The Forge Archives

I took the following post from the one on "hacking" to give this thread some context.

Noon said:
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?
_________________
Callan

---
I never meant Code of Unaris to be a totally freeform hack game. But it is up to the players and gamemasters to set their own social contracts. To each his/her own. In my own play groups, we don't allow hacking something "alive" to "dead". It's just a personal preference set up by us beforehand. We gravitate toward workaround solutions rather than frontal assults. But as I was discussing with Jonathan W. in an email, I'm very excited to see where players, gamemasters, and designers take hacking in the future. Should you start playing, feel free to evolve and personalize the game.

For those of you who don't have the book, here are a few of the rules from the hack section:

You can hack only single words.
You can change an amount by +/- 50%

You can only hack what the gamemaster types.
There is no double-hacking. (You can't hack a word that has already been hacked.)
You can't hack something after 10 secs.
No hacking of other player's words.
There is no hacking of illegal targets.

Illegal Hack targets Are:
Gods, Immortals, and Godstars
Reputations
Anything within a mile of the cities of Sebaceous and Fade
Anything above, below, or within Mt. Frisia
Right and Left Hands of Damedes
The Church Vaults, its doors, and anything within the vault.
Anything within the Alfar Kingdom of the Fourth Age.
Acsendants, Spiney Mothers, and Tiamat.
The Winter Warlock, the Watchers, and anything to do with time.

So, why are these illegal? In the context of Unaris, Certain places and creature of the world are immune to the effects of hacking, they are hardened against the effects of the wormhole, which give you the ability to hack in the first place. (The wormhole is a window in time that allows you to interact with our moon's distant past. If this is confusing, you'll need the book.) But taken outside the Unaris environment, you can hack all you wish.

Everyone is free to develop their own rules to on what constitutes an illegal target (or even if there are any all.) At that point you're playing your own version of the game. Hacking is easily imported into any game, any world.

Hope this helps.
Gary

Hiya,

I do like hacking, and as I've said, I think it's been a standard feature of role-playing as an activity since the hobby began. In fact, the more I think of it, I am considering that without hacking, role-playing as we know it is literally impossible. It is fundamental to my view that no one "controls" any aspect of the SIS.

Code of Unaris is a revolutionary role-playing game. It will, I think, stand as one of the turning points of the hobby, and Gary, you should be recognized as an innovator of the first degree. Why? Because the game does two things: (a) it turns a deal-breaking bug of a given communicative medium into a necessary feature of play, and (b) it does so by recognizing a powerful and ubiquitious element of the activity (in any medium) which had hitherto been expressed only in the hazy land of denial, here but not-here, constantly alluded to in game texts but never given shape or direction.

I currently recognize two extremely important features of hacking, based on my thinking that it cannot be free-form, for all the same reasons that free-form anything produces nothing. I think that SIS cannot happen without System.

1. Resource management is the current System basis for hacking, in Code of Unaris. This is only one way to do it, out of many possible functional methods. Historically, in face-to-face play, hacking has been governed essentially at the Social Contract level, perhaps with some covert System-based methods (I'm thinking of how we used to handle NPC play when "character sheet NPCs" were involved, back my Champions days).

Other ways to formalize hacking are certain to evolve in the very near future, especially for chat-based play. I don't mind saying that I can hardly wait.

2. Limited targeting for hacking also seems to me to be necessary, and perhaps this is one of the most important insights from all this discussion: that instead of talking about the step-by-step constructed "reality" of the SIS, we should be talking about its essentially phantasmagorical quality, and how it takes shape only from the limiting of input (e.g. hacking being one example of enthusiastic and by definition shared input).

Setting only occurs as a limiting feature of the SIS, its most fundamental constraint. Over all these years, when I think of people asking about the many games I've written and played (only three of which are published), they always said, "What's the setting?" I now realize that what they were really asking is, "What don't I have to consider?" I recognize that telling people about setting details doesn't work and never has, but telling them about setting potential (what can/can't happen) always does.

