Half-Baked Question:

[mootoall]

So sometihng recently occured to me, and though the answer is probably extremely unimportant plot-wise, it does make me wonder about the mechanics of the world. The characters of OOTS all seem very aware of, well, the fact that their world runs off of 3.5 D&D rules. However, they are also very confident in the fact that gods, rather than a DM, created the world (and yes, I know this was addressed in a guest strip). This probably has been discussed before, and I just haven't found the thread, but what are some possible explanations of this?

[fwiffo]

DMs *are* Gods.

[mootoall]

DMs *are* Gods.

As in the Gods are DMs? I don't think that's likely ... and DMs being Gods doesn't really answer the question, as the players clearly believe in gods, and they do exist, but, except in that one guest strip, they never mention DMs.

[SPoD]

There are no DMs; the first compilation explicitly states that this is a world that runs by three sets of laws: The Law of Physics, the Laws of Magic, and the Laws of Gaming. Consider it a thought experiment saying, "What would the world be like if the rules of D&D were actually in place?" than an actual D&D game.

[mootoall]

There are no DMs; the first compilation explicitly states that this is a world that runs by three sets of laws: The Law of Physics, the Laws of Magic, and the Laws of Gaming. Consider it a thought experiment saying, "What would the world be like if the rules of D&D were actually in place?" than an actual D&D game.

Well, I'm gonna quote the Giant here (and you sig) and say that I guess Spod has it right!

[Zevox]

As SPoD said, there is no DM. Don't confuse the world operating under D&D mechanics with the world actually being a game of D&D. The rules of the game apply (generally, anyway) in the same manner as the laws of physics do in reality, but there is no such thing as a player or DM, because this is an actual fictional world, not a visualization of a fictional game of D&D.

Zevox

[mucat]

Our world runs on physical laws, but we don't assume that it was created by a physicist, or that physicists control our actions. To the people in OOTS land, the 3.5ed rules are simply laws of nature; they can't imagine a world (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html) that worked any other way.

Even calling themselves PCs doesn't mean they are controlled by actual players. In their world, there are simply people who find themselves at the center of unfolding events far more often than the laws of probability should allow, and these people are called PCs because...well, just because that's what they're called. If you're a Robert Jordan fan, think of "PC" as being equivalent to "ta'veren"

[Kish]

That's it. Roy and the rest of the order are taverns. And the creature in the darkness is a gazebo.

[Poppy Appletree]

That's it. Roy and the rest of the order are taverns. And the creature in the darkness is a gazebo.

You have angered the gazebo! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0477.html)

[JonestheSpy]

And the creature in the darkness is a gazebo.

That is without a doubt the best suggestion I've heard so far.

[Acero]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html

Sixth panel

[NerfTW]

However, they are also very confident in the fact that gods, rather than a DM, created the world ... but what are some possible explanations of this?

When the actual gods are right there talking to their followers, one assumes any doubt of their existence is pretty much eliminated.

Also, there is no DM or players. What "guest strip" are you referring to?

[DemLep]

I think of it as a game of D&D with no DM. The players a so immersed in the world they created together that they need to DM. They no long live in the "real" world (mentally at least if not physically as well).

Think of it a D&D game with no DM, could such a beautiful and terrifying thing really exist?

[Calavera]

I would say 99.9% of OotSizens just believe whatever they were told by their local cleric as they were growing up, much like in real life. Well informed and intelligent people like Roy and Kasumi realise that however the world was created, there is a deeper level in which is the creators only exist because a being with ultimate narrative power decided to amuse himself and other similar beings. Since that doesn't really affect their lives any, it doesn't really bother them though.

[Kastanok]

While there are no players or DMs, it should be noted that the OotS-world creation myth is a parody of collectively designed game worlds, with the gods filling the roles of multiple-DMs/players each trying to impose their own vision upon the setting, thus leading to internal division and a campaign world which ultimately tears itself apart.

Source: No Cure for the Paladin City Blues commentary.

[/v-mode]

[devinkowalczyk]

If you bring in that you have what happened in the begining of the Goblins comic

[Dr.Epic]

DMs *are* Gods.

They certainly have the ego of them.

To answer mootoall's question, it's a comic.

[Poppy Appletree]

I think of it as a game of D&D with no DM. The players a so immersed in the world they created together that they need to DM. They no long live in the "real" world (mentally at least if not physically as well).

