Meta-theory about Belkar

[LeighTheDwarf]

In the campaign that Order of the Stick is set in, Belkar's player is a problem player, and the DM is trying to teach him to cooperate with the group more and be less disruptive.

Evidence:

1. The vision Belkar had from Lord Shojo telling him to be more of a team player. It was established in one strip (IIRC) that Shojo was an author avatar for the DM.

2. The oracle predicting Belkar's death. Might be because the other players felt that they couldn't continue on with Belkar disrupting everything and wanted Belkar's player to roll a new, less disruptive character.

3. The fact that he's chaotic evil, while the party leader is lawful good.

4. Killing that random gnome who wasn't an opponent, and having Hayley tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."

[Kish]

4. Killing that random gnome who wasn't an opponent, and having Hayley tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."


tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."


tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."


tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."
I believe I detect a problem with this line of reasoning.

(Someone else can point out the problem with "we all want that character gone" getting neither "okay, Belkar's-Hypothetical-Jerk-Player, make a new character right now or leave" nor "I'm not acknowledging the OOC problem, deal with it IC" nor even "I'll give you a time limit in which to change Belkar, Belkar's-Hypothetical-Jerk-Player" but "okay, his death will be inevitable and take up to one in-game year."

I will, however, spell out: No, nothing except some forum posters ever said Shojo was an avatar for the DM, or that there is a DM.)

[Ruck]

I will, however, spell out: No, nothing except some forum posters ever said Shojo was an avatar for the DM, or that there is a DM.)

Indeed, during the Shojo vision Belkar explicitly says, "I thought we weren't playing a game, we were living in a world where the rules of--" before Shojo cuts him off.

[DeliaP]

4. Killing that random gnome who wasn't an opponent, and having Hayley tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."


I believe I detect a problem with this line of reasoning.


Just gonna add Panel 10 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) for those wanting to look it up.

[factotum]

Yeah, the biggest problem with this theory is it relies on the Order being a party playing a game of D&D, which has been said to not be true by the Giant both in and out of the strip.

[krai]

I actually don't agree that if this were a game that he would be a problem character. To me a problem character is a person who is willing to sacrifice other player's fun for their own. I don't think Belkar actually has done this. He get's in the way of the characters doing stuff yes but when important stuff starts he falls in line pretty quick. Belkar never really tries to derail the game in any meaningful way. He suggests violent solutions but allows the party to overrule him. A problem character would not be as content not getting his own way.

[Snails]

While it is true that Belkar is displaying a number of the classic behaviors associated with the PC of a stereotypical Problem Player, ultimately Belkar is just a character who acts that way because it is fun to have intraparty conflict in this tale.

IMNSHO, the genuine real deal meta-level Problem Player is...The Snarl.

Imagine a high school gaming club with a few parallel and intertwined D&D campaigns. One Problem Player manages to cause the acrimony to rise by pouring gasoline on all the fires, until he actually causes a big blow up that grinds all gaming to a halt, then storms out of the room. One of the DMs (the lost pantheon) outright leaves the gaming club in disgust. Eventually, the remaining DMs restart their games with a hodgepodge of rules to keep things running smoothly enough (sort of). The Problem Player is still a member of the gaming club, but he is shunted out of the running D&D campaigns. Is that actually a sustainable solution? What if the Problem Player tries to "claw" his way back into a campaign? If shut out, what does he do? Does he try a hand at DMing himself? Or does he plot revenge and try to destroy the campaigns by indirect means?

[Snails]

I actually don't agree that if this were a game that he would be a problem character. To me a problem character is a person who is willing to sacrifice other player's fun for their own. I don't think Belkar actually has done this. He get's in the way of the characters doing stuff yes but when important stuff starts he falls in line pretty quick. Belkar never really tries to derail the game in any meaningful way. He suggests violent solutions but allows the party to overrule him. A problem character would not be as content not getting his own way.

That is a good point. A real Problem Player would, say, kill Shojo because it would honk off the other players and cause the DM a headache that requires quick on the fly railroading to get the game moving in the right direction.

Belkar never crosses the line with behavior that could cause the party or campaign to fail, even if sometimes he puts ten fuzzy toes over the line.

Arguably, Elan causes the bigger real problems. DM: "Oh, crap. They destroyed the Gate before they could stumble on the clues about the backstory that would get them moving to the next Gate. Screw it. I will drag them there kicking and screaming. A Paladin is someone who the heavies will hesitate to kill, and will be usefully annoying."