Hence conflict-relevant features of Setting can't be hacked. If I bring in a connection to Ralzakark in playing our game set in Glorantha, this is  Premise-statement on my part, as a player (never mind that I'm called "the GM"). To hack that is ... well, disrespecting me as a person and fellow author, or shutting me down.

The same goes for any Creative Agenda, not just the aggressive Narrativism of our Hero Wars/Quest game. Say we were playing Code of Unaris in an extremely Setting-Exploration Sim way - to hack "the Warlock" would, bluntly, suck. It is like saying No to what we came here to do.

With the above two points in mind, I now want to turn attention to further and more local disallowing of hacking.

So we're playing Code of Unaris. We can't hack The Warlock, or the Tower, or a variety of other things (e.g. the country we're adventuring in), most or all of which we recognize would essentially hose the very fact of play.

But ... in this particular adventure, apparently we cannot hack "the bomb." The GM is highly invested in us trying to defuse the bomb or something similar. When we discover there's a bomb, it's unhackable. Deal with the bomb.

I consider this to be a major decision on the part of the GM, to include such things in the scenario. I would very much like to know whether a given GM, in this game, was going to do anything like this, before playing with him or her. It's quite likely that if the answer is yes, I would decline playing, although that is a matter of personal preference rather than "he plays wrong."

Instead, I would prefer to think that if we liked dealing with the bomb (i.e. it's thematically, creatively, and dramatically relevant), nobody would hack it. Does this sound idealistic? Only to people who've played with rotted-out Social Contracts and incoherent Creative Agenda combinations. In groups to which I'm accustomed (many of which include newcomers to role-playing, whose minds are not poisoned and fuddled), such a statement is a basic expectation. Universalis players are quite familiar with the logic I'm using here, I'm sure: if someone thinks that the bomb is a stupid and distracting game element at the moment, it gets negotiated, and if that's not successful, Challenged.

So it seems to me that the Unaris GM would do well to consider that hacking is his or her best indicator of whether the planned elements of the scenario are any fucking good. If I'm looking forward to the player-characters encountering "the bomb," and if they hack it to "the plans," then that's telling me that I really oughta concentrate on them discovering information and not dealing with some stupid "sudden attack" threat.

The only times this is problematic are (a) if I'm railroading them ("no! the bomb is important! you must react with pleasurable excitement to my bomb!"); or (b) if our relationship is so adversarial that they would hack it to "pizza" or something else stupid.

It is fundamental to basic Code of Unaris play, I think, that hacking is directed toward the shared Creative Agenda and the shared value we place on the SIS, which are of course linked issues in the Big Model.

Therefore, again, if I were playing Code of Unaris, I'd really like to know whether the GM is planning, in advance, to introduce any unhackable features that are not the basic setting features listed in the rules. I wouldn't need to know what they are, just whether the GM has any such things in mind.

Best,
Ron

Hi Gary,

The list is a bit different in a good way. You've set it up in advance and everyone knows it. I was thinking that death might not be on the list but if as GM you wouldn't allow it, it means the hacking rules aren't any powerful mutual creation tool that we've agreed to use. Instead we've reached an arrangement where I suggest word replacements and you okay them if you want to. I'm thinking such an arrangement wont prove particularly provocative for the GM, either (nor can one say this five times fast! ;) ).

I think I'm repeating Ron a bit here, but that's what I mean. A prior list is good. I think it's better to have a game crash and burn every so often (the bomb from Rons example gets hacked away) than to let the latter agreement I described take hold. And I'm wondering if a game can crash and burn when players hack the bomb, for example, to something they find even more exciting.

Seems to me that "No Hacking Zones" are a sign of a Social Contract that doesn't really work (of course, I've played lots of games without a great Social Contract, and they weren't all bad).  I mean, you only need to tell players to not hack the Winter Warlock if they'd actually do it in the first place.  Personally, I wouldn't want my hands tied as a player just because the other players didn't have the maturity to use their Hacking in appropriate ways.  If you're all on the same page, you should be able to Hack ANYTHING and not have problems.  If you're not on the same page, then No Hacking Zones probably aren't going to solve all of your problems.