Think of it a D&D game with no DM, could such a beautiful and terrifying thing really exist?

It happens - the question is, do you like Mary Sues? :smallwink:

[DemLep]

It happens - the question is, do you like Mary Sues? :smallwink:

And so you must point out the terribleness of it.

[137beth]

In #669, Roy and Celia say that it would be so weird and impossible if you didn't know what happened after you died. Almost like not knowing there were trees or stars...or skill points.

[NerfTW]

I think of it as a game of D&D with no DM. The players a so immersed in the world they created together that they need to DM. They no long live in the "real" world (mentally at least if not physically as well).

Think of it a D&D game with no DM, could such a beautiful and terrifying thing really exist?

You're over thinking this.

It's been clearly stated time and time again in commentaries and posts that this is a world where the mechanics of D&D are what the laws of physics are to us. It's comedy. There's no players or immersion or any of that. It's simply a world with a different set of physical laws.

Like, for instance, Discworld, which uses a set of unique rules to explain how exactly such a place exists.

[Devils_Advocate]

Rich Burlew is, effectively, the DM of The Order of the Stick. And along those lines, a better question might be: How can the characters believe that gods created their world, given that they repeatedly demonstrate awareness of being fictional characters in a comic strip?

The answer is that every action within a story is decided by its Author, and this is no more true of the creation of a world than it is of anything else.

To clarify: Rich technically created the world that this story takes place in, but only in the same sense that he technically reforged Roy's sword. These things were also done through the gods and a blacksmith respectively, however. Authors act through their characters, which is simply another way of saying that sometimes characters will, y'know, do things.


Our world runs on physical laws, but we don't assume that it was created by a physicist, or that physicists control our actions.
Well, those are some odd ways of describing creationism and predestination, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of people believe at least one of those things. (If designing the laws of physics doesn't qualify Someone a physicist, I'd like to know what does!)

Tangentially: I was going to say "materialism" instead of "predestination" for the second bit, but then I saw that you wrote "physicists", not "physics". Heh.


What "guest strip" are you referring to?
I'm guessing this one (http://www.giantitp.com/Images/GuestWeek2005/oots0304.gif).

[veti]

It's been clearly stated time and time again in commentaries and posts that this is a world where the mechanics of D&D are what the laws of physics are to us. It's comedy. There's no players or immersion or any of that. It's simply a world with a different set of physical laws.

Well, just hold yer hosses a moment there, bro...

I know the Giant says "there are no real players", but before we smile and accept that as if it settled the question once and for all, let's pause to consider that we could say the same of the characters themselves. After all, this is a fictional strip. If we're prepared to discuss Belkar as if he "exists", why shouldn't we do the same for "Belkar's player"?

If it was "just" a world where the game rules happened to apply, that would explain the talk about XP and levels and stats and skill points, and even the system upgrade in episode 0001. But there's more than that. We've seen Stickers:

talk about "PCs" and "NPCs"
break character and speak as players, even talking about dice rolls
discuss (and abuse) not only game mechanics, but also social mechanics that only make sense if you assume there are players. (Example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0124.html), example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html), example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html).)
add a new PC as a (temporary) stand-in for a (temporarily) dead one.


So I suggest that the players are just as real as the characters. We may not see them, but we hear them from time to time, and without them the world would not make sense.


Like, for instance, Discworld, which uses a set of unique rules to explain how exactly such a place exists.

Not a good comparison. Discworld recognises the laws of magic and drama, but people don't actually break character and talk about themselves as if they were fictional.

[Kish]

Well, just hold yer hosses a moment there, bro...

I know the Giant says "there are no real players", but before we smile and accept that as if it settled the question once and for all, let's pause to consider that we could say the same of the characters themselves. After all, this is a fictional strip. If we're prepared to discuss Belkar as if he "exists", why shouldn't we do the same for "Belkar's player"?

Because Belkar is a fictional character who exists in this fictional universe, whereas his player has no existence at all.


If it was "just" a world where the game rules happened to apply, that would explain the talk about XP and levels and stats and skill points, and even the system upgrade in episode 0001. But there's more than that.

Clearly, one of two things is the case. The fourth wall in the comic is often broken. Or, Rich lied when he said there are no players, and Belkar was wrong when he said they weren't actually representing a campaign. I consider one of these ideas absurd.


