The Forge Archives

Something that has always eluded me is being able to successfully implement precognition into a game.  In order to use it properly you need to predict what the PCs are going to do.  To do that you'd have to have very predictable players or be... well, precognitive.

One could argue that precognitive visions are not set in stone and that PC actions alter the viewed future once it's been reveiled.  Aditionally, events that take place outside the PC's own history are easy to predict.  What I am interested in is how you introduce events that specifically involve the PCs that can not be altered.

I want to make a game called Precog based around the topic and am having a hell of a time coming up with a solid mechanic.  The best I have thus far is to have some kind of metagame mechanic that allows players to frame and narrate a scene that has yet to occur (a vision).  During the game, the player, the GM or even another player can spend points to initiate the previously narrated scene.

I know it's sketchy, but I'm hoping something enlightening will strike me.

I'm curious how the rest of you utilize the ability of precognition in your own games.   Have you found any systems that really work?  is it even possible?

,Matt G.

Hey Matt,

Check out Gareth's post about Ian Young's tarot-based prophecy mechanics http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2683">here.

Paul

Hi Matt,

As a less-central but still significant element of a game, player-precognition is handled brilliantly in InSpectres, in the Confessional mechanics.

I think to have such a thing be a more central element of play (ie the main source of stuff in play, as the title implies) is very, very difficult. Good source material for the topic is rare - it boils down to two stories: (1) Knowledge of the future does not give the power to change it, or (2) Knowledge of the future does too give the power to change it.

The first becomes a kind of philosophical discourse or ironics-exercise; the second becomes a freewheeling action movie. In fact, The Minority Report and TimeCop provide pretty much perfect archetypes for these.

So I guess my first question is which of these sounds more like what you have in mind. The answer will have everything to do with what sort of game mechanic will work best for you.

Best,
Ron

Hi Matt,

Cool concept.  Here's a quick rattle of thoughts.  Precognitive acts store up metagame points the player may spend to initiate and/or direct the the events foreseen.  Make it interesting by providing more points for incorporating complications in the vision that work against the precog's goals.  Tougher complications get you more points, but have an inertia that makes them that much harder to change when the time comes.

Best,

Blake

Matt,

I used a very time-sensitive form of Precognition as a power in Urge (which was very influenced by a similar mechanic in Conspiracy X.)

The basic usage of it was that you could "roll back" a few actions as if they never happens - as they didn't. They were your precognition of what would happen if you followed a certain choice of actions. Here's the actual text:

Quote
Foresight. This power is unique in that it is used after an action occurs. When a result occurs because of a direct action on the part of the character that the player wishes had not happened, the character may activate this power, and game time reverses to the point of the  aforementioned action, the result itself merely being a premonition.

Example: Karl (the character) opens a warehouse door, only to be raked by gunfire from inside. Peter, Karl's player, isn't so keen on this, and has Karl activate Foresight. The Urge vs. Humanity roll is successful, and game time reverses to the point in which Karl was going to open the door. He places his hand on the knob and sees an image of getting raked by gunfire.

It seems a little wonky, but it was actually my favorite mechanic in the game.

Quoteit boils down to two stories:
(1) Knowledge of the future does not give the power to change it, or
(2) Knowledge of the future does too give the power to change it.

So I guess my first question is which of these sounds more like what you have in mind. The answer will have everything to do with what sort of game mechanic will work best for you.

I want to go with number 1.  The problem becomes, what's the point?  If the future can't be altered what would the players do?  What I would really like is to create a game in which the future can not be changed, but the PCs think it can be.  The game would then be more about the path the characters take and less about the ultimate outcome.

The idea brings about thoughts of what people call "God's Plan" which explains that everything that happens happens for a reason.  Keeping that in mind the precognitive visions would not be a message to prevent future events, but a catalyst which drives the precog through the experiences and lessons necessary to bring that event into being.

Quote from: Blake HutchinsMake it interesting by providing more points for incorporating complications in the vision that work against the precog's goals. Tougher complications get you more points, but have an inertia that makes them that much harder to change when the time comes.

I really like that idea.  It's kind of like complications in Chalk Outlines, which was my favorite part of that game.


,Matt G.

I really like that Clinton.
I have two different trains of thought on whether I want all the PCs to have psychic powers, just one or just an NPC.  If I go with all the PCs having psychic powers, I may incorporte that as a separate power.  I don't want a game with 4 to 5 guys that all have the same ability.  Maybe a government team with a precog, a psychometrist, a telepath, a mind reader etc.   It all depends on whether or not I can build an entire game around what I've already mentioned.

