"The Player" is not an entity in-universe.

[Archimime]

It's reasonable why people would think it - Undertale breaks the fourth wall in tons of ways already, Sans outright states there's "An Anomaly" affecting the world, and Flowey before a True Reset and Chara at the end of Genocide speak directly to you, right?

Well, no. Undertale actually never breaks the fourth wall. It seems to, at first, but Saving, Loading etc. are all just parts of the game's world.

"The Anomaly" is clearly Flowey - it's something making timelines jump around, which Sans says was happening for a while, even though Genocide can be your first ever route.

Flowey, at the end of that speech about the True Reset: "See you later... Chara." We're supposed to take it personally, of course, but I highly doubt Flowey's just mistaking us for someone he was obsessed with for potentially hundreds of years.

Even if you don't believe NarraChara (y tho), it's fact they're the narration in Genocide - yet the majority of it is still second person. "You equipped The Locket". It can't mean the Player - we choose to throw things away, but Frisk "puts it on the ground and gives it a little pat" by themself, and that's second person. Why would Chara's speech at the end, where they consistantly talk about "you" being a great partner, be different, especially since they take Frisk's soul?

If the Player was a thing, controlling Frisk... then the story's hollow, Frisk wouldn't choose to save everyone, they'd just be puppetered into it. That's a lot less happy.

So, any counterarguments?

[Spectrum]

"B-but Frisk is a pacifist" - Some idiot, Idk who lol
(Although maybe Frisk isn't really the human...? Just kinda speculating here)

[DanEgbert]

I personally think that the Player is an entity, but not for the reasons you think. You see, if "The Player" and Frisk were the same person, then you should be able to control every single little thing they do, right? Besides Chara's input, of course. The thing is, you can't. There are several instances where you have no control over anything Frisk does, and they do it their own, because they are different entities.

A short list of things Frisk does on their own accord is:
- Go behind the lamp
- Hold Toriel's hand
- Turn to look at characters if they randomly appear, like Muffet and Alphys
- They always pick up the phone
Etc.

These are things that Frisk does without any input. About your claim that the story is hollow if the Player is an entity, it makes sense, but at the same time, it shows even more character from Frisk. The ability to resist a meta super human controlling your every move, would be really cool. Some things are from Frisk as well, the options like flirting and SAVING in the Asriel fight, are most likely from Frisk. One big clue is that, during the Alphys date, there are two options, one in total correct capitalization and spelling, and one that is messed up. The messed up one might be from Frisk (seeing as they are a child).

[Spectrum]

Originally posted by ItsSuperNova:

I personally think that the Player is an entity, but not for the reasons you think. You see, if "The Player" and Frisk were the same person, then you should be able to control every single little thing they do, right? Besides Chara's input, of course. The thing is, you can't. There are several instances where you have no control over anything Frisk does, and they do it their own, because they are different entities.

A short list of things Frisk does on their own accord is:
- Go behind the lamp
- Hold Toriel's hand
- Turn to look at characters if they randomly appear, like Muffet and Alphys
- They always pick up the phone
Etc.

These are things that Frisk does without any input. About your claim that the story is hollow if the Player is an entity, it makes sense, but at the same time, it shows even more character from Frisk. The ability to resist a meta super human controlling your every move, would be really cool. Some things are from Frisk as well, the options like flirting and SAVING in the Asriel fight, are most likely from Frisk. One big clue is that, during the Alphys date, there are two options, one in total correct capitalization and spelling, and one that is messed up. The messed up one might be from Frisk (seeing as they are a child).

That's kinda assuming that those things aren't Chara's input, isn't it?

[Archimime]

^

[DanEgbert]

Originally posted by SpectrumUK:

Originally posted by ItsSuperNova:

I personally think that the Player is an entity, but not for the reasons you think. You see, if "The Player" and Frisk were the same person, then you should be able to control every single little thing they do, right? Besides Chara's input, of course. The thing is, you can't. There are several instances where you have no control over anything Frisk does, and they do it their own, because they are different entities.

