Precog

[Balbinus]

As an aside on the rollback idea, I think this originally was thought of by FGU as it exists both in Bushido as a Priestly power and in Aftermath as a psychic ability.

It works well, but only for short term precognition.  It doesn't help so much with longer term visions.

[Bailywolf]

The point exchange seems elegant and satisfying.

What of Precogs with conflicting future views?  We enter minority report territory here (with all that methody plot device buisness), but it raises an intresting question about group dynamics and interaction- who will the characters be?

All precogs?  

One precog and a number of agents/keepers/operatives?

What will the premise & color be?  It matters when designing mechanics to best suit...

Will the characters be the ones trying to make the visions come true...or taking the hard road and trying to prevent them?  Or will this vary with the nature of the vision?  

Will use of precog ability be possible on the in-game microscopic level instead of on the macroscopic metagame structural level ("grab an umbrella now!").  I can see some very neat mechanics for short-range precog advantage taking... spend points (just a few- the events being shanked are immediate and fairly minor...making up elements of a scene but not the entire scene... predicting the rain and grabbing an umbrella but not avoiding the entire scene of being outside in the rain...or forseeing an ambush so you are not completely surprised...even if you can't evade the attack completely).  Trading points for a InSpectrs-style precog confessional might be a neat mechanic.

How practical is the precognition?

How are these fate point things acrued?  Is it strictly a matter of gaining them by making sure that certain events take place?  I forsee a presidential assassination, so I work to make sure it happens... I accumulate an assload of fate points... I then use them to prevent visionary events which I don't want to happen...like my own death.  

This raises some nice questions of moral reletivism, the responsibility of power, and or one person's right to make descisions for another...who lives and who dies for example.


I can see a very elegant visionary duel mechanic evolving here... two precogs with conflicting visions for an event wage a subtle war of influence, sabatage, and manuipulation in an effort to ensure their vision becomes history.  They can accumulate huge pools of this 'fate energy' (or whatever) and use them to create traps and pitfals in future-time for their enemies... investing certain events with a level of Veracity almost to huge to Diverge.

How would the actual visionary mechans work?  Depending on your design flavor (I'm leaning in the direction of a Gamey-Naritivy blend), a system by which a Precog's ability is rated on its Scope (physcial range) and Depth (range into future-time) as well as Acuracy (the level of detail- and the strength of the vision).

You make your precog check...and succede or fail, see something...  With a successful check (based on Accuracy) you gain the right to descrive key details of the Vision.  The more you succede, the more Hallmarks you can describe.  Each Hallmark is a key to the Vision.  These are- for whatever reason- the keys to seeing your vision come true... or preventing it.  By making sure each Hallmark is in place when Zero-time occurs, you acquire a point of Fate...changing a Hallmark costs a point.  You can bank you points, carrying them from Vision to Vision.

Any Hallmark you fail to define is created (secretly) by the GM.  You have no idea what the key elements of the Vision are...you are assualted by it, and have no idea what the fissure points are which would allow you to change it...

Enemy Precogs can also interfere with your vision, substituting their own Hallmarks for your own.  

Here are some ideas for core Hallmarks in any Scene:

**Loci- the location in space...where

**Decor- the detail of the scene...what does it look like (different from Loci...it make look like a hotel room...but which room in which hotel???)

**Players- each person forseen is a seperate Hallmark

**Motivation- what the Players are intending to do.  Each Motivation is a seperate Hallmark.

**Action- what the Players are actualy DOING.  Again, each Action is a seperate Hallmark.

**Consequences- the RESULTS of an Action.  One Consequence can be defined per Action.

Poorly forseen visions are easier to alter, but more complete ones allow for greater pools of Veracity to be accumulated... powerful Pregogs will find themselves enslaved to the Status quo...the perfection of their vision makes it that much harder for them to change the future...  Precogs with hazier visions will find they can alter what they see much easier...FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE.  For all they know, even their visionary meddling was part of a greater Precog's visions...  creepy, eh?




Sorry for the rambling.  This idea totally kicks ass, and it has me excited.

[damion]

I think a difficult thing is to rate how much each element affects the scene. Gotta thank Baily for this idea. It occured to me that removing the person being assinated from a scene is much more important than removeing one of 3 assassins.

