The Forge Archives

Preamble:
This thread is a sister thread to GroupDesign: Mix Your Own Metaplot, dedicated to refining the concept of Archivists as laid out in the earlier Groupdesign threads Setting & System Brainstorm, Clusters 2 & 3, Core vs. Optional, and -- probably the best starting point for newcomers, as it lays out the latest and most evolved set of concepts -- Nailing Mechanics. People who've not been following the GroupDesign discussion might feel a bit lost until they've skimmed those old threads, but anyone and everyone who finds this work-in-progress interesting should feel free, indeed encouraged, to contribute.

We've spent some time thrashing out both concepts and raw mechanics for the Archivists, the incorporeal, body-hopping protagonists of our as-yet-nameless game. But it's clear that the nature of Archivists still needs some more definition. As a first attempt to define the problem, I'd suggest this thread should address the following interrelated but rather sprawling set of questions:

(1) Archivists can do things beyond what is humanly possible -- supernatural abilities we've called variously (and with varying degrees of self-importance) Kewl Powerz, Uncanny Knowledgz, Transcendent Traits, and Logoi. But what are these cool things?
(1a) Are there certain mandatory powers that every Archivist must have by definition? (The ability to possess a mortal human Host seems to come close, though you could posit an Archivist incapable of possession which spent all of its time in the Great Library).
(1b) Conversely, to what extent does each Archivist possess unique abilities defined by its human past and manner of becoming an Archivist?
(1c) Is there a common "menu" of available powers that any Archivist could have, though no one Archivist will have all or even most?
(1d) What different types of Archivist might there be (either in alternative settings for the game, or coexisting in the same setting) with different "menus" of mandatory and available powers?

(2) To what extent do Archivists form a society? Do they have a hierarchy? Organized factions with competing agendas? Or are they free agents who work together only when they wish to? (N.B. I suspect this is the topic on which we can safely allow the most variation across alternative settings).

(3) How, exactly, do Archivists interact with their Hosts?
(3a) In particular, how much awareness and self-will does the Host have during "possession," how much does the Host remember afterwards, and how much is the Host's sense of identity protected by simple denial?

(4) Archivists gave up much of their humanity to become what they are. Does this make them tragic, transcendent, or both?
(4a) If the answer is "both" -- and I think this is the most interesting possibility -- then can their human and transcendent natures be reconciled into a harmonious greater whole (thesis+antithesis=synthesis), or must one ultimately be sacrificed to the other?

This list is not meant to be exhaustive: I suspect other people will propose a (5) and even a (6).

Since we're already thinking of providing multiple modular setting elements to allow each gaming group to customize its version of Archivists, each question (especially 1c, 1d, and 2) may well have several equally valid and mutually contradictory answers. It's important to lay out those alternatives, since we need ultimately to write up rules flexible enough to allow all of them. But it is even more important to nail down the core -- the things that hold true across all options.

Excellent list of questions, Sydney.

Here's my personal take on this so far:

(1) Archivist powers are superhuman but not supernatural, within the Setting. In other words, Archivist powers are a natural consequence of the what an Archivist is. I'm aware this this doesn't actually define what these traits are yet, I'm hoping this will become more clear later.
(1a) Archivists need to be Incorporeal (this isn't a Trait with a rating, it's a fundamental quality of the Archivist.) They also need to have some type of Telepathy for communication, and some type of Energy Gathering power, because they can't get their energy from food. This is why I think that the majority of Archivist Powers should be based upon Telepathy and Energy Manipulation. The ability to travel vast distances through Space (and, optionally, Time) appears to be a given as well - I consider that Archivists are essentially "transdimensional" in some sense or another.
(1b) I don't think that there are any unique "powers" as such. Archivists wil have unique personalities and sets of skills, but I don't think that there is any individual power that couldn't be learned by any Archivist (although there ma be "minimum requirements" for learning a power.)
(1c) Yep.
(1d) There is still room for different "backgrounds" for Archivists - these would certainly help to define the skills that an Archivist could have, and possibly also affect choice of powers (would an Archivist have, say, Molecular Manipulation as a power if he din't know what a molecule was?) but this is a trickier call.

(2) If Archivists have exceptional ability to travel, and there are limited ways in which Archivists can hurt one another, I imagine that there will be several Archivist "societies", based upon shared interestes and opinions (although only one of these societies is likely to be called the "Archivists" - and the most likely Optional setting is that the "Nemesis" are a group of "anti-Archivists").