I was thinking recently about dividing Hacking up based on the traditional categories for semantic shift in linguistics.  Hacking a bad thing to make it better would be Amelioration, Hacking a good thing to make it worse would be Perjuration, and then you have Strengthing, Weakening, and the rest.

Personally, I would find it much more interesting to restrict the WAYS in which people can Hack, instead of their raw Hacking ability (either by banning certain Hacks or limiting their number).  But that's probably a whole 'nother thread that I'm not really prepared to start yet...

Hi folks,

QuoteSo it seems to me that the Unaris GM would do well to consider that hacking is his or her best indicator of whether the planned elements of the scenario are any fucking good. If I'm looking forward to the player-characters encountering "the bomb," and if they hack it to "the plans," then that's telling me that I really oughta concentrate on them discovering information and not dealing with some stupid "sudden attack" threat.

This pretty much is the same message I got from reading Clinton's write up about Inspectres...which really broke off the point of play for me.  If the group at the table isn't finding X exciting, fun or interesting...well then, its time to find a new X.  It's the attempt to cajole or convince people that if they keep at X long enough it will miraculously become fun...that's where dysfunctional play kicks people into denial.

Chris

Hi All,

Actually, you are limited in the amounts of hacks you can use (20 per session.)
---

The adventure under discussion is meant for beginning players. So often we try to design games for designers of games. But if your a newbie, there is a lot you don't know.

From this adventure, players and gamemasters should experience, as much as possible, the varied things you can do within the game world. Note: Unaris is both about hacks and a diceless system, where your actions are what give you bonus points to your skills. It is not just about hacks. Both affect scene resolutions. The bomb was placed off-limits to hacking so that players would have to deal with it. No easy out. It was a designer choice. It is meant to put suspense at a point that can't be easily gotten rid of by hacking it into another word. It's also to teach players that just because an item is off limits, doesn't mean that hacks don't work on the evironment around the item, or the positioning of the players, or the distance between the players, etc. So, if the GM says you're a few feet behind the guy with the dynamite, the player could hack that into several. Or hack "behind the player" to "behind the door wall", etc.

Here's my favorite example from a run-through of that adventure.

This piece is directly from the PDF.
(Players have two rounds to decide what to do with the dynamite. Note that the stick of dynamite may not be hacked, but the environment and the action that occurs can be creatively edited by the players.)

We ran this adventure four times.

In one they didn't encounter it, in the second the party had an engineer with them and it was an easily overcome (no hacking), in the third they threw it back down the hall and survived. One of them asked about the hallway and since it was described as having no cover she hacked it into great. But here is my favorite one.
---
(Players are in a tunnel below the Celestial City. They are tracking a gnome and have come upon a lit stick of dynamite.)

Grode:: Dwaine is first, CarlosVega is second and Grogman is around the back.

Grode:: The thunderstick is lying at Dwain's feet.

Dwain:: Do I recognize it.

Grode:: No, you know nothing about what it actually is.

Dwain:: Dwain hack "nothing" to "everything"

CarlosVega:: hack the thunderstick into a candle

Grode: Dwain you know everything about the boomstick.

Grode:: Carlos, hack does not work.

Grogman:: crap. Hack BACK to CORNER.

CarlosVega:: hack "second" to "gone"

Grode:: OK, Carlos is gone and Grog is around the corner, you just thought they came with you.

Dwain:: #$$%

Dwain:: Since I know everything about it, can I diarm it??

Grode:: Yes, you pull the fuse out in time.

Dwain:: Losers, I keep it for later and keep going

---

In hindsight, I should have tested this 10 or times, 4 wasn't a good sampling. You've given me some things to think about.

I fully believe different hacks will work in a symbiotic fashion with any game system used in chat play. D20, Storyteller, or any number of others.

I do agree with you in that it is a good idea to give players notice up front of what can and can't be hacked.

BTW. Your collective thoughts on all this is facinating and is really taking hacking deeper than I'd ever intended. I'm saving all these threads:) Book two should have some solid clarifications and a lot more on hacking.

