Order of the Stick and Scribe Players

[mashlagoo1982]

What if the player's behind both the Order of the Stick and The Order of the Scribe were the same group of people?

Which player would be controlling the different characters?

If this were true, I expect maybe the same player had controlled both Serini and Elan due to their shared innocent behavior.

What about the other characters/players?

[Lord Torath]

What if the player's behind both the Order of the Stick and The Order of the Scribe were the same group of people?

Which player would be controlling the different characters?

If this were true, I expect maybe the same player had controlled both Serini and Elan due to their shared innocent behavior.

What about the other characters/players?

What players? (panel 6)

[Precure]

Serini = Elan
Soon = Vaarsuvius
Girard = Haley
Dorukan = Durkon
Kraagor = Belkar
Lirian = Roy

[KorvinStarmast]

What players? (panel 6)

The ones on the other side of the (alleged) gate.

[Caerulea]

Serini = Elan
Soon = Vaarsuvius
Girard = Haley
Dorukan = Durkon
Kraagor = Belkar
Lirian = Roy

The only one of these that doesn't sit right with me is Soon = Vaarsuvius. I suppose that player could have traded their strict unyielding devotion to honour over friendship for a devotion to magic over personal relations. I suppose I just think V and Soon are too different to be an easy pairing.

[Synesthesy]

IMHO who played Soon now plays Belkar. He wanted to try something a little different this time, you know....

[The Pilgrim]

Lirian -> Durkon (thinks bad guys can be redeemed. The sucker who is always stuck with Cleric Duty, has changed from loving trees to hating them as a subtle way of protest)

Dorukan -> Vaarsuvius (typical powermonger wizard player)

Soon -> Roy (not very tolerant with ideas that haven't originated in his skull)

Giriard -> Haley (resents authority, paranoid about everyone)

Kraagor -> Belkan (likes to just charge in and kill things)

Serini -> Elan (typical player who doesn't takes the game seriously and is always joking)

[mashlagoo1982]

Lirian -> Durkon (thinks bad guys can be redeemed. The sucker who is always stuck with Cleric Duty, has changed from loving trees to hating them as a subtle way of protest)

Dorukan -> Vaarsuvius (typical powermonger wizard player)

Soon -> Roy (not very tolerant with ideas that haven't originiated in his skull)

Giriard -> Haley (resents authority, paranoid about everyone)

Kraagor -> Belkan (likes to just charge in and kill things)

Serini -> Elan (typical player who doesn't takes the game seriously and is always joking)

This is the conclusion I was heading towards as well.

I just couldn't think of why Dorukan would match up to Varrsuvius.
Because of that I was trying to think if anyone else would match up well with Dorukan, but your reasoning works for me.

I was actually looking at Dorukan > Durkon but that wasn't working out either.

[Precure]

The only one of these that doesn't sit right with me is Soon = Vaarsuvius. I suppose that player could have traded their strict unyielding devotion to honour over friendship for a devotion to magic over personal relations. I suppose I just think V and Soon are too different to be an easy pairing.

"Vaarsuvius" is basically Soon's player's "take that" against Dorukan's player.

[Ionathus]

"Vaarsuvius" is basically Soon's player's "take that" against Dorukan's player.

I do like the idea of players wanting to be something wildly different. That matches up with real life pretty well: many of my players will go from being the frontline stoic badass to the plucky and disruptive diminutive wizard in the back -- I wouldn't necessarily expect each player to make a 2nd character that fills the same niche as their last one.

For example, it's possible Soon's player was tired of being the "party leader," and Roy's player wanted to pick up the mantle in this second campaign. I've seen that happen in real life campaigns too.

[Caerulea]

"Vaarsuvius" is basically Soon's player's "take that" against Dorukan's player.

So 'annoying magic obsessed wizard' but even moreso, let's see how you like it. I like the reasoning.