A short list of things Frisk does on their own accord is:
- Go behind the lamp
- Hold Toriel's hand
- Turn to look at characters if they randomly appear, like Muffet and Alphys
- They always pick up the phone
Etc.

These are things that Frisk does without any input. About your claim that the story is hollow if the Player is an entity, it makes sense, but at the same time, it shows even more character from Frisk. The ability to resist a meta super human controlling your every move, would be really cool. Some things are from Frisk as well, the options like flirting and SAVING in the Asriel fight, are most likely from Frisk. One big clue is that, during the Alphys date, there are two options, one in total correct capitalization and spelling, and one that is messed up. The messed up one might be from Frisk (seeing as they are a child).

That's kinda assuming that those things aren't Chara's input, isn't it?

They can't be, Chara can only input when you are on a genocide path. Besides, what's wrong with assuming? This whole thread is just assuming that certain Characters meant different things, and it was entirely speculative, with little proof. Why can't I do a little assuming? Chara skips Papyrus' puzzles, Frisk does not. Even if you had the exact amount of LV, just missed one kill in the RUINs, you would still do the puzzles, because Chara didn't have any input.

[Ecliptix]

Actually, I think the player is the SOUL and the only thing in the universe that can combat CHARA. No, literally the player is the red heart you control during battles. Think about it. What controls whether something is spared or killed in the game? The SOUL. Both figuratively and literally.

The SOUL is fighting against Chara's posession of Frisk.

Near the end of a pacifist run, Sans says you didn't gain LOVE, but you gained love. This implies that there is a seperate, untracked statistic (more or less) which accounts for the level of morality a heart / SOUL has. LOVE, on the other hand could be interpreted as a measurment of Chara's influence to warp reality and lower the love of you, the SOUL. Once your love (not LOVE) is sufficiently lowered, CHARA finally gains full rather than partial possesion of Frisk. And you, the SOUL never are able to regain full control as indicated by the persistant discoloration of frisk EVEN IF YOU COMPLETE A PACIFIST RUN AFTER GENOCIDE.

(Assuming you don't reinstall the game) Once you complete a Genocide run the player/SOUL never ever again has full control over Frisk as indicated during the papyrus puzzle run and other events throughout the game.

The corrupted "happy ending" is simply an illusion conjured up by Chara to fool you, the player. Once the credits roll you no longer have any control over Frisk. You can't move, you don't engage in anything. You lose all agency in the game.

Once you beat a genocide run and sell your SOUL (i.e. lose the last of your influence over Frisk as measured in love) there is no happy ending. Ever.

Everyone.
Dies.
Always.

The discolored frisk at the end of the game isn't Frisk, its Chara...

...And she'll kill them all. Because there's nothing you can do to stop her.

(Check the crossed out pictures in a corrupt ending)

[Lain]

"it's fact they're the narration in Genocide"

Nothing's a fact, mate. It's all assumptions. Even if it looks obvious to you, you shouldn't be going around telling that the stuff you say is a fact without confirmation.

[DanEgbert]

Originally posted by McCree:

"it's fact they're the narration in Genocide"

Nothing's a fact, mate. It's all assumptions. Even if it looks obvious to you, you shouldn't be going around telling that the stuff you say is a fact without confirmation.

I think they meant the Red text is definitely Chara "It's me, Chara."

The only problem with that is anyone could say that.

[Geuspepper]

Originally posted by Toffee Pop:

It's reasonable why people would think it - Undertale breaks the fourth wall in tons of ways already, Sans outright states there's "An Anomaly" affecting the world, and Flowey before a True Reset and Chara at the end of Genocide speak directly to you, right?

Well, no. Undertale actually never breaks the fourth wall. It seems to, at first, but Saving, Loading etc. are all just parts of the game's world.

"The Anomaly" is clearly Flowey - it's something making timelines jump around, which Sans says was happening for a while, even though Genocide can be your first ever route.