,Matt G.

QuoteI want to go with number 1. The problem becomes, what's the point? If the future can't be altered what would the players do? What I would really like is to create a game in which the future can not be changed, but the PCs think it can be. The game would then be more about the path the characters take and less about the ultimate outcome.

That is a really cool idea, I think a game about the different paths that could be taken to a point would be interesting.  Start with the end, and have the story be discovered. Very cool.
There are quite a few telvision episodes that were done this way.

I think you would have two phases of the game here.
1)The phase where the initial{final} scene is created.
2)The story that leads up to it.  Here the final scene is static.

Thus you could have people expend directoral power for 3 ends.
1)Put an element they want into the end scene. Probably affecting this would be more difficult.

2)Affect the story leading up. This could change the meaning of the events in the end scene. For example their a charachter who dies in the last scene could actually be taking a bullet for some one else.

3)Afect the 'aftermath' of the end scene. Kinda like Back to the Future where Doc turns out to have a bulletproof vest.
[/quote]

Hi there,

I believe it was Fang who mentioned, some while ago in some thread or another, that precognition is essentially time travel. I think he's absolutely right and that the constraints, difficulties, opportunities, and so forth for the one topic are the same as for the other.

Best,
Ron

Isn't this very similiar to Once Upon a Time.  Granted in OUaT you don't know WHOSE ending is going to get played, but take all of the ending cards out and just have 1 ending card that all players are playing towards...You'd already know the ending, but that still doesn't tell you much about how you get there.

What about using a similiar mechanic (perhaps but not necessarily with cards) where the equivelent of a OUaT ending is in place along with several other stepping stone "cards" leading up to it.

To use a silly OUat type example you have "And everyone danced merrily away down the path" as the ending.  You also have "a Rake", "a darkened door", "a burning tree" as being "precoged".  No matter what, the story has to hit all of those things before the ending is reached...but how it hits them is unknown.

Now translate the above into a more serious and gritty example.  And remember that precognition is basically nothing more than a modern word for prophecy...and we all know how prophecies can come true in ways completely different than what you might expect (just look at all of the contortions you have to do to "prove" Nostradamus's prophecies.  Just because the players "know" the prophecy doesn't mean in the end that it'll be anything like what they expected.

The brilliant but nigh-unplayable Continuum time travel game deals well with the issue.  If you learn something in your future, and you fail to see it come true, you get fragged out of existence.  Precognition with a big fucking stick (and very little carrot).  

Simply make it explicit, that if a character fails to do what the Precog says he will do, he either looses control of the character for a time, or he gets squished by some kind of universal mojo.  

For a really meta-gamey mechanic on this, perhaps when subject to a Precog vision (not a good thing in this conception) a player is stuck with it... unless he goes balls-out to try and avert it.

Before Zero-Time (when the event is set to 'go off') he has to accumulate a certain number of (oh, call them) Diversions.  A Diversion is a deliberate action designed to distance the character from the fortold event... if enough Diversions are accumulated, the final ingredient is Pure Human Will (or some such tot) which allows a test at the dramatic moment.  Do you pull the trigger, or drop the gun?  Make a resisted test, add your Willpower to your Diversion total and roll it against the result the Precog managed when making the prediction.  

Each vision will have a Veracity score based on the precog's skill check.  This represents the 'number to beat' before Zero Time.

Another recent precog/time travel film that might be useful is Donnie Darko.
 Huge spoilers for Donnie Darko (The 2001 indie film starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Jena Malone, Drew Barrymore).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
 Huge, huge thanks to Ron and Fang for mentioning that Precognition = Time Travel basically.  I had a debate with some friends as to the ending of the film.  I argued that Time Travel was used, but someone else said Precognition was used.  It's finally resolved!  Wow.

Quote from: Ron EdwardsI believe it was Fang who mentioned, some while ago in some thread or another, that precognition is essentially time travel. I think he's absolutely right and that the constraints, difficulties, opportunities, and so forth for the one topic are the same as for the other.

Probably, time travel is one of those things yours truly really loves to wrap his head around for kicks (and to have a 'bent head').

I guess that makes me knowledgeable about this 'stuff.'  So let's get to it....

Quote from: MattGwinnIn order to use it properly you need to predict what the PCs are going to do.

