The Player is NOT Part of DELTARUNE's Narrative! 

Thank you all for the comments and feedback! I've heard a lot of (mostly) respectful arguments and standpoints, and it's been very educational! I'll try my best to phrase my literary analysis as "opinion" in the future, as the lack of that in this video seems to be a major source of contention. Beyond that, I think I made it clear that I have nothing but respect for Toby Fox in this video, but just for those who didn't quite get that: I totally respect Toby Fox! I'm sure he'll make DELTARUNE something fantastic no matter what! Maybe he'll do it the way I suggested, or maybe he'll find some innovative way of doing it that I couldn't conceive of! But no matter what, I'm sure DELTARUNE will be great, and I hope it's clear that none of this was meant to be viewed as criticism of Toby Fox. Hope that clears things up! Thanks again for watching! x)

I personally do not see the need for a distinction here. I believe Deltarune’s plot can combine elements of traditional narrative and meta-narrative without the world of the game crumbling or being made worthless. The medium of video games allows a player to become a part of the world presented in the game. From my perspective, this allows the player to become an actor in the plot rather than just a viewer. On the DDLC point you made, I personally have not encountered anyone among my personal friends who disliked or did not care about the DDLC+ side content. A lot of people I interact with personally found their stories compelling, which added to the tragedy of the main story. Just because a character or world is explicitly fictional doesn’t mean a viewer or player cannot empathize or enjoy them.

All the respect, but I feel like deltarune does have an interlinking narrative and meta-narrative. And I believe that the way he’s written the meta-narrative actually enhances the narrative rather than taking away from it. Making me a character makes me care about the lives of the Deltarune characters even more as I feel like I’m having an actual impact on their lives

The reason why ddlc doesn't work for some people, is because the narrative is unrelated to the meta-narrative. The literature club and its members have nothing to do with monika being self-aware. The first act feels pointless because it is. But deltarune is different. The narrative and the meta-narrative is very much related. The meta-narrative is about the player controlling Kris, a fictional character and how that affects them and their world. The regular narrative is about Kris not being in control of their actions and how that affects them and their relationships with other people. The meta-narrative being non-optional would not harm the regular narrative because it doesn't make the regular narrative pointless, it's actually the opposite. When the meta-narrative reveals itself, it will be deeply tied to the regular narrative, because it was the player who made all of Kris' choices and decided how the regular narrative played out. It's the player that chooses to make noelle into a cold-hearted killer, and I fail to see how pointing that out would destroy the impact of the narrative. Maybe it's just me, but something being fictional doesn't stop it from being real. tl;dr: Pointing out that the player is real doesn't automatically make the regular narrative pointless.

The whole point of this video that meta narratives break your suspension of disbelief and prevent you from caring about the characters within that story is countered by the videogame OneShot. Without spoiling it: Everyone Ive seen play it got attached to the main character, even though it has constant 4th wall breaks and the ending is insanely emotional.

*insert scathing remark here*

37:24 Okay about this... that's... the point. Like, if you notice the meta-narrative undermines the regular narative and Monika feels the same way that you, the player, do after having your imersion in that world forcefully broken and having trouble getting re-invested in it, that's probably a sign it was taken into account by the developer and is therefore part of the meta-narrative. It's not accidental irony, the story isn't unaware of it. It's the point. The characters believe themselves and the world they live in to be real. Except Monika, who sees the nature of her world and knows you see it too. But she thinks she's just as real as you because she knows more than the other characters in the game, but she isn't. Monika ends up destroying the entire game in the end, it's not really meant to be revisted because it doesn't work anymore BUT, you can download the game again and start over. As a conscious purposeful choice. To do that, you MUST be invested either in the in-universe narrative or the characters who take part in the overall meta-narrative. Maybe you want to play with the files to mess with the characters just to study it, or try to find a happier ending somehow. No matter what, investment is necessary, but it's not impossible like you make it out to be. I personally know the game did not waste my time with the characters. I grew to care about them and found things I related to in each of them, and the rerelease isn't wasting more time by adding more. It's giving more time and memories with the characters who deserve more time to be themselves. It's a game about how beautiful the worlds inside stories can be and what happens when you try to retroactively make it all meaningless. The game is laying itself bare and asking you to care about it anyway. It can be sobering, but for me it changes nothing about how I felt with the time I spent with the characters in the game It's like the genocide route in Undertale, a lot of people criticize it for being boring and unsatisfying, when that's just the game discouraging players from pursuing the bad ending by making it shorter and more tedious than the normal routes with only a few exciting moments. You're not *supposed* to have fun killing your friends, but if for whatever reason you did then you still fit into the narrative. In DDLC's case, they get you to care, then tell you nothing matters and leaves you to decide what that means to you. Either you stop caring about the characters because they aren't real and "don't matter", or you let yourself care because it matters to you. And even more metatextually, it's asking you to confront your own existence. How would you feel if you had to realize nothing in the world mattered? Do you give up on it? Or do you care anyway because there's a lot of cool stuff to care about? It's not your average "it was all a dream" plot twist, it was carefully considered. To not fully examine this aspect of the story and merely see it as a flaw seems... maybe not necessarily media illiterate, but definitely negligent. Now, if the story just doesn't speak to you on that level that's one thing, but as a *criticism* I don't think this holds water. If you have to discredit the people who made a work to say they didn't consider part of it, when they clearly made that part THE ENTIRE POINT, that's just a lazy criticism. Feel free to add or contest anything I said, and I apologize if my agrument was too agressive. I feel strongly about the story in that game but I do still respect your work very much, Jaru. Thanks for reading if you did :3

You first said that suspension of disbelief is caring about fiction in spite of it not really mattering, then pivoted into saying this means suspending disbelief in games is about forgetting we are playing a game. I don't think the second argument follows the first. I think that's just us thinking differently. If I cried because a character died, I can still engage with the emotions, with the narrative even if I remember that it's just words on a page.

I remember hearing you argue for this on your theory tier list video, and I can't say i agree with you in the slightest. Still, its always healthy for a community to have theories opposing the generally accepted ideas, and i like that you stand by your opinion despite backlash

I’d say there’s a VERY big issue with the idea of pivotal meta narratives ruining the regular narratives of the games they’re apart of, and that issue is that despite most of the community wholeheartedly believing that the meta narrative is pivotal to the story of Deltarune, everyone is still very invested in the world of the game. Like genuinely, who in the community views the characters as pointless? Everyone loves the characters, despite believing that the player is a pivotal part of the narrative. The player being a part of the narrative isn’t ruining the regular narrative at all.

I feel bad for Disbelief Papyrus, people always try suspending him.

Looking at Toby's previous work (Halloween Hack), the way he describes his game doesn't match what your theory suggests. When describing the linear nature of his halloween hack, Toby said "You know why there isn't a choice there? Because you already chose to make Varik go into the door. You already chose to go forward. The only real choice, as Varik realizes at the end of the game, is to stop or keep going. By "stop" he means "turn off the game," and that's all you can do. Anything you play is your own fault for playing, and that's the only real choice you can make." Thinking about a more recent example ("Skies Forever Blue"), we see the same pattern. The singer, an NPC in the game, falls in love with a player in the game. "When you made my name, the same just as the one you love, then I knew." This line shows that it's the player behind the screen, and not just the player's avatar that she falls in love with. There is no "in-universe" explanation for why she would say these lines. I also get the sense that by creating an "in-universe" force controlling Kris, it would lessen the impact of the player's actions, because it wasn't YOU telling Noelle to cast snowgrave, it's Chara/Gaster/somebody else. It absolves the player of any responsibility for their actions ingame. I think Toby wants you to accept yourself, the player, as a character with a presence in his games, instead of a non-diagetic, detached force.

While I do see your point, and how Undertale separates its narrative and meta-narrative, I fail to see why the non-existence of a barrier is to throw the narrative, to be a bad writer. Even at some points of Deltarune, one could argue the point is that despite the fact that darkners are "fictional" the characters shoud care about them, I don't see why the game would not apply this to us and the lightners. I really hope the narrative and meta-narrative bleed into each other, I think Toby is one of the only writers that could pull this off.

18:24 What are you even talking about? suspension of disbelief is a choice the viewer/player makes. You are not forced to disregard characters just because it’s acknowledged that they’re in a game. (Watch Andrew Cunninghams video about flowey)

Okay, counterpoint: What if we just simply DON'T CARE if it's just a game? I love both Undertale and DDLC, and the fact that DDLC goes out of it's way to emphasize the metanarrative didn't lessen my enjoyment of the game. Hell, the reason I love the characters in both games is because they're well-written and relatable. I don't value Monika's story over the other girls' just because of some pretentious sense of importance from the metanarrative; if anything, the game almost wants us to disagree with her way of thinking in the first place. Yeah, sure; the dating-sim stuff is a facade, but without its setup for the real meat of the game later, then what'd even be the point of the metanarrative? Also, DO NOT undermine the Side Stories. I don't care if the horror fans were let down by them, they added more emotional weight to the game by showing exactly what Monika threw away by embracing the metanarrative. That'd be like saying the True Pacifist ending in Undertale is meaningless because it can just be taken away after a Genocide Route. I'm sorry, Jaru, but I can't agree at all here. It just sounds like you're pushing for your view of the game.

