Could OotS be a Play-by-Post Game

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

In The Order of the Stick, player absence is never an issue, the party can be split with both sides having simultaneous adventures, and characters talk in polished, long-winded text blurbs. That sounds like a play-by-post forum game.

[dps]

In The Order of the Stick, player absence is never an issue, the party can be split with both sides having simultaneous adventures, and characters talk in polished, long-winded text blurbs. That sounds like a play-by-post forum game.

Except that word of the Giant says that there are no players.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Except that word of the Giant says that there are no players.

Ah. Okay. Never mind.

[The Dark Fiddler]

Except that word of the Giant says that there are no players.

Speaking as though that weren't the case for a moment, for the sake of discussion, I don't think a PbP would be the only explanation. Who's to say that members of the Order getting split from the group isn't their players not showing up? Maybe this is actually a retelling of the story far later, with things like dialogue cleaned up, hence the speeches beyond what you'd likely get at an actual table. And as for simultaneous adventures, maybe it was only one group showing up that day (by choice or otherwise) or simply the GM multitasking.

[Trillium]

:elan:"Crap, you got your warrior killed! That will wreck my webcomic!"
:durkon:"We can rezz him, ya know?"
:roy:"Oh, you can always makes a chapter about him in heaven or something! I won't be able to attend next several sessions anyway, so don't hurry with resurrection."
:durkon:"Okaaaay..."
:elan:"....."

[littlebum2002]

Speaking as though that weren't the case for a moment, for the sake of discussion, I don't think a PbP would be the only explanation. Who's to say that members of the Order getting split from the group isn't their players not showing up? Maybe this is actually a retelling of the story far later, with things like dialogue cleaned up, hence the speeches beyond what you'd likely get at an actual table. And as for simultaneous adventures, maybe it was only one group showing up that day (by choice or otherwise) or simply the GM multitasking.



Two points:

I always found certain strips to be obviously pointing to a player not showing up.

"Hey, you didn't show up last week, so we used your character as a tetherball to subdue the sorceress" sounds like something that could really happen to a absent player.

Oh, and Shojo appearing to Belkar in a hallucination? Sounds very much like the DM hinting "If you don't start playing right, I'm going to drop a bunch of rocks on your head"

[Reddish Mage]

Two points:

I always found certain strips to be obviously pointing to a player not showing up.

"Hey, you didn't show up last week, so we used your character as a tetherball to subdue the sorceress" sounds like something that could really happen to a absent player.

Oh, and Shojo appearing to Belkar in a hallucination? Sounds very much like the DM hinting "If you don't start playing right, I'm going to drop a bunch of rocks on your head"

Just because there are no players doesn't mean the characters are not PCs. Belkar has long seemed to be channeling that smart-ass player that refuses to take the game seriously and disrupts the game session by doing random things.

[Jay R]

"Hey, you didn't show up last week, so we used your character as a tetherball to subdue the sorceress" sounds like something that could really happen to a absent player.

You play differently than I do.

(In my games, the absent player's character tends to take foolish risks, not be mildly inconvenienced.)

[The_Tentacle]

You play differently than I do.

(In my games, the absent player's character tends to take foolish risks, not be mildly inconvenienced.)

Same here.

In my sessions, my character gets used as a tetherball even when I am there.

[littlebum2002]

You play differently than I do.

(In my games, the absent player's character tends to take foolish risks, not be mildly inconvenienced.)

Kinda like:

"You weren't here, so we dressed up your character like an old man and put him in front of a Dominated Paladin, hoping the Domination would break before he killed you"

?

[Ghost Nappa]

Redcloak flat out states that he is NOT a PC in the preface he does for...I want to say SSaDT.

The entire thing implies that the Order do in fact have "Players" playing them.

[KillianHawkeye]

Redcloak flat out states that he is NOT a PC in the preface he does for...I want to say SSaDT.

The entire thing implies that the Order do in fact have "Players" playing them.

It's from OtOoPCs (he also makes a comment about why he is the one doing the preface when he's not even in the book). However, the fact that OOTS world has PCs and NPCs doesn't really mean that there are actual players. Not when the whole premise of the story is basically "what if there was a world that functioned on the rules of D&D (and jokes)?"

[Ghost Nappa]

It's from OtOoPCs (he also makes a comment about why he is the one doing the preface when he's not even in the book). However, the fact that OOTS world has PCs and NPCs doesn't really mean that there are actual players. Not when the whole premise of the story is basically "what if there was a world that functioned on the rules of D&D (and jokes)?"

