Does the OOTS universe have some kind of dungeon master?

[Lordfiscus]

-And if so, how does he/she enforce the defined rules of the setting? Does he do a "Rocks fall, every player character dies"? Does he smite them? Does he summon a metric [EFF]ton of fighters, mages and archers to kill the offender?

Also, who exactly is the DM? Could it be Burlew?

[Lexible]

This reminds me of a (much pooh-poohed) question I raised about whether the PCs have players (i.e. if OOTS are player characters), and if not, what the "P" in PC means in-world. My tentative position is that in-world PC means something like "protagonist" and PCs and NPCs understand their positions with respect to the in-world force of narrative by these terms (i.e. there are no players). That said, I think it is an amusing exercise to posit and imagine who the players of OOTS might be.

It does seem hard to imagine a DM other than Rob. But then would players be in-world, meta-world to OOTS, but still in(another)-world to the readers of OOTS, or would we identify specific people IRL as players?

[factotum]

No, it doesn't, because it's not a campaign and doesn't have players--it's just a world that happens to run to D&D rules.

[Keltest]

yes and no. Yes in the sense that Rich controls every aspect of the world. He is in a very real sense the railroad DM. On the other hand, as mentioned, they aren't actually representing characters in a campaign. Its simply a world that lives and dies by the RNG.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

No, because the OOTS universe is meant to be a universe that runs on D&D rules, not a representation of a D&D game. The only way you could say someone is a DM is that the Giant controls every aspect of the people in that universe's lives.

[Reathin]

Not as such. There's no man behind the curtain here, just a huge pile of character. The closest thing OOTS has to a proper dungeon master is its built in narrative causality, a concept similar to fate, which, while not sapient, drives specific individuals into some semblance of plot. Bards and genre savey individuals recognize this, but it's not an actual person. Even a hypothetical god of fate would ultimately be under the influence of narrative causality, but it's an unthinking force, not a person with designs as a DM would be.

[Lordfiscus]

Oh. Considering Rich is the writer, artist and yaddaya, could he technically cause a "Rocks Fall" scenario by killing off a character or multiple characters? And if the world is based around DND rules, what if someone in the setting were to somehow break them, or produce something homebrew that doesn't correspond to the aforementioned rules? Is there some kind of countermeasure for that?

Plus, there has been some stuff that alludes to the world being a session of D&D, such as strip 1 for example, when the Order inexplicably gets altered by the world converting to 3.5 edition. And in the Origin of PCs, they fought 4e counterparts. Is there an explanation for why that could occur?

[Reverent-One]

Oh. Considering Rich is the writer, artist and yaddaya, could he technically cause a "Rocks Fall" scenario by killing off a character or multiple characters?

He aboslutely could, it's his story. Whether or not he would is another matter, as a "Rocks Fall" scenario is generally not narratively satisfying.


And if the world is based around DND rules, what if someone in the setting were to somehow break them, or produce something homebrew that doesn't correspond to the aforementioned rules? Is there some kind of countermeasure for that?

As Rich has aboslute control, that would only happen if he wanted it to (as has happened already, for example, the Dashing Swordsman prestige class). So there is no countermeasure needed (unless you count "Rich decides not to do it" as a countermeasure).


Plus, there has been some stuff that alludes to the world being a session of D&D, such as strip 1 for example, when the Order inexplicably gets altered by the world converting to 3.5 edition. And in the Origin of PCs, they fought 4e counterparts. Is there an explanation for why that could occur?

That stuff doesn't mean that the world is a session of D&D, just that the world runs on D&D rules.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Plus, there has been some stuff that alludes to the world being a session of D&D, such as strip 1 for example, when the Order inexplicably gets altered by the world converting to 3.5 edition. And in the Origin of PCs, they fought 4e counterparts. Is there an explanation for why that could occur?
That can be explained by a major change in the way that universe works. The characters calling it 3.5 is simply them breaking the fourth wall, and if we assume that whatever they are saying when the break the fourth wall is true, then there are several contradictions that arise. The Order fought their 4e counterparts in SSDT, not OOPC.

[Kish]

"Not a D&D session" =/= "not a D&D world."

The world being updated from being based on 3.0ed D&D to being based on 3.5ed D&D doesn't imply that it's based on a D&D session.


And if the world is based around DND rules, what if someone in the setting were to somehow break them, or produce something homebrew that doesn't correspond to the aforementioned rules?
I hope you understand how fundamentally meaningless the questions, "What if someone were to somehow break the laws of physics, or produce something that doesn't correspond to them?" would be. Entirely too many science fiction authors don't seem to.

