-
Meta-theory about Belkar
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."
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeighTheDwarf
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeighTheDwarf
tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeighTheDwarf
tell him in character that the gnome was just there for "flavor."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeighTheDwarf
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.)
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
LeighTheDwarf
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
I believe I detect a problem with this line of reasoning.
Just gonna add Panel 10 for those wanting to look it up.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
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?
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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."
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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?
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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?
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ruck
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.
But inter-player strife is a lot deeper, so sure, I'll go for that. :smallwink:
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ruck
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Emanick
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lacuna Caster
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
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?
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lacuna Caster
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lacuna Caster
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
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
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?
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lacuna Caster
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, 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.")
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lacuna Caster
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.
GW
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kish
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 seem to know about NPCs, which I guess might just be being genre savvy. Just struck me as odd, is all.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lacuna Caster
Do the OOTS actually refer to themselves out loud as PCs? They
do seem to know about NPCs, which I guess might just be being
genre savvy. 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!
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
"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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lacuna Caster
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?
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jasdoif
And the t-shirts in the last panel.
GW
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
And the t-shirts in the last panel.
On the NPCs-calling-PCs-"PCs" front, there's Xykon in the last panel of 370, too. It's slightly removed from PCs-calling-themselves-"PCs", though.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar
Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
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.
-
Re: Meta-theory about Belkar