The distinction between a "Player Character" and a "Non-Player Character" is that the latter falls into a large group of individuals whom we do not focus on and are role-played by the group's GM, and the former falls into a group of individuals we frequently see doing most of the hard work and actual activity from who are each played by a unique individual.

Each Player Character is played by one individual whom often does not play anyone else.

Each NPC is played by one individual who frequently plays just about everyone else.

Even the TITLE of the book "On the Origins of PCs" (thank you for the correction, btw) plays into the implication. OtOoPCs focuses on - you guessed it - the Order of the Stick. Never is it stated anywhere that the 6 members of the Order of the stick are in fact all PCs, but you have moments like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0455.html) that only support a not-so-surprising claim that the Order are in fact PCs.

If you are willing to state that the Order are PCs, then there should be someone (obviously not within the comic, but you know, like a meta-dimension) who is playing each member. Therefore, yes, there should be actual players.

Or if you want to talk about "players," like actors, I'm pretty sure they have those.

[Jay R]

The distinction between a "Player Character" and a "Non-Player Character" is that the latter falls into a large group of individuals whom we do not focus on and are role-played by the group's GM, and the former falls into a group of individuals we frequently see doing most of the hard work and actual activity from who are each played by a unique individual.

Not in the OotS world. here, the distinction between a "Player Character" and a "Non-Player Character" is that the latter falls into a large group of individuals whom we do not focus on and are role-played by the group's GM, and the former falls into a group of individuals we frequently see doing most of the hard work and actual activity from who are each played by a unique individual.

The satirical point is that the differences in how PCs operate and how NPCs operate are real differences in actions, attitudes, focus and (most especially) how the universe responds to them. These differences, are noticeable enough (in this webcomic) to be consciously recognized by the denizens of the universe.

The many bits of evidence about this include Shojo asking Belkar, "If you dies, will another halfling ranger just happen to appear?", and Tarquin referring to the fact that if he kills members of the party, equivalent characters will be recruited in the nearby tavern.

Note that in both situations, it's addressed to players, not characters.


Each Player Character is played by one individual whom often does not play anyone else.

No. First of all it's untrue in the real sense. The Giant plays all of these characters, even the PCs. But also, the players clearly don't exist in the narrative. When Elan discusses the story convention, or they all discuss being updated to 3.5, it is clearly the characters talking, not the players. This would never happen in a real D&D game.

This is not a story about D&D players and their campaign, like "DM of the Rings" and "Darths and Droids." It's also not merely an adventure story set in a D&D universe. It started as, and still includes, a satire about the aspects of a fantasy world run by D&D rules, including rules updates and the fact that PCs and NPCs are different kinds of people.

[FujinAkari]

If you are willing to state that the Order are PCs, then there should be someone (obviously not within the comic, but you know, like a meta-dimension) who is playing each member. Therefore, yes, there should be actual players.

Sorry man, but Rich has been very explicit about denying this. OOTS is a world which operates on D&D conventions, including having the story shape up around certain characters (referred to as PCs.) It does NOT tell the story of an actual game and there are NOT actual players.

Belkar makes a reference to it not actually being a game in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html)

Edit: That said, you are free to think of it like that and some fun threads dedicated to this idea have existed in the past. However, the majority of forumites will tend to not buy-in to this idea, simply because it is verified to not be what Rich is trying to portray.

((Additionally, as a personal note from me, I think of making it yet another story of the players and their characters in a D&D game is abyssally boring. We have dozens upon dozens of stories like that, while what Rich has -actually- done is, as far as I know, a first. I wouldn't drag him back to the land of status quo needlessly :P))

[Kish]

If you are willing to state that the Order are PCs, then there should be someone (obviously not within the comic, but you know, like a meta-dimension) who is playing each member.

I am afraid your conviction that the term Player Characters requires actual players and cannot be used as an in-world shorthand for "protagonists" does not trump Word of the Author on this issue. There are no players, meta or otherwise.


Or if you want to talk about "players," like actors, I'm pretty sure they have those.And yet Rich still outranks you.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

I subscribed to the theory that in OOTS, the term PC refers to a hereditary immunity to diplomacy.

[KillianHawkeye]

I subscribed to the theory that in OOTS, the term PC refers to a hereditary immunity to diplomacy.

It must be a recessive trait, since it appears to not show up in every generation.

[Ghost Nappa]

*snipped*

No. First of all it's untrue in the real sense. The Giant plays all of these characters, even the PCs.


If you want to get REALLY nitpicky, he's not playing them...probably. Writing them, absolutely. Playing them...well maybe for the battle of Azure City, but I don't think he regularly sets up miniatures for battles. Something to think about I guess.


But also, the players clearly don't exist in the narrative.
Agreed.