Gary

Quote from: BankueiHi folks,

QuoteSo it seems to me that the Unaris GM would do well to consider that hacking is his or her best indicator of whether the planned elements of the scenario are any fucking good. If I'm looking forward to the player-characters encountering "the bomb," and if they hack it to "the plans," then that's telling me that I really oughta concentrate on them discovering information and not dealing with some stupid "sudden attack" threat.

This pretty much is the same message I got from reading Clinton's write up about Inspectres...which really broke off the point of play for me.  If the group at the table isn't finding X exciting, fun or interesting...well then, its time to find a new X.  It's the attempt to cajole or convince people that if they keep at X long enough it will miraculously become fun...that's where dysfunctional play kicks people into denial.

Chris

Hi Chris,

It'd be great for you to play the game for a session and see if you have a good time. The play is fast, the rules light, and there's a surprising amount of tension as the words go streaming by. Then again, it may not be for you. That's okay. But the best time to decide if a game is actually fun is after playing the game.

Gary

QuoteCarlosVega:: hack the thunderstick into a candle

I'm surprised. I see it as a player not used to the responsiblity of maintaining his own suspence.

I mean, he hacks the thunderstick and...the suspense is all gone. This is a punishment for hacking that way, all by itself really.

That's what I was saying before: it's a group-wide limitation to curb the potential for abusive action by one or two players.  And, if people are going to be abusive, surely the better goal is to educate them and socialize them, not restrict the potential of the entire group.  Teach people to be better players, to work well as a group (this, of course, includes working with the GM instead of against him/her), and then they're totally capable of maintaining suspense and doing a whole host of other things.

I believe you'll get different responses depending upon how much experience the person has roleplaying, how much time a person has spent with a specific group, and what kind of social skills he/she has accumulated over there lifetime.

Good discussion.

Hi Gary,

My previous post wasn't a dig at the game.  I can't find the quote from Clinton, but basically he was saying something to the effect of, "If everyone's at the table to have fun (given X), why would the players deliberately abuse their power to mess up (X)".  Which I think applies pretty strongly here as well.

Chris

Chris,

I get it now. I've mostly had positive experiences with good friends around the gaming table, but there has been the odd session when someone comes into the group for a few sessions and acts out, or when someone has a bad night.

Gaming is best done with friends. You all have the same context with which to draw from, the respect is there, and gaming together tends to mean more, as it adds to and strengthens the relationships. In these instances, I totally agree that no restrictions (other than those agreed upon up front) need be applied.

Gary

You know, I really don't agree at all with the crew who are saying that certain kinds of hacking are clear demonstrations of people who are immature or missing the point (to oversimplify a bit).  I agree that this could be the case, but hacking seems to me such a cool thing, such an exciting occasion for creativity, that I can totally see someone pulling a truly nifty hack for the sheer love of it and missing the point -- in the heat of the moment, after all -- that it eliminates the whole conflict.

For example:

GM: The sorcerer casts "Magic Missile" at you!
Player: Hack "Missile" to "Missive"
GM: An envelope hits you in the chest.  Toink!

GM: The bomb is on the floor in front of you.
Player: Hack "you" to "James" (where James is an enemy)
GM: Bang!  A terrible scream!

These aren't brilliant by any means, but I can easily see that with a lot of practice and wit, one could come up with very clever hacks that would be fun all by themselves.  The system seems to me mesmerizing to people who like to play with words, and that can easily become an end unto itself.  Not just for the immature, either.  

Consequently an "all hacks are valid" rule could rapidly lead to something very surreal, possibly very interesting, but possibly also without a lot of coherent story.  A No Hack Zone sort of delineation seems to me quite wise in most cases.

I'd just like to mention that Hacking of this nature bears a lot of similarity to the "Say Again" game in Improvisational Theatre.

Briefly, as the performer is telling the story or joke or whatnot, the audience (sometimes anyone, sometimes only a small group or one person) can yell out "SAY AGAIN" in which case whatever the performer just said is ignored and the performer says something new.