I would suggest something like this for each element.
Also, I would use a more nebulous grouping. You could use this to pick elements also.

Focus:This the element of the scene that is in contention. To go with the assination example, weather it happens could be the focus. The focus is probably always a question. 'Will X happen?'
The focus could also be WHO did it, or in what manner though.
Or even who the target (Someone gonna die, not sure who)

One thing would be all precog's see the 'current' version of a vision when they do a viewing. They can also sence the amount of change done since their last viewing. The vision is a canvas that all the precog's paint on, trying to create their own version.
This way minor changes can set up greater later changes.

Critical:Changes the actions of many people in the scene, for instance, changing the modivation of many people in a scene. My previous example of removing the target of a hit comes in here.

Major:Has a high probablity of affecting the outcome of the scene.  Frex:Target still has a bodyguard with them.

Moderate:Could affect the focus. Frex:Target has a weapon they are not skilled with.

Minor:Does not really affect outcome. Note that minor elements can make later changes easier. Also, not that any elment added to the vision succesfully stays. Say the door to the room where the target is is locked. This is a minor change, but would prevent another precog from bringing reinforcements through the door. (Now unlocking the door becomes part of a major change, and harder to do).

Just some ideas

[Blake Hutchins]

Great input, guys.  I really like the idea of a precog duel.  With the various components of a vision, this sounds like something a variant of Vincent's Otherkind mechanic might fit.

Best,

Blake

[Bailywolf]

Good points damion.  In addition to ranking each Hallmark based on Significance to a scenes Meaning, when actualy trying to change something, it can have another axis of description based on the degree of change.

Each Hallmark has a base Veracity.  This is the number of points a Precog earns by making it come true... or must expend to avert it.

Say like this:

Hallmark:  1 point per hallmark
+0 Minor (a detail).  Can not have an affect on the current Vision, but may in subsequent visions.
+1 Significant (a full element).  One of the assassins in a killing.  The car in a car chase.  
+2 Principle (the focus of the scene).  What its all about- the guy getting killed, the secrets being stolen, the people doing the fooling around.

Now, to change a scene requires altering its Hallmarks... and the degree of change will add to the cost of the change.

+0 Astetic (color).  Can make strictly surface changes to a Hallmark.  Alter an assassin's clothing...perhaps it will make identifying him later easier...
+1 Swap.  Exchange one Hallmark for another.  Remove one assassin and replace him with another.  Function remains the same.
+2 Function.  Change something significant about the scene which might affect the outcome.  Change an assassin's gun to a knife.
+3 Removal.  Edit that Hallmark out of the scene completely.


Example

DuPrice is a precog working for the New York City police.  He and his team work extra-legaly to prevent crime (I know, not so origional, but go with me).  After breakfast he clears his mind, and reaches... this week the Unit is trolling for rapists.  

He make a precog check (with whatever skill system is being used) and comes up with a result of 12.  He has 12 points to purchase Hallmarks as described above.  He spends  3 points for the rape itself- it is an Action, and it is the Principle of the vision.  If he fials to define this at least as a hallmark, then it can't be altered.  He then expends 3 points of result for the victim, and 3 points for the attacker- these are both Players but also Principle players...remove either one, and the Vision is null.  He now has only 3 points left to figure out (and fix) the Loci and Decor...He determines the Loci to be a place in Central Park, and the Decor is a rocky path with the sound of runnngin water close by.  He expends 2 points on Central Park and 1 on the setting.  These details my be very importiant if he fails to intervene and alter the Hallmarks, and must instead go for direct Disruption by charging into the vision itself- esentialy expending points to add himself as an element at the last possible moment, then shifting the action to a personal level.  

So now the rape vision is laid out like this:

Focus: A violent Rape (principle) 3
Player: The Victim (principle) 3
Player: The Attacker (principle) 3
Loci: Central Park (minor) 1
Decor: Path, running water, trees, concealment, seclusion (significant) 2

Total these, and it equals his precog check of 12.  

DuPrice has a Scope of 6- he can forsee the entire city of New York.
But he only has a Depth of 3- he can only see a few days into the future... he had better start working!

