to materialize. Within hours, you’re asked to kill a dragon,  become the head of every guild, and decide the fate of empires. You are The Dragonborn. You are the one.

It’s a rush; it’s a fantasy. It’s old as myth and modern as an open-world RPG.

The story of the lone hero is one we are told repeatedly. Odysseus, Jesus, Frodo, and Luke Skywalker are the ones who come to mind when we imagine greatness.

Games like Skyrim let us live this archetype. In doing so, they reveal the deeper architecture of this myth: the objectives of the game are rooted in control, ownership, & power. The player is the sun around which the game orbits. Every NPC, every faction, and every battle revolves around you. The world isn’t alive until you act on it. You’re not just in the story.

You ARE the story.

What if the fantasy of the lone hero isn’t an elevation, but a trap?  What if the lone hero reflects a worldview that centers individual exceptionalism over collective transformation?

___

The lone hero is one of the oldest myths we tell. The tale remains remarkably consistent: a single man, marked by fate, rises above the masses to confront darkness. He journeys far from home, overcomes impossible odds, conquers evil, and returns changed and bearing a gift/truth the world could not have attained without him.

It’s a myth of individual exceptionalism.

** It is worth noting that heroes rarely act alone, but their existence is hierarchical (and they sit at the top).**

___

When Skyrim casts you as the Dragonborn, it’s re-inscribing something ancient. You are chosen. Your voice literally bends the world. Entire civilizations pause for your decisions. It mirrors the cultural logic embedded in many of our stories — that power is personal, salvation comes from the strong, and the path to meaning is paved alone.

What makes games uniquely potent is that you don’t watch the lone hero triumph. You perform victory. The illusion becomes more seductive because it feels earned. You did the quests. You beat the dungeons. You saved the realm, even though the world was built for you to do so.

The myth flatters us, so we believe it.

___

This hero’s journey has fundamental limits. It rarely accounts for those who don’t have the luxury of heroic distance. It renders the collective invisible. It positions sidekicks, villagers, lovers, and rebels as static tools in the hero’s arc. It turns a blind eye to almost all of the labor holds the real world together.

When we repeat this myth without question, we risk forgetting that other myths exist where power is shared, where transformation belongs to many, instead of the few.

___

Boot up Skyrim, and the world greets you with the illusion of independence. Guards swap rumors of dragons, factions posture conflict, and townsfolk move through their daily routines. It feels like a living place. But the gears don’t start to turn until you arrive. The dragons awaken. The civil war escalates. A secret order emerges to declare you their savior. You are the axis around which everyone and everything spins.

This is a narrative ideology. The stories teach us that meaning comes from centrality and hat change only matters when it’s yours to cause.

It’s a seductive and familiar framework. Western culture, particularly in the U.S., has long mythologized transformation as the work of the lone genius, the lone warrior, the lone entrepreneur. Games like Skyrim absorb that cultural logic and reflect it back through code: you were nothing, and now you are everything. Without you, the world is static. With you, it becomes legend.

___

What would it mean to break that frame? What would it mean to enter a world that doesn’t need you? What would it mean to move through a world where people live, fight, and change whether or not you show up? A world where hours spent grinding to build in-game currency means that you miss opportunities to be part of something bigger? A world not shaped around your greatness, but built through relationships, contingencies, and shared momentum?

To let go of the myth of the lone hero is to accept that you might not be the center. It’s also to discover something truer, and perhaps more freeing: that meaning doesn’t have to come from control.

We can decide where meaning comes from.

___

For all its grandeur, the lone‑hero story is a strangely empty one. It’s are obsessed with ascension: rise, dominate, overcome. What falls away in that structure is everything that makes actual human life durable: reciprocity, shared burdens, inherited wounds, the slow knitting of trust.

___

This is where the heroine’s journey reveals itself.

Its arc is about integration and self-discovery. It is about conforming to the expectations before everything falls apart. It is about being true to oneself and being conscientious of the cost.

It is the journey that Western games almost never let you take.

