Hi there,

Walt Freitag and I were kicking around some ideas through private messages, and then it seemed to evolve into something of general interest.

Walt wrote (the first internal quote is from a post of mine in the original thread[Code of Unaris] Don't miss this one):

I suggest that hacking is what really goes on at the role-playing table, face-to-face, a great deal of the time.

Ron, this could tie right into the idea I've been putting forward recently that the crux of Creative Agenda is "what I want from the other players that I wouldn't have thought of myself (and therefore didn't expect)." Or in other words, "hacking" in whatever form it actually takes at the table.

An unexpected strategy, an unlikely stroke of luck or unluck, seeing a connection that may or may not have existed until seen, a major resource expenditure, a creative expression of color, a player willingly raising the stakes or introducing a complication... these things can all be equivalent to "hacks" in their effects on subsequent play, right? Am I correctly surmising that that's what you were getting at in the sentence I quoted above?

Of course, I might be reading too much into this because it's so consistent with my own preferred play style. I've described my favorite no-myth technique as always having a plan in mind for what's going to happen, but allowing that plan to change just about any time another player says or does something. (More specifically, something unexpected, but I usually play with people for whom that goes without saying.) Unaris' hacking mechanism appears to be an unusually explicit realization of that process (or a very similar one).

An unexpected strategy, an unlikely stroke of luck or unluck, seeing a connection that may or may not have existed until seen, a major resource expenditure, a creative expression of color, a player willingly raising the stakes or introducing a complication... these things can all be equivalent to "hacks" in their effects on subsequent play, right?

All those count if they change something that was just proposed. The phenomenon I'm thinking of is any time someone says "It's a this!" or "It's like that!" and someone else just says something else, it hits everyone as better, and they proceed as if the first person had said the second thing. I see it all the time, and have seen it all the time, with absolutely no perception among anyone that it's a challenge to "authority" or anything similar.

It can happen during IIEE, during scene-setting, during dialogue, or whatever. As I see it, hacking (yay! a new Ephemera term) is defined by one person saying X and another replacing it with Y.

So your list isn't quite right - because what you listed can happen and not change anything that was just proposed. If they occur without changing what was just proposed, then they are merely additions to play.

To be absolutely clear about how I look at this, such additions to play may or may not be "No Myth." They are not No Myth if they are compatible modifications to existing elements, and they are No Myth if they are identifying a vacuum of content and filling it.

Okay, fair enough. I can accept a definition of hacking that requires a change in something that was explicitly proposed. I'm just saying that this is very similar in nature to transactions in which a participant's contribution changes something that was expected but not explicitly stated as a proposition. So similar, I suggest, that I probably wouldn't bother to make any general distinction between them, except in the context of specific systems and applications such as Unaris' hacking rule.

"I pull the gorgon's head out of the bag and turn them all to stone!" says a player, and if this proposition is accepted, suddenly the expectation of an extended tactical combat is overturned. No one ever stated outright that an extended tactical combat would occur in the first place, but the PCs armed for bear striding into the villain's court as the villain's henchmen and bodyguards move into position certainly offered the prospect of such a combat (just short of being able to call it a proposed combat).

(Note: in one sense this is a poor example because the PC's action would not really be unexpected by anyone with half a brain who knew that the PC had a gorgon's head. You have to pretend that exchange took place in a universe in which the Perseus legend had never been written before.)

My theory is that such actions on whatever scale of signficance, that either overturn overt propositions, contradict expectations, or introduce new extrapolations not directly derivable from what has entered the SIS before ("Then you see a catbus approaching!") are exclusively where the participants express CA.

To be absolutely clear about how I look at this, such additions to play may or may not be "No Myth." They are not No Myth if they are compatible modifications to existing elements, and they are No Myth if they are identifying a vacuum of content and filling it.

Hmm, not a big issue, I think. No Myth to me has nothing to do with what propositions are made; it has everything to do with how propositions are evaluated for acceptance or rejection (including, importantly, self-filtering of GM statements, when the GM has the buck). "Evaluating all propositions with no reference or comparison to any information not already accepted in the SIS" equals No Myth. Hacking in Unaris appears to qualify in all cases, because no recourse is offered the GM to reject a hack based on its compatibility with outside-the-SIS data (such as his or anyone's "plans"). In fact, I wonder about the possibility of hacks that actually cause a contradiction IN the SIS (e.g. "hack FOREST to DESERT" in just one recent statement, when several minutes' worth of forest action has already taken place).

My theory is that such actions on whatever scale of signficance, that either overturn overt propositions, contradict expectations, or introduce new extrapolations not directly derivable from what has entered the SIS before ("Then you see a catbus approaching!") are exclusively where the participants express CA.

Exclusively? I'm not sure about that. I'd say "identifiably," maybe, as in those moments, the CA is more exposed or more "tells" are available. Maybe this is a matter of disciplinary preferences though.

No Myth to me has nothing to do with what propositions are made; it has everything to do with how propositions are evaluated for acceptance or rejection (including, importantly, self-filtering of GM statements, when the GM has the buck). "Evaluating all propositions with no reference or comparison to any information not already accepted in the SIS" equals No Myth.