So, this response turned out longer than I thought it would. But I have a lot of thoughts about this video. Normally, any issues I have with Jaru’s theories come from either them taking some wild logical leaps (which honestly isn’t that big of a deal, because the theories are just meant as entertaining possibilities while we wait for more chapters), or sometimes using very minor, unclear pieces of the games to put together a future plot point that would end up being really unsatisfying from a narrative perspective. But this time, I kind of have the opposite issue: I feel like this video is using misusing rules of storytelling as a basis for ignoring what we’ve already seen in Deltarune, and keeping it from truly building on what Undertale started. Toby has already set up a world in which we see objects come to life, have personalities, goals, and emotions. He’s already made a scenario where we see the Lightners realize that the things they saw as objects, and even actual code in the case of Chapter 2, might be more “real” than they thought. Part of the reason why the whole player control thing is so interesting to people is because it is a direct parallel to this concept, but this time, with us and the Lightners instead of the Lightners and the Darkners. Essentially, we would have three layers instead of two. The narrative has literally been set up in a way that directly compliments the meta-narrative! Even if the player is fully aware that the game is just a game, they still have to contend with the fact that the game is depicting… a world where games aren’t just games. Kind of eerie, no? This gives the effect of forcing the player to consider that maybe this fictional world DOES matter, and it doesn’t make the characters’ reactions to the events that take place feel out of place. It’s still treating the world of the game as different than ours, but with enough similarities we don’t have trouble empathizing with the characters. This is kind of what happens in One Shot and is how it manages to pull off a character having contact with the player, even directly within the narrative, without it feeling “off”; Instead, it ends up being utterly heartbreaking because the player wants to help them, but still only has so much power within the game itself, as even they aren’t TRULY in control, the rules of the game itself is. (I know it’s probably annoying seeing this game come up in comments so much at this point, but people are mentioning it so often because it’s VERY MUCH an example of many of the things you said wouldn’t work with a meta narrative working. I recommend the game a lot, I think anyone who likes Undertale will also enjoy One Shot and vice versa.) Essentially, the way that we see the story set up so far, I don’t think this meta-narrative weakens the narrative at all, because of how they play off each other. By separating the players wants from the characters, Toby Fox is giving them a sense of depth of self that video game characters are not supposed to have. He inherently raises Kris above how we would normally think of a video game character, so suspension of disbelief doesn’t even matter anymore! Even though we still know, logically, that none of Deltarune is real, you can’t help but think in the back of your mind, “But what if it was? How would I know, really, if they were real?” And that is only strengthened by the narrative, with how closely it parallels that thought in the background. And now we see all the other characters around Kris as more “real” as well. I honestly don’t see how this weakens the narrative in any way; To me, it only makes characters like Susie and Noelle feel much more alive. It makes the narrative feel like it really matters, because it matters for Kris, and we feel like THEY matter now that they’re more than just a character. But they’re still in another “world” than us, so it doesn’t really break our suspension of disbelief at all, it just makes them seem more real. This is probably why Toby has stated he won’t be making plushies of any of the Lightner characters; It’s to further this idea that they’re more like us than we’d normally think. I agree that it’s annoying how a lot of theories tend to lean towards “player bad”, and I highly doubt that will be how the game pans out. I mean, Toby clearly has put emphasis on how important it is to choose to do good things in Undertale, and making a game that essentially has the core message of “playing this game is unethical” doesn’t really seem like his style, and it isn’t likely to be the whole point of the story, either. But that’s not necessarily what a “player vs Kris” story even comes down to. What if Kris is the one who summoned the player, for example, which is very much a plausible theory at this point? What if, even if they’re not happy with the arrangement now, they are able to figure out how to actively work with the player later down the line? Hell, the fact that Kris is often mentioned as being really good at video games kind of makes me think this will be the case. I think you’re right that Deltarune will have more of a focus on what the player isn’t able to do, unlike Undertale, which focuses on what they can. Or, more accurately, what Undertale doesn’t directly emphasize; I think it’s still part of the subtext of the game. My guess is that Deltarune will have not just elements of how we are in control of Kris, but also how the game is in control of US. We may be able to control Kris’s actions, but we only have control to a limited extent; We can’t speak as them most of the time, we can only perform certain actions, and we ultimately only have control of them because of the rules that have been set up by the game itself. If the Goner body suddenly showed up and we could possess it instead, we absolutely would, but do we get the option? No, and I think that part of the equation will become much more important later on. Also, with suspension of disbelief the burden is SIGNIFICANTLY on the audience and not the author; Yes, authors can do things that make it difficult to maintain, such as characters in horror movies doing stupid things, but they also know that the audience is capable of handling a little bit of fuckery. It’s ultimately on the audience to accept that whatever is happening is happening in the world of fiction. Personally, I find the idea of Kris maybe being a little peeved at being puppeted around in a video game… extremely believable, actually? I don’t even need to suspend my disbelief because I barely have any in the first place. That’s a reasonable reaction for a person to have in that situation, even though the situation itself is fantastical. Therefore it doesn’t break the logic at all. In short, I agree with you that the player’s control of Kris will not be the main focus of the narrative, or at least will only form a part of that focus. But I cannot agree that its meta elements as an inclusion in the narrative would inherently weaken their story. Toby Fox has already created a fantastic game that broke many of the rules of storytelling, and I have no doubt he is capable of doing the same again.

There’s no reason to believe there is necessarily a barrier between the narrative and meta-narrative; in both games, the two are blended together. Saving and loading is simultaneously a game mechanic and an in-universe ability; there’s no reason why it can’t be viewed as both. In Deltarune, it seems clear that the Dark Worlds are fictional worlds that exist within another fictional world - fiction itself is made a theme of the narrative. So there’s no need to insist upon separating narrative and meta-narrative, both can work together and even build on each other on a thematic level.

a video by sock muppet claimed that gaster and goner kid are forgotten by being long dead not deleted from the world when i heard you say the meta and regular narratives are layered it clicked i came to the conclusion : the goners represent both being forgotten by time and scrapped/unused by the game developer

Personally, I disagree with the notion that it just being the player is equivalent to throwing the plot in a wood chipper. DDLC’s narrative doesn’t matter because it’s discarded by the end. The climax is nothing but Monika talking directly to the player and then being deleted. Even after things “go back to normal,” Sayori becomes self aware. Deltarune’s climax could still be focused on the narrative even if the player was the one possessing Kris. Though this would certainly be more difficult to pull off than keeping the narrative and meta-narrative seperate.

So basically there's a Doylist vs Watsonian explanation for everything in both games.

Can't say I agree with the idea that the separation of the narrative from the meta-narrative is integral to keeping suspension of disbelief. You just need to extend it to yourself, I like the idea of layers for example when it comes to Deltarune's world, the dark world being a layer under the light world, while our own is another one above it. That can allow for us to play as ourselves without being overtly mentioned. The real problem with games like DDLC, in my opinion, is that they're too obvious, that's what kills interest. I still think Undertale also has us playing as ourselves, as the genocide route clearly seperates us from Chara, but it isn't shoving it in our face, and I think it's possible for Deltarune to do the same. That's why I don't think it has to be an in-universe character. The biggest problem with the "character from the Deltarune universe" interpretation is that Deltarune has us do things/pick options that only make sense in the context of having played Undertale, such as the dialogue options with Sans and Undyne, or the bake sale comment. I could wave it off if it was a one-off thing, but it's a reoccurring event, and it's especially emphasized when considering the Deltarune website used to say "This is intended for people who have completed UNDERTALE." ( shorturl.at/hoIQ8 ). Clam-girl telling us back in Undertale's switch version that the day we meet "Suzy" is fast approaching, followed by the literal summoning of the red soul at the beginning of the game leads me to believe there isn't a lot of room for interpretation. If it were a character, it would have to be the same character in both Undertale and Deltarune.

The player being involved in the story doesn't break suspension of disbelief

This is one of the things that confuse me the most out of all the theory themes, while I do feel like there will be some sort of narrative explanation, I disagree with most theories that try to uncover who is exactly possesing Kris if it's not the player. I understand where both sides come from but I really don't think we can define Deltarune's ending and overall plot right now while not being completely and utterly wrong.

To really deconstruct your argument here, I am going to argue that you fundementally misunderstand the metanarrative stucture of Delatrune. Probably the biggest counterargument to this entire video is the point that, as a writing device, Toby uses the metanarrative specifically to pull the player to be MORE invested into the regular narrative then less invested. You might argue that this violates the rules of suspension of disbelief, but your actually wrong about that too. While you are right that suspension of disbeleif *sometimes* works that way, you are wrong about this being a universal truth that cannot be violated. To put it simply, Toby doesn't break your suspension about the disbelief of his world. He breaks your suspension of disbelief of the real world. Plainly, drawing attention to the player, as toby does it, is done to break your assumptions about where the fourth wall lies. Broadly, I think something you are missing about your mental model is that players assume that there is some kind of intermediary between them and their actions, a homunculus if you will. The reason why people feel comfortable doing horrible and reprehensible things even when immersed in a videogame, is that they mentally try to distance themselves from their homunculus. You tell yourself that the person you are playing isn't *you*, and that any horrible things you do in the game are not morally reproachable to you, because "you" are not your homunculus. You are simply "playing" a character, and nobody can hold you, the real, human you, accountable for your actions. Toby's entire body of work can be argued to entirely be interested in destroying the homunculus dynamic between the player and the game to make them accountable for their actions. The entire point of undertale is, in a sense, to destroy this idea that the player can exist as removed from the consequences of their actions. In undertale, every effort is made so that "you", not the avatar you are acting as, have to face retribution and consequences for their horrible deeds. In this way, when the proverbial fourth wall is broken, it does not remind you that the game is not real, but it makes you forget that reality is real. Your control over this piece of media you thought you had mastery over asserts that you are, in fact, powerless. It takes you from a nigh omniscient God of the world, with more knowledge and capability then any mortal should have, to completely at its mercy. You are not reminded that the game is, in fact, a game, you are made to truly forget that it is a game. In essence, its not the disbelief that breaks, its the suspension. Of course, we can still intellectually state that the media is fiction- I'm not saying the intent is to actually change what you think reality is. But I am essentially arguing that- the metanarrative isint here to remind you that the game is fiction, its to make you forget that its fiction.