So, any of the Disembodied could be a "free agent", or a member of one or more "factions". Each setting is likely to feature different "factions", who may or may not operate in the same meta-plot.

(3) & (3a) I would still like to see more than one type of Archivist "possession", as this introduces another Difficult Choice into the game. To illustrate:

[*]Riding - The Archivist exerts no control over the Host's Actions, but has access to the Host's senses. The safest choice, but the lack of influence is a distinct disadvantage. Long periods of Riding (or a botched roll by the Archivist) can cause the Host to feel that he is "being watched" (gains Paranoia traits.)[*]Guiding - The Archivist speaks to the Host with an Inner Voice, and attempts to persuade the Host to do something. The Host will usually believe that these thoughts are their own, but "voices in my head" are also a classic symptom of Schizophrenia. There is also more chance of the Host realising that they are being possessed.[*]Driving - The Archivist takes over control of the Host. This is blatant, and the Host is vey likely to realise that they are being possessed (although they may also rationalise this as "i don't know what cam over me...")Driving gives access to the full range of Archivist Powers, but most of these also inflict Burnout on the Host, so this is also a mixed blessing as well.[/list:u](Note: "Fading" becomes an unintentional possession "option" under these rules.)

Now, more experienced Archivists may have the means to get away with Driving ther Hosts more often - for example, by using a Telepathic power to alter their hosts memories after the event. However this should be a Wrong Bad Act. The best Archivists should be able to get what they want just by making subtle suggestions to their hosts.

I would also like to see Archivist possession being scientifically detectable in modern settings - for example, an EEG would show unusual readings, or a Geiger Counter may show slightly elevated levels of radiation. This gives the Archivist something else to worry about if they are up against an opponent who knows what they are.

(4) & (4a) Both, without a doubt. Archivsts are both More Than Human and Less Than Human - they have amazing powers at the cost of raw physical sensation - and the only way they can gain physical sensation is by possessing living bodies, which harms the current occupant. This should be an Either/Or - no soulless clone bodies that can be inhabited at no moral cost!

However, the Human and Superhuman natures of the Archivist can, and should, be integrated. This is the balance that keeps the Archivist sane. If the Human side dominates, the Archivist gets sucked into the "lure of the senses" and is likely to end up as a permanently Faded bystander inside a single Host. If the Superhuman side takes over, Archivists lose the compassion that allows them to integrate with their Hosts - they either disappear into the Beyond (like Dr Manhattan in Watchmen) or use humans as living chess pieces in their own personal game.

Anyway, lots here - I hope this helps to show what I think an Archivist actually is, for the purposes of this game. I also want to know what everyone else thinks an Archivist is, so please take the time to post here.

(1) Kewl Powerz, Uncanny Knowledgz, Transcendent Traits, and Logoi.

Telepathy/Telecontrol -- "These aren't the droids you're looking for."

Biological Amplification (yeah, I know it means something else) -- "Strange, I suddenly have the strength of ten men...must be the adrenaline."

Atomic Sight (i.e. X-ray vision) -- "Careful, there's an explosive device behind that steel door. Never mind how I know, just trust me."

Inhuman Statistical Analysis -- "Hmm, by moving this rock three centimeters toward magnetic north, the probability of the desired outcome increases by .0000000000002317 percent. Approximately."

There's more, but that's all I can think of at the moment.

(1a) Yes -- ability to possess a host, telepathy, instantaneous travel (through space and possibly time).

(1b) I think this should be up to the player at character creation. Maybe I want an Archivist whose powers reflect his mortal life. Maybe I want someone who is totally changed by the experience. I don't think we need a mechanic for this.

(1c) Yes, assuming they know of it, or research it for themselves, any Archivist should be able to learn any power.

(1d) I don't know that different types of Archivists would have different powers, since I think they should all have equal ability to learn Logoi. But the three types of Archivists I envision are the Archivists, Nemesis, and Independents. The Archivists and Nemesis are at war (or at least conflict) and the Independents don't really care one way or the other.

(2) My take is that Archivists are essentially each a nation unto themselves. Sure, they form groups and alliances, with a defined leader, but for the most part, they do their own thing.

(3) I think Doug's got the right idea in this area. However, I don't like the idea that Archivists can be detected with technology. Coming up with a pseudo-scientific reason to explain how Archivists control hosts reminds me too much of "super radar-powered laser robots" of the 1950s.  