When Elan discusses the story convention, or they all discuss being updated to 3.5, it is clearly the characters talking, not the players. This would never happen in a real D&D game.


...with a self-respecting DM. I've seen a couple of people almost willing to allow meta-logic and discussion to take place within the universe and I have one DM who actively tried to stop us making jokes about the NPCs by reacting to us as if we were in character. We stopped FAST.


This is not a story about D&D players and their campaign, like "DM of the Rings" and "Darths and Droids."
Darths and Droids is not based off D&D (Well the name is) but d20.


It's also not merely an adventure story set in a D&D universe. It started as, and still includes, a satire about the aspects of a fantasy world run by D&D rules, including rules updates and the fact that PCs and NPCs are different kinds of people.
Agreed.


Sorry man, but Rich has been very explicit about denying this. OOTS is a world which operates on D&D conventions, including having the story shape up around certain characters (referred to as PCs.) It does NOT tell the story of an actual game and there are NOT actual players.
And here's the part I think I flubbed in communicating. I am not saying that there are players. I am saying that should be, at least logistically. The Order are for all intents and purposes Player Characters. However, what this actually means is ambiguous.

We've seen that there is in fact a visible distinction between PCs and NPCs behavior, morals, attitude, privilege... but the origin of the terms are discussed by Redcloak


For those unfamiliar with the term, "PC" in gaming circles means "Player Character," the characters that are created and controlled by the players of a fantasy roleplaying game. They are the protagonists and the world quite literally revolves around them. Incidentally, this makes them aimply delightful to work with.

and in typical medium-awareness, the lampshade hanging of a definition of a term that gets thrown around and then subsequent almost cherry-picking of the uses of the word leads to weird conclusions that mean that the premise behind the OP does in fact make some sense.



Belkar makes a reference to it not actually being a game in this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html)

Edit: That said, you are free to think of it like that and some fun threads dedicated to this idea have existed in the past. However, the majority of forumites will tend to not buy-in to this idea, simply because it is verified to not be what Rich is trying to portray.

((Additionally, as a personal note from me, I think of making it yet another story of the players and their characters in a D&D game is abyssally boring. We have dozens upon dozens of stories like that, while what Rich has -actually- done is, as far as I know, a first. I wouldn't drag him back to the land of status quo needlessly :P))


I am afraid your conviction that the term Player Characters requires actual players and cannot be used as an in-world shorthand for "protagonists" does not trump Word of the Author on this issue. There are no players, meta or otherwise.

Let me clarify. Let me just like take the ENTIRE block of text and just write the short version.

I was discussing Redcloak's commentary on NPCs Vs. PCs, which implies the existence of players in a world without them. I do not think the characters of the party have individuals roleplaying them...well, besides the Giant when he's writing them. It's not a game session or a series of them.

The use of the term "PC" within the OotS sort of zig-zags itself. The use of the term by Rich is not quite the norm in the sense that they are the center of the universe, but they're running on their own power and aren't backed by an other dimensional sentient being...except for Rich. There aren't players, the characters act in ways that you expect there to be some, and the subversion is interesting, self-deprecating, and confusing, with a dash of meta.

Shorter metaphor version: A hung lampshade makes poor cover for a lightbulb under attack from a spear.


And yet Rich still outranks you. Duh?

Julio has stage props. Elan, Tarquin, and Julio all have a flair for the dramatic. It takes two of them (or one + flying ship mate) to do a play. They are then actors. Player is a synonym for actor. Therefore, if 2+ people start performing a play, OotS has players. Just not, you know, the same kind. Linguistics is weird.

[FujinAkari]

And here's the part I think I flubbed in communicating. I am not saying that there are players. I am saying that should be, at least logistically.

Why?

I think this is where your argument breaks down for me, because I can think of absolutely no reason why Roy should have a player. All a player will do is rob Roy of his character and rob us of our investment in Roy. If Roy is just a shell for someone else- someone who has nothing at stake in this campaign, then that only weakens the story.

The campaign world works fine with having PCs - people who (for whatever reason) tend to be bigger and stronger than most anyone else and around whom all the action of the world tends to revolve. Why -should- it require that the PCs actually have players behind them?

[Scow2]

On-topic, it is not a Play-by-Post game because it didn't suddenly end because V never got around to posting his/her action in Page 10, and everyone losing interest.

[Kevka Palazzo]

On-topic, it is not a Play-by-Post game because it didn't suddenly end because V never got around to posting his/her action in Page 10, and everyone losing interest.

Ah, good, thread over. This is the comment I was looking for.