[aurilee]

While it is true that Belkar is displaying a number of the classic behaviors associated with the PC of a stereotypical Problem Player, ultimately Belkar is just a character who acts that way because it is fun to have intraparty conflict in this tale.

IMNSHO, the genuine real deal meta-level Problem Player is...The Snarl.

Imagine a high school gaming club with a few parallel and intertwined D&D campaigns. One Problem Player manages to cause the acrimony to rise by pouring gasoline on all the fires, until he actually causes a big blow up that grinds all gaming to a halt, then storms out of the room. One of the DMs (the lost pantheon) outright leaves the gaming club in disgust. Eventually, the remaining DMs restart their games with a hodgepodge of rules to keep things running smoothly enough (sort of). The Problem Player is still a member of the gaming club, but he is shunted out of the running D&D campaigns. Is that actually a sustainable solution? What if the Problem Player tries to "claw" his way back into a campaign? If shut out, what does he do? Does he try a hand at DMing himself? Or does he plot revenge and try to destroy the campaigns by indirect means?

Meanwhile one of the remaining DMs becomes disgruntled because no one wants to play in her campaign. She then devises an elaborate plan that will use the threat of the Problem Player to trick the other DMs to integrate their players into her campaign...

Unfortunately for her, one group of players has caught on to her scheme and now have to try and prevent a mass-campaign-destruction by the other DMs.

[Murk]

I actually don't agree that if this were a game that he would be a problem character. To me a problem character is a person who is willing to sacrifice other player's fun for their own. I don't think Belkar actually has done this. He get's in the way of the characters doing stuff yes but when important stuff starts he falls in line pretty quick. Belkar never really tries to derail the game in any meaningful way. He suggests violent solutions but allows the party to overrule him. A problem character would not be as content not getting his own way.

Like, say, setting fire to the bandit camp while the other party members explicitly tell him they don't want to? Or killing the oracle, which got him pretty much kicked out of the Order by Haley?

There are moments when Belkar really messes things up. If there were players behind these characters (which there aren't), those are not actions his fellow players would like.

[Ruck]

While it is true that Belkar is displaying a number of the classic behaviors associated with the PC of a stereotypical Problem Player, ultimately Belkar is just a character who acts that way because it is fun to have intraparty conflict in this tale.

IMNSHO, the genuine real deal meta-level Problem Player is...The Snarl.

Imagine a high school gaming club with a few parallel and intertwined D&D campaigns. One Problem Player manages to cause the acrimony to rise by pouring gasoline on all the fires, until he actually causes a big blow up that grinds all gaming to a halt, then storms out of the room. One of the DMs (the lost pantheon) outright leaves the gaming club in disgust. Eventually, the remaining DMs restart their games with a hodgepodge of rules to keep things running smoothly enough (sort of). The Problem Player is still a member of the gaming club, but he is shunted out of the running D&D campaigns. Is that actually a sustainable solution? What if the Problem Player tries to "claw" his way back into a campaign? If shut out, what does he do? Does he try a hand at DMing himself? Or does he plot revenge and try to destroy the campaigns by indirect means?
I can't remember if it's in one of the books or elsewhere, but I think the Giant has explicitly said the Snarl is a metaphor for the strife between players that can tear gaming groups apart. Or maybe I just read someone else suggest that and thought it was so good I've internalized it as meta-canon.

[aurilee]

I can't remember if it's in one of the books or elsewhere, but I think the Giant has explicitly said the Snarl is a metaphor for the strife between players that can tear gaming groups apart. Or maybe I just read someone else suggest that and thought it was so good I've internalized it as meta-canon.

I've always considered the Snarl as a metaphor for Continuity Snarl (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ContinuitySnarl).

But inter-player strife is a lot deeper, so sure, I'll go for that. :smallwink:

[Emanick]

I can't remember if it's in one of the books or elsewhere, but I think the Giant has explicitly said the Snarl is a metaphor for the strife between players that can tear gaming groups apart. Or maybe I just read someone else suggest that and thought it was so good I've internalized it as meta-canon.

Yeah, that actually is in one of the books. No Cure for the Paladin Blues, I think.

[Snails]

Yeah, that actually is in one of the books. No Cure for the Paladin Blues, I think.

Oh. I had not read that book. I am glad that my "Bardic Knowledge" skills are up to snuff.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah, the biggest problem with this theory is it relies on the Order being a party playing a game of D&D, which has been said to not be true by the Giant both in and out of the strip.
Then I'm a little baffled as to how the PC/NPC distinction can exist?

