General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
This list, and the fact that each of these classes had rules unique to them, is part of the reason I prefer 4E. Of course, 4E will also get burdened down with exceptions and special cases in the end.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
This list, and the fact that each of these classes had rules unique to them, is part of the reason I prefer 4E. Of course, 4E will also get burdened down with exceptions and special cases in the end.
To each his own.
That list is but a start down a road that had many stopping points. Despite the mechanics of those classes being of variable quality, they were only a few of the various magic systems that could have popped up.
(In fact, there are so many different magic systems in legend and fiction that it would be impossible to model them in anything but a "toolkit system" like HERO, M&M or GURPS, but that's no excuse not to try...)
For instance, D&D- in any incarnation- does a poor job of mimicking animism- a very popular theory of magic that shows up in Finnish, Asian and Caribbean beliefs. Then there is Rune magic...which, given the way Dwarves are depicted should have been a natural. Ditto Gem magic.
Others are put into the system piecemeal, like Tattoo magic.
Personally, I say "the more the merrier"- as long as the designers take pains to make sure the various magic subsystems work well enough within the same overarching ruleset as to be considered at least nominally balanced...or at least, not having impenetrable language and awkward mechanics.
All it is is describing the various ways in which people have found to tap into the same power source (kind of like how you could trace all RW sources of energy back to nuclear fusion).
And for the spellshaper, well...he sees all of the various theories of arcane magic as but crutches. To him, the rules of a given theory of magic are actually an unnecessary hinderance to the caster- all casters should seek to channel the energy of magic directly because that is the way its supposed to be done.
(In a sense, this is kind of like the idea of the Veil of Maya- that the distinction between consciousness and physical matter, between mind and body, and ultimately, distinction between the self and the Universe is a false dichotomy that is the result of an unenlightened perspective- which shows up in several Indian religions.)
Oh, I don't mind separate magic traditions - what I do mind is having separate and disparate rules for each. Especially as a DM, I find this to be too much to chew. All the traditions you mention can be used in a more unified system, like 4E, where they all use the same basic rules yet have some flavorful components added.
Of course, "flavorful components added" might not be enough for you. We much each try and find a balance between simplicity and verisimilitude.
__________________ Carl Cramér
Member of the Netbook of Feats review board.
1) Dislike of the terminology. Despite discussions of the actual Greek or Latinate meanings and origins of the words, they feel that many of the terms are too modern/futuristic, thus disrupting their suspension of disbelief.
The term 'psionics' was invented by the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, John W Campbell. He was trying to make abilities that are basically magical seem more scientific by the use of modern terminology. D&D uses many terms from 19th century spiritualism or 20th century SF - the astral plane, telekinesis, teleportation. It's really not very medieval.
The default world in D&D isn't Middle-Earth, it's Dying Earth. It's the far future. Magic and science mix. Gamers who want to turn D&D into Middle-Earth, with its much tighter set of sources and use of language, have some work to do.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
Last edited by Doug McCrae; 22nd June 2009 at 03:27 PM..
Exactly the kind of stuff my buddies say, even though:
1) "Psi" is a modern (approx. 1942) shortening of "Psychic", a word that shows up no later than the 1600s. [...]
Which is fairly recent. This is also why I'll take "psychic" over "psionic" any time. The former appeared in the pre-industrial era and comes directly from the Greek psychikos "of the soul"; the latter was coined in a modern pseudoscientific context.
Also, an abreviation + a suffix that makes the word sound like a field of knowledge but, unlike -logy or -sophy, only indicates it is derived from a Greek adjective rather than a noun (eg physics comes from physike episteme "natural science") still is a made-up word.
Quote:
IOW, but for the abbreviation, the name & concept of mentalists of some kind goes back far enough into the RW timeline that would mesh nicely with D&D's "tech level."
I don't have a problem with psionic effects themselves. Reading hearts, shapechanging or having things flying around all fit quite well in a medieval fantasy setting. It's called magic. But specifically lumping telepathy, telekinesis or psychometabolism together and trying to make it sound like science is a recent invention.
