Hacking

[Ron Edwards]

Hi,

Yeah, Callan, that's what makes Code of Unaris so significant in my eyes. However successfully, it throws the hacking process right out there in the spotlight. I think what I'd like to emphasize about that game, which hasn't shown up much in discussions yet, is that adventures often start with a list of unhackable terms, in addition to the "core" unhackable terms of the setting. That brings up the interesting possibility of expanding this idea out to the group deciding, at the outset, what isn't hackable, and (scary soundtrack) what is.

Best,
Ron

[M. J. Young]

O.K., I'm trying to wrap my head around this without having seen Unaris; I've got a mechanic that I think might be an example of this sort, but I thought I'd field it and see whether it is or is not.

Multiverser allows the inclusion of a rare sort of "automatic" skill which kicks in whenever circumstances apply. Rather than burden the referee with knowing these intimately, it is put upon the player to raise them when they are relevant--but for the player, this is usually after the situation has been presented.

The best example that comes to mind (although I know it's used in other contexts) is skills that negate surprise--heightened awareness, precognitive danger sense, life detection gear, probably other possibles. A character may have such gear. The referee rolls the dice for a check and announces that the player has just been surprised by whatever it is, and what is now happening. The player can say wait, I have skill X, which would have alerted me to this and prevented me from being surprised. The referee then gives the player the opportunity to roll his skill check to see whether it effectively warned him of the situation before it occurred, and if that roll is successful the correction is made, the character is not surprised, and the situation is played out from that point forward.

Although it's neither a resource-based change nor an open invitation to object to anything, it seems to me that skill use of this sort comes under the general concept of hacking as described here: there is a technique in the game which allows one participant to undo a statement credibly made by another participant after it has been made.

Is that the idea, or am I missing it completely?

--M. J. Young

[Ron Edwards]

Hi M.J.,

You're missin' it. (Quick side note: the Instincts in Burning Wheel are the same as what you're describing)

Hacking literally means changing input. "You're seized by the claws of the dragon!" says the GM. You say, "No, I'm seized by the claws of the BARMAID!" The fight with the dragon is still happening, but now the hero and the barmaid are clinching in the middle of it.

In some games and resolution systems, this would be a shattering amendment which would have to overturn the existing procedures. In others, it's no big deal. Same goes for Social Contract - lots of variation.

Timing is important too. If it happens during Intent (the first "I"), then it's less jarring than if it happens during "IEE," and as I claim, in many cases not jarring at all. Even among groups who would swear up and down that they never do any such thing.

It's not a quick retrofit or a timing-disconnect issue (like hit-location tables usually entail). It's a literal reproposition of what's going on, across participants.

Best,
Ron

[nellist]

It occurs to me that Robin Laws column PageXX features his game idea 'yes, but.." which is pretty much summarised as: "X?" from the player, then "X+Y" from the narrator.

The context is that it is a one off without the players knowing the set up initially, and that at some point it is suggested that it needs to switch to some other system but the principle is there.

Keith Nellist

[Doug Ruff]

So, if I understand this correctly, there are at least three different 'degrees' in which the SIS can be modified here

[*]Negotiation about what is already there, such as where a character may be sitting when a stranger bursts into the room.[*]Explicit modification of the SIS for Greater Fun. For example, changing the identity of the zombie, because it's cooler for him to be your brother.[*]Explicit modification for the SIS as a game mechanic in itself, usually to benefit the player who introduced it. Example, changing the dragon into a barmaid.[/list:u]'Hacking' in Unaris is an example of the last, and it's unusual in that it allows a major change to the SIS.

However, there are other systems where you can spend a resource to modify the SIS to the advantage of your character. FATE allows you to spend a Fate point to create something 'in your backpack' or to say that one of the town guards is actually from your home village. It wouldn't allow you to change a dragon into a barmaid, but it might allow you to declare that the dragon has a crush on you (I'm thinking of Shrek here.)

So, I agree that 'Hacking' has a lot in common with existing strategies for modifying the SIS, but it goes further in that the modification is explicitly allowed to be unrealistic in terms of what's already happened. In other words, it explicitly undermines Simulationism. Perhaps that's why it's so interesting?

[TonyLB]

Isn't there a subtle difference between changing the SIS directly and changing the input that people are (in turn) using to change the SIS?

[Ron Edwards]

Hiya,

Hey Doug, hacking in Unaris is indeed presented mainly as your third bullet point, but discussions with Gary are revealing that the other two show up in play as well, using the same "rule." I find it interesting that the sample adventure available on the website is brutally constrained for hacking, such that several plot events are hack-immune and locked into place - i.e., railroaded. I kind of wish that weren't the case.

Tony, I'm not sure whom you're asking, and I'm also pretty sure (in agreement with Keith) that these two phenomena aren't easily distinguished. Maybe a re-phrase, with real examples?

Best,
Ron

[TonyLB]

I was pretty much asking Doug, though as always any input is welcome.

People are discussing Hacking as a way of putting new inputs into the SIS, and I think that's a slight but important misunderstanding.  Hacking is not (metaphorically) writing out a message and sending it by courier to the Office of SIS, to be put on the stack on top of all the other messages.  It is intercepting a courier and changing their message.  This is weaker in many ways and dramatically more powerful in a few.

Example #1:  Intercepting a 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:  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.


I agree whole-heartedly that both types of behavior happen constantly in roleplaying.  But I'm not yet clear on how a given action can straddle the fence... Most of the examples I've seen seem (to me) to be pretty clearly on one side or another.

[Doug Ruff]

Hey Doug, hacking in Unaris is indeed presented mainly as your third bullet point, but discussions with Gary are revealing that the other two show up in play as well, using the same "rule." I find it interesting that the sample adventure available on the website is brutally constrained for hacking, such that several plot events are hack-immune and locked into place - i.e., railroaded. I kind of wish that weren't the case.