(3a) I think the host has full awareness, just not full control. Okay, so an inhumanly powerful incorporeal creature takes over your body and makes you do thinks. Uhm...yeah, right. You'd rationalize it the same as I would. In modern days, by going to a shrink for a few years without having another occurrence until...bang...you're cured. Phew, thank goodness for modern psychiatry. In the middle ages, you'd realize it was caused by an imbalance in your bodily humours, and have the appropriate fluid drained. Phew, thank goodness for modern leech therapy. In primitive times, you'd know that is was the great whatever-spirit choosing you as special, and go put a pointy rock on the end of long stick, so you can kill anyone who challenges your position from a safe distance. Phew, thank goodness for modern spear technology.

(4) More transcendent than tragic, I'd say.

Quote from: Andrew MorrisI think Doug's got the right idea in this area. However, I don't like the idea that Archivists can be detected with technology. Coming up with a pseudo-scientific reason to explain how Archivists control hosts reminds me too much of "super radar-powered laser robots" of the 1950s.

Hey! Pseudoscience is fun!

Seriously, I agree that the actual how of possession shouldn't be explained - otherwise Archivists become a Star Trek "Alien of the week." But I would like there to be some detectable side effects - it gives the Archivists something else to worry about. Think of this as being a bit like a Telltale from Sorcerer

Quote from: Andrew MorrisI think the host has full awareness, just not full control. Okay, so an inhumanly powerful incorporeal creature takes over your body and makes you do thinks. Uhm...yeah, right. You'd rationalize it the same as I would. In modern days, by going to a shrink for a few years without having another occurrence until...bang...you're cured. Phew, thank goodness for modern psychiatry. In the middle ages, you'd realize it was caused by an imbalance in your bodily humours, and have the appropriate fluid drained. Phew, thank goodness for modern leech therapy. In primitive times, you'd know that is was the great whatever-spirit choosing you as special, and go put a pointy rock on the end of long stick, so you can kill anyone who challenges your position from a safe distance. Phew, thank goodness for modern spear technology.

I love this, I think it's pretty much spot on. Just to confirm, a modern character wouldn't necessarily think "I'm being possessed" would they? I can imagine them thinking "it's as if someone else was in control of my thoughts and actions", but I wouldn't necessarly assume they knew the truth.

Having said that, I would still like some Hosts to know what was happening to them - in fact, I would love to play a Host with this dilemma. 'Cos what am I going to do about it when no-one believes me? Now that sucks just as much as any Archivist dilemma we've come up with so far, IMHO.

Such good stuff. I've not got much time now but I can't resist stepping out of Moderate-mode and making a few comments:

Quote from: Doug RuffArchivist powers are superhuman but not supernatural...a natural consequence of the what an Archivist is.

A subtle distinction, but an important one. Well put.

Quote from: Doug RuffI would still like to see more than one type of Archivist "possession" [.e.g] Riding - The Archivist exerts no control over the Host's Actions, but has access to the Host's senses. The safest choice, but the lack of influence is a distinct disadvantage. Long periods of Riding (or a botched roll by the Archivist) can cause the Host to feel that he is "being watched" (gains Paranoia traits.)

I originally thought of a "just tagging along" level too, but as I tried to wrangle mechanics, I couldn't figure out a way to implement it that wasn't -- well -- dull. Because if the Archivist is just tagging along, then in game terms the GM controls the Host as an NPC, and the player-Archivist is just listening to the GM narrate what the Host does, right? (Maybe not right; feel free to offer alternatives). In which case there's a big burden on the GM to (a) roleplay all the Hosts and/or (b) force the situation so that the player-Archivists feel compelled to ramp up to more ative intervention; and conversely, "the safest choice" (a) encourages the player-Archivist to be initially passive and (b) when the player-Archivist finally does start asserting control of the Host, the Host character has already been largely established by the GM, and I know for me as for many people it's harder to roleplay a character already established by someone else.

That's why my draft rules cut out the whole "passive observer" level and said, from the moment you enter the Host's mind, the Archivist has control, if only through the power of suggestion -- which means the player roleplays the Host-Archivist combo, from the beginning -- which means the Host is also "my guy" rather than "some NPC" -- which should make (a) roleplaying the Host easier and (b) hurting the Host a harder choice.