We've seen Stickers:
[LIST]
talk about "PCs" and "NPCs"

Yes.


break character and speak as players,

No.

even talking about dice rolls

Yes.


discuss (and abuse) not only game mechanics, but also social mechanics that only make sense if you assume there are players.

No.

(Example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0124.html), example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0145.html), example (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html).)

Just out of sheer curiosity, how does that last one make more sense if there are players? Do your D&D games frequently feature players announcing that their characters go offscreen to take a shower while the NPC is expositing?


add a new PC as a (temporary) stand-in for a (temporarily) dead one.

I think you may get the prize for being the first person to explicitly assert, and treat as a given, that Celia was ever a PC. Er...she is who you mean, isn't she?


Not a good comparison. Discworld recognises the laws of magic and drama, but people don't actually break character and talk about themselves as if they were fictional.
True, Discworld has a fourth wall, and genre awareness there is entirely on the inside of the fourth wall.

[veti]

Because Belkar is a fictional character who exists in this fictional universe, whereas his player has no existence at all.

We don't know that. Could you point to a statement by the Giant that conclusively refutes my interpretation?


Clearly, one of two things is the case. The fourth wall in the comic is often broken. Or, Rich lied when he said there are no players, and Belkar was wrong when he said they weren't actually representing a campaign. I consider one of these ideas absurd.

I'm not saying Rich lied, merely that his statements are not necessarily as simple as they look. Don't be so literal-minded.

If the Giant says "There are no players, this is not a game of D&D", that could mean what you interpret it as meaning. But it could also mean, simply, that "this is not a novelisation of a campaign, there are no actual people who played these characters for real in a story like this one". There's a difference between saying that we may have misinterpreted someone, and accusing them of lying.

The OOTS are created entirely out of the Giant's imagination. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that those creations are, or can be, self-contained. In order to explain them, you need to assume the presence of other elements that are not explicitly mentioned. I say Belkar must have a player, in much the same way and for much the same reasons as he "must" have a mother.[1] Without one, the character is logically incoherent.

[1] (Okay, so he could have been cloned or created from scratch by some super-chaotic deity, but possibilities like these would entail even bigger unmentioned external factors.)


Just out of sheer curiosity, how does that last one make more sense if there are players? Do your D&D games frequently feature players announcing that their characters go offscreen to take a shower while the NPC is expositing?

I've seen players get bored and start reading newspapers, going off for personal chores, etc., when the DM starts expositing plot. Conversely, I've seen a prisoner on trial, and I'm here to tell you he paid a lot closer attention to things that seemed to me a lot more boring than that. And the worst he was looking at was about six months in chokey, not exactly a death sentence.


I think you may get the prize for being the first person to explicitly assert, and treat as a given, that Celia was ever a PC. Er...she is who you mean, isn't she?

Well, I've been saying it for about a year now in the hope that someone would pick me up on it and we could have that debate, but no-one has yet... It seemed a logical point to bring up here, because if there are no fictional "players", it becomes pretty hard to explain the distinction between PCs and NPCs anyway.

[Kish]

Just out of sheer curiosity, how does that last one make more sense if there are players? Do your D&D games frequently feature players announcing that their characters go offscreen to take a shower while the NPC is expositing?




I've seen players get bored and start reading newspapers, going off for personal chores, etc., when the DM starts expositing plot.

...So you're arguing that the person saying "Are we back?"--in cryptogramspeak--was Haley's player?


Well, I've been saying it for about a year now in the hope that someone would pick me up on it and we could have that debate, but no-one has yet... It seemed a logical point to bring up here, because if there are no fictional "players", it becomes pretty hard to explain the distinction between PCs and NPCs anyway.
Once again, in asserting that only your preferred explanation fits, you're choosing to ignore a much simpler explanation which doesn't involve saying the author meant something other than what he said. PCs and NPCs are a meta-concept. Characters who mention them break the fourth wall.

[Zevox]

Well, just hold yer hosses a moment there, bro...

I know the Giant says "there are no real players", but before we smile and accept that as if it settled the question once and for all,
No, lets not, on account of the fact that when the creator of a fictional story says that something in that story is a certain way, by definition that settles whatever question the statement is addressing once and for all. This is why TVTropes refers to such statements as "Word of God."

Zevox

[veti]

...So you're arguing that the person saying "Are we back?"--in cryptogramspeak--was Haley's player?

No, because we don't see Haley's player. What we see is the projection of Haley's player (him/herself a fictional character) into the (also fictional) campaign world. I.e., Haley.

