Hacking

[Ron Edwards]

Hey,

Mandango is my kind of role-player!

Those are awesome examples, Gary. Exactly the sort of thing which, in my own mind, got my motor running upon reading the system.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

Those were good examples. It says something about a rule when in such a small example it can show such a considerable effect. Almost sounds like a good rule of thumb to use...the smaller a space I can get a rule to show it's effect in, the better (well, perhaps not for all project types).

GM:  The King prepares to knight you.  Suddenly the walls burst open and a dragon leaps in!  It blows fire at all of you!
P1:  Hack "dragon" to "jester".
P2:  Hack "walls" to "doors".
P3:  Hack "fire" to "raspberries".
GM:  FINAL:  The King prepares to knight you.  Suddenly the doors burst open and a jester leaps in!  It blows raspberries at all of you!

Example #2: Altering the SIS post-message:

GM:  The King prepares to knight you.  Suddenly the walls burst open and a dragon leaps in!  It blows fire at all of you!
P1:  But the dragon has a crush on me.
P2:  So the fire is just a warm, soothing "love-tap".
P3:  And then it gives us a big pile of gold.

Tony gave this example for another reason. But I find it interesting how the requirements for a hack produce something that seems...not sure of a good word. Witty? More witty than that in example #2 and contrasting against it.

I think it's the restrictions involved on creativity. Restrictions you might see in other games on players bringing in stuff would revolve around particular resources and which are okay to bring it, etc etc. While here it isn't about the game world but the sentence the GM gave and modifying the words in it. These restrictions are not in any way based on the usually fuzzy game world restrictions. They are much more clear and yet still powerful for it since at any point one word changed just the right way can have an incredible effect. And yet your still not just going to have everything your own way (which is boring...you want it to be partly your own way and partly someone elses way...why play with them otherwise?)

Further, this is about changing a real world artifact. The sentence is real, typed out, sitting there. It might as well be on real ink on real paper. The majority of RPG rules are about manipulating the game world, which I find is notoriously fuzzy (you can sort of see this in D&D without figures Vs D&D with figures and battlemat). Like the figures, the sentence is a real world object that pins down the often fuzzy, laggy and dream like SIS. Instead of editing this fuzzy game world, editing the real world pin that holds it down it much more powerful and smarter (yes, I'm mentally readying myself to steal this at another time).

These may not be the stuff that Ron or others find intriguing about hacking. But along with what everyone else is looking at, I find these elements about the rules (as I'm percieving them), to be interesting and worthy of comment.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Callan,

Those are good points! When playing Unaris, I had a very direct and concrete sensation that the words were real physical objects - not just ink on paper, but honkin' clay tablets.

I really liked that feeling.

Best,
Ron

[Callan S.]

I wonder what this solidness is/its ramifications? Is it to do with cleaning out chinese whispers?

For example in traditional table top, game notes may be writtern but then further on in play start to forget the exact details and sort of drop out of SIS sync with others. Someone might notice, go back and point out the text. The text is a real world object and thus does not just change like the SIS does when a participant goes out of sync (the effects of which then still alter the SIS even though this players out of sync with it).

This means there's a considerable difference here:
* One is saying to everyone that you kill the giant and then see if you get credibility from everyone about that.
* The other is something like editing the real world text that says the giant is alive and instead changing it to dead. And you don't need credibility to change this...it's a real world change. Of course, you need cred for it to be adopted into play...but not to make the change itself.

When you go back to real world text to clarify the situation/clear out chinese whispers in the SIS, the former is incredibly vulnerable to this clearing out/reset. The latter is an immensely powerful change, not vulnerable to the vagaries of play (except in that it might not be granted credibility. But even then it still exists, while an imagined event without cred soon fades to nothingness)

I'm flailing a little here, so forgive me. I can sense something important, but can't quite pin it down.

[Jonathan Walton]

I find it interesting that nobody's mentioned non-sequiters yet.  For me, as a player, I would be looking for these opportunities all the time.

GM: He swings his sword at you.
P1: Hack "sword" to "tower."
GM: He swings his tower at you.

GM: Snow begins to fall from the sky.
P1: Hack "snow" to "rice."
GM: Rice begins to fall from the sky.

I'm thinking of non-silly things that dramatically change the scale and nature of the game.  Hacking "sword" to "chicken" would be different and would probably break the Social Contract unless you were trying for comedy.  Surely this kind of thing happens pretty often, right?

[GaryTP]

From play, players tend to tire of silly changes. They are too easy and they weaken the game. As a gamemaster I tend to not allow hacks to so stretch reality. (But it is perfect for a Warner Bros. cartoon rpg.)

The real fun can come from clever word hacks that are seeminly unexpected.

I may type " he swings his sword at you "
A player may hack sword to fist,
" he swings his fist at you "

This still continues the story in a reasonable fashion.

Here's another, "she goes to the Duke for help"
Hack Duke to Temple.
When this happened it changed things dramatically in my plot. It added to the fun for me since I know had another large faction brought into the game which I had not counted on. The player could have also hacked Duke into enemy. (This didn't happen. But if it had I might have either A. had the enemy show mercy or B. had the enemy capture her or C. Cause a rift in the ranks of the enemy as one showed mercy and the others wanted to off her.

What is really interesting is when the gamemaster and players get on a roll and the story takes on a collaborative intensity that would not have been as powerful as just a standard adventure.

Regarding the other post about hacking something into "dead". I tend to disallow hacks like this. The more brute force used in a hack, the less it tends to work (my own play style). Something so blunt tends to draw the attention of the Winter Warlock and his minions in Unaris. Hacking them into "Undead" could, especially if you are in the appropriately creepy setting. It would maintain foe or character you were dealing with, further the story, and add an interesting twist.

One last thought. You can best think of a hack as a Judo move. Turn the strength of a statement against itself by finding the right word to tweek.

Gary

[Callan S.]

Regarding the other post about hacking something into "dead". I tend to disallow hacks like this.

I mentioned hacking some creature to be dead, but not as an example of bad play. I was looking at how its a mechanic that has a real world effect and is not contrained in its use by game world events (which is unusual and interesting).

But I find it kind of disturbing that you would disallow hacks. Refering to prior social contract agreements if it comes to something you don't like, I can understand. But just dissallowing it? Surely not?

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Regarding disallowing hacks, let's take that to a new thread. I suggest that folks acquire Code of Unaris ASAP, so we all understand the rules better, too, but that's merely a suggestion.

Also, check out the introductory scenario at the Goldleaf Games website. I ... um, well, in the interests of full disclosure, I kinda hate it. It's full of "can't hack this" stuff in the service of what, um, full disclosure again, seems to be hardcore railroading.

But new thread! New thread!

Best,
Ron

[GaryTP]

I'll start up a disallowing hacks thread:)

[Callan S.]

In my concern I didn't think of how much that question might be a derailer.

Anyway, looking at hacks I'm thinking this at the moment.

* If someone's PC has a insta polymorph beam, it's sort of like a very, very watered down hack. The watering down comes from how its employed mostly against/in the SIS. So if the power requires line of sight, a roll to get past cover or needs to get past other unforeshadowed events (invisible force fields, etc), it removes it further and further from how a hack just changes the words written/spoken.

Now, if as soon as the GM brings in an Orc, the player (by the rules) is allowed to use the poly power instantly (no initiative roll, no cover, none of this interfearing and fairly arbitrary crap), it's a lot closer to being like a hack in that it's directly editing a physical quality of the material the GM/someone is introducing.

I'm trying to draw a link between all rules here, in that they are all designed to hack (in some way). The more they are watered down, the further they are from hacking, but still that's their design intent. Interesting idea to anyone?