Assume a precog has an intuitive unconscious sense of where to go and what to do to alter his Hallmarks...sort of homing in on the roots of that Hallmark.  Marking a hallmark is like a bloodhound getting a whiff of a fugitive's old bedclothes- he can track the Hallmark to its most vulnerable point.  This tracking and is part of the game... going to weird places, interacting, and working to change the Hallmark.  When he reaches the Hallmark's root, he expands points equal to the Hallmark's Veracity and the degree to which he needs to change it.  

DuPrice and his partern decide the crack the vision based on the Attacker.  They want to go for a full-out Removal- bascily by finding the perp and putting the smack on him.  Duprice makes a few Precog checks (following his intuition) assisted by mindane techniques (using research skills to augment precog sense), and they track the pre-rapist to his crappy apartment and catch him high on Meth and kicking the crap out of his junkie brother.  DuPrice burns the required points.  3 for the Veracity or the Player  and 3 for the Action plus 3 for full blown Removal of each.  A seriously heavy 12 points!  Now he has opened up the possibility of changing the future- he has smugged out part of his vision...the future is now somewhat blurred...   But he and his partenr still have to bring down this meth addled psycho rapist without letting him get away...if they fail to take him out before Zero Time... they could chase him right into the Scene where he comits his atrocity...  brown trowsers time, eh?



The reverse is also true.  DuPrice needs to rebuild his reserves of REVISION points... he Precogs a homeless girl being rescued off the street.  Something he wants to see come true.  He works behind the scenes to make the vision go off exactly as he foresaw it, and if he can make sue each and every Hallmark is in place, he can earn a nice pool of Revision points.

[Le Joueur]

What of Precogs with conflicting future views?

...Will the characters be the ones trying to make the visions come true...or taking the hard road and trying to prevent them?  Or will this vary with the nature of the vision?

The second precognition, if in conflict, both reflects the effect on the timeline of the first and becomes a contradiction of it (meaning the second requires point expenditure).

As for what the characters do, I would like to think it would work either way.  The characters are oblivious to the points; the points 'herd' the players towards the 'expected' future.

Will use of precog ability be possible on the in-game microscopic level instead of on the macroscopic metagame structural level ("grab an umbrella now!").  I can see some very neat mechanics for short-range precog advantage taking... spend points (just a few - the events being shanked are immediate and fairly minor...making up elements of a scene but not the entire scene... predicting the rain and grabbing an umbrella but not avoiding the entire scene of being outside in the rain...or foreseeing an ambush so you are not completely surprised...even if you can't evade the attack completely).

Ah, but you're not predicting the rain, you're predicting being caught without an umbrella in the rain.  Thus grabbing an umbrella costs points.  Just predicting rain would net you nothing unless you seeded the clouds.

How practical is the precognition?

How are these fate point things accrued?  Is it strictly a matter of gaining them by making sure that certain events take place?  I foresee a presidential assassination, so I work to make sure it happens... I accumulate an assload of fate points... I then use them to prevent visionary events which I don't want to happen...like my own death.

That was the problem we had with it in the first place.  You can't just toss the mechanic into the mix and expect it to be used properly.  A precognition is supposed to be what would happen if the character takes no special action.  Working against it is going out of one's way to prevent it based on that knowledge.  Working 'with it' they way you describe isn't what the points are for.  Think about it as a 'good role-playing award.'  If you play as though it is destiny without your intervention, then you gain points.  If you 'mess' with it there is a penalty, not for fighting the future, but for playing as though precognitions are worthless.  It's a meta-narrative mechanic to give the concept of precognition 'teeth.'  The characters aren't penalized or benefited, the players are.

I can see a very elegant visionary duel mechanic evolving here... two precogs with conflicting visions for an event wage a subtle war of influence, sabotage, and manipulation in an effort to ensure their vision becomes history.

It would be more an elegant duel if both had the same vision.  One tries to preserve it, the other tries to benefit from it (potentially by subverting it).

How would the actual visionary mechanics work?  Depending on your design flavor (I'm leaning in the direction of a Gamey-Naritivy blend), a system by which a Precog's ability is rated on its Scope (physical range) and Depth (range into future-time) as well as Accuracy (the level of detail- and the strength of the vision).

