Seeing the Future

[steriaca]

You could also simply go on to described mundain events which would occur all around the player. Nothing says the power would be exciting to use.

[TheDarkness]

You could also simply go on to described mundain events which would occur all around the player. Nothing says the power would be exciting to use.

This and the last few posts goes a bit to the crux of my original post, of how the power lacking a mechanic might be problematic at times.

 

And Steriaca, your post is actually not something I'm in contention with, just using it as an example of what could and should be a possible result of using that power, but that how one comes to that result may affect how fair it is. My main point being, lacking a mechanic for doing a vision, how likely is a fair result?

 

If I buy 8D6 energy blast, and I attack a baddie, and I roll all sixes, good for me. If I roll all 1s, so sad. If I roll all threes, then okay, I suppose. If I roll well, and the GM actually wanted the villain to last a little longer, well, he can't change my roll, he can decide that the villains stun is actually higher than he initially wrote down, or he can accept that the villain is down. But changing my awesome roll would be wrong.

 

BUT, say I buy 40 pts. of EB, but in this ruleset, my EB has a well defined range, and, if I hit, the GM decides how much it damages with no absolute limit on either end. I could do 0 damage, or 100. I have absolutely no way of knowing.

 

AND, I know the GM views the EB power as a way to further story.

 

It would be very hard, even for the most fair GM, to not find themselves often assigning the upper or lower end of damage on that energy blast, depending on which serves the story better, and assigning the middle to be fair when the power doesn't matter in the least, or at least adding up to an average in such cases.

 

That is what precognition without a mechanic will tend to be. It will tend to be very difficult for the GM to not look at content in terms of the story, except even the most accomplished GM doesn't know the future of the story, only likelihood. It will be almost impossible to make the expenditure on the player's part to have the power fair at all.

 

So, building on your post, let's say that the GM is trying to decide between two visions of the future, one that he views as the usuful vision, one he views as useless.

 

One shows the villain group making a plan.

 

One shows the villain group just doing boring daily stuff.

 

The fact is, the GM has no way to judge which is the useful one, and which is the useless one. None. And so, there will be a tendency to make the latter vision, if he sees it as useless, useless. A group of villains vacuuming, doing the dishes, dusting, all in the same place but saying absolutely nothing of use to each other, just grim house cleaning villains. Bereft of the kind of characterization and relations that the heroes would normally NEVER HAVE THE CHANCE OTHERWISE TO KNOW in exactly the only time they actually should get to know them.

 

Like the EB, it will be very difficult for even the fair GM not to give useful visions where it helps the stories, useless ones where it helps the story, and almost no mechanism to actually make middle range results. There will be less tendency to actually change the planned story in response to the vision, since the vision is designed around the GMs idea of the story that day.

 

It will be very difficult for the GM to actually make this, like other powers, something that has the instant capacity to change the GM's plans. After all, this is basically the power to create future relations between people and events that include, but should not be limited to, what the GM previously thought about what their story was, since that will all change every game, and so the power includes what could be.

 

Otherwise, it is, whether the GM wants it that way or not, player bought GM fiat with a range.

 

Which is harder to find information, the villain's social life, or the villain's plans? Which will lead me more immediately to the villain? These totally depend in each case, but the former is a semi-permanent set of habits, the latter is only useful for that one plan. If I look in on the villain's base at a certain time, hoping to find out something about them, and no one's home, I HAVE JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THE MOST ADVANTAGEOUS THING I POSSIBLY COULD KNOW ABOUT THEM.

 

Without a mechanic, it would be incredibly unlikely to produce a vision that you can reliably say represented the point expenditure on the power. Impossible to do it consistently.

[kukuli]

My clairsentient Character tells me she is using precog in hope of seeing where they have taken a prisoner.  She touches something belonging to the prisoner.  I give her a series of images, some giving hints to where the prisoner  will be at some future point and some that give other information about the prisoner or the villians that have him.  I usually don't lock down the exact time, but rather have the vision come true at the time the Character arrives at the location.  Like if I was writing a script and want the good guys to arrive just in time. Some times the info is misleading. Like the time she saw a party member tied up in a dark room and the flash of a large knife.  They did rescue the PC, but since the badguy was knocked out by a punch, the knife turned out to be the Clairvoyant cutting him loose.  Keep it vague and loose and you  won't be railroading anyone.

 

 Clairvoyance is a sense, it doesn't give full answers, it allows the user to observe clues.  Preparing Clairvoyant clues is no harder than preparing visual clues.  It shouldn't be used to replace actual gameplay.

[Christopher]

Some times the info is misleading. Like the time she saw a party member tied up in a dark room and the flash of a large knife.  They did rescue the PC, but since the badguy was knocked out by a punch, the knife turned out to be the Clairvoyant cutting him loose.  Keep it vague and loose and you  won't be railroading anyone.

With the uncertainty principle, you have even more Freedom:

If the PC was going to get knifed (bad rolls or player decisions), the Prediction was not precise enough. It did not show how to prevent that outcome.

If the PC was not going to get knifed (the players prevented it like in your case), the Prediction was precise enough. And as a result, the reality was no longer precise.

 

If you apply the uncertainty principle as campaign rule, it is impossible for player actions to truly break the narrative:

Predicted event did happen? The prediction was not precise enough to prevent it from happening, apparently.

Predicted event did not happen exactly the way it was predicted (like in your case who held the knife)? The prediction was precise enough to prevent it from happening, and as result the reality did no longer follow the prediction precisely.

Predicted event did not happen at all? (An ally freeing her using his powers rather then a knife?) Again, prediction was so precise reality got derailed.

 

It is a Win/Win/Win result for you as GM.