Conversely, the more extreme levels of Archivist takeover are reflected in my draft rules by Suppressing aspects of the Host's personality (human traits aka passions). This is clearly only a partial depiction of what we want to happen, however. The question is really getting a sense of what makes each level different, which will then guide us towards either specific mechanics for different levels or a sliding-scale approach. But I agree we need to work multiple levels of possession by the Archivist into the game.

Which leads us to multiple levels of rationalization by the Host....

Quote from: Andrew Morristhank goodness for modern spear technology.

HA! I love this. But it's also a very important aspect, for how the Host reacts both during possession and after. And as Andrew says, it has to have something to do with the prevailing beliefs in the Host's culture -- which, note, ties us to some of the Big Picture issues in the Metaplot thread.

And this leads to the whole issue that certainly my current rules draft doesn't capture at all, and which we very much need to flesh out, which is just what the Host is doing and feeling and thinking all this time.

Quote from: Doug RuffI would still like some Hosts to know what was happening to them - in fact, I would love to play a Host with this dilemma. 'Cos what am I going to do about it when no-one believes me? Now that sucks just as much as any Archivist dilemma we've come up with so far, IMHO.

I think it's a great dilemma for both sides. Does the Archivist ride the Host like a horse -- maybe gently guiding, maybe brutally spurring -- or does it reveal itself and give the Host a chance to make a choice? And if the Host suddenly hears a voice in his or her head saying, "Excuse me, I'm a disembodied being who's been borrowing your body but now I need your help to save humanity from utter annihilation," what the hell does the Host do?

I'd imagine this as a huge gamble: If it goes well, the Archivist gets a consciously cooperating Host and is much more effective (though the Burn should still be severe); if it goes poorly, though, the Host is either going to go crazy or kick you out of his/her head or both. Such choices -- by the Archivist to reveal or not, and by the Host to cooperate or not -- could be a hugely dramatic part of the game.

(And given the fact that it's a gamble, it's the one area where I'd actually consider abandoning strict Karma mechanics for something Fortune based. But let's not worry too much about mechanics yet).

Also: Andrew's list of Transcendent Traits / Kewl Powerz / Logoi -- a good start, definitely.

Quick mechanics question:  If the Archivist is in the "gently nudging" the Host mode, why does that imply that the player is in control?  Shouldn't that be exactly where a mediating layer of rules comes in?

In most games if you're driving a car and you try to pull a bootlegger reverse you get to (for example) roll dice, taking into account your driving skill and the condition of the road.

In this game, if you want the Host to go to a library and steal a book you could roll dice, taking into account the Host's "kleptomania" or "upright citizen", and the confusion they're suffering from having done ten uncharacteristic things already this morning.

Which means that, yeah, if you fail your roll (or whatever) then maybe the Host goes to the library, picks up the book, and stops on the verge of surreptitiously slipping it into their handbag.  I think that sort of rules-enshrined setback is what you're explicitly promising players when you tell them that they're playing spirits that imperfectly possess human hosts.

EDIT:  I do realize that "rolling dice" is not currently in the plans.  But it's so much easier to write than "apply a karmic adjudication system complete with resource allocation".  The point is you refer to the rules.

Not to turn on the Tony:Sydney "your idea is so cool!" mutual feedback loop again (as seen in the threads Time Travel Party, White Noise, and numerous Capes threads), but.... Tony, your idea is so cool. Yes, I think we should work the "whoops, almost but not quite!" in somehow.

Thanks Sydney.  I'll add one more side-thought, then probably vanish again for a while.  Sorry I haven't been of more help throughout, but you guys generally say all the stuff I would think of to say, just better.

Anyway, my one more side-thought:  Since you've already got the dilemma about whether the Archivists treat their Hosts using Author or Pawn Stance, I think you could benefit from having a Logos that gives them explicit Director Stance abilities.

For instance, in the library example, maybe the second try at getting the book isn't escalating the brutality of control, it's having the Hosts boyfriend show up.  Rather than explain what she's doing holding the Heck-o-nomicon, book of the Darned, she's now got a solid motive to hide the book... in her handbag, say.  Reflected, rules-wise, by the ability for the player to apply Host-traits more favorable to encouraging the Host to steal the book.

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergBut I agree we need to work multiple levels of possession by the Archivist into the game.