So basically, the situation needs to be similar to Undertale in that the entity ("Chara") controlling the protagonist (Frisk) has both an in-universe representative that makes sense for the narrative (Asriel's adopted sibling) and an out-of-universe representation that makes sense for the metanarrative (the player). Either that, or Toby Fox needs to prove you wrong and show that he IS somehow capable of blending the narrative and metanarrative together without diminishing either of them.

the entire second half made me think this: i disagree. but, please, continue

narrative and metanarrative are not mutually exclusive, the latter is a subset of the former, it's impossible to have metanarrative without narrative

The whole time I was watching this video, I just kept thinking "but wouldn't it be so cool if there was a game that could combine the meta narrative and the narrative to make them one in the same", but then I was like "oh, that's just what Toby Fox is doing with Deltarune". Toby's first game was one that had both a meta narrative and a narrative, heavily intertwined with one another(the concept of Chara representing the player but also being their own character for one, as well as Flowey straight up going full meta as he takes control of your game itself to crash it and break the intro sequence), but also still being able to be analyzed on their own. It makes sense to me for his next step to be creating a unique game where the meta narrative and the narrative combine fully. You don't have to like it. I can't make you like anything. But I really don't understand how a meta narrative intertwining with the narrative itself automatically destroys your suspension of disbelief. If anything, me being a character in Deltarune possessing Kris while also being a real human person playing the game just makes me invested in these characters more! It helps me to feel that my actions genuinely affect these pixels on my screen. It extends the universe of the game outside my computer to include me in it, and that's what makes meta stories like Deltarune gripping to me. In the example of Doki Doki Literature club, sure the game explicitly calling to attention how fake and moldable the reality is can make me lose interest in some of the girls, but it also has the effect of making me double down on my investment in Monika as a character. I can empathize with her plight to be real and make a real connection with the only other person she knows that is aware of how her reality is a game. I think it's kind of in poor taste to look at only one example of how a meta narrative and a regular narrative couldn't coexist and then declare that the two are completely impossible to combine. You can have that opinion all you want, I just don't think it's fair to assume that no one could ever do it right. I think Toby is a deconstructionist storyteller at heart. He likes to take tropes and concepts that have been done and examine them in order to break them down into their finest details, and then he builds his stories off of that. Frankly, I don't understand why you assume that Toby inserting a meta narrative into his actual narrative is automatically a bad writing decision just because you haven't seen it done well before. If you went up to someone in 2010 and explained Undertale's plot to them, they would probably be confused at how you could be invested in a game that relies on the breaking of your suspension of disbelief to experience the full story of the game. After all, the Genocide route is a secret route that requires a lot of willing effort and determination on the player's behalf to see through, and is not something that would come as easily or naturally as a Neutral or Pacifist route. It only makes sense when looked through a completionist lens, and done by someone wanting to see every little detail the game has to offer, someone with a "perverted sentimentality" to quote our good buddy Chara. Have a little faith in Toby, alright? He made Undertale, he knows his stuff. (Side tangent, give Oneshot a try! It pretty much does the exact same thing I'm talking about, where you the player are a character in the game possessing(sort of) the protagonist, and your actions are both directly attributed to you and affect the ingame characters. In my opinion, it renders a lot of the points you made about DDLC proving meta narratives and regular narratives not being able to coexist. Granted, you may not agree with me or even like it, but I think it would at least let you understand this angle of Deltarune analysis more.)

Dude, I understand what you're talking about, but I think you're straw-manning some of the criticism. I agree that there should be a narrative explanation when a moment is also something meta, but it's not like every solitary aspect of a story like this needs to be an even split. The soul possessing Kris being the player doesn't have to be the only explanation for it to be very evident that the soul represents the player in a very direct way. Hollow Knight flirted with this concept when referring to the crowdfunding donors as "higher beings from another world" in game. Something similar can be happening in deltarune. Kris could be possessed by some nebulous higher being summoned from another dimension in the story while we as the player see the commentary about how people interact with fiction. There are a few parallels between the narrative of what the characters are going through and the meta narrative of what the players are going through. Both narratives deal with a loss of control, corrupted purpose, and how one interacts with things that they create. I disagree that DDLC was trying to toe the line between a narrative and a meta-narrative. It was all meta. The normal part was there to lull the player into a false sense of security to better catch them off guard later. That can only work once, and that's why it's so easy to skip things in DDLC. As for the extras in DDLC+, it was narrative in nature but also strong in its themes, more about how the story can provide different perspectives. The extras were cutscenes, there was no gameplay at all. I think the disconnect comes when you read theories about a character representing the player and talking about them like they're silly and irrelevant. I know that because that's how you talked about my theory in your theory ranking. Two things can be true at the same time. There can be a pronounced meta commentary while still having characters and a plot the audience is able to be invested in. I think Toby Fox is ambitious enough to make a meta-narrative worth caring about.

So you're saying that a game cannot mix narrative with meta narrative as a narrative requires a suspension of disbelief which a meta narrative destroys. This being your reasoning on why the player is not truly present in Deltarune's narrative. My major issue with this is that a suspension of disbelief is only required in media that includes the reader/viewer/player in an unbelievable way. That is where Deltarune's very clever writing comes into the picture. As crazy as it may sound; there is nothing logically false about the player's presence in Deltarune, as it only utilizes the fundamental presence any player has in a video game, that being their input into a computer. It does this by making the player's presence simply their disembodied inputs into their keyboard (the soul, which could either have preexisted in the game with the player's inputs imposed on it or simply the form that the player's inputs take in the game's world) that are "connected" to Deltarune's world. Therefore, Deltarune is capable of having both a narrative and meta narrative as the narrative of Deltarune remains logically valid without requiring a suspension of disbelief. Through this incredible innovation in story telling it can recognize the player's presence while also maintaining a valid narrative.

About DDLC I myself got invested in both the normal narrative and the meta narrative. I can see how someone would not like the meta narrative HAS to be acknowledged by us and you made some good points. I guess I never thought about it like that in Deltarune because as I said with DDLC that doesn't bother me personally.

I respectfully disagree with the DDLC argument. I personally still loved the characters from the game and seeing a version of them without meta narrative involved was a very sweet and got me invested in them a bit more. The meta narrative may also lead to an in-universe explanation as show in DDLC+, so Dan may have seen the back lash and is retconing the story a bit. Either way, I myself have enjoyed the story. As for Deltarune... I kind of agree. I believe Kris is being controlled by a device of some kind, and the player is in control of said device. Either the soul is the device or the device is inside the soul. So I'm kind of in-between.

This is a very well put together video, you explained your points very succinctly and I could see myself being swayed into this thought if I didn't have any opinions on this before. However, I really still disagree with your assertion that the player can't be a part of the main narrative of Deltarune. Deltarune is a fundamentally different story from Undertale, so why should it follow the exact same rules that story did, where the narrative and meta-narrative are on equal footing? If the player is part of the narrative, that doesn't automatically mean all suspension of disbelief is gone. You use The Stanley Parable and imscared as examples of meta-narratives that don't have a big focus on the regular narrative, and I agree completely! However, you use those two examples to express that the meta-narrative can't exist AT ALL in a story trying to tell a regular narrative, which I believe is just a fundamentally two-dimensional way of viewing things. OneShot has a narrative that heavily involves a meta-narrative, with the player literally being the God of the world. Does this mean the other stories unrelated to the player are automatically meaningless just because of the heavy involvement of the meta-narrative, or that Niko's own backstory and feelings can't be taken seriously either because of this? Of course not! In fact, the meta-narrative strengthens the regular narrative by fleshing out the world in ways that couldn't be done outside of the medium of video games, and comparing yourself to Niko in a way that helps you connect with them on a seemingly personal level. OFF is another game which does this same thing. The game outright states you, the player, are controlling The Batter at the very beginning, the Batter talks directly to you at several points, and at the end, The Judge chastises you (and the Batter, but mostly you) for killing so many innocent creatures and people. You can even choose to take control of The Judge to defeat The Batter if you so choose. Once again, this doesn't ruin the main narrative OFF intends to tell, rather it strengthens it and increases its depth and impact. I think using these as evidence for how the meta-narrative and regular narrative work in tandem, like how you used DDLC as an example of how it doesn't work, is a perfectly valid reasoning on how this could work. This being said, why can't Deltarune do the same? Why does the entity controlling Kris have to be in the universe of the game, when so many signs in the games dialogue point towards a force outside of the entire universe controlling them? Especially considering all the evidence there is towards the player actually existing (Mystery Voice asking for the vessel name, then your own name; Noelle not recognizing the voice coming out of Kris; PLAYERTown; etc). I think if the narrative and the meta-narrative were separated exactly the same as in Undertale, then it'd just be crossing paths that Undertale already walked upon. I don't see Toby as the kind of person to use the exact same idea in the exact same way to express a similar point; rather, I feel like he's setting up a further deconstruction and analysis in the meta in a more direct way, corely tied to the player's involvement, rather than a more secondary viewpoint. (edit) also, I think using the scene at the end of Chapter 1 as the ONLY piece of evidence for the Player Kris theory is... Rather disingenuous. There are so many more examples that point to it that you seemingly just ignore, and I don't think that's a very truthful reading of why so many people believe this. (Miscellaneous note: I also feel like Gaster's Twitter Takeovers (tm) being worded and continuing with the game's own dialogue is a sign that it has to be us, the player, directly involved. Unless someone in the Deltarune universe has our version of Twitter and is reading the latest Deltarune updates or something like that lol.) (Also, critics not liking the first hour of DDLC is almost exclusively chalked up to people who don't normally like dating sims playing the game just for the meta narrative. Deltarune is a much different situation, being much longer, having an already dedicated fanbase from Undertale, and being released in chapters)

So basically, you're not able to hold empathy for fictional characters that you KNOW are fictional characters? I don't like that tbh I feel like it's not very hard to hold space for characters even if you know they "don't matter" like every story "doesn't matter" if you think about it like that.