But the questions you asked are more or less the same.

[Theory]

It's possible for the story to be a bit of both. From the Giants own comments, the strip started as a collection of joke strips, for which he created humorous characters to make jokes. This rapidly changed, as the Giant appears to be a dyed-in-the-wool storyteller. His humorous character became complex characters and the plot grew from joke fodder to epic saga.

Many writers (who were/are often also DMs) have a technique where they create the setting, the characters, and maybe a few distant and vague plot points. The creator breaths life into the blobs of color and stick, and plot occurs!

In essence, the Giant is playing the DM and all the PCs. Many writers are able to segment their brains enough to allow the characters to act with proper psychological verisimilitude, without taking actions that would flumox the DM. More of the collaborative role playing style than the traditional DM vs PCs style.

Roy in the afterlife is a good example of where the story strongly deviates from traditional rpgs. In a RPG the player would pick up an NPC till they got raised, roll a new one, or sit on their hands until they could be raised. Other than sparring practice with his grandpa, I don't see many opportunities for die rolls or xp on that "adventure." Wonderful plot, great character development, but would have been boring to play or DM.

Many of the actions we see on panel represent actions that are assumed to take place in RPGs, but are usually glossed over or summarized to get to "meat" of the game, dice and Xp. I think that it is in this shadowy area of storytelling that most of OOtS takes place. What are the PCs doing while the players debate over pizza slices.

I personally believe that the DM will play an active role in the story before the end. Not so much as a manifested persona, but that it will become an issue of discussion for the PCs.

However, given the nature of the Snarl, the world in the portal, and all that it is possible that the PCs do have players, but they are just as unaware of them as my Halfling Druid is of me. He has bigger things to worry about (like sorcerous stone giants!)

[NerdyKris]

It's possible for the story to be a bit of both.

But it's not. Rich has explicitly stated that this is not a campaign and there are no players. It is simply a world that operates on D&D rules, not a dramatization of people playing a game. So all arguments of "But what if...?" are pointless, as they simply aren't. There are no players or DM. This is simply a world where the laws of physics follow D&D rules.

[Theory]

But it's not. Rich has explicitly stated that this is not a campaign and there are no players. It is simply a world that operates on D&D rules, not a dramatization of people playing a game. So all arguments of "But what if...?" are pointless, as they simply aren't. There are no players or DM. This is simply a world where the laws of physics follow D&D rules.

I fail to see how this invalidates my theory. At which point do you differentiate between physics and metaphysics?
I maintain my belief if for no other reason than that the DM is an interesting aspect of their world to explore, and Rich has done an excellent job of covering most other bases. Especially as it seems the climax has something to do with the storytelling, and world creation, the job of a DM. It's omission would be glaring. Additionally, the giant is allowed to change his mind, or obfuscate his ultimate intentions, especially within the forums where it is common to jump to conclusions and fiercely stand by them.

Regardless, I am allowed to imagine it however I would like, pointless or otherwise. As a DM, myself, I enjoy looking at it from that perspective, and answered the question as such. The line between DM and writer can be a matter of perspective.

[Kish]

Especially as it seems the climax has something to do with the storytelling, and world creation, the job of a DM.
I can only guess that you're making this claim based on the existence of the Snarl--something which exists because of the lack of a single omnipotent creator above the game-world's gods. Ironic.

[Theory]

I can only guess that you're making this claim based on the existence of the Snarl--something which exists because of the lack of a single omnipotent creator above the game-world's gods. Ironic.

Yes, I see how that might seem ironic. Fortunately the world, and good stories, are made of dichotomies.

My point is the snarle was created both by the actions of the gods within the OOtSvers, and by Rich. He is telling a story.

There are many meta-story themes used throughout the entire narrative. Elan, as a character, is a good example, but every character's story arc is part of the overall tapestry that Rich has woven.

As a bit of fun, wild speculation, what if the way the Snarl is defeated is by the creation of a DM? Elan would be a good choice for that "happy ending," and nothing Rich has said would be inaccurate. How else does one deal with a god destroying entity within "the d&d rules?"

Every story has an ultimate point that it is trying to convey with its entirety, and I do not believe that it will be "stick figures are fun!" It has already gone much deeper than that.

That being said, it's been a while since I've seen Rich's words on the subject. I didn't remember them being quite as concrete as others, but I'd enjoy a link so that I can refresh my memories.

[oppyu]

I suppose in the way that every story ever written ever has a Dungeon Master in the form of an author, this story has a Dungeon Master.