...One could argue that precognitive visions are not set in stone and that PC actions alter the viewed future once it's been revealed.  Additionally, events that take place outside the PC's own history are easy to predict.  What I am interested in is how you introduce events that specifically involve the PCs that can not be altered.

Per the discussion Ron offered:

Quote from: Ron Edwards(1) Knowledge of the future does not give the power to change it, or (2) Knowledge of the future does too give the power to change it.

Technically, you can't have knowledge of the future and not have it change the future.  The knowledge alone is an 'alteration' of the future (and anyone trying to tell you different is trying to sell you something).

If you really want "a game in which the future can not be changed, but the PCs think it can be," you're pretty much going to have to do it "Fang's Time Chess" style.

Time Chess is a game design I have been toying with for years.  I had an idea to do it differently than any other 'time travel chess' I'd ever seen.  The first thing you do is take both players

outside the timestream the game occurs in.  To the players, each moment in time (board position) is visible simultaneously.  They can make a move on any board from the beginning of the game to the end, in any order they like.  They can move pieces forwards and backwards in time.  Once a piece is moved, it remains in that position in all boards following the move.

The fun part was that you could move a piece 'just before' it is removed from play, 'retroactively.'  Thus changing the positions of every board until the end of the game.  That's where the design headache appeared; a piece that had made several crucial moves could be retroactively removed and then all those positions crumble, but then be 'reinstated' by even more 'retroactivity.'  Thus not only did the 'visible lives' of the pieces have to be preserved, but so did the former or 'potential' lives need to be remembered.[/list:u]You can see the problems with that approach; not impossible, but much to work out before playtest.  This all results from adherence to the science fiction concept of 'absolute time.'

'Absolute time' is where all the 'grandfather' paradoxes and the like spring from.  (If I go back in time and slay my grandfather before he sires my father, will my lack of creation stop me from doing it?)  The same problem exists in procognition (though it is more subtle), the "killing Hitler's dad" problem.  You kill this guy, Hitler's dad; if you hadn't Hitler would have killed all those Jewish people, but you did.  Only now that you have, there is no Hitler and no reason to kill his dad.  See?

Short of using the "Fang's Time Chess" approach, I suggest that 'absolute time' has no use in a role-playing game short of liquor ads.

And then there's "what people call 'God's Plan' which explains that everything that happens, happens for a reason."  Did you know that 'god's plan' was the main reason for the Dark Ages?  Hey, either you name is or isn't in 'the book' of who get's saved and has been since the beginning of time; nothing you do can change your listing, so why bother?  Forget inventing stuff, forget improving your life, skip 'being nice' it won't matter anyway = Dark Ages.  (I oversimplify, but you get the point.)

This still doesn't get around the 'absolute time' problem.  I mean 'absolute time' is all fine and good in a static narrative, the author has planned out the ending from the beginning.  In that case, time is absolute!  Unless you just want to co-write stories with your players, I submit that absolute time is useless.  (Didn't subsequent Dune novels have this problem?  Paul could see where 'time was going' and 'knew' that it could not be changed.)

Technically, I think the worst part about a game where the future doesn't change is that it is very hard to keep the players from feeling deprotagonized.  (Entering their own Dark Ages.)

So far science fiction has yielded two other possibilities I am aware of.  The first is a kinda 'soft absolute time.'  It's a little bit like some of the movies made of Lathe of Heaven.  The same characters crop up, again and again, no matter how much you mess with the time stream; they just have different 'forms.'  Id est; you kill Hitler's dad and someone very like Hitler rises up and does pretty much the same things, just has a different name and look.

The other is 'outsider' time travel.  Whenever you travel in time, you become a 'temporal orphan.'  Sure you killed your grandpappy, but since you weren't in that time stream (downstream that is), nothing happens to you.  Of course when you 'go back to the present' you find you don't exist (oh sure, you're there now, but nobody has any record of you; kinda the It's a Wonderful Life effect.)  Personally, since our time travel product is more about 'sight seeing,' rather than offer the risk of the 'grandfather paradox' we're using the 'temporal orphan' gig.  (We're also pretty heavy into the idea that history doesn't revolve around singular individuals; kill Napoleon, Hitler, or Einstein, you won't prevent the fall of the monarchy, world war, or special relativity, just delay/alter it.)

Quote from: MattGwinnI want to make a game called Precog based around the topic and am having a hell of a time coming up with a solid mechanic.  The best I have thus far is to have some kind of metagame mechanic that allows players to frame and narrate a scene that has yet to occur (a vision).  During the game, the player, the GM or even another player can spend points to initiate the previously narrated scene.