Maybe this is where we work in Doug's idea of Archivists having to worry about detection. At the lowest level of control, there's no way of detecting the Archivist. As they exert more control over their host, there's some sort of "power leakage" that can be detected. I'd shy away from a technological method, leaning instead more toward psionic/empathic talents or magic and such.

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergAnd as Andrew says, it has to have something to do with the prevailing beliefs in the Host's culture...

No, no, no. Don't be silly. I meant that every human over the span of time and space thinks it's either insanity, humours, or spirits. Heh. Kidding, of course. But yeah, that's what I was going for. As humans, we strive to have things make sense, but we are limited by our level of understanding. If someone uses telepathy on me and tells me what I'm thinking, I'm going to assume that it's some sort of trick like reading my body language, or something. I'm sure not going to leap right to telepathy. I'd need pretty much iron-clad proof before I believed that.

Quote from: Sydney FreedbergAnd if the Host suddenly hears a voice in his or her head saying, "Excuse me, I'm a disembodied being who's been borrowing your body but now I need your help to save humanity from utter annihilation," what the hell does the Host do?

Personally, the first thing I'd do is put on a fresh pair of pants. Then I would get very, very drunk. If that didn't work, it's off to heavy doses of medication for me. Some people (myself included) just absolutely will not accept something completely outside their frame of reference. We should come up with some rules showing how some people can more easily accept such things than others ("Well sure I'll help you save humanity, strange voice in my head, but first I have to check with the dog and see if he has other ideas.")

Quote from: TonyLBIn this game, if you want the Host to go to a library and steal a book you could roll dice, taking into account the Host's "kleptomania" or "upright citizen", and the confusion they're suffering from having done ten uncharacteristic things already this morning.[/b]

Whoa! Major point here, I think. The more your host is suffering from conflicted emotions due to Archivist control, the less easy it will be to control him in future actions. Very neat.

Quote from: TonyLBSince you've already got the dilemma about whether the Archivists treat their Hosts using Author or Pawn Stance, I think you could benefit from having a Logos that gives them explicit Director Stance abilities. For instance, in the library example, maybe the second try at getting the book isn't escalating the brutality of control, it's having the Hosts boyfriend show up.

[head goes POP]

And since Archivists are already beginning to look like they manipulate the fabric of space and time and possibly the flow of causation itself, we can actually rationalize this -- a metagame mechanic with an in-game explanation. (Simulationist Director stance!)

Quote from: Andrew Morris

Quote from: TonyLBIn this game, if you want the Host to go to a library and steal a book you could roll dice, taking into account the Host's "kleptomania" or "upright citizen", and the confusion they're suffering from having done ten uncharacteristic things already this morning.[/b]

Whoa! Major point here, I think. The more your host is suffering from conflicted emotions due to Archivist control, the less easy it will be to control him in future actions. Very neat.

It could reduce your ability to rely on the Host's suspension of disbelief.  One irrational decision, sure.  We all have those.  Ten, in a row, with a clear purpose?  No, that's getting on to the wierd side.  Heh... here's a thought:  Archivists need to hide their actions to avoid detection, right?  How about if the people they primarily need to keep in the dark are their own Hosts?

I'm thinking of the movie "Dogma" (fun little romp, BTW) and a certain scene with a fire extinguisher, but there are numerous other examples.  A protagonist (which, in their own story, the Host clearly is) is empowered when they recognize and confront the shadowy forces manipulating their actions and destiny.  They gain power over their own destiny again, becoming an active, conscious participant in the behind-the-scenes drama.

This can be bad.  Humans do not have the judgment and detachment of an Archivist.  They often make stupid decisions.

This can be good.  Humans do not have the aloofness and arrogance of an Archivist.  They sometimes make stupid decisions that turn out to be right.

Try this on for size:  What if the consequence of using too much influence, too many coincidences, too much power isn't that the Host is a burnt out husk, drooling in an alley somewhere?  What if it's that the Host figures out the game, confronts you, and then you must deal with them on their own limited, infuriating, hide-bound, human terms?

Quote from: TonyLBA protagonist (which, in their own story, the Host clearly is) is empowered when they recognize and confront the shadowy forces manipulating their actions and destiny.  They gain power over their own destiny again, becoming an active, conscious participant in the behind-the-scenes drama.

Interesting, especially in light of the making-Archivist-actions-make-sense-to-the-host idea. For example, if some incorporeal thing took control of my actions and made me go out and find some Awful Conspiracy-Type Nastiness, then fight it, it'd be totally out of character for me, and I'd know something was wrong. However, if I decided to check out that weird bookstore I always pass on the way to work, leading me to discover something horrible up close and personal, then took action to stop it, that would seem totally in character for me, and I wouldn't suspect a thing.