[KorvinStarmast]

Lirian -> Durkon (thinks bad guys can be redeemed. The sucker who is always stuck with Cleric Duty, has changed from loving trees to hating them as a subtle way of protest)

Dorukan -> Vaarsuvius (typical powermonger wizard player)

Soon -> Roy (not very tolerant with ideas that haven't originated in his skull)

Giriard -> Haley (resents authority, paranoid about everyone)

Kraagor -> Belkan (likes to just charge in and kill things)

Serini -> Elan (typical player who doesn't takes the game seriously and is always joking)

Yep, particularly the bolded part. A lot of players don't really change much between campaigns, though some do.

[Precure]

So 'annoying magic obsessed wizard' but even moreso, let's see how you like it. I like the reasoning.

In the same vein, "Durkon" is Dorukan's player's own idea of how to play a strictly Lawful Good character.

[deltamire]

I'll toss in Girhard -> Roy. They have completely different personalities and playstyles, yes, but the actual nitty-gritty of their creation are sort of similar. Both are characters whose respective alignments run through every single part of their behaviour, instead of, say, a general guideline. Both exhibit a loud distaste for any alternative playstyles, and aren't afraid to make that known. Loudly. Both also share a distaste for all-encompassing authority - the gods and general desposts in Roy's case, and literally anyone he thinks is trying to hold him down in Girhard's case. You could even make the argument that they both explore the concept of family, though Girhard's family is more of a post-game development than Roy's inciting incident of Eric's death. Perhaps the Greenhilts are an exploration of a family pushed to the breaking point from outside events in contrast to the Draketooth's tight-knit band out in the desert, hidden from the world? The answer is that there's no connection at all and I'm absolutely making this up as I go along, but it's fun to theorise.

I can easily imagine the sort of person who created Girhard Draketooth sitting down at the table for the new campaign's session zero and, when asked what their new character is (aka the ol' reliable please please please don't say you're playing another MAD chaotic edgy dual-wielding dude please for the love of god) bringing out the most straight-laced lawful nerd in the universe. Until Durkon's player introduces their fun new character, of course.

[KorvinStarmast]

I can easily imagine the sort of person who created Girhard Draketooth sitting down at the table for the new campaign's session zero and, when asked what their new character is (aka the ol' reliable please please please don't say you're playing another MAD chaotic edgy dual-wielding dude please for the love of god) bringing out the most straight-laced lawful nerd in the universe. Until Durkon's player introduces their fun new character, of course.

In real life, that player would more likely have made a warlock.

[The Pilgrim]

This is the conclusion I was heading towards as well.

I just couldn't think of why Dorukan would match up to Varrsuvius.
Because of that I was trying to think if anyone else would match up well with Dorukan, but your reasoning works for me.

I was actually looking at Dorukan > Durkon but that wasn't working out either.

Yep, particularly the bolded part. A lot of players don't really change much between campaigns, though some do.

Yep. Players can change the race, alignment, attributes and class of their characters, but their style at the table remains consistent.

Powerplayers almost invariably play wizards and have prepared complicated builds ready for becoming living gods.

Players who assume the responsibility for leadership and force their agenda on the rest of the group tend to do so in every game.

Players who are distrustful of everyone on the table, be PCs or NPCs run by the DM (and, usually, not without reason), remain the same.

The one interested in just roll the dice and kil things, not minding much if his prey are PCs or NPCs, remains being the character everyone in the table avoids to cross in his path.

The player who plays casual and for fun making metajokes and quoting Monty Python remains consistent between games.

And the sucker who gets stuck with picking the role that no one else wants to play, is always the same.

[denthor]

Serini = Elan
Soon = Vaarsuvius
Girard = Haley
Dorukan = Durkon
Kraagor = Belkar
Lirian = Roy

My take

Lirian =Vaarsuvius she played with bacterial weapons to shut down caster. So opposite comes into play, druids are some form of neutral.

Soon= Roy both lawful both single. One by choice, the other by death. Roy is mixed up in this because of a death.

The rest are on point

[mashlagoo1982]

Yep. Players can change the race, alignment, attributes and class of their characters, but their style at the table remains consistent.