Interesting. I think everyone has created a personalized version of what No Myth means, in large part because Fang was determined to present anything he said as an isolated and unique phenomenon. My take on it is almost entirely setting-specific in the larger sense of "setting."

But I do recognize the concept you're using the term for, and I agree, Unaris certainly focuses attention squarely on that concept.

I wonder about the possibility of hacks that actually cause a contradiction in the SIS (e.g. "hack FOREST to DESERT" in just one recent statement, when several minutes' worth of forest action has already taken place).

Damn good question. New medium, new techniques, new concepts, etc. My first way to answer this question is, how does one deal with this issue in plain old face-to-face?

Oh, and also, most setting names cannot be hacked in Unaris, e.g. "the Tower" in the 4th age. You can't hack your way out of being in the Tower.

Would it still be hacking if I had to expend a resource to replace what another player had stated? If so, isn't Universalis ultilizing this mechanic?

Cheers
Jonathan

Jonathan, the primordial example of hacking (Code of Unaris) has a whole resource devoted entirely to hacking.

In games (such as Unaris) where the number of hacks any player has is limited, I'd expect to see brinksmanship around using them, similar to how Dr. Lucky avoids his fate in Kill Dr. Lucky.

For example, I'd expect to see:

GM: "Suddenly, a meteor plummets from the sky and kills you all."

Players: Wait wait wait...until

Player A: "SCARES! It scares us all, not kills us all." Player A decrements the number of hacks he has left available.


I'd be interested to see whether this sort of hack-hoarding shows up in Actual Play.

If it doesn't, it may indicate that the limit on the number of hacks is not really meaningful.




Cheers,
Roger

Hi Roger,

I'm not sure I buy that connection you're drawing; it seems to rely on an adversarial tug-of-war over resources and game input between GM and players. Based on my experiences with "story input" mechanics (Story Poiints in Story Engine, e.g.) and highly significant dice-outcome modifiers (Karma in The Whispering Vault and Marvel Super Heroes, Hero Points in HeroQuest, e.g.) based on resources, I suggest that the available pools and how to replenish them instead become a source of positive interaction among the participants.

Fanmail, in Primetime Adventures, represents the clear heir to these kinds of mechanics - simply overt, among-player rewards which directly become extra dice. Given an aesthetic focus on Premise (i.e. Narrativist play), these mechanics are not tugged over between individuals so much as exploited by the group as a whole.

Best,
Ron

I got lost after the first two quotes (so the following may have already been said), but:

As I see it, hacking (yay! a new Ephemera term) is defined by one person saying X and another replacing it with Y.

Hiya,

Actually, Callan, my observation is that the immediate hacking does occur in face-to-face play far, far more often than most people remember.

The GM: "As the stranger comes in, you're sitting on the left ..."

Player: "No, I'm over by the fireplace, I would have been warming my cold butt after that slog through the snow."

GM: "Right! Makes sense. OK, from over at the fireplace ..."

And that's an example that's hyper-overt. I see covert versions of this go on all the time, and my whole point is that no one seems to notice. If you ask them later, they say, "Yeah, the GM introduces and describes everything."

Best,
Ron

While I agree entirely with the idea that Hacking, of a sort, happens all the time in regular face to face games one could also see the same thing in all manner of games, where there is some sort of consensus needs to be reached on rules issues (eg, a boardgame with fixed movement rates; someone moves too many hexes by mistake, noticed a few turns later, and the game changed to account for this error or agreement reached that for some reason that unit, in this circustance, did move further than it could. Because role playing is far vaguer and more implicit in terms of what is being agreed on, it happens all the time.

Looking at mechanisms where it is explicit in the game, I notice that the Narrative Cage Match (Pantheon) has not been mentioned - the sentence bidding thing is a sort of competitive hacking - sentences rather than words. Baron Munchausen could also be included with its 'objection' mechanic.

I think the real issue is that the concept does not work so-easily-that-you do-not-notiice-it in text games, because the words are there in black and white pixels and cannot be edited so easily as in a conversation (PBeM, IRC) and the only way around this problem is to make the bug a feature.
I have never played Puppetland but the idea that everything one said was what was said seemed to me to make it either impossibly intense or not very good because the pressure to say the right thing was too great. In effect, a text game without the luxury of time to think.

Not sure of this post advances discussions much but Pantheon, Munchausen and possibly other games need to be considered.

Keith

Hello,

Welcome to the Forge, Keith! I think those are some good points.

I agree about Pantheon and Baron Munchausen being potential hacking-based examples. I'm trying to remember whether in either (I've played the former, not the latter), if one actually changes someone's input while they're giving it, or merely takes over the narration from a fixed point. I think BM is just taking over, whereas P has several "interference" options. Anyone remember?

Much to my surprise, I found that Puppetland works very well; it's one of the games which led me to suggest that "speaking" mechanics are functional when they conform to an imposed structure of some kind. In fact, I think it works better than the other two games.

I am not sure that I agree with your point about board games, though. I see a certain difference ... let's see if I can articulate it, using only role-playing as a reference.

a) "Oh wait a minute, I rolled a 7, not a 17," referring to an action about ten minutes ago, real time. "I missed!"