So what does this mean for our game? Just that there's another hard choice for our Archivists to make -- are you willing to throw your host into dangerous, even potentially fatal situations in order to conceal your actions?

Looks like we've had another creative explosion...which is great! I'm going to try and respond to the main points.

Sydney: Thinking about this again, I think that "Riding" and "Suggesting" are actually part of the same mode of possession. Basically, Riding is what the Archivist is doing when they are not actively Suggesting. There may also be times (Fade, extreme Host emotion) where the Archivist has no power to Suggest, all they can do is "ride out the storm."

So perhaps Riding/Suggesting is about being the Passenger, and taking control is about being the Driver? This would bring us down to a simple "one or the other" choice.

Tony: absolutely agree that the Archivist needs to roll (or whatever) to get the Host to do anything from the "passenger seat". And that each successive attempt (related or not) is harder.

Tony/Sydney: I'm a bit wary of having Director stance as an explicit Logos. At risk of being a Sim Spoilsport, I think this is an excessive level of power; manipulating Time is a big enough headache, but allowing an Archivist to simply dictate what happens makes my head spin.

I'd say that if the Archivists want the boyfriend to turn up, they can jolly well possess him too! (With time-travelling Archivists, making him turn up at the right moment shouldn't be too hard either.) So there are ways in which the Archivists can achieve Director-class "effects" without actually assuming Director Stance.

(Side note: IMHO, the closest thing Archivists have to Director Stance is the power to choose who they possess. The less limits there are on this, the closer Archivists are to being Directors.)

Andrew: I need to quote you here,

Quote from: Andrew MorrisMaybe this is where we work in Doug's idea of Archivists having to worry about detection. At the lowest level of control, there's no way of detecting the Archivist. As they exert more control over their host, there's some sort of "power leakage" that can be detected. I'd shy away from a technological method, leaning instead more toward psionic/empathic talents or magic and such.

Just want to point out that, using Ockham's Razor, NPC magical or psychic abilities can be explained as the result of Archivist or Nemesis Possession... is there any in-game need for Hosts to have these powers in their own right?

As for your posts about "rationalising posession" - you are right and you are funny, what more needs to be said?

And a couple of comments for everyone:

Revelation: I think that the opportunity for both the accidental and deliberate revelation of the Archivist to the Host is a necessary element. Andrew's "rationalisation" comments cut both ways here - rationalisation is both a good thing (because it saves you from unintentional Revelation) and a bad thing (because you cannot have a genuine conversation with someone who thinks you are a figment of their imagination).

However, I imagine that in most settings, Archivists are forbidden to intentionally reveal themselves (as this Breaks The Rules, or just bcause it's damaging) - this doesn't mean that they are incapable of doing it, but there should be bad consequences.

Another Archivist power - Precognition: this may be a bit too obvious really, but in a "time travel" campaign, the Archivists have already seen the future... has anyone seen the scene in Minority Report where the precog tells Anderton exactly where to go in order to avoid his pursuers?

Oooh, just thought of something, the whole "precrime" thing would fit right into this game....

Quote from: Doug RuffAnother Archivist power - Precognition: this may be a bit too obvious really, but in a "time travel" campaign, the Archivists have already seen the future... has anyone seen the scene in Minority Report where the precog tells Anderton exactly where to go in order to avoid his pursuers? Oooh, just thought of something, the whole "precrime" thing would fit right into this game....

This fits well with the "Schrodinger's War" concept (for which we eventually have to have mechanics) that events and details the Archivists observe are locked down, but that which is not observed is still undetermined. So the equivalent of that Minority Report scene (best scene of the film, I think) would be an Archivist threading its host through the undetermined grey zones of an otherwise determined event: You know the cops will be in place X and the balloons will block their line of sight to place Y because you saw it happen last time, but you don't know what was in place Y -- so you can go there.

We could just take a different route with the Precog Logos. I think the simplest way of doing so would be to say that the power gives you only short-term sight into the future. Duck now, sniper behind you. Step left, falling bricks. Fire into the closet, hidden thug. And so on.

Oh, and Doug, I think that hosts with powers of their own (similar to Logoi) is a great idea for our planned "expansion modules."