But what the character is doing there - doesn't make sense within the context of the game world. To fill that gap, I posit the existence of a meta-character that I'm calling "Haley's player", of whom the base character "Haley" is merely an aspect.


Once again, in asserting that only your preferred explanation fits, you're choosing to ignore a much simpler explanation which doesn't involve saying the author meant something other than what he said. PCs and NPCs are a meta-concept. Characters who mention them break the fourth wall.

Once again, I'm not saying that the author meant anything other than what he said. Nor am I saying that "only my preferred explanation fits". But the fact is, I have yet to hear this "much simpler explanation" you mention - I only know it hasn't come up in this thread.

When characters talk about "PCs" and "NPCs", what do you think they mean?

[Kish]

But what the character is doing there - doesn't make sense within the context of the game world. To fill that gap, I posit the existence of a meta-character that I'm calling "Haley's player", of whom the base character "Haley" is merely an aspect.

Supposing, just for the sake of argument, that Haley had a player.

So what?

Haley runs in from the shower and says in cryptogram, "Are we back?" If things she did were dictated by a player, that would mean her player said, "I/my character run(s) back into the room and ask(s), 'Are we back?'"

Positing "Haley's player," aside from contradicting the author, does exactly nothing to fill the supposed gap--in fact, it creates an actual gap. "Haley breaking the fourth wall" is entirely consistent with the comic. "Haley's player has her do something weirdly inexplicable" only looks like it is entirely consistent with the comic if you attribute every fourth-wall breakage to players, in which case the players often have their characters do weird things, but why is still up in the air.

Just out of curiosity, how do you account for Redcloak complaining about being an NPC? Does he actually have a player who doesn't think he--er, doesn't think Redcloak's player exists?


Once again, I'm not saying that the author meant anything other than what he said.

He said there are no players. You're insisting there are players. There is no logical way around that, although, I'm sure, you'll just complain about me being "literal-minded" again.

Nor am I saying that "only my preferred explanation fits". But the fact is, I have yet to hear this "much simpler explanation" you mention - I only know it hasn't come up in this thread.

Am I supposed to be motivated to keep trying by you telling me you haven't bothered to read my posts to date?


When characters talk about "PCs" and "NPCs", what do you think they mean?
Well, considering the PCs are the Order of the Stick, and the NPCs are characters like Redcloak, Xykon, and Celia (who, incidentally, no more leave the fourth wall alone than the PCs do, even, in Redcloak's case, to complain about being defined by their lack of a player--or, in the Cliffport Chief of Police's case, to tell the cops not to "try to be a PC out there"), the obvious answer would seem to be that PC is synonymous--in a fourth-wall breaking way--with "main character."

[The Extinguisher]

The key thing is to remember that yes, these characters break the forth wall over and over again, and reference concepts that would exist in a world with players and DM's, but they never break character to do so. When Elan is talking about what he rolled, it's not his player that yells out "I ROLLED A FOUR". Elan himself is expressing what he rolled.

This is a world where skill points and XP and "player characters" exist in the same way as electrons and chemical bonds. Where the random encounter table is a concept much like the Newton's law of gravity. I think where thing get confusing is that in their world, they have an understanding of these concepts in a much different way than we have an understanding of the laws that govern our universe.

[Nimrod's Son]

I say Belkar must have a player, in much the same way and for much the same reasons as he "must" have a mother.[1] Without one, the character is logically incoherent.

[1] (Okay, so he could have been cloned or created from scratch by some super-chaotic deity, but possibilities like these would entail even bigger unmentioned external factors.)
Well, we can presume (if we couldn't already) that Belkar had a mother due to him talking about "Mama Bitterleaf" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0200.html).

Any similar indication that he has a player, though, is curiously absent. :smallwink:

[DemLep]

You're over thinking this.

It's been clearly stated time and time again in commentaries and posts that this is a world where the mechanics of D&D are what the laws of physics are to us. It's comedy. There's no players or immersion or any of that. It's simply a world with a different set of physical laws.

Like, for instance, Discworld, which uses a set of unique rules to explain how exactly such a place exists.

I see no difference. We are beings fully immersed in our individual and collective perception of our world. Whether the world is really as we see it or not could not be proven until we are able to speak to an outside source and see how they perceive the world. Like ways if we are in some sort of matrix situation then we would have to leave the "false" world to perceive the real one. I was just more simply trying to say I view the OotS in the same view, whether there is or isn't a real world is unimportant unless the Giant decides anyways.