I have loved Jaru's content for a long time, I have always respected his way of approaching analysis of the lore and theorycrafting. It is because of these aspects that I think deeply about what I am being told. And this leads me to say that I think that his interpretation of this is flawed in a few places. The Meta-Narrative and Narrative stories existing at the same time in Undertale does not make them separated. In fact, neither work without the other. Being called "saving and loading" in the narrative, and not any number of other words that could be used to describe it, only works like it does because the meta-narrative of the player literally saving and loading, and their expectations of those mechanics, and the meta-narrative is only a narrative because the story of game includes said meta-narrative aspects into it. These concepts aren't being discussed seperately because the narrative is not the only part of the games whole story, and similarly, the meta-narrative is not the game's whole story. Both have to be taken together to form the full game. To use Jaru's buffet metaphor, sure you can only pick out the narrative foods, just as you can only pick out the meta narrative foods, and both parts can be equally delicious, but if you don't try both, you aren't experiencing the full buffet. Jaru says that the meta-narrative stays out of the narrative of the game, but this isn't always true. For example, one of the most impactful moments in many playthroughs of Undertale is reloading a save to, well, _save_ Toriel after killing her in a first encounter. After the fight, when Flowey comments on both the narrative aspect of the human reloading a save to escape consequences, but this scene is only so impactful because it also applies to the player's actions meta-narratively. At the same time, Flowey's words have both a narrative and a meta-narrative meaning, Flowey is talking about both narratively reloading a save, and meta-narratively reloading a save. These aspects are also extremely present in the Photoshop Flowey fight, the final boss of the first ending the player will always get. When Flowey shatters the UI the player has been using to to save, the meta-narrative is pretty much all there is for the player to interpret, Flowey is breaking parts of the game as if they were physical objects. This is not to say any character is aware of their state of being in a video game, I don't believe any character is, but rather that the story of the game cannot be understood through a purely narrative or purely meta perspective. This is not to say that the meta-narrative is ever present. But aspects of both the narrative and meta-narrative fail if they are not both taken to be present. Undertale uses the meta-narrative player's ability to reset the game at any point to double down on all the sweet, endearing moments of the game that drew many players in. If the meta-narrative isn't true at the same time as these narrative moments, that devalues the player's choice to reset/not reset the world. The same rules can apply to Deltarune. When Kris not being the player character is first revealed, it is after a long story full of fun adventures. The story reveals the meta-narrative at the exact time it makes the player think about everything that has happened narratively in a completely new perspective. The narrative moments are twisted in a new light by the meta-narrative reveal, and the meta-narrative reveal is only so surprising and impactful because of the narrative up to that point. The same criticism of Doki Doki Literatue Club that Jaru simplifies down to it being a problem with the meta-narrative can also be said about Undertale. Why does a player care about a fictional world if the story, both narrative and meta narrative, tells the player that their choices don't matter? Because the narrative along the way makes the meta narrative more meaningful, and the meta narrative reflects and gives more meaning to the emotional narrative.

yeah I really tried, but it really feels like you made up a rule, and then said "see look it has to follow that rule" when I don't thin ktaht was itnented. the game is meta, in it's very core, both undertale and delatrune.

In regards to DDLC, I don't really feel this is as good of an example as you think it is because of the genre it disguises itself as. Ultimately, DDLC is a partial deconstruction of the anime dating SIM, and in particular, A female option centric one. A genre that has a reputation for being "trashy", A stigma that DDLC has no interest in shaking off (in fact, apparently the writer said he made the MC come off as a little bit creepy intentionally, which I feel like was a bad writing choice that could deserve his own essay, but it adds to that image). Ultimately, If you're not into slice-of-life, wifu-bait dating sims, then DDLC isn't going to change your mind, even if the meta narrative never existed. Because they're just not into this type of story, there are inevitably going to view the game trying to trick them into thinking it is this type of story as a waste of time. However, if you're like me and have at least a partial interest in this type of stuff now, then I would argue the normal narrative is essential to the meta narrative, because it makes the other girls feel real, which not only adds to the sting of Monica corrupting and then deleting them, but also brings in the question if she is a hypocrite, given how she is ultimately of the same nature as the other girls. In fact, after deleting Monica, she reveals that she kept a backup of all of the other girls, because she couldn't bring herself to truly erase them, which goes against your point "if she couldn't be invested, then how could the player", because ultimately, even if the characters are artificial, they are still implied to be "real" in some sense. (In this way, there is still some need for suspension of disbelief, in the sense that you need to not acknowledge the fact that RonPi can't actually accidentally make sapient AIs. It is also implied that the only reason why Monica became self-aware is because she was the head of the literature club, And literally any of the other girls would have also became self aware if they were the head of the literature club.) While I don't find it out of the question that some people legitimately feel that the reveal of the meta narrative rendered the normal narrative "pointless", as suspension of disbelief can be subjective like that, from how I heard most people talk about this particular critique, it really sounds like if the meta narrative never existed, then they would just hate the game. (It doesnt help that, honestly, the main narrative is just sort of alright. I would still say it's good, but it's nothing particularly stand out. Which makes sense, because it was ultimately written to be held up by the meta narrative anyway. They're kind of two sides of the same coin in this way, one cannot truly be great without the other.)

The only thing required for the metanarrative and narrative to be connected to each other would be for a link from the real world and game world to be connected. Like by a survey program. Once you agree in canon that the 2 worlds are connected then you could easily be a character in the game without upsetting the narrative. So the player being the only character controlling kris does make sense. And given the setup it would honestly require some suspension of disbelief for the soul to be controlled by another who isn’t us but does move the soul in the exact way as us in a game that acknowledges our existence in the first 5 minutes.

Jaru, I know you get alot of hate for your theories, but I've always enjoyed watching them. You're clearly very passionate about what you're doing and I respect that.

Weirdly enjoyable to watch your road to understanding the need for a proper explanation of "narrative" and "meta-narrative". I think many people, when asked if they know what these concepts mean, would probably answer it somewhat correctly, but taking the time to thoroughly explain it was a great approach on your part! Also appreciate how you decided not to include much more speculation on the video itself, as that could probably sidetrack many people from what I think was the most important part, both the explanation AND your justifications for WHAT you theorize and HOW you theorize. A necessary video, and a really good one too, it was cool to follow the trajectory you went through to actually do it, a proper motivation!

I don't see why I can't be invested in the characters while enjoying a meta-narrative. I played undertale with the assumption that the game was talking directly to me, and I still cared about the story and characters through every run I played. I think DDLC isn't a super valid example because the narrative is purposefully discarded to completely subvert the story to the meta-narrative, it wasn't even trying to give the narrative any importance by the end of the game. I don't think deltarune is going for a "the world is literally a game" approach though, I think the deltarune world would still take itself seriously and just have the player as an actor in the story, rather than making the whole story revolve around them, and this would allow people to still care about the characters and the world while acknowledging their place in it. The game does ask you for your own name at the start after all, I couldn't believe Toby Fox would just throw that out without making use of it at least once. Honestly I hate to say it but I think this is a you problem Jaru, many of us already play with the assumption of a meta-narrative

Interesting, I get your point but I feel like currently we don't have nearly enough evidence that someone else is possesing Kris. I understand that focusing more on the meta aspects is a pretty unusual for Toby but I don't necessarily think having these moments would ruin the experience. Yes, you can argue it would make the regular narrative less important but it doesn't have to be the case. I guess we need to wait and see who is right, we definitely need more information lol

I don't feel it's right to use Undertale as justification in this instance considering deltarune seems to be deliberately bleeding the lines a little more. I remember back when it first came out and the Undertale tale twitter account became "hijacked" and then we got to download something called survey_program. To me that feels like we the player are being directly spoken to and directly tied into this narrative as a character.

Take so hot it makes the core look like Snowdin

Respectfully Jaru, I don't think you really did the evidence for the player having a role in the narrative enough justice to adequately debunk it. There are mountain piles of evidence but the only one you really acknowledged was the cutscene at the end of chapter 1, and while that scene is a good piece of evidence it's far from the only evidence or reason we believe the player has a role in this. This video felt more like you're rejecting the idea on the basis that you don't want it to be true because you think it would ruin the game's narrative rather than actually getting into the evidence for it.