Psi disciplines could as well be magic schools and even then some would be redundant (clairvoyance/divination, telepathy/charm...)
The concept isn't different enough from magic to justify a separate system. Only the modern flavour is (magic stripped of its quirky elements, down to basic effects with pseudo-scientific names). I think this is why people find psionics both too different and too much like magic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starfox
This list, and the fact that each of these classes had rules unique to them, is part of the reason I prefer 4E. Of course, 4E will also get burdened down with exceptions and special cases in the end.
I'm not sure about that. I'm confident 4e psionics will use the same system as every other class. The problem is not everyone will like the chosen system. I, for example, like the unified approach but hate 4e's vancian-ish powers so I'm better off with 3e's eclecticism.
__________________
_ Ceterum censeo the encounter/daily power system is an unholy blight upon D&Ddom
5e can't come soon enough
Last edited by lutecius; 23rd June 2009 at 01:57 AM..
Exactly the kind of stuff my buddies say, even though:
1) "Psi" is a modern (approx. 1942) shortening of "Psychic", a word that shows up no later than the 1600s.
2) "ics" is a suffix that forms nouns referring to fields of knowledge or practice.
IOW, but for the abbreviation, the name & concept of mentalists of some kind goes back far enough into the RW timeline that would mesh nicely with D&D's "tech level."
And the suffix that makes it into a study or field of knowledge is just as old, and the word could have easily had "-(o)logy" or "(o)sophy" instead.
Basically, it boils down to people having "psionophobia."
By this argument, 95% of the dictionary is acceptable in a fantasy world. For example 'television', 'microscope' and 'photograph' have Greek/Latin roots.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
I personally like it when magic is a transgression of moral values held by the society in which it is performed.
I'm with you. I also personally like it when magic is a transgression of the technical and scientific values held by the society in which it is performed.
Quote:
Why can't it be both? Admittedly you might want to reserve the word magic for the mysterious stuff. But both types of power can certainly co-exist in one world. They do in the real world after all, which contains both the mysterious and the known.
I think you have a point here. I think the situation would be better served with a newer (though not necessarily modern) and more accurate vocabulary. For instance it is very hard for me to imagine a group of wizards, who study "magic intently" not developing a very specific vocabulary to explain the predictable results they generate by executing "magical formulae of actions." Alchemists developed their own very complex vocabulary. The term "magic" would not suffice at all, because what you are doing is not magic at all, it is science. Predictable actions yielding predictable and repeatable results.
With what Wizards do, studying magic from tomes and texts, that is far more like hybridized techno-magic, or a proto-science, or nascent science, than it is "magic." It is in truth a chimera between magic (seemingly magical force) and formulated methods of studying, employing, and controlling that force (science).
So a new and far more accurate term (or set of terms) for what Wizards (and those like them) do should be developed. Because they would develop such terms for themselves over time in any case. You cannot instruct others in the predictability of your system (of force manipulation) without an accurate and logical method of education, classification, experimentation, and predictability.
"Magic" on the other hand is perfectly acceptable term for the unpredictable and the mysterious. When things are unpredictable you need vague or generalized language precisely because you cannot truly specify materials, forces, and events, or cannot calculate the exact results of their intermixing.
Magic to me would be a very good term for unpredictable, unrepeatable (in the scientific and technical sense), mysterious, impulsive types of force and power normally associated with magic throughout most of history, myth, literature, etc.
Some other term, perhaps something like Wizardry or Craft or Work (trying to avoid the actual use of the term science) would far better describe technologically oriented magic."
Anyways I hope that I haven't just repeated something somebody else has said. I wish I had the time to read the entire thread or even to respond to some other threads. But for the past week or more I've only had intermittent time to use the internet for anything other than work and analysis. Especially with what is going on in Iran.
But I like the idea for this thread.
It's a subject I like thinking about.
Magic in my game works how people think magic in the real world works: in TONS of different ways.
[...]
