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 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:

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 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.

Blake Hutchins wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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.

Ron Edwards wrote: 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.

MattGwinn wrote: In 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.

Ron Edwards wrote: (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.

MattGwinn wrote: 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.

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

Blake Hutchins wrote: Precognitive acts store up metagame points the player may spend to initiate and/or direct the the events foreseen.

MattGwinn wrote: 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.

Le Joueur wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Bailywolf wrote: 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?

Bailywolf wrote: 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).

Bailywolf wrote: 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.

Bailywolf wrote: 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.

Bailywolf wrote: 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.

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?

Bailywolf wrote: 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?

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.

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