Jarujaru wouldn’t like earthbound I think cause it does have the player as a cannonical invisible friend who aids and helps guide the characters. Mother 3 also does this to a much lesser extent. 2 games that definitely were an inspiration for deltarune.

Jaru, before i even watch this, you fundamentally changed how to approach meta narrative, and how to theorize and talk efficiently about medias i love in general. Thank you💛

I understand your point entirely, however I feel like you don't understand that most fans of undertale simply don't see it that way, it's the same reason DDLC is very popular, most people just don't care if the line between meta narrative and normal narrative is broken

Hmmm Seeing everything you said in this video, I wonder: How do you interpret the opening scene of the game? Geoff, as you like to call him, explicitly asks for your name, separately to the name of the vessel. Not cheeky "name the fallen child" here, this is straight up 2nd person talk. And your name is the one that's later used for the name of the town. So if Deltarune's player isn't, in some capacity, an in universe character... who's name is that? Because whoever it is, they are definitely suppose to represent the player in the meta nerrative, and whoever it is, they are not named Asriel.

You brought up a good point with how chara and the player are entwined. The thing is, a lot of the fandom definitely sees them as separate. When chara appears at the end of genocide, it's taken less as a representation of what you've become, and more a reveal of the real puppetmaster. Because of this, most interpretations of that route use chara as a sort of scapegoat, not recognizing that it was the player (you) who did it. Basically i believe that toby fox intends to correct this in deltarune. To make sure its clear that these are the consequences of 'your' actions.

3:50 *laughs in “thank you so much for-a-to playing-a my game!”*

this entire video hinges on YOUR personal belief that acknowledgement of the meta-narrative kills suspension of disbelief and is inherently a bad thing when me and i'm betting a lot of people disagree. with you ddlc example when you say critics, you also forget that a lot of people still love the normal narrative despite the meta-ness, you keep acting and preaching the sentiment when earlier in the video you said that having a narrative, and meta-narrative is not mutually exclusive but has a barrier so... why cant meta-narratives, and immersion and suspension of disbelief of the normal narrative not be? Just because you don't like a theory or a writing style, doesn't mean the theory is inaccurate or the writing is flawed.

Jaru I feel bad for you because you just provoked the DDLC Fanbase lol 😂. I actually love DDLC the metanarrative that they force upon me, actually helps my enjoyment of the game and a side story. Like I don’t know if you know the lore behind the side story but it’s pretty much another metanarrative that’s explained via emails of the game developers. But despite that I enjoyed it a lot so personally, I have no issue with having a metanarrative being integrals of the story and I care about the characters all the same. Like with one shot

i personally don't agree though i do understand the point's made. my reason for not agreeing is mostly because i have seen the idea of a meta narrative and normal narrative bleed into each other without ruining the integrity of the normal narrative, (Oneshot and Outcore are my two best examples) therefore i have faith that Toby Fox of all people can also accomplish that type of balance.

This video certainly was interesting but did not change my mind on anything. You probably shouldn't create your own definitions for things, a meta narrative can expand to more than just the game and a player, the creator of the game is often a big part and sometimes other things related to it's development or just random real world topics. You're focusing way to much on the suspension of disbelief, which is something i and many others have never even thought about, being told they are video game characters doesnt change how i feel about the characters at all, the only time that hss come into play is if we as real people should feel regret killing fictional characters which is commenly debated. Hell, i was immesred in the in universe narrative of stanley parable for a while. The player theory was definitely not what people attatched to right after chapter 1. The most popular theory was that kris was possesed by chara and the soul was frisk (somehow) Third entity theory doesn't even seem to be the right term, the whole point of your theory is that there is no player thus only 2 entities: kris and asriel. Third entity theory is more for theories that say when kris is without their soul they are possesed by another character (most commonly theorized to be chara or the knight for some reason) Player and asriel at the same time kind of defeats the point I guess third entity is just called that because the player is so commenly accepted that any other candidate would be a "different" option but still seems like a misuse of the term. More reasons DDLC's narrative flopped is 1. It's very basic, 2. Most people already knew the twist and only played it for that reason and were never interested in a visual novel story, 3. It's implied Monika re-wrote Sayori's code to have all her problems so theres no reason to be invested in her character because there is no reason she acts they way she does, and some could apply for the others. And just because 1 dev failed to execute a story like this doesn't make it an objectively bad idea. There are games that have tried to have both and suceeded (such as there is no game: wrong dimension, and the previously mentioned by other comments: One Shot) (Also IMSCARED does have a normal narrative that connects to the meta narrative it just hasn't been fully solved) Deltarune was already heading in this direction, after chapter 1 a lot of people were under the belief that the entire dark world was a fabrication, but even thinking this they didn't suddenly stop liking the characters. There are already themes of escapism and the need to accept the harsh reality sprinkled throughout deltarune, it's hard to deny the possibility that accepting this world is not real will be an important part of the story, a real personal punch in the gut from toby. I think there is still the possibility that the entity we control is something other than just a manifestation of the player, but saying the player isn't in the narrative is a a statement you can't confirm. The line between narrative and meta narrtive is not as black and white as you think, the kirby franchise never even ackowlages it's meta narrative but if you look at it its clearly dictating a large majorty of the regular narrative. I think a story following this has the potential to be incredible, toby wouldn't be an incompetent writer just because he makes a story that doesn't personally appeal to you. Even if it is as risky subject, that just gives more reason for a talented storyteller like toby to try to tackle it, if anyone can do it its surely toby. Over all theres no reason for everyone to "get on the same page" as you, theres no reason other people should be told to not enjoy stories that combine narrative and meta narrative, everyone has different opinions, so that are so far different from others that it takes a minute to even adjust to coming to terms with the that line of thinking existing for better or for worse. Ultimately the only thing we know for sure about deltarune's story is that it all stems from a fever dream toby had with toby even saying "i HAVE to make that the ending" so anything is possible regardless of writing quality.

I feel like the whole thing about Undertale's narrative on things like SAVING (Flowey talking about SAVING as a power) are things that are supposed to be something like a meta-narrative that is actually a narrative in disguise. Things that the game expects the people to see as 4th wall breaks, but actually are not. The 4th wall wasn't broken once in UNDERTALE (Except for Chara's naming). The control of the player in UNDERTALE is very much possible, BUT it doesn't play a "changing" to the story role, yet. Gaster breaks the 4th wall for the first time, when we connect with him, when he asks for our name. It's like, what Chara is to Flowey, we as the player are to Gaster.

YESSS thank you for giving this it's own video

this is they only video i’m glad isn’t over an hour, because this video NEEDS to be seen by the majority of this fandom.

Ok, I think the way you described the suspension of disbelief was rather odd. It kinda feels like you're saying that narratives are meant to gaslight the viewer into preserving them as real. But obviously, nobody playing thought that anything going on in the story actually happened. The thing is, if something makes it explicit, that it's not real, but people engage with it anyway. That feels like that should be perfect. This also got me thinking of the abstract basic different of the real as opposed to the not real. The reason why Sans isn't real isn't because he's a skeleton that can telaport or because he pixels in a metal box. It's that he doesn't actually have a conciseness. There's no way for him to desingwish pleasure from pain or red from blue or so on. The difference between consuming fiction and consuming(?) real life is in fiction you're the only one actually feeling anything because the characters aren't real. So I say that the importance of a video game and everything for that matter is to affect conciseness. So essentially, because the players of the games are the only ones experiencing it, I don't really think it matters if you're reminded it's not real anyway. Also, I can't wait for the long-awaited sequel to Undertale, called Jaru's definition. Coming fall of 8025.

I have 3 major points that came up while watching 1 I think this is a really simple idea over-explained to the point where it leaves so much more room to be misinterpreted. 2 DDLC is not a good comparison to Deltarune's risk factor 3 You never really provided a strong enough reason that there HAS to be a barrier between the two narratives. 1- Ultimately your point is that there CAN be a meta-narrative, but you'd rather there also be a narrative reason to preserve the balance and separation between meta and non-meta. I think the problem is just people not wanting to be open to other interpretations and less a lack of understanding. I think the entire explanation of Undertale and the barrier up until that point is mostly unnecessary and might lead to people further not understanding. 2- DDLC isnt a great example because like you said, the game discards its own narrative. its a bait and switch, not a mixing of both meta and narrative. The game discards its other self for the horror and intrigue of the new meta. Deltarune doesn't do this. DDLC is more similar to Undertale because it hits you with the meta stuff at the end. It differs because UT then asks you to play again with this meta knowledge for true pacifist (you aren't Frisk) and if YOU discard the narrative, you get Genocide (You are chara). its not a barrier, but a progression of Narrative> Hybrid > Meta. Deltarune has opened up the idea earlier because it's what we expect. now we get to see which way things swing. 3- I agree that there is currently room for speculation either way, but if favoring one side were to mess things up, the Narrative favoritism would hurt more than the meta. Lets just say chapter 5 confirms without a doubt that YOU are controlling Kris. The game has shown us that Kris IS a character with agency before the events of the story (like Frisk) with characters commenting on what Kris would normally do. How does this info change the narrative? -It reveals whats happening to Kris. The narrative is in tact whether this entity is Us or a 3rd party. What does it do to the meta-narrative? -It means we have been forcing Kris to act out of character and they Physically don't like it. that could change how we feel about past or future chapters but it doesn't destroy the world even if we question how the game rationalizes this fact. it also makes us question who speaks in the intro because we still had to make a character. I will say though, Deltarune hasn't put Meta elements into mechanics like UT yet, so narratively the player controlling Kris to them just means some unseen force is doing it. We dont have the separation problem of "saving, the power" and "saving, the mechanic". Now lets say the opposite is true. chapter 5 reveals Gaster/Ralsei/Asriel etc is controlling Kris via the soul. the narrative result is the same, but now the intro is weird because we had to make a character only to be refused. That's weird if that human soul represented a monster like Gaster or Asriel. I understand it could be another person hijacking the soul but then it's weird that Kris is removing their OWN soul rather than a foreign one. We also are going into this UT-like game EXPECTING Meta elements. I think the strict idea of a barrier is silly because Deltarune muddied the waters early. It's not trying to trick us like Undertale. It's showing us something isnt right and I think the fact we are debating if its you or someone else DURING the game (and not in hindsight like UT) shows us that Deltarune has faded the barrier and allowed the Meta and the narrative to tangle. Thats not even to mention that So far Deltarune's meta bits have been pockets of meta rather than a large focus. -character creation -end of chapter 1 +2 -post spamton neo -snowgrave -minor npc dialogue It's at the point where its still something you can ignore/ explain away. But i still stand by it not ruining the Narrative side if it leans harder in this direction because at the end of the day we still care about Susie and some other characters