You'll need someone with superior forum-fu than myself if you want the original quote where the Giant says 'this is not a D&D session'. It used to just be a quick matter of scanning through the Index of Giant Comments thread, but either I've gotten much worse at reading lately or that thread has somehow gotten much less helpful.

[Keltest]

I suppose in the way that every story ever written ever has a Dungeon Master in the form of an author, this story has a Dungeon Master.

You'll need someone with superior forum-fu than myself if you want the original quote where the Giant says 'this is not a D&D session'. It used to just be a quick matter of scanning through the Index of Giant Comments thread, but either I've gotten much worse at reading lately or that thread has somehow gotten much less helpful.

well, its in the comic itself when Belkar is having his crazy totally-not-on-drugs dream.

[An Enemy Spy]

You may as well claim that all stories have some variety of DM then, because they all required somebody to create them. That doesn't mean A Song of Ice and Fire is going to end with George R.R. Martin descending from the heavens.

[Domino Quartz]

I suppose in the way that every story ever written ever has a Dungeon Master in the form of an author, this story has a Dungeon Master.

You'll need someone with superior forum-fu than myself if you want the original quote where the Giant says 'this is not a D&D session'. It used to just be a quick matter of scanning through the Index of Giant Comments thread, but either I've gotten much worse at reading lately or that thread has somehow gotten much less helpful.

Here it is! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?232652-Redcloak-s-failed-characterization-and-what-it-means-for-the-comic-as-a-whole&p=12718729&viewfull=1#post12718729)

[Kish]

Every story has an ultimate point that it is trying to convey with its entirety, and I do not believe that it will be "stick figures are fun!" It has already gone much deeper than that.
How would the addition of a DM make it "deeper"?

[Theory]

Ok, I found that one: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html
Thank you.

The title of this thread is "Does the OOTS universe have some kindof dungeon master?" [emphasis mine] My theory is that there can be a DM, without there being a "campaign" in the usual sense of the word. A story, a narrative, but not so much a campaign.

I agree that we are unlikely to see players for the PCs within the strip. I agree that this is not the record of some real world campaign. Any appearance of the DM would not be as a stunted wizard, like the old cartoon show, and George R.R. Martin is writing fantasy, not a webcomic exploring the many facets of D&D and the stories told within its structure.
I believe it would be something somewhat meta-story driven, likely breaking the fourth wall a bit, but would still be an integral part of the story that would seem obvious 500 comics previous, in retrospect.

The Snarl was created by a lack of organized creativity. Some form of structure seems to be a possible counter point, a balance. When I think about organized creativity on the scale of the Snarl, within D&D concept, the DM seems to be the only role that fits the needs of the story.

I'm just exploring a theory. Truly, I know nothing.

[Domino Quartz]

You're exploring a theory that contradicts something the author himself has already said.

[Theory]

You're exploring a theory that contradicts something the author himself has already said.

What if one of the issues Rich decides to explore is the role of the DM? He has left that door open, as well as any others he chooses to explore. My overall point is that we may have jumped to conclusions as to precisely what he meant. My interpretation of what he said is that he is not playing a game. I do not mean to imply that he is. With in context, he was responding to someone who seemed to claim that the story could not have depth, because it was based on D&D.

That response has created a lot of dogma.

[Domino Quartz]

The role of a DM in a story like this is kind of meaningless if there are no actual players behind any of the characters.

[Theory]

The role of a DM in a story like this is kind of meaningless if there are no actual players behind any of the characters.

I respectfully disagree. The role of a DM, in general, is something to be debated [elsewhere].
In a game where the DM is oppositional to the players, I would agree. However there are more collaborative methods of role playing, where the DM is less an enforcer of rules, and more the guide of the story. A facilitator to the stories told by the players within the setting created by the DM.

This approach is little different that that taken by many writers, who use the technique of breathing life into their characters and then writing down what they do. Rich has made comments that echo this idea.

[veti]

Roy in the afterlife is a good example of where the story strongly deviates from traditional rpgs. In a RPG the player would pick up an NPC till they got raised

Like Celia, for instance?


I personally believe that the DM will play an active role in the story before the end. Not so much as a manifested persona, but that it will become an issue of discussion for the PCs.

Possible, but I doubt it. I think #669 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html) took us about as far down that particular metaphysical rabbit-hole as Rich wants to go, and it's not far (thankfully). I don't see how it would fit into his narrative sweep.


I can only guess that you're making this claim based on the existence of the Snarl--something which exists because of the lack of a single omnipotent creator above the game-world's gods. Ironic.

Yes, how could a world created by a single omnipotent creator feature something like the Snarl? Ridiculous idea.

Oh, wait...