Powerplayers almost invariably play wizards and have prepared complicated builds ready for becoming living gods.

Players who assume the responsibility for leadership and force their agenda on the rest of the group tend to do so in every game.

Players who are distrustful of everyone on the table, be PCs or NPCs run by the DM (and, usually, not without reason), remain the same.

The one interested in just roll the dice and kil things, not minding much if his prey are PCs or NPCs, remains being the character everyone in the table avoids to cross in his path.

The player who plays casual and for fun making metajokes and quoting Monty Python remains consistent between games.

And the sucker who gets stuck with picking the role that no one else wants to play, is always the same.

From my experience this is sadly on point.
If I do get to play, I'm often the sucker.

I would prefer the following progression for reasons other posters have stated above.
I don't think this is what would happen.

Giriard > Durkon or Roy (as a response to how Soon was played)

Soon > Vaarsuvius or Haley (as a response to how Giriard was played)

Serini -> Elan (let them have their fun)

Kraagor > any caster (to try something new)

Dorukan > any non-caster (to try something new)

Lirian > Belkan (explore redemption character arc from other angle)

[KorvinStarmast]

From my experience this is sadly on point.
If I do get to play, I'm often the sucker.

I have chosen to be, and embraced, 'the sucker' role in this edition in more games than not, since I tend to play this game with an eye to party success, not personal success. I get my kicks filling the missing capability gap and trying to increase team synergy.
Here is an almost verbatim discussion between me and the DM (and two of the five other players) before our session 0/1.

Me: has everyone picked a character? (I still did not have PHB, I had only free basic rules Player and DM at that point. Deliver of PHB happened about a week later).
DM: Yes, what would you like to play?
Me: What's missing? What has everyone else picked?
My Brother: We have a wizard, a rogue, a bard, a paladin, a barbarian.
Me: I'll play cleric.
DM: I wasn't going to mention it, but the party was lacking a cleric or druid.

And so KorvinStarmast, Life Cleric, was born (nobody had played this edition yet. Summer/early fall of 2014)

[The Pilgrim]

Hahah, I used to be too the guy who plays the Cleric, and I enjoyed it. Until I got fed up with that, and in one game...

- The Bloodthirster: I'll play a barbarian (as usual)
- The Loony: I'll play a rogue (as usual)
- The PowerPlayer: I'll play a drow wizard (as usual)
- Me: I'll play a Bard

Everybody stares at me.

- DM: But... but... who will be the cleric?
- Me: We are playing 3rd Ed. Bards can heal now, and doesn't need to prepare spells.
- DM: Oh... okay... we can try that.

Of course, I knew it woudn't work. The DM soon attatched an NPC cleric to the party to act as healbot. It worked pretty well, and from that point on, the DM would use attatched NPCs to cover for gaps in the party composition.

And this is the story of how I broke free.

[mashlagoo1982]

I have chosen to be, and embraced, 'the sucker' role in this edition in more games than not, since I tend to play this game with an eye to party success, not personal success. I get my kicks filling the missing capability gap and trying to increase team synergy.
Here is an almost verbatim discussion between me and the DM (and two of the five other players) before our session 0/1.

Me: has everyone picked a character? (I still did not have PHB, I had only free basic rules Player and DM at that point. Deliver of PHB happened about a week later).
DM: Yes, what would you like to play?
Me: What's missing? What has everyone else picked?
My Brother: We have a wizard, a rogue, a bard, a paladin, a barbarian.
Me: I'll play cleric.
DM: I wasn't going to mention it, but the party was lacking a cleric or druid.

And so KorvinStarmast, Life Cleric, was born (nobody had played this edition yet. Summer/early fall of 2014)

Ha! It's always Cleric or Druid.

In all the groups I have played, everyone except one other player thought those were weak classes.
I give props to that one player, he avoided those classes because he knew they were powerful and wanted a challenge.

I have tried to convince the other doubters through demonstration... it just doesn't take.