The usual solution in role-playing, I think, is to say, to hell with it, we'll all call it a 17 and move on. The reason for this is that (a) too much has happened since that relied on that 17, which would now have to be scrubbed clean; and (b) no one has any objection to the 17 having occurred in the first place.

If not too much has happened, then (a) can be overcome, and if the 17 was terribly (and unsatisfactorily) consequential, then (b) can be overcome. In this case, it's a "do-over" and the group basically rewinds the last ten minutes of real time.

I don't see this as hacking so much as a group recognition that procedure wasn't followed. Calling attention to the "error," I think, reinforces the Social Contract ("we will follow procedure") even if it temporarily destabilizes the Shared Imagined Space.

Sorry to throw all that Forgey jargon at ya all of a sudden. Moving on ...

b) "The zombie gets up, all slow and icky, but remorseless; why, it's Petey, your old school chum ..." "My brother!" "... it's Chad, your brother, and it goes hsssss, reaching out for you ..."

I should also clarify that hacking, as I see it, is not merely adding input ("the zombie is my brother!"). It's changing someone else's input - it would be hacking if the zombie were declared by one person to be your old school chum, and if you or someone else changed it to "brother."

Does that illustrate some difference about the two? I see (a) as retroactive negotiation over procedure and its outcome, whereas (b) is in and of itself part of procedure at the time.

Also, Callan's point that only part of X is being changed is a good one. I'm also clarifying that it's not "X + Y" either.

Best,
Ron

Thanks for the welcome.

Ron wrote:

Does that illustrate some difference about the two? I see (a) as retroactive negotiation over procedure and its outcome, whereas (b) is in and of itself part of procedure at the time.

Love the concept, hate the example...

The GM: "As the stranger comes in, you're sitting on the left ..."

Player: "No, I'm over by the fireplace, I would have been warming my cold butt after that slog through the snow."

GM: "Right! Makes sense. OK, from over at the fireplace ..."

Hi Walt,

I'm with you on all of the above.

What makes examples difficult, especially in this medium, is that we can't convey exactly what's going on socially and creatively. In my fireplace example, what I have in mind is that the character's location wasn't established prior to the dialogue, and that the GM has no particular reason to place the character anywhere but just does, for Color. The player is merely changing the Color and everyone is eagerly accepting the change. The method, however, is hacking because the GM has proposed the specific Color first.

The notion that all input into the game goes through an initial proposal stage is, of course, the Lumpley Principle in action, as well as a whole System Does Matter thing. More jargon ...

I like my zombie example better anyway.

Best,
Ron

Hi all,

The phenomena of statement, followed by someone else's adjustment, followed by tacit acceptance appears in lots of group communication, not just roleplaying. "Hacking" seems to have just formalized it. How formal does a phenomenon have to be for us to consider it a distinct Ephemera?

When I look at the Hack examples above, I see two kinds.

First: "You're by the door" "No, I'm by the fire" This hack might well be the result of both participants having already formed ideas of the imagined space, without having yet shared them with the group. In other words, the players are negotiating preconceived views of what they _think_ the SIS contains. The validity of the hack in this case probably depends on the credibility of the speaker over the area affect.

Second: "The zombie lurches forward - it's Chad, your roommate!" "No, it's my brother!" "Okay, your brother, lurches forward ...." This hack seems to better demonstrate the sudden inspiration which is accepted by the group. Rather than "correcting" a misconception of the SIS, this hack improves the appeal of the SIS content.

Both are negotiations of what gets accepted into the SIS - but they have differences. Is hacking any immediate negotion of the proposed entry in to SIS, or is it restricted to a particular content? Is it both of the above examples, or only the second one?

Hello,

My current thinking is that only the second example would be hacking, Alan ... but on the other hand, Keith, you're making an excellent point. Yes, all procedure is "negotiation" in the sense that Vincent (lumpley) uses the word, including dice.

I think the distinction might be seen in that one is how to deal with an acknowledged mistake, and the other is how to deal with (as Alan puts it) sudden, propositionally-superior inspiration. Both are, in effect, editing, but they seem to me different in terms of how the group is relating among one another, creatively.

It's a neat and powerful issue. The more people who weigh in on it, the better we'll figure it out.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hiya,

Actually, Callan, my observation is that the immediate hacking does occur in face-to-face play far, far more often than most people remember.

The GM: "As the stranger comes in, you're sitting on the left ..."

Player: "No, I'm over by the fireplace, I would have been warming my cold butt after that slog through the snow."

GM: "Right! Makes sense. OK, from over at the fireplace ..."

And that's an example that's hyper-overt. I see covert versions of this go on all the time, and my whole point is that no one seems to notice. If you ask them later, they say, "Yeah, the GM introduces and describes everything."

Best,
Ron

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

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

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

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

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.

'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?

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?

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

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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

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.

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?

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

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

Hello,

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

Best,
Ron

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.)

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

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).

TonyLB wrote: 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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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

I'll start up a disallowing hacks thread:)

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?