I do like the idea that narrative and meta-narrative are two separate lines that can run parallel to each other or be replaced by each other based on how the story writes and emphasizes one or the other. It’s a nicely calculated way to put together the two elements and say both can be true even if neither is true to the other. Almost like a quantum plot structure or something.

I can understand where you are coming from, but you should not assume that every player will suddenly stop caring for a regular narrative when their suspension of disbelief is broken. A players connection to characters or world does not suddenly become invalid once a game or story puts a focus onto a meta-narrative. For example in the video you claimed that DDLC failed to have both a regular narrative and a meta-narrative and that the regular narrative was pointless. But for me and probably some other players, I was first interest in the meta-narrative and did not care about the regular narrative until I was fully invested in the meta narrative and wanted to understand the character more and thus the regular narrative more. If Deltarune does have a meta-narrative with the player controlling Kris it does not make the world any lass impactful on the player because of the memories and experience we earned playing the game. Kris being controlled by the player would certainly have a more negative impact on the in universe characters then Kris being controlled by someone other than the player and could break someone suspension of disbelief even more. But it also depends on the person/player and their investment in the story, their tolerance to having their suspension of disbelief broken, and how drastic the shift is from a regular narrative to a meta-narrative because just like pain everyone has different tolerances to having their suspension of disbelief broken. I also have a question that you may have already answered in the comments of the Ralsei video but it's about the vessel creation sequence and Asriel possessing Kris's soul. Once the vessels is done and you are given the option to both name it and it's creator why are you given the choice to put what is intended to be the players own name as the creator or vessel? If your theory is correct the true name of the creator of the vessel should be Asriel and not the players name or anything else but the voice just calls it "an interesting coincidence" when put in and nothing more. It could be a similar twist to Chara's reveal in Undertale but in Deltarune, Asriel is mentioned by multiple characters and if Asriel is the creator of the vessel shouldn't his name be replaced by the name put in as the creator of the vessel like Chara's name and castle town? If there is going to be someone else possessing Kris and not the player, it would make since for it to be another character similar to Chara and not Asriel.

This is more of a lecture than a theory to me. Absolutely loved that.

new jaru video?? and it's NOT 1 billion hours long????? awesome.

What do you mean the barrier should be in place? We destroyed it at the end of the last game.

One thing to note is that the generally understood third entity theory has a very different purpose than the third entity theory you are suggesting. The third entity theory puts the third entity under control of Kris only at the time of opening the dark fountain as an explanation for why Kris would open a dark fountain even after a weird route run. This is pretty much opposite of the third entity theory you seem to be presenting, which puts the third entity under control at the same time we control Kris. I'd love if you could confirm or deny this, since it seems like a very big potential point of misunderstanding for most people.

Okay, so I think a meta-narrative breaking our suspension of disbelief is a little black and white. Best example I can use is Oneshot. It's a game where the player is referred to as God, and the character you're playing as is the messiah. The first half of the game is a semi-normal narrative, except for occasionally Niko (the player character) will talk to you and ask you for advice. You are treated as a character within the game while being acknowleged as someone in control. However, there are a few puzzles that require you to access files on your actual computer. Without getting into spoilers, the ending of the game does become way more meta, but it leads you to believe that the characters that you've met throughout the game are sentient. It's able to have a meta narrative while also still asking you to keep your suspension of disbelief. It really felt like I was working WITH Niko and the other characters, rather than just being a player to a game. I still don't think the player will have any major role in DELTARUNE if any at all, but to say that you can't have both a suspension of disbelief and a meta-narrative is just wrong. You kept mentioning Stanley Parable, well that requires you to believe that you're really interacting with the narrator. If you went into the game without that suspension of disbelief, you wouldn't get that same satisfaction of annoying the narrator or finding some way to break the game just to see how he would react. In a horror game like I'mscared you have to have some level of belief in order to fear what the game throws at you. I know several people who can go through horror games without getting scared because "its just a game". Basically, no matter what you are required to have some level of susepnsion of disbelief. In fact, I'd argue that games that directly speak to me require the most suspension of disbelief because I now have to believe that this game can not only interact with me, but that the characters inside have some level of sentience and intelligence. I could go on and on about other instances where the meta-narrative is a part of the main narrative and still requires suspension of disbelief, like deadpool constantly interacting with the readers. I think I've made my point though. TLDR: Suspension of Disbelief and Meta-narratives are not mutually exclusive and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

I think Deltarune could have both narrative styles, and that it wouldn't ruin the game or fail to find the balance which Undertale did. I'm really not sure why you seem to think it's impossible for that goal to be reached by Toby... I think you should question why Undertale and DDLC are different in terms of how much people enjoy their traditional non-meta narratives. I assume people don't like DDLC's traditional narrative as much because it was moreso a means to an end. The 'end' in question, _being_ the meta-narrative. While on the other hand, Undertale's traditional narrative was much more thought out, engaging, and expansive. Why couldn't Deltarune accomplish the same? _Especially_ when we consider how many chapters we have left? I don't know. I, for one, _do_ think Toby is able to accomplish this in a different enough way than how he did in Undertale, while still making it feel worth our time... (I'm not opposed to your theory either btw, but my disconnect comes from is from how adamant you are that this would break Deltarune's story or just make it bad, when we know for a fact that this kind of thing can be pulled off)

Your view seems to hinge on the idea that recognizing the player's role inherently breaks immersion, suggesting a strict divide between game and reality. However, consider the nuanced approach games like OneShot take, where the player and main character interact in a way that acknowledges the player without disrupting the immersive world. I think it's about subtlety. To me the assertion that acknowledging the player's existence means: "this is just a game" doesn't really hold up, in fact I can see a path where it could even increase the parasocial bond we have with the characters, because now we're not just roleplaying someone who happens to feel the same as us and we might just have to resolve our differences with Kris and show that we care about them aswell. That said I can see your point of view and I understand that perhaps this is just how I feel about it and I have a peculiar way of suspending my disbelief. I enjoyed the video and your take on it.

I somewhat sped through the video so maybe I missed something, but I am not convinced by your point about suspension of disbelief, I'll start by saying that the red soul being controlled by an in universe entity is a reasonable stance, but I cannot see anyone we already know of being a good pick, not only do we need a believable explanation for the possessing, (which, for example, I think your asriel theory fails to provide for reasons you likely have heard too many times) but, whoever the red soul is, they need as much or less characterization than frisk, because if they have too much personality you HAVE to explain EVERY potential player action, both in the normal and weird route, and the story gets bogged down in a way that I personally think would be extremely bad for deltarune as a whole (it's fine for kris because they're possessed, their agency is being stripped so you don't have to rationalize actions they wouldn't do, because they were made to do it) as for the suspension of disbelief thing, you picked DDLC as an example, but DDLC's narrative is voluntarely a pretty generic anime plot in a bland world, so that it's more shocking when the meta aspects appear, if DDLC was played straight with no horror or meta elements, none of us would remember it even exists, cause it's unremarkable on its own merits. You could say that's the price it paid. But that's not a rule Oneshot is a game that directly addresses you the player constantly, the "regular narrative" is that you play the role of quote on quote "god" that guides the "messiah" Niko, a "definitely not a cat" child who woke up in a dying world that lost its sun, holding a lightbulb that could replace it, if he can get to the tower in the center of the world. However at the start of the game you meet a character that is referred to for most of the game as "The Entity", they tell you that the only thing worth saving here is Niko and that your role is to get him home, you encounter the Entity a few times and they make it impossible to ignore the metanarrative, they speak to you through real windows text pop-ups, give you clues to puzzles by putting things in your files, changing your desktop background or telling you to mess with the game window, through subtler wording of course, (unless you ask for hints, eventually they just tell you) In the more recent steam release, Niko reacts to when you close the game, telling you that everything went dark for a moment, in the original version manually closing the game even once kills Niko permanently, hence the name "Oneshot" I won't spoil too much cause it's a great game and everyone should play it, but my point is, you can't forget that oneshot is a game, but that doesn't make its characters uninteresting, all the main characters are genuinely enjoyed by fans, even the entity themselves Oneshot isn't perfect, maybe even in the aspects I praised, but it proves that you can make an unignorable metanarrative AND have engaging characters, and I believe Toby fox has the skill to do that

I just spent 10+ hours watching mollystars device theory and I think you will like it! it gives a new perspective to that scene. great vid btw!