To accomplish this, though, you either needs tons of classes, one for each culture or mindset on magic; or you need a more flexible magic system, with templates that you can apply to represent how your Nordic rune magic is different from that kid's magic which he just made up because he watched lots of anime and thought it looked cool.
Like, say, Elements of Magic: Mythic Earth? If only we could speak with the author and get his take on things.
__________________ Cocoa and chocolate should not be considered a substitute for medications or your doctor’s advice.
Last edited by Herobizkit; 22nd June 2009 at 08:30 PM..
And for the spellshaper, well...he sees all of the various theories of arcane magic as but crutches. To him, the rules of a given theory of magic are actually an unnecessary hinderance to the caster- all casters should seek to channel the energy of magic directly because that is the way its supposed to be done.
It worked for Bruce Lee and his philosophies regarding Jeet Kune Do.
__________________ Cocoa and chocolate should not be considered a substitute for medications or your doctor’s advice.
I have no problem with magic being a science, so long as it's weird, forbidden science. What I hate is bourgeois magic, with enchanted items reduced to the level of modern consumer electronics. I dislike happy, well adjusted wizards completely integrated into society. I don't want the local barkeep casually noticing a Wizard and simply going on with his work. I don't want magical items being made with no more problem than knitting a sweater. I want magic that inspires fear and loathing. I want wizards who are engaged in Byzantine conspiracies. I want magic to be condemned by the ignorant Church, and Wizards who really are trying to make themselves into gods. I want magic items that are created through terrible rituals that must be hidden under the cover of darkness. To me, the split isn't between mysterious magic and scientific magic, it's between magic that retains its eldritch power, and magic drained of all its charm.
I have no problem with magic being a science, so long as it's weird, forbidden science. What I hate is bourgeois magic, with enchanted items reduced to the level of modern consumer electronics. I dislike happy, well adjusted wizards completely integrated into society. I don't want the local barkeep casually noticing a Wizard and simply going on with his work. I don't want magical items being made with no more problem than knitting a sweater. I want magic that inspires fear and loathing. I want wizards who are engaged in Byzantine conspiracies. I want magic to be condemned by the ignorant Church, and Wizards who really are trying to make themselves into gods. I want magic items that are created through terrible rituals that must be hidden under the cover of darkness. To me, the split isn't between mysterious magic and scientific magic, it's between magic that retains its eldritch power, and magic drained of all its charm.
I like my magic to be its own field of study that is influenced by and is influences science. So while a Wizard or Sorcerer or what not may be able to conjure up their magical potential without knowing the inner science of how it interacts with the physical, scientific world it is likely they would become better or understand magic more by understanding science.
Take for instance conjuring up a fireball. They can do it without knowing the science that influences it. But they would probably have more control over it if they did, in knowing that their magic causes strings to change their resonance to spawn the fireball out of nothing and such. At the same time to understand science a scientist would need to understand how magic influences it, so how does levitation spells influence gravity, how does lightning spells influence electro-magnetics.
As for Psionics that fits more fitly within the science idea. I quite like my Pseudoscience especially when it comes to Psionics. As such while magic while influences/influenced by scientific principles it still exists outside of it. Psionics on the other hand is a science and uses scientific principles (at least in this world, in that Pseudoscience ideas are actual science).
So yeah magic is mysterious and all, but with any good scientist, it can be if not completely but partly revealed and shown how it works. While Psionics is completely based around scientific principles, though like magic it can be done simply naturally but knowledge of how it works can focus a psionic-user.
__________________ Secret Member of... *blink, blink* Damn you amnesia!
You know, I never saw the psionics = sci-fi thing. Using the power of your mind to alter the world around you...I don't see how that involves THE FUTURE! in any way. Maybe it's something from before my time?
Also, I must admit that I laughed when I saw the second complaint of "Psionics are too sci-fi, they need to be more traditional!" right before "Psionics are too similar to traditional magic, they need to be more different!" .
For the first, I blame those movies, comics, etc., about mutants from the future using the power of their minds to move objects, etc.