You make your precog check...and succeed or fail, see something...  With a successful check (based on Accuracy) you gain the right to describe key details of the Vision.  The more you succeed, the more Hallmarks you can describe.  Each Hallmark is a key to the Vision.  These are - for whatever reason - the keys to seeing your vision come true... or preventing it.  By making sure each Hallmark is in place when Zero-time occurs, you acquire a point of Fate...changing a Hallmark costs a point.  You can bank you points, carrying them from Vision to Vision.

An interesting idea, but I can't vouch for how well that would work in practice.  First you randomize the quality of the vision, then you allow it to be perverted almost without effort.  That actually trivializes the act of precognition (which was what I thought the original problem was).

I still say you should just let the precognitive literally define the future.  Everyone playing is 'bound' to this event occurring.  (The points are gained or lost because the players 'should know better' than to invalidate the future, unless the characters do so deliberately, which costs no points I would think.)

If the future is one they don't like, the character fights it (not the player).  It becomes a cat-and-mouse to see if they can find the key events to 'stop the future from happening.'  (The player still must play it as if the future is inevitable.)  If it is a future they like, then some other force must also be aware of the same vision and be actively trying to avert it; the player characters are then 'on the defensive' trying to preserve key events.  All 'ignorant of the precognition' characters must act in accordance with what has been defined (wherein lies the bonus/penalty for their players).

What you're suggesting is a completely different game, one founded on the 'one true timeline' premise.  This often comes from the hackneyed science fiction, 'time travelers here to protect the future.'  I say "hackneyed" because all their protecting is their future; I just don't get the 'true timeline' idea.  In that case, those fate points would work to preserve the 'true timeline' from interference.  If it is meant to be a game about 'changing the future' this wouldn't work.

It sounded like what was desired was a 'you cannot change the future' type game.  For that I would go with what I outlined and suggest that penalties must 'come back to haunt' the character like destiny trying to correct the mess made by the player.

Fang Langford

[Bailywolf]

I see your points... but I've never been one to depend on players to play counter to their characters intrests.  I'm not advocating, as you describe it, a 'one true timeline' nor a completely flexible timeline... rather a future smeared on a quantum level- once observed it becomes somewhat 'fixed' but even then, with the aplication of intense deliberate effort things can be altered, averted, or changed.

I proposed the vision definiton mechanic to tie player and character action closer together... frankly, I don't like the remote-control lavel of role playing where the character is moved about like a piece on a board by a detached player...

An alternative is for the GM to keep track of all the revision points and such... tracking a character's progress twords altering a scene as Time Zero looms closer...

All the player knows is what each Hallmark is worth and how much they wish to change things.  Instead of a point-for-action reward system, the GM adds or removes Veracity from the vision's total as the player discerns more and more about it or makes more and more changes.

You could have a Proff Threshold.  Visions perfected past this point are unavoidable and immutable.  Say 50 Veracity makes a vision as immutable as the past.  You make your initial check, and this results in a result total (almost always less than 50).  You can then work to reduce this total with your actions... reducing the Veracity of the vision.  If you want to work the oposite angle, you manipulate to make it more likely.  

Say you have a hazy vision of a person getting murdered.  You want to use this vision to deal with an old enemy of yours.  The vision has an initial Veracity of 18 (based on your skill check).  The GM tracks the Veracity total, only telling you when it rises or drops (though not by how much) or it is falls below 0 and proves false or rises above 50 and becomes Writ.  

You discern the location of the vision through research (adding Loci and Decor), you find assassins and make sure they are in the right place at the right time with the right intentions (adding Players and Actions).  You fix it so your enemy is in the right place to play his role in the vision (Player and Focus).  

Your various skill checks to do the above add to the Veracity of the vision if they succede...reduce it if they fail.  

When Time Zero occurs, the Veracity of the vision is revealed (if it hasn't hit zero or risen to Writ) and the GM natates it based on how close the Veracity is to 50.  

If your Precog power rises to the point where you can roll 50 or better when you use your abilities, you can so solidify future time, that no amount of manipulation can later it.  