After much consideration after watching this video, I have to ask: What's the problem here? Why would Deltarune's narrative and character arcs be invalidated by intertwining both itself with a Meta one? Why would that be a cardinal, indisputable flaw of the story? Why is this the drawn line for one's suspension of disbelief?

claiming that the meta narrative focus on the player control "throws the non-meta narrative in the trash" is imo an extremely poor and limited point of view for understanding a story

tl;dr: the meta-narrative would be more subversion of expectations, less breaking suspension of disbelief; an in-your-face meta-narrative isnt bad if its the point, and in deltarune it is. should be it. continue at your own risk i want to start of by saying this: i have massive respect for you. i barely ever agree with your theories, but i enjoy them immensely *because* you go down a road of insanity im too much of a coward to. your videos are amazing and i wouldnt change them for a thing, including this one. i agree with you on most things you said today. everything you said about undertale is 100% solid in my opinion. i like your definitions for narrative and meta-narrative, specifically in context of ut;dr. now. i never even considered that there was a miscommunication happening before, as i typically ignore negative comments. i do now. let me be clear, i dont think youre stupid. your logic is totally sound, considering the fundamentals youre working with; i just have slightly different fundamentals. i will try to explain thusly. *#1: meta-narrative still needs suspension of disbelief.* maybe i have a different definition of the term, but i dont think so. in my opinion, your suspension of disbelief isnt destroyed through a meta-narrative at all, its just altered. with a narrative, you have to pretend that the story is real. with a meta-narrative, you have to pretend that the game is actually interacting with *you specifically,* in real time, in real life. its the same thing, just slightly different. when a horror game messes with your computer you know that its not actually happening, that when you close the game and/or delete it, everything will be fine. youre still pretending to be part of a fictional story. another example: when you play an immersive sim, your player input is even more integral than in another type of game. you can pretend to be part of that world even more than in another type of game. but youre still pretending. and when you try to do something so wild the game devs didnt account for it, your suspension will be broken, but only then. i hope this makes sense. my point is, even when you as the player are directly pointed out in a game, youre still taking on a role, just not the role of a pre-existing character in that world, but as yourself. when you as the player are pointed out in deltarune, youre playing the role as the being controlling kris, whether that is through another character or as yourself. at least, thats what i thought when i first understood the meta. i didnt think, “oh so everything is just fake then”, i thought, “oh so im part of the story”. maybe it was different for you. *#2: a meta-narrative pushed in the forefront isnt jarring if its the point of the story. an upfront meta-narrative isnt breaking your suspension if its subverting expectations.* if you have set up rules, breaking them is bad, generally speaking. subverting expectations isnt breaking rules, its revealing the actual meaning of said rules. this actually doesnt matter, because when kris pulls out the soul as means of showing to us that were not playing as them but as a character thats controlling them, its setting up a new rule entirely, because it happened in the first chapter of seven. even if that were too late (which in my opinion it isnt because subversion), when you first enter the dark world, save, and see that kris has a save file separate from you, its also setting up a new rule. you might forget about that or set it aside, but when the final scene of ch1 happens, you get reminded. it cant be jarring to reveal that we as the player are a thing that cant be denied for the narrative, because we didnt set up a story to be jarred away from yet (was that even english??). this scene instead *helps set up* that story. *#3: we dont know if the meta-narrative isnt more important than the narrative.* actually, ddlc might be a good example for this. you mentioned that people found it annoying that the narrative part was too long when it didnt matter (and ngl its been a hot minute since i played it so idk but i thought it was fine? considering that slowly breaking apart the narrative is the point, i mean. also, the fact that apparently ddlc+ added more narrative *is* rly annoying, but not bc the narrative wasnt made important enough, but bc it was made not important. like, we know this doesnt matter, thats the point. why are you pretending the narrative is the point and we should have more of it when you told us it isnt. u get what i mean), and the point of that is this: it was annoying because the meta-narrative is more important. what im getting at is that if it takes about 2-4 hours to get to the point, why cant deltarune get to the point at the end of chapter 1? why would that be too long, when the story barely even started and in ddlc it was in comparison longer (in a it felt longer sense, i mean)? we cant say that the meta-narrative isnt the main focus yet, because 1, were only 2 chapters in, and 2, in those chapters we already got mandatory meta-narrative scenes, or at least scenes that scream meta-narrative, whether or not theyre only that. in my opinion, the narrative of deltarune is basically a front the game puts up. not exactly, but its definitely more tied together than in undertale (where its either or not both, i agree with you there), and certainly similar to ddlc. in my opinion, the meta-narrative changing your interpretation of the narrative, or undermining it, if you will, is the point, although undermine is a strong word. *in my opinion,* the narrative is still important, but what makes it deltarune instead of undertale 2 is the fact that it is elevated into a totally different story *through* the meta-narrative. its not undermined at all, actually. when (and this is 10000% gonna happen exactly the way ill describe it) you battle gaster at the end of the game after you took control of the vessel because kris hates you, it, the meta-narrative, will be the reason why in the narrative you will be able to achieve the happy ending all the characters deserve. you will care about the narrative more *because* of the meta-narrative. because otherwise it will be just another rpg, to be unnecessarily dramatic. i hope i made my view point clear. i hope that you will read this and take it to heart. i think all your theories would still work, as i watched them thinking we were on the same page anyway. maybe this wouldnt change your mind. thats totally fine, i made this comment mostly for myself anyway. and i also think that any form of the third entity would still work, in your case, maybe it could be another form of a chara character (haha funny pun) or something. anyway. i hope you have a lovely day. as much as i love how depressed you sound in your intros (bc its relatable), i dont wanna sour your fun time with negativity. love your content, never change, goodbye

I think another miscommunication that happens around this topic is the term "Third entity theories". When I use that term I'm specifically refering to theories that suggest that something other than the player is possessing kris *in addition* to the player (or a meta stand-in for the player); e.g. saying that when kris rips out their soul, that's not actually kris doing that, but something else. Those kinds of theories tend to make both kris's characterization and the apparent metanarrative less clear so I don't think are very likely to be what's being set up. However the idea that there is an entity posessing kris which isn't necassarily the literal player (though sometimes it's said that "the player" is controlling *that* entity) is distinct from that (and sometimes refered to as "indirect diegesis") but sometimes also lumped in with "third entity theories" and criticised as though it were the same, when the same criticisms don't actually apply. Additionally, I think there are theories involving the player (probably most, in fact) that can definitely be interpreted under the indirect player diageses lens (e.g. "kris summoned a demon" or "the angel is the player") but often still refer to the entity posessing kris as "the player", without actually requiring the literal player to be diegetic. But without considering that lens they may be prematurely dismissed.

Thinking about it (and reading someone else's thoughts) had me realizing there's a likely chance that people being upset regarding DDLC likely isn't due to the amount of narrative vs metanarrative, but rather the amount of stuff you have to get through before the horror, considering the game starts with “This game is not for children or those who are easily disturbed.” and has a whole hour and a half of horrorless story before Act 2.

BRO DID I START THIS VIDEO IDEA? I was wondering if you would ever make a video about it thank you

I disagree with the idea that the narrative and meta-narrative cannot overlap. If you acknowledging the player hurts your suspension of disbelief that is simply a skill issue. Furthermore, if there is a non-meta explanation for Kris being controlled, (which is totally possible) there is not enough evidence to understand what it would be, thus the meta-narrative is all that exists currently.

Who says there is a seperation? I dont see it as a given that there is a barrier between metanaritive and narrative in undertale.

There's a certain murder mystery game(I won't actually say which one since it's a massive spoiler) that I think makes a good job arguing that the events of said game being (kind of)fictional doesn't make them less worth caring about or even less "real". All the surrounding context makes it quite different from the situation in Deltarune so it doesn't really go against anything said in the video, but it reminded me of it so I wanted to mention it. Though now that I think about it that game actually manages to do that without ever actually making the player part of the story or making the meta-narrative part of the narrative. It's a whole thing, if you know you know but if you don't this probably reads like gibberish

The difference here can be illustrated by two scenarios: A: The soul inside Kris is controlled by, as an example, Greg from Missouri. Greg is a real person who, according to this meta version of the story, has direct impact on the story of Deltarune. This is not great because Greg is just some dude who doesn't actually care and is eating Funyuns while half paying attention to the game. Someone gifted this to him on Steam, and he'd rather be playing Fifa 27, yet for some reason he is integral to Deltarune's plot. The fate of Kris and others is in the crusty hands of some random guy. B: The soul inside Kris is controlled by (INSERT PLOT REVEAL HERE) and we, as the real world player, are interacting with the Deltarune world via this plot device. This is preferable because it provides in-universe answers to many of the burning questions we've asked about this fictional universe's story. It maintains the legitimacy of the setting and characters we've come to know and love. We're interacting with Deltarune as a compelling force within the game's narrative, but not as Real Person #173690, who is not later revealed to exist to Kris, Susie, etc. The story stays consistent for everyone playing, but commentary can still be made about us as collective real people based upon the decisions we make while playing the role of (INSERT PLOT REVEAL HERE)

I have one major counterpoint to the idea that Toby doesn't blend the narrative and metanarrative, ESPECIALLY within the context of Deltarune- The lines from Deltarune chapter 1 as follows: Ralsei: "Press the boxes onto the switches with [Z]!" Susie: "(Wait, who the hell is [Z]?)" Ralsei, a character in the narrative who is clearly aware that Kris is being controlled, addresses an action that ONLY makes sense to the player of a video game at a computer keyboard. This is not an instruction that narratively makes sense to a character like Susie or even Chara, and in fact Susie questions it because Ralsei didn't only say it to the player- it was an actual, diegetic line of spoken dialogue in-universe to somebody who understands the meaning of "[Z]", which cannot be somebody in-universe. In fact, this scene clearly demonstrates not just that the narrative types ARE blended, but ALSO that it was done intentionally. Remember, the text in brackets is meant to represent someone's internal monologue, not something they say out loud. If Ralsei wanted to communicate with the player and knew that they could read internal monologues- which we know he MUST know, because only one room earlier he uses an internal monologue to say "(Oh, Kris! I just realized Susie missed the tutorial! Next battle, we should show her how to ACT! I think she might really enjoy that!)"- then why would Toby have Ralsei speak it for Susie to hear and react to as well? Toby even reinforces the idea of the player being able to read internal monologues next chapter with the weird route.