In other media, traces of the heroine’s arc already exist. In Nightbitch, Amy Adams’ character unravels the constraints of domestic perfection not by overcoming them, but by first becoming an animal. 

The arc isn’t upward, it’s inward. It is into the body, into community, into care laced with violence and vulnerability. It’s a story of transformation. Its power lies in its refusal to isolate triumph from entanglement. Its power is tied to memory and community.

___

The lone hero promises agency, but it also isolates. It teaches us to mistrust what we did not build ourselves. It quietly suggests that to be powerful is to stand apart. It ignores is how to return, how to be shaped by others, and how to be accountable to something larger than our own arc. The hole at the center of these stories is a feature of the worldview. Once you see it, you can’t unsee what’s missing.

The lone‑hero story is seductive because it mirrors the world inside which we were raised. A world that insists history moves through singular figures: geniuses, conquerors, founders, and visionaries. A world that teaches us to look for the person who rises above — not the forces that shape them or the people who enable them.

But in structuring the world this way, something enormous goes missing: no world, fictional or real, is fundamentally moved by a single person.

What disappears is interdependence, the web of forces that actually shapes change. What disappears is continuity, the long arc of struggle that precedes and survives any individual. What disappears is relationship, not as flavor text but as world‑making.

___

In our world, history is not shaped by lone heroes but by collective struggle. Our world is shaped by the invisible labor of millions who never appear in a textbook.

Revolutions are rarely sparked by a single figure: they are produced by hunger, exploitation, crisis, and solidarity. Movements do not succeed because one hero appeared: they succeed when people act together, build together,and  remember together.

John Brown did not free the slaves, but he inspired millions to organize for abolition. He lost his life but won the battle (nominally).

Our games rarely center the lone hero because our culture does. Our system depends on a myth where success, failure, and change are personal because collective power dangerous.

The absence of the collective in the lone‑hero narrative is political. A world where the hero is the only actor is a world where no one else matters. A world where no one else matters is a world where history cannot be contested. A world where history cannot be contested is a world where the system never changes.

What’s missing is the very thing that makes real transformation possible: a sense of the collective, a sense of the structural, a sense of our shared stakes. The lone hero is a myth because no hero is ever alone. Not in fiction, and certainly not in the world that shaped us.

What most games leave out is not just nuance, but the truth that liberation is always a collective achievement.

If the lone-hero narrative reproduces capitalist individualism, then the answer is not to change identity aesthetics. The answer is to reimagine what actions matter, what change is possible, and what subjects move the world.

That shift begins with centering love and care. They are the baseline of any functioning society: the work of raising children, feeding people, tending to the sick, cleaning, repairing, supporting, grieving, and listening. They are the kind of labor that is structurally essential but ignored under capitalism because it cannot be commodified without distorting its function. (See: US Healthcare)

This is not abstract. Games valorize the one who swings the sword, not the one who heals the wound. The one who leads the raid, not the one who builds the shelter.

And yet, care is the condition of possibility for everything else. Without it, nothing endures. Without it, there is no next generation, no future at all.

___

Games rooted in care do not have to be slower, smaller, or sentimental. They must simply wrestle with the aftermath of the violence they enact and force us to confront reconstruction built upon justice.

To imagine care as central is to redefine what struggle looks like. It is to say that sustaining life, nurturing growth, healing wounds, and building trust are forms of resistance. It says that collective survival is the only quest that was ever real.

Care is not the opposite of power. It is the bedrock upon which power is built. It is what power has always tried to extract without credit. To center care is to make visible the labor that makes every revolution possible, and to make visible the kinds of heroes we were never taught to recognize.

___

So what kind of play does a world in crisis require?

It does not require the lone gunman, nor the rugged messiah, nor the isolated genius who ascends beyond the crowd. We’ve seen where those stories lead:

Collapse. Burnout. Extraction. Abandonment.

The system swallows the lone hero.

What we need now are stories that remember how people survive. We need stories that trace the long arc of interdependence. We need stories that remember while their villains have forgotten. We need stories that remind the villains where power really lies.

Because the future of play will be collective or it will not be at all.