Flowey, at the end of that speech about the True Reset: "See you later... Chara." We're supposed to take it personally, of course, but I highly doubt Flowey's just mistaking us for someone he was obsessed with for potentially hundreds of years.

Even if you don't believe NarraChara (y tho), it's fact they're the narration in Genocide - yet the majority of it is still second person. "You equipped The Locket". It can't mean the Player - we choose to throw things away, but Frisk "puts it on the ground and gives it a little pat" by themself, and that's second person. Why would Chara's speech at the end, where they consistantly talk about "you" being a great partner, be different, especially since they take Frisk's soul?

If the Player was a thing, controlling Frisk... then the story's hollow, Frisk wouldn't choose to save everyone, they'd just be puppetered into it. That's a lot less happy.

So, any counterarguments?

I mean the whole point of Undertale is that it puts weight on YOUR decisions, not Frisk's, not Chara's. You have the power to change fate and it is your decision what you do with that. Why does that make the story hollow for you? To me, it is what makes this game so amazing.

Frisk is led into almost everything they do. You can make Frisk kill or you can make Frisk save everyone. What they would do is probably up to your interpretation because they are a pretty blank slate (we even get to decide if they have a place to go at the end). Of course, there are a couple of hints that Frisk is a rather nice child. So they would probably choose to help everyone if they could. At least that's what I think.

[Archimime]

Originally posted by McCree:

"it's fact they're the narration in Genocide"

Nothing's a fact, mate. It's all assumptions. Even if it looks obvious to you, you shouldn't be going around telling that the stuff you say is a fact without confirmation.

They...literally....explicitly say.... "It's me, Chara."
http://68.media.tumblr.com/01ebea20633c47eec82ee5febfc29beb/tumblr_inline_o0350hYD5W1qda68o_500.png

Originally posted by ItsSuperNova:

Originally posted by McCree:

"it's fact
I think they meant the Red text is definitely Chara "It's me, Chara."

The only problem with that is anyone could say that.

That's in white text.

Originally posted by Leyfa:

I mean the whole point of Undertale is that it puts weight on YOUR decisions, not Frisk's, not Chara's. You have the power to change fate and it is your decision what you do with that. Why does that make the story hollow for you? To me, it is what makes this game so amazing.

Frisk is led into almost everything they do. You can make Frisk kill or you can make Frisk save everyone. What they would do is probably up to your interpretation because they are a pretty blank slate (we even get to decide if they have a place to go at the end). Of course, there are a couple of hints that Frisk is a rather nice child. So they would probably choose to help everyone if they could. At least that's what I think.

Obviously we choose the options, it wouldn't be a video game otherwise, but in universe, it's Frisk. The characters don't talk to you, they talk to the kid in front of them. Because Undertale's an RPG, as in you take the role of the protagonist, just like in Zelda/Metroid/Mario/almost all games. At least, I don't see why it would be different. I guess I can't totally disprove it...?

Originally posted by ItsSuperNova:

Originally posted by SpectrumUK:

That's kinda assuming that those things aren't Chara's input, isn't it?

They can't be, Chara can only input when you are on a genocide path. Besides, what's wrong with assuming? This whole thread is just assuming that certain Characters meant different things, and it was entirely speculative, with little proof. Why can't I do a little assuming? Chara skips Papyrus' puzzles, Frisk does not. Even if you had the exact amount of LV, just missed one kill in the RUINs, you would still do the puzzles, because Chara didn't have any input.

Yep, speculation is the point of the thread, so say whatever you want.
I think it has to be Chara moving you in all routes, because I think we play as Frisk, but if the Player existed your argument would be reasonable.
Still, though - how do you know it's Chara on Genocide, and only on Genocide? How do you know it's not the other way around, if Frisk and Chara are both fighting for control over a Player? Because if Frisk doesn't make the choices, there's no way to know what they wanted - you could mention everyone talking about how great they are in TP, but that's because it's TP, which, alledgedly, the Player led them into with no input from Frisk themself.