The distinction between revealing absolute time and 'fixing' indeterminate time with observation is not a moot one...

I think leaving characters to ponder the true nature of the future and free will has to be one of the big conflicts in this kind of game...  is the futue fixed?  Do we change the future?  Do we define it, create it, alter it, or just play out our parts?  Who knows?

[Le Joueur]

I see your points... but I've never been one to depend on players to play counter to their characters interests.  I'm not advocating, as you describe it, a 'one true timeline' nor a completely flexible timeline... rather a future smeared on a quantum level- once observed it becomes somewhat 'fixed' but even then, with the application of intense deliberate effort things can be altered, averted, or changed.

...I think leaving characters to ponder the true nature of the future and free will has to be one of the big conflicts in this kind of game...  is the future fixed?  Do we change the future?  Do we define it, create it, alter it, or just play out our parts?  Who knows?

It's one thing to see a player play counter to their character's interest and completely another to see the character not acting upon the player's goals.  On some level there has to be a separation between what the character knows and what the player knows.  To assume there is none is to have little faith in players.

I wasn't trying to say that you were advocating 'one true timeline,' only that your mechanics worked best under that kind of schema.  'Set a future, become more empowered by seeing it through' carries a certain kind of hubris that, to me, defeats the whole mystique of precognition.  Making a predicted future happen and then profiting by the process in meta-narrative currency, simply implies that you should define futures that you like.  I make a prediction that the president (who has it in for me) will be assassinated, I go kill him, I collect the points; if you're already assuming inability for the players to act 'counter' to their characters' interest, then I can't see how this would not be the whole of the game.

The mechanic I suggested encourages the characters to act in ways counter to what the players desire by rewarding it.  I'm not 'depending on it,' I'm causing it.

I see your mechanic pitting characters against characters.  Mine pits characters against the future.  Only that way can I see players left to ponder the nature of time and free will.  I really don't think characters ponder much of anything (mostly); I would want to get the players thinking about this stuff.  Otherwise all they're doing is 'moving a character like piece on a board' trying to accumulate enough "Hallmarks" to render their vision "immutable" with no player engagement in 'freewill' thoughts whatsoever.

You want someone to think about freewill?  Start charging them for it.  You want them to think about 'pieces on a board,' give them currency to chase and spend.  That's all I was talking about.

Fang Langford

[Bailywolf]

I think we're more in line than might initialy appear...angling in on the thing from different directions.  I'd like to see something which can generate many different kinds of conflict- external in the Man vs Nature (or in this case, the Future) or Character vs Character (fighting over the Future), or Internal conflict with power v responsibilities, free will v determinism.  A sheme which can be dialed to suit.

Frankly, I just don't like the whole cloth precog scheme... you describe the future in as much detail as you please.  THIS IS THE FUTURE... seems...I don't know... terribly easy to abuse certainly...difficult to work into a more complex set of mechanics.  

I feel leaving the clarity/detail/accuracy of a visionary schene as something resolved through mechanics is the way to go.  The act of forsight, interpretation, and alteration is central to this whole concept... as if Ron decided that in Sorcerer you just made up a demon and thats what you get w/o any Ritual mechanics to support the core active concepts of the game.  

By breaking a vision down into managable chunks which can be semi-objectively judged, it also makes the GM's heavy task a bit easier to manage... altering the vision is no longer entirely a matter of subjective judgement...you have a numeric measure of how close to being 'true' a vision is...

Look to my last scheme in which the player never deals directly with the points...he only knows when his actions make the vision more of less likely, and there is a definite 'tipping point' to judge the thing by.    It also removes the reward-for-enforcing-visions thing you had issue with.

But must dash!


This thread is HOT hot hot.

[Stuart DJ Purdie]

I don't want a game with 4 to 5 guys that all have the same ability.

I noticed that there have been a few suggestions on how to handle different type of precognition.  Most of these differ in scale - operating over an action or so, a few scences, or long term plot.

How about different types of precog in the game, working over different scales, to give differentiation to the characters powers?  One issue I can see is that it would tend to be the long time scale powers that would drive the story - not nessecarily a problem.

Stuart