But as for the broader idea that the core group is taped together largely by at-the-table agreements for the sake of a quiet evening... oh, yes, I can absolutely see that happening.

[Kish]

Then I'm a little baffled as to how the PC/NPC distinction can exist?
Just think of it as a D&D-ish version of protagonist/not-protagonist. Only six protagonists, so only six PCs; the fact that no one has a player and the "NPCs" have minds as much as the PCs do is neither here nor there.

[Lacuna Caster]

Just think of it as a D&D-ish version of protagonist/not-protagonist. Only six protagonists, so only six PCs; the fact that no one has a player and the "NPCs" have minds as much as the PCs do is neither here nor there.
Yes, but who appoints them as protagonists? And how would they know in advance?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes, but who appoints them as protagonists?
The universe (same as, say, the universe enforces only 9 possible alignments). Or if you need something more specific, narrativium: the universal force that fits people into stories (as seen also in the 500 kingdom series and Discworld)


And how would they know in advance?
They can tell, just like they can tell that they've gained skill points. Unless you are in deep denial like Tarquin.

GW

[Lacuna Caster]

The universe (same as, say, the universe enforces only 9 possible alignments). Or if you need something more specific, narrativium: the universal force that fits people into stories (as seen also in the 500 kingdom series and Discworld)
So... they all woke up one day with an instinctive knowledge that the universe had chosen them for a great purpose?

[Kish]

Yes, but who appoints them as protagonists? And how would they know in advance?
Unless you say that whenever you read a novel, see a movie, or consume any work of fiction, this amounts to saying "I find OotS breaking the fourth wall mightily confusing in ways which I'm going to misblame on it having a D&D basis."

You know who chose the protagonists of the story. The person who always does--the author. Rich could have written a D&D-based graphic novel with a solid fourth wall, in which none of the characters knew the concept, or a non-D&D-based graphic novel which involved breaking the fourth wall and having characters say "I'm a protagonist!"--more often than they do (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html), that is.

(Now, Tarquin is a perfect illustration of the varying types of stories Grey Wolf refers to below: He knows he's an NPC, and he knows he's an antagonist, but he's misidentified his role as "main villain in a grim father vs. son epic.")

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So... they all woke up one day with an instinctive knowledge that the universe had chosen them for a great purpose?

I disagree on your definition of protagonist (which I'd describe as "the universe is centering a story on them" - the story need not be "a greater purpose" - for all they might know, they're going to be a sitcom about unlikely buddies), but yes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0124.html).

GW

[Lacuna Caster]

Unless you say that whenever you read a novel, see a movie, or consume any work of fiction, this amounts to saying "I find OotS breaking the fourth wall mightily confusing in ways which I'm going to misblame on it having a D&D basis."
I'm not sure I'd ascribe that to D&D per se- I think 4th wall meta-awareness could happen in any story, so that's a separate topic.

Do the OOTS actually refer to themselves out loud as PCs? They do (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) seem to know about NPCs, which I guess might just be being genre savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigDamnHeroes). Just struck me as odd, is all.

[factotum]

Do the OOTS actually refer to themselves out loud as PCs? They do (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) seem to know about NPCs, which I guess might just be being genre savvy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigDamnHeroes). Just struck me as odd, is all.

There's at least one strip (forget which one) where a character says "I don't want anybody trying to be a PC out there!" when giving a pep-talk to his soldiers, so everyone seems to know about the distinction. If it helps, just imagine them saying "Adventurer" instead of "PC" when they say it!

[Kish]

"Adventurer"'s no good--there are a lot of NPC adventurers (including Xykon, Redcloak, the Linear Guild, the Vector Legion, that warlock in the bar...).

There's no inside-the-fourth-wall concept that fits, but "protagonist" does.

[Jasdoif]

Do the OOTS actually refer to themselves out loud as PCs?Does Haley's comment about not wanting PC to stand for Pin Cushion count (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0455.html)?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Does Haley's comment about not wanting PC to stand for Pin Cushion count (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0455.html)?

And the t-shirts in the last panel.

GW

[Jasdoif]

And the t-shirts in the last panel.On the NPCs-calling-PCs-"PCs" front, there's Xykon in the last panel of 370 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0370.html), too. It's slightly removed from PCs-calling-themselves-"PCs", though.