And the second comment was to the fact that I missed the days when I did PbPRPG's with no one running the show. Some great and terrible things happen when each player is also a DM.

[veti]

Haley runs in from the shower and says in cryptogram, "Are we back?" If things she did were dictated by a player, that would mean her player said, "I/my character run(s) back into the room and ask(s), 'Are we back?'"

No, Haley's player does that, and the author illustrates this by showing us Haley doing it. Is that really so much of a stretch? It's exactly the same as Elan's "I ROLLED A 4!"


Positing "Haley's player," aside from contradicting the author,

Kish, in the past you've been quite adept at digging up the Giant's quotes, so that when people claim to be arguing from "word of god" we can actually see said word and investigate the context for ourselves. Do you suppose you could do that in this case? Because I'm genuinely interested to see where this statement occurs.


Just out of curiosity, how do you account for Redcloak complaining about being an NPC? Does he actually have a player who doesn't think he--er, doesn't think Redcloak's player exists?

The DM might wish Redcloak had a player, if he's bearing a lot of action or thinking load. Or the character of Redcloak himself might wish he had a player. I don't see any inconsistency there.


He said there are no players. You're insisting there are players. There is no logical way around that, although, I'm sure, you'll just complain about me being "literal-minded" again.

Yes, I would call you "literal-minded". See above request. "There are no players", if that was the statement made, can be read in a number of ways, including but by no means limited to:

"There are no players in the strip, I only draw what can actually be seen within the OOTS world."
"There are no players who invented these characters, all characters are my own."
"I'm not troubling to depict relationships or interactions between the players - to all intents and purposes there are no players in this story - but I might, at some later date, I haven't fully decided yet."


None of these interpretations either (a) accuses the Giant of lying, or (b) rules out the possibility that the players are every bit as real as the characters.


Am I supposed to be motivated to keep trying by you telling me you haven't bothered to read my posts to date?

Err... is there some kind of rule on this forum to read every post ever made before you ask a question?

All I've seen in this thread is "PCs and NPCs are a meta-concept. Characters who mention them break the fourth wall." But before that can qualify as an "explanation", there's an awful lot more groundwork to be done, and as far as I can see, nobody's even tried to do that.


the obvious answer would seem to be that PC is synonymous--in a fourth-wall breaking way--with "main character."

In which case, Redcloak would be a PC - which we have his own word for it, he isn't. So that doesn't work. Back to the drawing board?

[Kish]

No, Haley's player does that, and the author illustrates this by showing us Haley doing it. Is that really so much of a stretch?

veti...

This is absurd. Really absurd. Haley coming back from the shower and asking--in cryptogramspeak--"Are we back?" is evidence that the author wants to show us that "Haley's player," who said author has denied the existence of, came back from the shower and asked the other nonexistent players and the nonexistent DM (presumably not in cryptogramspeak) "Are we back?"? What would you consider evidence that they don't have players? 'Cause if the answer is, as it now appears to be, "nothing would make me believe that and there is very little I won't claim as positive evidence for players," I've clearly been wasting my time responding to this argument at all.


Kish, in the past you've been quite adept at digging up the Giant's quotes, so that when people claim to be arguing from "word of god" we can actually see said word and investigate the context for ourselves. Do you suppose you could do that in this case? Because I'm genuinely interested to see where this statement occurs.

I appreciate (perhaps) the compliment, but I have absolutely no faith in my own ability to produce a statement that you won't look at and say, "That statement that there are no players doesn't say there are no players!" or, indeed, a statement you haven't already looked at and done so.


The DM might wish Redcloak had a player, if he's bearing a lot of action or thinking load. Or the character of Redcloak himself might wish he had a player. I don't see any inconsistency there.

Again, is it in fact possible for you to see anything as "inconsistent" with your theory? "The character of Redcloak himself might wish he had a player"? So when you asserted that fourth-wall-breakages proved the presence of players (linking three examples, including the one with Haley getting back from the shower and asking "Are we back?" in cryptogramspeak), you meant, when they can be read as support for players they prove players, and when they can't they're irrelevant?


Yes, I would call you "literal-minded".

Oh well.


All I've seen in this thread is "PCs and NPCs are a meta-concept. Characters who mention them break the fourth wall." But before that can qualify as an "explanation", there's an awful lot more groundwork to be done, and as far as I can see, nobody's even tried to do that.

