Myths: Three Paths of the Hero — a game about choices and their cost

Midas touches his bread and it turns to gold. His gift fulfils the king’s wish perfectly, yet he can no longer eat lunch. In that moment, the familiar idea that more gold means a better life stops matching what is happening. His wealth grows while his hunger remains.

Episodes like this open Dmytro Telushko’s psychological board game, Myths: Three Paths of the Hero. Its 100 double-sided cards contain a story, a question, four possible answers and an exploration of different decisions. Players examine a character’s action, test their explanation and follow what might change if the character took another path.

Knowing the ending does not explain the decision. Icarus is already flying, his wings are holding, and that successful start gives him confidence to climb higher. But conditions change at a different height. This raises a practical question: which lessons from earlier experience still apply, and what needs to be checked again?

Theseus takes Ariadne’s thread before entering the labyrinth. He prepares for the fight while also preparing to return. Defeating the Minotaur will not, by itself, reveal the exit. The story opens a conversation about accepting help, preparation and what happens after a goal is reached.

Players can begin with the character’s situation. They may recognise something from their own lives, but sharing it is optional. The events printed on the card provide enough material for a round.

The game calls the repetition of a rigid rule the script path. Such a rule has an attraction: it promises certainty, approval or relief. Midas would keep accumulating gold even though it has already taken away his food. Discussion considers both what the character gains immediately and what it costs later.

In the game’s author-defined model, counter-script means an automatic move to the opposite extreme. Disappointed by his golden gift, Midas might decide that all wealth is dangerous, give away his supplies and refuse any income. That reaction could bring relief before creating shortages for him and those who depend on him. This is the specific meaning used on these cards, not a definition covering every use of “counterscript” in transactional analysis.

Autonomous choice considers the character’s wishes, the facts and the options available. Midas asks for the gift to be removed and accepts help. He must give up an unlimited means of enrichment. Afterwards, he can consider each gain alongside its cost. This kind of choice leaves room to reconsider when circumstances change.

The facilitator first reads the story and question. Players then consider four answer options and make their choice. The key, explanation and three paths stay covered until that point; an opaque sheet can conceal the lower part of the card’s reverse.

Once choices are recorded, the group reads “Our explanation” and all three paths. It is worth pausing over one or two questions: which detail supports our interpretation? What does the rule promise the character? What would happen if they acted this way every time? What new circumstance might make them reconsider?

The author’s answer can be discussed. A different interpretation needs support from the story, with printed events distinguished from assumptions about motives. If two answers are equally well supported by the text, the instructions recommend discussing the card without awarding points.

Saying “the hero should be responsible” tells us little about the next action. More useful questions concern what the character can actually do, which information is missing and who will be affected. Is another person’s consent needed? What must be given up? When would it be sensible to stop or ask for help?

For Theseus, the thread is a concrete preparation for returning. Yet no carefully considered action gives a hero control over other people’s choices, chance or every condition of the journey. Players can examine the quality of a decision even when its outcome remains uncertain.

The basic format is intended for adults, with two to eight people including the facilitator. The instructions suggest 45–60 minutes for a first meeting and approximately 8–10 minutes per round. The introductory round, No.00, offers a starting point before moving on to several game cards.

Groups can explore stories together without points or choose a quiz format. There are also formats for two people and individual use. Personal stories are not scored, and players can skip an answer or card. This is an educational game for discussing choices, not a diagnostic test.

The author’s materials comprise 100 double-sided game cards and a 64-page instruction booklet. The introductory round, No.00, appears separately in the booklet. Appendices provide answer keys, readings of all 100 stories and the introductory round, and sources for the myths.

The illustrations in this article show extracts from the current Ukrainian-language layouts. To ask about the format of Myths: Three Paths of the Hero and how to obtain it, use the MriyaRun contact page.