[Ruslan]

I have always envisioned the players of the party as a group of mature adults, and Belkar is the little brother of one of the players, and everyone is forced to tolerate him ... for a year, until he finally graduates highschool and leaves for college.

[Draconi Redfir]

"Adventurer"'s no good--there are a lot of NPC adventurers (including Xykon, Redcloak, the Linear Guild, the Vector Legion, that warlock in the bar...).

There's no inside-the-fourth-wall concept that fits, but "protagonist" does.

i've no idea if it's true or not. but you could theoretically claim that the vector legion and the order of the scribble WERE PC's at one point, as they did have a visible plot and story centered around them (Take over the western continent and seal the rifts respectively) but that story is now finished and in the past, so they are NPC's now.

Linear Guild is a different story, as it both only occours as a foil to the order, and didn't last very long as a whole party.

"PC" could be people who have a story centered around them and a quest to overcome. when that is finished, or if it never began, they are NPC's.

[Cizak]

:roy: It's a dirty job, but some PC has to do it. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html)

PCs know they are PCs the same way people know they are watching a third-act duel. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0935.html) Narrative structures is an actual physical force (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=16575471&postcount=93) in Oots-verse, just like magic and DnD rules.

[Lacuna Caster]

I disagree on your definition of protagonist (which I'd describe as "the universe is centering a story on them" - the story need not be "a greater purpose" - for all they might know, they're going to be a sitcom about unlikely buddies), but yes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0124.html).
It's D&D. One can presume their story won't revolve around rearranging furniture in a manhattan apartment. :P

An-y-way, that explains a good deal.

[Dr.Zero]

Yeah, the biggest problem with this theory is it relies on the Order being a party playing a game of D&D, which has been said to not be true by the Giant both in and out of the strip.

Uhmm... in the strip, too?

Anyway, I completely understand people coming with the "It's a D&D campaign".
One of the ways I thought it would meta-end was with the party talking about the campaign, and then starting another game.

It is not only because the skill points, etc (which are explained as physical attributes of the OOTS universe), but, as Ruck pointed out the "clear" references to an ongoing game.
There, with Shojo, but even when they talk about "roleplaying" (both happening after the defeat of Xykon: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0125.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html).

While it is understandable that those references are there just for the sake of the humor, it's no surprise that readers think they mean that we are watching the description of a (imaginary or real) D&D campaign.

[factotum]

Uhmm... in the strip, too?

Yes, which is why I said "both in and out of the strip"?

[georgie_leech]

The strip in question, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) wherein it's called out that the strip isn't representing a particular game.

[Dr.Zero]

Yes, which is why I said "both in and out of the strip"?

It was a "in strip, too?" of disbelief, not because I didn't read the first time. :smallbiggrin:


The strip in question, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) wherein it's called out that the strip isn't representing a particular game.

Really, if I should interpret it by itself, I'd say the opposite, specially because Shojo says: "Not THIS game!"

Like: "No, I'm not talking about this game we are playing IRL, right now! I'm talking in character!"

[Cizak]

Really, if I should interpret it by itself, I'd say the opposite, specially because Shojo says: "Not THIS game!"

Like: "No, I'm not talking about this game we are playing IRL, right now! I'm talking in character!"

Belkar says: "Wait, I thought we weren't playing DnD, we are just living in a world where the the rules of DnD are natural laws."

If we imagine there are players around a table, isn't Belkar's player dangerously delusional? Like, he believes his character is actually real and he doesn't know he's sitting at a table? Some get the poor guy to a psychiatrist.

[Dr.Zero]

Belkar says: "Wait, I thought we weren't playing DnD, we are just living in a world where the the rules of DnD are natural laws."

If we imagine there are players around a table, isn't Belkar's player dangerously delusional? Like, he believes his character is actually real and he doesn't know he's sitting at a table? Some get the poor guy to a psychiatrist.

I try to explain the way I always interpreted it:

ShojoPlayer: "You must play the game!"

BelkarPlayer: "Uh, ok, so your NPC is talking about tha game we are playing? I thought we weren't representing blah blah" (please, note: he never said "I thought we weren't playing" but "I thought we weren't representing")

ShojoPlayer: "Not THIS game (which we are effectively playing right now) the game of society (and try to stay in character!)"

BelkarPlayer: "Oh, whew."

This, btw, was coherent with the previous and aforementioned references made by Belkar and Haley about "Roleplaying."

[Cizak]

I try to explain the way I always interpreted it:

ShojoPlayer: "You must play the game!"