[Snails]

Imagine this scenario: You want to write a tale satirizing D&D campaigns. Towards that end, you build up a world whose metaphysics bear a striking semblance to the 3.5 rules, and play it (sort of) straight. Things are going pretty well, and, along the way, you find that you can explore deeper themes regarding heros and fate, while also being funny.

(1) Is it logically required that the 3.5 rules be applied literally in all place possible, in order to achieve your goals?

(2) Is it reasonable to have characters live in this universe who are overtly "PCs" and "NPCs"?

(3) Would "yes" to #2 require that actual human "Players" exist?

I think the answers are obvious: No. Yes. No.

No one is claiming that the Players could not, theoretically, exist. But there is no logical requirement that they must exist. The question of whether they actually do exist can only be answered by the author (at least until someone steps up and makes a credible claim along the lines of "Hey! I was the pimply faced dip**** who played Belkar in Rich's junior high campaign.")

[Kish]

(at least until someone steps up and makes a credible claim along the lines of "Hey! I was the pimply faced dip**** who played Belkar in Rich's junior high campaign.")
And that will never happen until we find someone who knows how to pronounce a row of asterisks.

[ORione]

And that will never happen until we find someone who knows how to pronounce a row of asterisks.

I think that's a swear that was censored, either by Snails or the forum's filter.

[FujinAkari]

I think that's a swear that was censored, either by Snails or the forum's filter.

Did you feel the whoosh a few seconds ago? That was the joke. :P

[Gnome Alone]

And that will never happen until we find someone who knows how to pronounce a row of asterisks.

I think it's like, a burst of static. That's how I'd pronounce it. Say, "ksssshhhhhhbwzzt." Something like that.

[Jay R]

And that will never happen until we find someone who knows how to pronounce a row of asterisks.

Well, it's clear how to pronounce one of them:

Little Suzie went to skate
Upon the ice so brisk.
Her friends all thought her very brave
Her little *.


*asterisk

[Gnome Alone]

And that will never happen until we find someone who knows how to pronounce a row of asterisks.


Well, it's clear how to pronounce one of them:

Little Suzie went to skate
Upon the ice so brisk?
Her friends all thought her very brave
Her little *.


*asterisk

Uh.... snuh?

EDIT: Oh, wait, now I get it. Though I wouldn't have if me browser did nae make the white text obvious when I posted things.

[martianmister]

{{scrubbed}}

[Dissection]

******* **** ********: *** **** ** ***** * **** ********** *&* *********. ******* **** ***, *** ***** ** * ***** ***** *********** **** * ******** ********* ** *** 3.5 *****, *** **** ** (**** **) ********. ****** *** ***** ****** ****, ***, **** *** ***, *** **** **** *** *** ******* ****** ****** ********* ****** *** ****, ***** **** ***** *****.

Hmm, this appears to be a cryptogram. The *&* is probably D&D, which would mean that * equals D. So, let's see, I think what you are trying to say is...

DDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDD: DDD DDDD DD DDDDD D DDDD DDDDDDDDDD D&D DDDDDDDDD. DDDDDDD DDDD DDD, DDD DDDDD DD D DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDD D DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DD DDD 3.5 DDDDD, DDD DDDD DD (DDDD DD) DDDDDDDD. DDDDDD DDD DDDDD DDDDDD DDDD, DDD, DDDD DDD DDD, DDD DDDD DDDD DDD DDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDD DDDD, DDDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDDD.


Fascinating

[Gnome Alone]

Hmm, this appears to be a cryptogram. The *&* is probably D&D, which would mean that * equals D. So, let's see, I think what you are trying to say is...

DDDDDDD DDDD DDDDDDDD: DDD DDDD DD DDDDD D DDDD DDDDDDDDDD D&D DDDDDDDDD. DDDDDDD DDDD DDD, DDD DDDDD DD D DDDDD DDDDD DDDDDDDDDDD DDDD D DDDDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DD DDD 3.5 DDDDD, DDD DDDD DD (DDDD DD) DDDDDDDD. DDDDDD DDD DDDDD DDDDDD DDDD, DDD, DDDD DDD DDD, DDD DDDD DDDD DDD DDD DDDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDD DDDDDDDDD DDDDDD DDD DDDD, DDDDD DDDD DDDDD DDDDD.


Fascinating

Yes, I believe it is supposed to be a somewhat stylized transcription of the classic Roger Miller tune "Whistle Stop" that opens Disney's Robin Hood film ("Dee dee deeeeeeee dee dee dee-dee dee, dee dee dee dee-dohhhhh," etc.) combined with some kind of commentary on how the movie reflects a D&D setting or could have it's characters started up under 3.5 rules. Yes, fascinating indeed.