While this sounds reminiscent of of InSpectres in the way...

Quote from: Ron EdwardsAs a less-central but still significant element of a game, player-precognition is handled brilliantly in InSpectres, in the Confessional mechanics.

This would only work if the whole game operated in 'flashback' mode with the characters telling the story of their precognitive adventures.

Blake's idea:

Quote from: Blake HutchinsPrecognitive acts store up metagame points the player may spend to initiate and/or direct the the events foreseen.

This has promise, but ultimately I think it puts too much responsibility on the player to accumulate enough "metagame points" to 'override' how the game will want to 'go astray.'

Clinton's citation of the Urge 'rollback' mechanic is a pretty good one, for short-term precognition (planned on doing something like that for Scattershot as a matter of fact).  The problem is using it for long-term precognition leads to the 'Dallas effect' (named for a evening soap opera that basically tossed out a whole season's worth of episodes as a 'dream sequence) or would it be the 'Witchblade effect' now?  I'm not sure how willing anyone would be to rerun weeks of play because the precognitive 'sensed' what would happen far in advance.  Ultimately it would be as though they all 'sensed' it and would have to 'pretend they didn't.'  Although that might have the seed of what might work.

How about this then?  Let a player define a future event (according to some game mechanic, just don't 'charge them' for it).  That is set as the future.  Anyone who does things that would make that future more likely earns points (whether or not their character knows the future).  Anyone who does anything clearly to make that future less likely (including the precognitive's player) has to pay to do so.

This works the above backwards.  The onus is upon those who rebuke the future not on he who defines it (this makes it more likely that the future will happen that way and doesn't make it a war to see who can mess up the players precognition).  Blake's way almost guarantees that precognitives are nearly useless because of the unlikelihood of any player saving up enough points to create 'the future of their dreams.'  (That means that precognitives are almost always wrong and even I can make those kinds of predictions.)

Clinton's suggestion is notable because it offers that players will 'buy into' a predefined future.  (You 'rollback' the whole game a few weeks and everyone is expected to play it as if they don't know what will happen; not an unreasonable request, just a hard one to write.)  The comparison to InSpectres is reminiscent of "Fang's Time Chess" and quite workable, although it offers a kind of detachment (and suggests heavy script immunity for anyone 'telling their story').

One of the things we're trying out right now with Scattershot is 'personal' Genre Expectations as a form of 'destiny' or 'fate.'  Y'see Genre Expectations can include Sequential information, like 'after a long hard trek, the hero will confront the villain in the ultimate conflict of the story.'  No matter what, you know that sooner or later you'll end up face to face with a villain (not necessarily the original, but then this is a game, not a novel).

We plan to do something similar to what I described above.  A persona's 'destiny' is created when the persona is.  Anything the player does to 'move towards his destiny' is rewarded, just like playing 'in genre' is with the Genre Expectations.  If it is defined as an 'epic fate,' then anyone will be rewarded for helping it come to pass.  We don't use penalties in Scattershot, but there's no reason you can't with Precog.  If you use the punishment/rewards system well, you can create that feeling that the future resists change like you imply you want.  (But I suggest the 'carrot' is better than the 'stick;' who wants to play a game to be punished?)

Does that help?

Fang Langford

Quote from: MattGwinnThe problem becomes, what's the point?  If the future can't be altered what would the players do?  What I would really like is to create a game in which the future can not be changed, but the PCs think it can be.  The game would then be more about the path the characters take and less about the ultimate outcome.

It seems to me The Insects of God works this way.

Honestly, a lot of classic gaming has essentially used this model. It's known beforehand that the PCs will kill all the monsters, the big bad, and take all the treasure. What path will they take? Of course, that's different in that the players pretend they don't know that's what's going to happen.

By the way, Kenway, "The Philosophy of Time Travel" special feature on the Donnie Darko DVD pretty much explains everything.

Quote from: Le JoueurHow about this then? Let a player define a future event (according to some game mechanic, just don't 'charge them' for it). That is set as the future. Anyone who does things that would make that future more likely earns points (whether or not their character knows the future). Anyone who does anything clearly to make that future less likely (including the precognitive's player) has to pay to do so.

I really like that idea.

Now that I think about it, I use a similar method in Kayfabe.  A series in Kayfabe begins with players planning the Pay Per View match, the rest of the series is built around ensuring that match occurs as planned.  Not quite precognition (more scripting) but similar.

,Matt G.