BelkarPlayer: "Uh, ok, so your NPC is talking about tha game we are playing? I thought we weren't representing blah blah" (please, note: he never said "I thought we weren't playing" but "I thought we weren't representing")

ShojoPlayer: "Not THIS game (which we are effectively playing right now) the game of society (and try to stay in character!)"

BelkarPlayer: "Oh, whew."

This, btw, was coherent with the previous and aforementioned references made by Belkar and Haley about "Roleplaying."

Why would your DnD campaign ever represent a DnD campaing itself? Your DnD campaign is the physical thing in the real world and should represent a quest undertaken by representated characters in a represented fictional world. The only way for Belkar's statement to make sense is if his physical real world is NOT a Dnd campaign, which is why he got confused by Shojo's comment and stated that they don't represent a DnD campaign. If Belkar's "player" states he thought they weren't representing a DnD campaign, we are right back to him being dangerously delusional about what he's doing at the table.

[Lacuna Caster]

I dimly recall Belkar and Haley both being aware of a Kenny Rogers song, and Roy referencing Japan, along with many other examples of 4th wall pop-culture references. Y'all are taking this too seriously.

[Dr.Zero]

I try to explain the way I always interpreted it:

ShojoPlayer: "You must play the game!"

BelkarPlayer: "Uh, ok, so your NPC is talking about tha game we are playing? I thought we weren't representing blah blah" (please, note: he never said "I thought we weren't playing" but "I thought we weren't representing")

ShojoPlayer: "Not THIS game (which we are effectively playing right now) the game of society (and try to stay in character!)"

BelkarPlayer: "Oh, whew."

This, btw, was coherent with the previous and aforementioned references made by Belkar and Haley about "Roleplaying."


Why would your DnD campaign ever represent a DnD campaing itself?

Did you never get on your table a guy who has NEVER played a RPG, but was intrigued by the idea to play a character who kills things, like in a FPS, but with a lot of customization, rules and playing on a table, with some friends?

Well, the confusion about what people say ic and what they say ooc happens; surely not so late in a campaign (and even less after more than 3 years of playing, if the first strips are correct about how old we must consider Belkar character), but early on some misunderstanding like that is absolutely believable. :smallbiggrin:

And we return to the problem player... or maybe the noob player, more correctly.

Geez,the more I talk about this subject, the more I'm surprised this is NOT what the author really intended :smallsmile:

[littlebum2002]

In the campaign that Order of the Stick is set in, Belkar's player is a problem player, and the DM is trying to teach him to cooperate with the group more and be less disruptive.

Evidence:

1. The vision Belkar had from Lord Shojo telling him to be more of a team player. It was established in one strip (IIRC) that Shojo was an author avatar for the DM.

2. The oracle predicting Belkar's death. Might be because the other players felt that they couldn't continue on with Belkar disrupting everything and wanted Belkar's player to roll a new, less disruptive character.

3. The fact that he's chaotic evil, while the party leader is lawful good.

4. Killing that random gnome who wasn't an opponent, and having Hayley tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."

Don't forget the tetherball scene. That reeks of a player not being able to make it to a meet and everyone else just using his character for their enjoyment.

[Cizak]

I dimly recall Belkar and Haley both being aware of a Kenny Rogers song, and Roy referencing Japan, along with many other examples of 4th wall pop-culture references. Y'all are taking this too seriously.

A story breaking the fourth wall does not mean the story takes place in the real world.


Did you never get on your table a guy who has NEVER played a RPG, but was intrigued by the idea to play a character who kills things, like in a FPS, but with a lot of customization, rules and playing on a table, with some friends?

You didn't answered the question. Why would your DnD campaign represent a DnD campaign itself? This hypothetical player would not roleplay someone roleplaying a character. He would roleplay a character. His campaign would represent a fictional world, not a campaign.

If Belkar asks: "Wait, I thought we didn't represent a DnD campaign?" it means he knows his world is not a DnD campaign, and he questions Shojo's line "Play the game." How can he play the game, if his world isn't part of a campaign? He can't, because it isn't.

If Belkar's "player" asks: "Wait, I thought we didn't represent a DnD campaign?" it means he either thinks Shojo is implying that they are roleplaying characters that are roleplaying Shojo and Belkar, which is insane because why would they be doing that, they would just be roleplaying Shojo and Belkar; or he thinks that what's going on at the table is not a DnD campaign and Belkar and Shojo are in fact real people living in a real world.

The statement simply doesn't make any sense coming from a player.