Hello All,

So, up in the Theory forum there has been a lot of discussion recently about the whole Player vs. Character issue and it suddenly occured to me that I recently encountered this issue in a very unique and concrete way.

Last week my week night group decided to play Ninja Burger. And the one thing that's very interesting about Ninja Burger is that there are A LOT of rules that apply directly to the player and their behavior that have little or nothing to do with whatever their Ninja is ACTUALLY doing in the game. One such rule is that players must remember to attach the honorable syllable "-san" to the end of the other players' names even if just asking if they'd please get them a soda. I had one player lose four points of honor over this rule.

Another such rule is the Snake Eyes rule. If a player rolls double ones on just two dice then they are Snake Eyes. They get the Color of having a metal face plate, the in game benefit of having a bandolier of eggshell grenades, but the drawback of the fact that the PLAYER can not speak until someone else rolls Snake Eyes.

And this is where the Character vs. Player issue came into play. The rules very clearly state that it is the Player who can not speak. But the Player who had rolled Snake Eyes asked (by writing it down) if that restriction rolled over to the Character. The Player wanted to know if they could speak so long as they were only voicing actual in-game dialogue for their Character. Their argument was that the player at that point wasn't speaking but rather the character was.

Just because it added a bit of varriety I said yes, they could speak as long as it was just littleral spoken dialogue by their character. But I'm not sure if that was completely correct. I mean, when a meta-rule like that affects the player in such a way that it indirectly also affects their character, is the character indeed affected? I don't know.

Jesse

Well, Snake Eyes is mute, so technically you CAN'T "speak in character" if you're Snake Eyes. So in this particular instance, there's not actually a paradox, I think.

Rod

Yeah, I think that since there is an in-game effect on the character's appearance, that they become the "mighty mute masked snake-eyes". A further effect of which is that the player can't speak. I'm guessing that this is their intent, and that they just didn't clarify it well.

OTOH, I'd ask. I'm sure you can find out by contacting one of the jolly whackos from 9th level:

http://www.9thlevel.com/ninja%5Cindex.html

:-)

Mike

Hey,

Um, having played Ninja Burger, I maintain that playing Snake Eyes silently (as well as playing your ninja after he is forced to cut out his own tongue in dishonor) is "speaking in character" to a certain extent. I shall clarify.

The rules, as I recall, specify that it is the player who is silenced, in addition to the character, but that simply means that the In-character silence is one thing (with possible tactical consequences) and the player's silence is another (ditto, as he or she must communicate the character's intended action to the GM via dumbshow.) The player's anguished eye-rolling and teeth-gritting are therefore not "in character," but the fact that the character is limited by (a) the player's current limitation and (b) the character's in-game muteness, are "in character."

I should like to chuckle in memory of Dav, who first rolled Snake-Eyes and was forced to shut up for a while until his character un-Snake-Eyed, and then only a couple of minutes later was forced to have his character's tongue cut out, thus enduring the "silence" rules twice in one session, to his fellow players' merriment.

Best,
Ron

AH! I didn't realize Snake Eyes was in reference to an existing mute character. To me the player can not speak rule just seemed kind of weird.
I'll remember that for next time.

Oh yeah, and watching the player try to announce her actions when she can't speak, is pretty funny. It's also pretty funny when that player has some kind of objection to a GM ruling on another player's turn.

Jesse

jburneko wrote: AH! I didn't realize Snake Eyes was in reference to an existing mute character.

Mike Holmes wrote:

jburneko wrote: AH! I didn't realize Snake Eyes was in reference to an existing mute character.

Uh, I think miscommunication still reigns here. I don't think that there is an existing mute character.

Hello,

This is me, pinching the bridge of my nose.

Guys - "Snake Eyes," in the G.I. Joe cartoon, is a ninja who never speaks. When the rules say, "Your character becomes Snake Eyes!!", then your character cannot speak, in the game-world. That is the foundation for the more extreme player-rule of not speaking "either."

The game is absolutely explicit about this, and even if someone by some stretch of the imagination tried to diddle it (as someone apparently did in Jesse's game), then reference to the source-material character ought to clear up the issue.

And also, the parallel rule regarding the tongue-cut-out thing should provide a model, because the rules are the same. And since in this case, the player cannot speak because the character cannot (being tongueless), there's every reason to have the same logic apply to the Snake Eyes situation. The player cannot speak because the character is now Snake Eyes, who cannot speak.

I'm beginning to feel like the design team for Magic must have, when they were confronted by people arguing over whether Stone Rain "really" destroyed lands when you had an Enchantment card up that protected your lands from destruction.

Best,
Ron

Okay just to be clear.

1) I was unfamiliar with the "Snake Eyes" character from the G.I. Joe cartoons. I never watched G.I. Joe when I was kid. (Well, I TRIED but everytime I turned it on it always seemed to be the same episode from the miniseries where they were chasing down the elements to power some kind of weapon)

2) Thus, I didn't understand the foundation for the rule. I do now. Thanks for the clearification.

3) Given the foundation for the rule I see now that it's supposed to be a limitation on the character that in typical-Ninja Burger fashion is extended out to apply directly to the player.

So, I screwed up when I allowed the player to speak as long as it was only word-for-word litteral character dialogue. Oh, well. I'll remember for next time.

Jesse

Me, trying to get Ron to do the nose thing again.

quozl wrote: I think they're referencing "Snake-Eyes" from the GI Joe cartoon.

Mike,

Yes, you misunderstood my post. I didn't think the PC suddenly became some other character. I just didn't realize there was established source material for the rule.

Jesse

S'OK, guys, I'm recovered. Just a cultural blip on my part; I mean, I never saw the cartoon once and I still know who Snake Eyes is, based on the adverts in my comics from that era.

Jesse, if you keep playing, git'em! Ninja Burger allowed me to be the vilest Hard Core GM ever and enjoy it immensely.

We should talk about the three distinct resolution systems, though ... awfully whacky ...

Best,
Ron

re: Snake-Eyes.

"Well, now you know.

... and knowing is half the battle!"

Abusing another GI Joe trope,
Andrew