Ron, I agree with all of this. hacking is flexible enough to act at all three of these levels, but the last of them is the most unusual. I think it's also the one that GMs are going to be most uncomfortable with.

And that's because, Tony, yes there is a difference, and you are right to point this out. However, I think a better analogy is that the players are acting as editors to the GM's scriptwriter, hacking gives the layers final authorial control over the GM input, which turns the usual Social Contract on its head.

So, a question: if the GM introduces lots of 'hack-immune' elements into the SIS, are they somehow breaching the Social Contract that the hacking rules encourage?

And a question for Ron: is this why you are unsatisfied with the sample adventure?

[TonyLB]

Doug:  Your analogy is, indeed, far superior.  I gladly retract my messenger metaphor in favor of your editorial metaphor.  It gets at what I was thinking more clearly than I did.

[Callan S.]

Hi Doug,

So, a question: if the GM introduces lots of 'hack-immune' elements into the SIS, are they somehow breaching the Social Contract that the hacking rules encourage?

I think that'd be a social contract breach as much as a GM who says he's going to run D&D and then hardly uses any dungeons or dragons as content. Not at all (unless he promised lots of dungeons and lots of dragons).

I think what you'll find is that it changes the game your playing. Without the hacks in Unaris, play is going to mostly rely on it's karma based system. It's sort of like playing D&D without the dungeons and just courtly drama...just rolling diplomacy or such every so often without contacting with any other rules. Rolling diplomacy every so often will not do for you what D&D is designed to do. Almost removing hacks from having any effect will not have Unaris do what (I presume) it's designed to do.

[GaryTP]

Wow. What a great thread!

Hacking in Code of Unaris is the biggest part of the game, yet we couldn't let it take over the game in such a way that it became totally free-form. As it stands now, depending on your gaming style, players and the gamemaster can set their own rules up at the start of a campaign on what they can and can't hack. Though certain items are restricted within the game (Time being a big one), most words are open to hacking. Any restriction that have been placed upon which words can be hacked are there to keep the a few key pieces of the world/story together, prevent player abuse, and to prevent oddball silliness that can result from too loose a structure. Limiting the hacks in CoU to a single word also allows the players to be able to see options (words) they can affect, and it is easier for the gamemaster to keep track of the ever evolving environment/story.

As a gamemaster (and the game's designer) you can't play CoU without hacking, and you shouldn't play it in person. It needs the structure that comes from text appearing on the screen... A gamemaster who is not able to think on his or her feet won't enjoy the game. They'll cringe as players come up with amazingly clever hack solutions. But if you enjoy seeing powerful creativity in action, it's really a game for you. I've hosted   a large number of games and am still surprised at what a player will hack and their motivation behind hacking in the first place. Player's quickly move on past simple item hacks and into subtle story tweeking hacks that makes it as much fun to gm as play.

Gary

[Shreyas Sampat]

Hey, Gary, can you show us some examples of hacks that you found especially surprising or subtle? I think we might find it illuminating.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The dragon/barmaid example I keep using is straight from Gary, actually. I would love to learn about others too.

Best,
Ron

[GaryTP]

Hi,

Hack examples from various sessions. Will try to dig up more for you later.

Gary

Grode:: She takes your life and then turns to face Zersis.
Valin:: hack life to money.
Grode:: ok. She takes your money and then turns to face Zersis.
Grode:: Valin, you're still alive (at 1 point.)


Mandango:: ask the barmaid what she's so afraid of
Grode:: she says, "my mother is upstairs, she's a bitter old woman"
Mandango:: hack woman to demon
Grode:: you like to make it tough on your friends, don't you
Mandango:: just doing my part.:)
Grode:: ok, her mother is a bitter old demon.


Grode:: The daughters of Falconis, twins of evil, march across the battlefield toward your group.
Mandango:: hack twins to triplets.
Tomthumb:: idiot.
Grode: okay::) Triplets of evil.
Mandango:: evil or not, i have a thing for triplets.


Grode:: the guard asks you for your papers.
Bightfellow:: hack papers to advice
Grode:: the guard asks you for your advice
Grode:: wait a moment.
Grode:: he says "what do you think? think I'd make sergeant someday?
Brightfellow:: oh sure. you're a model gate keeper! (charm 7)


Mauvais1:: is that a fair price for wiskey
Grode:: Expensive, and you have only a single imperial, you were
Grode:: robbed on the way here.
Hobbitroll:: hack: robbed is bequeathed
Grode:: you were bequeathed, you have plenty of money


Grode:: you see that you are at the backdoor of a gambling hall
Grode:: a burley guard waves to Inga, you're motioned in.
Grode:: Inside it's smokey, and dimly lit.
Grode:: There are whores everywhere, and rich merchants
Grode:: galore.
Mauvais1:: hack rich to generous
Grode:: Inga goes up some stairs, motioning you to follow
Hobbitroll:: follow her
Grode:: Generous merchants walk up to you. Here is a bit of money.


Grode:: The book is old, the writing faded.
Grode:: But you can still make out a piece of the text.
Grode:: "...and he shall one day rule the Northland."
Dimrot:: hack he to Dimrot.
Grode:: it says "...and Dimrot shall one day rule the Northland."
Grode:: now THAT changes things...
Dimrot:: cool.


Mauvais1:: I go insisde for a drink.
Mauvais1:: "Drinks are on the house", says the Marshall
Hobbitroll:: hack drink to (EDITED FOR TASTE. HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH SELF GRATIFICATION.)
(At this point I was laughing so hard I had to call a break.)