[Taevyr]

I'll agree, both on the count of players generally wanting to try something new after finishing a campaign, but largely retaining their play style regardless of character.

Also, I'm kind of a fan of Dorukan->Elan and Lirian->Haley or vice versa, as it'd be funny if a hypothetical IRL couple always ended up coupling up their characters. I'll leave it out of my following considerations, though.

So:

Serini-> Elan, for same reasons others stated

Girard -> Haley: caster to non-caster, but retaining general paranoia, chaotic inclination, independence, and strong focus on family.

Dorukan->V: The power-player generally remains a power-player, and I don't see any other member of the party fitting that bill.

The other three are less clear, at least to me; I'll go with what seems interesting/fun. We also lack proper knowledge on Kraagor, which makes fitting someone with him annoying.

Kraagor-> Roy: Kraagor seems to be a stereotypical barb, putting strength above all else and hitting the attack button without speaking up much. Roy - as a fighter - has more or less the same role, but went with an attempt at a more cerebral warrior this time. Spending more time studying and speaking up paid off as he became team leader, yet he's still a stubborn, tough front-liner with a penchant for sacrificing himself.

Lirian-> Durkon: both support players/healers with faith in something greater than themselves, except Durkon's a lot more straightlaced. Rather straightforward, actually.

And my favourite: Soon-> Belkar. After a long campaign of his fellow players complaining about the lawful good stick implanted in his character's hindquarters, he decided to really give them something to complain about . Eventually, he grew bored of this and decided to see what a redemption arc might be like, since he didn't feel like rolling up a new character yet. Both also are, or at least started off as, typical examples of their alignment, warts and all.


Personally, I generally end up as either team Leader, team Dad, or both. I don't have a particular need to play leader, but i'll step up if no-one else will, even if I'd rather not. I'll almost always play the guy working to keep the team together though, trying to shape the group into a team and keeping up the synergy, even if my way of doing so may switch between a gruff fighter drill sergeant, wisecracking bard defusing tension, or serene cleric reminding everyone of our common goals and all the stuff we went through by working together (dramatic gesticulations included).

I do prefer playing to a competent team leader though, so I guess I'd be Durkon in this game Mostly because not being team leader usually means more room to engage in personal shenanigans, which are always fun.

EDIT: right-hand may be a bad description for Durkon though; something vaguely advisor-shaped, perhaps?

[KorvinStarmast]

I have tried to convince the other doubters through demonstration... it just doesn't take.

I recently retired a cleric (different campaign) and inserted a Celestial Warlock.

[Oppolo]

Putting aside the fact we know these characters don't have players for the sake of 'what if'!
Player relationships can play a part in deducing this. Generally, best friends will 'pair off' and RP often together. Negative character relationships may be RP, but is also often indicative of players who aren't getting along well.

In the very early strips, there seemed to be a close working relationship between Roy/Durkon, and Haley/V.
There was a bit of a rift between Roy/Elan.

From the other group, we know that at the end of the campaign there was a rift between Girard/Soon - and a close relationship between Dorukon/Lirian.

Taking this for granted and lining things up gives us;

Dorukon/Lirian = V/Haley
Soon/Girard = Roy/Elan

Which leaves us with Kraagor/Serini for Belkar/Durkon.

This gives us kind of a nice line-up of;
Dorukon=V, player interested in spell lists and good friends with...
Lirian=Haley, generally friendly player trying something new - who is also interested in RP for relationships
Soon=Roy, player who takes the lead role, and at the end of campaign 1 / start of campaign 2 had a rocky relationship with...
Girard=Elan, player who's there to have fun - and also has no issue with flirty/relationship RP
Kraagor=Belkar, player primarily interested in fighting
Serini=Durkon, player who is friendly with everybody but tends to sit on the sidelines and support other players' decisions (e.g. Serini has no gate)

[KorvinStarmast]

(e.g. Serini has no gate)

I think she does, though, since "Kraagor's Gate" is a tribute by Serini. He's not alive to develop the gate's defenses, she is. I think it's Serini's Gate.

What gate?