Really. Explain, then. How is that "not an explanation," other than that it's not the explanation you want?


In which case, Redcloak would be a PC

No. He's an antagonist. Not a protagonist. There are six main characters, six protagonists...six PCs.

[Fiery Diamond]

No, Haley's player does that, and the author illustrates this by showing us Haley doing it. Is that really so much of a stretch? It's exactly the same as Elan's "I ROLLED A 4!"

I agree, it is exactly the same. But neither one is an illustration that there is a player. Remember, this strip is a comedy just as much as it is a narrative. The characters regularly break the fourth wall in such a manner, not because there are players, but because Rich wants to poke fun at typical behavior by RL D&D players. He does this through the actions of the characters, making them behave in ways that players often do, since there really is no other way to accomplish that goal within his strip. It doesn't mean that there are players in OoTS.



Kish, in the past you've been quite adept at digging up the Giant's quotes, so that when people claim to be arguing from "word of god" we can actually see said word and investigate the context for ourselves. Do you suppose you could do that in this case? Because I'm genuinely interested to see where this statement occurs.

I think this statement occurs in one of the books, but I might be wrong. If it occurs on the site, it would be useful to link, but if it occurs in the books you just have to rely on word of mouth unless you own the books and feel like looking through them.


The DM might wish Redcloak had a player, if he's bearing a lot of action or thinking load. Or the character of Redcloak himself might wish he had a player. I don't see any inconsistency there.

There is no DM, therefore he cannot wish anything. Unless you can point to evidence that there is a DM, we'll just have to rely on Word of God that there isn't, no ifs and or buts.


Yes, I would call you "literal-minded". See above request. "There are no players", if that was the statement made, can be read in a number of ways, including but by no means limited to:

"There are no players in the strip, I only draw what can actually be seen within the OOTS world."
"There are no players who invented these characters, all characters are my own."
"I'm not troubling to depict relationships or interactions between the players - to all intents and purposes there are no players in this story - but I might, at some later date, I haven't fully decided yet."


None of these interpretations either (a) accuses the Giant of lying, or (b) rules out the possibility that the players are every bit as real as the characters.

Firstly, Occam's Razor. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) Since the literal interpretation is the simplest, it is the most logical and reasonable. All other interpretations require you to have preconceived notions that are in conflict with the literal interpretation and do a dance and jig to get the statement to fit your notions.

Secondly, the first "interpretation" you listed is, well... an example of, if being the correct one, condescension on the part of Rich, since this is so blatantly obvious. Rich has never drawn a picture of a player and just tells us that he doesn't draw pictures of players? I have a higher opinion of Rich than that. Rich is not patronizing.

The second "interpretation" you listed is similarly an obvious one. Rich is writing a story, not transcribing a campaign. We have many, many posts by Rich that discuss his writing of the story and how his ideas have evolved. He is not one for obfuscating redundancy (which is precisely what that statement would be, were that interpretation correct).

The third "interpretation" you listed is the only one that works at all, except for the fact that the second half of it is impossible. If he might change his mind later, he would say that. If he says, "There are no X" then it means there are no X, there were no X, and there will not ever be any X. Are you seriously going to say you think it would make a difference in the meaning if he were pedantic enough to add "Period." at the end of his statement? That's stretching it. Really, really far.

[Durgok]

Panel 6 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html)

That basically says "No players" since they are not representing a campaign.

[veti]

There is no DM, therefore he cannot wish anything. Unless you can point to evidence that there is a DM, we'll just have to rely on Word of God that there isn't, no ifs and or buts.

But that's begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). "There is no DM, therefore this idea that seems to imply the existence of a DM must be wrong." Everyone in this thread seems to be relying on some alleged "word of God" that has occurred in a context no-one can, or cares to, reproduce.

We all know that context can completely change the meaning of a statement. All the "word of God" I've seen here is four words, and even those four words weren't given quotation marks, so for all I know they're a paraphrase already. I don't believe that the Giant wrote those four words devoid of context, and without that context I'm just not prepared to accept that they "must" mean what you interpret them as meaning.

As for Occam's Razor: my entire argument, above, aims to show that the "no players" interpretation actually involves far more multiplication of entities than the "invisible players" one. Players are the "dark matter" of the OOTS universe - you can't see them, but if they don't exist that makes the world more complex, not less.