[Lain]

Originally posted by Toffee Pop:

Originally posted by McCree:

"it's fact they're the narration in Genocide"

Nothing's a fact, mate. It's all assumptions. Even if it looks obvious to you, you shouldn't be going around telling that the stuff you say is a fact without confirmation.

They...literally....explicitly say.... "It's me, Chara."
http://68.media.tumblr.com/01ebea20633c47eec82ee5febfc29beb/tumblr_inline_o0350hYD5W1qda68o_500.png

Forgot about that mirror. Well, it's kinda hard to remember it when the famous "It's me, Chara" is more popular on the end of the (boring) Genocide route.

EDIT: Also would be nice if you didn't make a broken quote.

[VoidIris1268]

The big problem with trying to debate anything about the game is that it never really elaborates on the mechanics of the universe. One of the reasons I like firmer magic systems.

[Lain]

Originally posted by Voidslayer1268:

The big problem with trying to debate anything about the game is that it never really elaborates on the mechanics of the universe. One of the reasons I like firmer magic systems.

What exactly are we trying to theorize? I mean, scientists theorize stuff and eventually they can confirm or deny it.

Undertale? There's no point. We can discuss for hours, we will never reach anywhere because we don't have enough information and we won't ever have apparently. But oh well, we can make up a good theory and at least assume it's canon.

[VoidIris1268]

Originally posted by McCree:

Originally posted by Voidslayer1268:

The big problem with trying to debate anything about the game is that it never really elaborates on the mechanics of the universe. One of the reasons I like firmer magic systems.

What exactly are we trying to theorize? I mean, scientists theorize stuff and eventually they can confirm or deny it.

Undertale? There's no point. We can discuss for hours, we will never reach anywhere because we don't have enough information and we won't ever have apparently. But oh well, we can make up a good theory and at least assume it's canon.

Exactly, it's a good game, but you do not play it for the complex worldbuilding.

[dark_matter_mobius]

Originally posted by Toffee Pop:

If the Player was a thing, controlling Frisk... then the story's hollow, Frisk wouldn't choose to save everyone, they'd just be puppetered into it. That's a lot less happy.

Nah, the story isn't hollow, its implications are absolutely horrifying. The implication of you, the player, having controlled Frisk means that you're not a moral force in the world. It means that you're this horrifying outsider that murder tortured a child *for your own enjoyment*. The fact that you managed to 'solve this problem' in the process is secondary to *what you are* in that world. Which is why genocide is even an option. Ask yourself this, "How many times did Frisk die on my pacifist run? How many times was he put in danger? Considering Asriel's dialogue (reminder in next paragraph), WHY would Frisk opt to go back?" Additionally, it recreates the spare/murder theme *outside* of the game (because by resetting after true pacifist is the murder option and never playing the game again is the 'spare' option). It is more powerful than assuming that the player is Frisk or Chara because it makes us not only responsible for our choices in game, but also for the choice to continue playing *past the ruins* or deciding to reset the game.

Asriel points out that Frisk had no real reason to try and go back home: That everyone that goes up that mountain is *escaping* something or out to commit suicide. Things are/were not good at home for Frisk. That trying to go 'home' after going up the mountain was pretty much a pointless task that makes no sense for Frisk's character. Meaning that the player is the one that made that decision *for* Frisk when staying with Toriel was the ideal option for him. That the player *put that child in danger in order to 'get their happy ending'*. It is the most powerful ending because it transforms the whole game: We're the bad guy, we're the horrifying monster. *We* are worse than Chara or Flowey or anything else that we meet in the game especially since *we* (and our pursuit of plot/entertainment) creates the conditions for Chara to turn evil. Sans calls us out pretty explicitly on this, in fact (though not necessarily the player directly).

And Flowey isn't confusing us for Chara, he is referencing to us by the name we chose at start. The on screen character is simultaneously: Chara, Frisk, AND the player. Chara just so 'happened' to have the same name as us in life, but we're in fact two different entities in the game.