The main thing I disagree with you on here is the idea that bringing up the meta-narrative necessarily breaks your investment in the in-game narrative. I do think it is possible for Kris to be solely controlled by the player in a narrative sense by having 1. an explanation in the world of deltarune for how our connection to their soul was formed and 2. clear limits to our power over deltarune and its power over us. That way, meta and in-game narratives mix by bringing the player into deltarune’s world instead of bringing deltarune into the real world. And I also think both the aforementioned requirements for this were already met in the goner maker sequence. It showed that in the world of deltarune there is a character who is extremely powerful. By discarding our vessel and having us sign a contract of sorts (acknowledging the possibility of pain and seizure) we know someone in deltarune’s world has some power of our connection with Kris and with the world in general. And this is a sequence everyone goes through, whether they plan to just play the game through once or scour it for every secret possible. I don’t completely disagree with your conclusion. I think you’ll probably be able to play through all of deltarune without getting too much into the meta-narrative, but I don’t think there needs to be anyone other than the player possessing Kris for that to work. And I certainly don’t think there will be complete and utter separation between meta and in-game narratives, especially since the opening to the game and (I would argue) the end of each chapter are such obvious nods to the meta.

The only thing the post-chapter-1 cutscene shows us is: A. We are either playing as the red soul or as something that controls the red soul. B. The red soul controls Kris when it is inside of them. It seems silly to assert theories as fact when this is really the only stuff we can take at face value. The story isn't even close to done yet, why do we have to get so heated about our theories? Discussing them is so fun, and it really helps me build excitement for future chapters, but it makes me upset when people get angry at one another over it.

when deltarune fully releases I can't wait for your video titled "Where Deltarune fell off" because god this video did not change my views about your theories in the slightest, your ability to enjoy this game when it comes out is gonna come down to your ability to hallucinate non-existant plot threads which I gotta be honest, you are pretty fucking good at having watched all of your videos

I feel like a lot of these comments and Jaru are secretley talking about the same thing and just not realising it. That being said, I'm only here to say that I deeply enjoy the characters of the girls from DDLC despite the fact the "point" of the game couldn't care less about them, I aren't stopped from doing that and stuff like DDLC+ is made for people like me.

A very interesting perspective. To clarify if i understand correctly, you are saying that when we ask “what is possessing Kris,” We can’t just stop at “me the player”, Because we still don’t know what “the player” is from an in-universe perspective? Or, in other words, it’s not so much about there being a “third entity” trying to explore what the “player” as an entity is to begin with? Regardless, I do agree that there is a link missing in explaining how characters the meta elements, the way Determination and “Soul Science” did in Undertale.

I JUST thought "hey, i haven't watched a jaru video in a while, and i have a lot of cleaning to do, lets check his channel... " and you uploaded.

I see you dropped a 7hr joint, I respect it

really compelling video but i don’t see why the player can’t still exist in deltarune’s regular narrative instead of being replaced by something else. i think the game could do something like one shot, where the player is directly aknowledged, yet the game includes it in its regular narrative and stays coherent throughout. it’s not ‘the player exists this is just a game my immersion is ruined’, but more of a ‘the player exists and has godlike control over these characters’ lives here’s how it affects them’ or something so in dr the player in the regular narrative would be treated as some sort of god or demon possessing Kris, all the while still being the player (as in the person playing the game) in the meta-narrative of course no one knows how this is really gonna end so we just gotta wait and see

Let's see how absolutely cooked you'll get for this on Twitter.

Okay so I don’t want to come off as a jerk, but you’ve gotten Meta Narratives completely wrong, I’ll be describing the actual definition of a meta narrative as this weird “Jaru Definition” muddies the water. You’re correct about narratives being just the games story but what you describe in your video is more of a narrative that is meta, a story recognising that it’s is a story or in this case a game recognising it’s a game, a meta narrative is a story about stories a structure born from Modernism, a good example would be the Hero’s journey or the classic case of Guy gets the girl it’s a story that gives context to the story this could also be applied to real life as people often use these narratives to give context and meaning to their lives, meta narratives also don’t have to be a commonly used narrative it can also be a Bespoke meta narrative, something specific that a story or a person builds up. I know you said at the beginning that your working off a unique definition you’ve made, but with how it seems like the deltarune community is already quite confused about meta narratives I think it would be better to describe what you mean without using this term.

I think what you present in this video is a reasonable opinion, but acting like it is in any way more than a simple preference seems weird to me. None of your arguments felt objective to me. I don't need a suspension of disbelief to be engaged with a story. I don't feel like a narrative matters less just because I'm directly inserted into it as a participant. So, I disagree, but I don't think that just makes me "wrong", does it? This reminds me of the ending of a game I played a couple years ago. Naming the game would be a spoiler for that game so I won't. The ending was a reveal that basically everything that happened in the game was part of an in-universe show with the characters being told they never mattered cause they aren't real. They fight against the hosts and end the series by convincing the viewers that just because something isn't real, that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. I liked this ending, but a lot of people felt like this is a "how dare you play the game, player???" moment and hated it. I strongly disagreed since the literal message of the story is that fictional narratives can matter even if you know they're not real. And it's because I agreed with that is why I hold the opinion I stated at the start. I know games are fictional when I play them. Making me aware of this fact in the narrative doesn't make it more fictional than it already was, so doing this is completely fine in my book.

Ok I experienced this thing you sort of said in the video where I was like “oh I guess it didn’t matter that much” in a game recently and I’m unsure how to articulate it. I might come back to this later cause I really wanna talk about it but I’m at work and I have to do stuff so yeah I’m writing a rushed comment here.

yay, another jaru video! this one really helped me understand your thoughts on the player (i was pretty confused before) and now i can safely say that i wholeheartedly agree :) i also don't think it makes much sense that whoever's controlling the soul being harder to guess and more complicated would supposedly be WORSE storytelling; it's actually better that it's so difficult to theorize, as that makes the reveal much more of a surprise! it being just the player would be *way* too easy to guess, especially for a game series with a history of subverting expectations. but in general, i think what's most important for the fandom to remember at the end of the day is that it is just a fictional story, and theorizing is meant to be *fun.* there's really no point in insulting others' ability to read over theorycrafting, we're all just trying to enjoy ourselves, exercise our brains, and share our thoughts :) i think fandom should be more relaxed, positive, and open-minded towards ideas they don't necessarily agree with. that way, everyone's happy and more people will be encouraged to speak up about ideas they'd otherwise feel threatened to. edit: the whole thing i mentioned about "just the player" being too easy to guess becomes even worse when you realize that scene is from *2018.* by the time the full game is out, that will have been at least *a decade ago.* it wouldn't be the best idea to make one of the biggest reveals of the game be something everyone already figured out 10 years ago, utdr is more unpredictable than that. edit the sequel: after reading many of the comments, i think people are way too focused on what *other games* have pulled off. just because deltarune CAN focus on the meta-narrative doesn't mean it has to! it might end up doing so, but please remember that that is only *one potential outcome.* there are options!

Why did you redefine the word "Meta-narrative" when you don't seem to understand that the ORIGINAL definition is about Narratives about Narratives. An example is the Hero's Journey and how that is a narrative about storytelling. Now you've made conversation more muddy and annoying. Things have definitions, don't change them for literally no reason.

talking a whole lot of "we" and "our" while stating what is clearly your opinion

I have never been able to put into words why the "kris is posessed by the player" theory rubbed me the wrong way, despite it seeming like the only logical conclusion. Thank you for this video

Okay after making it to the DDLC point, this whole video just feels useless. I mean no offence here but it feels like a robot / AI trying to explain to you how to write a good narrative / meta-narrative while having zero emotions. The argument for ddlc is so useless because the game is a meta narrative. The whole point of a false normal narrative in there, is to emphasise that fact. It didn’t “not balance narrative and meta narrative well” because there was no normal narrative that wasn’t just more of the meta narrative. The whole narrative is to make you invested in those characters, to get you invested in the narrative, only to rip it out from under you and show you the meta narrative. You clearly understand this, just because people dislike this way of telling this specific story, doesn’t mean it’s the wrong way to do things.

But since the roaring is basically "investing too much into fictions", the point could be about this very barrier. Remember, Toby isn't trying to create a masterpiece to fit the taste of general publics He's trying to turn his fever dream into a game.