[SavageWombat]

I'm imagining a discussion between the characters about an all-controlling Dungeon Master. Imagine Elan's version in one panel and Belkar's the next.

[Theory]

Possible, but I doubt it. I think #669 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html) took us about as far down that particular metaphysical rabbit-hole as Rich wants to go, and it's not far (thankfully). I don't see how it would fit into his narrative sweep.


I readily admit it's unlikely. He has something up his sleeve that is much better than my theory, and I can't wait to see it. From a storytelling standpoint the Snarl is one heck of a antagonist, and the solution to neutralizing it will likely be as dramatic as it is unexpected.

I do suggest we refrain from making assumptions. In my opinion, all-controlling DMs are not fun to play with.

We all tend to see the Giant we want to see.:smallsmile:

[SoC175]

This reminds me of a (much pooh-poohed) question I raised about whether the PCs have players (i.e. if OOTS are player characters), and if not, what the "P" in PC means in-world. My tentative position is that in-world PC means something like "protagonist" and PCs and NPCs understand their positions with respect to the in-world force of narrative by these terms (i.e. there are no players). That said, I think it is an amusing exercise to posit and imagine who the players of OOTS might be.Protagonist seems like a good replacement, however Redcloak talks about "Players" and how he never felt as if his lack of a player was a disadvantage.

[Reddish Mage]

Protagonist seems like a good replacement, however Redcloak talks about "Players" and how he never felt as if his lack of a player was a disadvantage.

I thought we came to a consensus previously that "PCs" are merely what the characters who "would be PCs if this were a ______" with the debate being whether it was a single game or something akin to an MMO. I am firmly in the "single game" category, hence only the Order of the Stick are PCs, with everyone else being NPCs.

There is no character IN a game world that acts as the DM in a standard D&D game, hence there will be no DM appearing in game. Or if you prefer, every NPC in the game is in effect a DM character, though not a DM avatar.

[CRtwenty]

I agree. The DMs main role is to act as a rules arbitrator and NPC actor. That role is covered by the "rule physics" that govern life in the OotS verse and the fact that every PC and NPC has their own agency. There is no need for a DM.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I agree. The DMs main role is to act as a rules arbitrator and NPC actor. That role is covered by the "rule physics" that govern life in the OotS verse and the fact that every PC and NPC has their own agency. There is no need for a DM.

And, of course, there is also Rich who directs everything as well. But since he controls the PCs and the NPCs, he's not really a DM.

[An Enemy Spy]

I thought we came to a consensus previously that "PCs" are merely what the characters who "would be PCs if this were a ______" with the debate being whether it was a single game or something akin to an MMO. I am firmly in the "single game" category, hence only the Order of the Stick are PCs, with everyone else being NPCs.

There is no character IN a game world that acts as the DM in a standard D&D game, hence there will be no DM appearing in game. Or if you prefer, every NPC in the game is in effect a DM character, though not a DM avatar.

I would say the DM is the rules of narrative that the world goes by. It's what makes Durkon and Daigo get captured anyway when they could easily escape from the net, what causes Julio to sit down next to Elan, and rain to star pouring when the group runs into Miko.

[hamishspence]

And it's whatever Roy is complaining "Stupid railroad plot" to.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html

[veti]

I agree. The DMs main role is to act as a rules arbitrator and NPC actor. That role is covered by the "rule physics" that govern life in the OotS verse and the fact that every PC and NPC has their own agency. There is no need for a DM.

In that case... solid evidence for the proposition would be "characters arguing about rules mechanics, and their argument having a detectable in-world effect (i.e. influencing the DM)".

I can't think of any instances of that, although we have come close.

[Vinyadan]

-And if so, how does he/she enforce the defined rules of the setting? Does he do a "Rocks fall, every player character dies"? Does he smite them? Does he summon a metric [EFF]ton of fighters, mages and archers to kill the offender?

Also, who exactly is the DM? Could it be Burlew?

Honestly, Shojo was the closest thing to a DM, and he had a rather limited reach.

To me, there isn't a DM in OotS. As Belkar said, this is a universe running in rules based on D&D, but nobody is hiding behind majestic cardboards. There are, however, rulebooks, and people can read them, and they have authors which are known and may occasionally appear, even though without godly powers. But no players, or DM.

No, wait. There was a DM, and it was murdered by Xykon in a cave.


As for the PC, to me they are the people who have the destiny of making things change, and are bringers of turbulence, in good or evil.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Honestly, Shojo was the closest thing to a DM, and he had a rather limited reach.

I think the gods would be closer, at least in terms of power. Unless, are you referring to the way Shojo manipulated things?