For the second, yeah. The first complaint is fluff-based, and the second is crunch-based. I just can't win.
__________________ 28 days... six hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds. That... is when the world... will end.
By this argument, 95% of the dictionary is acceptable in a fantasy world. For example 'television', 'microscope' and 'photograph' have Greek/Latin roots.
So what?
An ancient Greek probably would have said of someone who had the ability to see over the horizon that he had "television" or something close to that. The word would be the same as our term for the modern entertainment/informational tool that has become nearly ubiquitous, but its fundamental meaning is different.
That happens with words- they accrue different meanings over time.
After all, is the torch of 300 years ago the same as one you'd find in a British hardware store?
Quote:
The term 'psionics' was invented by the editor of Astounding Science Fiction, John W Campbell.
No argument, but again, its merely words. The concepts behind the powers themselves are old as dirt...is that really weighty enough justification for tossing the sub-system?
If so, what if the game's designers called Psionics Psychic Powers? (Again, given the nature of the sciences of the 13th-16th centuries, the names of the powers described might be as they are- latinate or of greek origins.)
Quote:
The concept isn't different enough from magic to justify a separate system.
I disagree...to a point.
The psychic- by any other name- generally sources his power from within. He is exercising his mind over matter directly- often his own matter- without arcane formulae, the intervention of spirits or powerful beings, tapping into pools of mana, etc.
As stated above, there are dozens if not hundreds of theories of magic in RW legend, myth and fiction, each with their own- sometimes contradictory- rules. The magical methods of the animist shaman isn't the same as the runecaster, the elementalist, the hermetic wizard, the hedge wizard, the diabolist, the truenamer, the binder or even someone whose power waxes and wanes with some kind of natural rhythm...
And only the being who directly manipulates raw magic (a spellshaper) knows that all are different pathways to the same kind of power.
What it doesn't justify is that magic and psionics don't affect each other.
What it doesn't justify is that magic and psionics don't affect each other.
Oh, but they do. Psionic-magic transparency dictates that magic and psionics work on the same level so long as it's beneficial to the wizard.
;_;
Also, I agree that calling psionics "Sci-fi" because the word "psionics" was made in a sci-fi book is nit-picking to the extreme. I see it in the same way Yahtzee sees a zombie game. If the enemy in question can be replaced by anything but a zombie, it's not a zombie game. Likewise, if the "sci-fi" word can be replaced by any other word, and the entire subject stops being sci-fi, then it's not sci-fi.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
No argument, but again, its merely words. The concepts behind the powers themselves are old as dirt...is that really weighty enough justification for tossing the sub-system?
I'm not saying toss the sub-system, my point is purely about language. I'm saying *if* a DM wants a medieval/Tolkienesque feel for his milieu, and I believe many do, then 'psionics' is out. Not the system. The word. The word was specifically intended to have a modern, technological flavour. To sound like 'electronics', probably.
And I believe your justification, that a word is fine because the parts from which it's made are old, is a bad one. 'Psionics' has a modern flavour. 'Television' has a modern flavour. When we're dealing with rpgs, flavour is of great importance. Ideas, tone, worlds are communicated by the use of a few words, so it's important to get those words right.
__________________ The female tiefling's horns are not 'handlebars'.
To get away from psionics, here's something I found interesting:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Baker
A person is bringing her aesthetic sense of magic into her judgments about cause and effect. Since her job is to make judgments about cause and effect, and since her aesthetics aren't identical to the players', aren't predictable, but also are right to the players, the effect upon the game's system is that magic works in a startling, delightful, symbolically rich, magical way.
__________________ "If people bring so much courage to this world the world has to kill them to break them, so of course it kills them. The world breaks every one and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
-- Ernest Hemingway, "A Farewell to Arms" Burning Empires:Boldaq Keep on the Shadowfell
Oh, but they do. Psionic-magic transparency dictates that magic and psionics work on the same level so long as it's beneficial to the wizard.
According to the XPH, you can have either Psi/Magic transparency or you can have them bypass each other.
I'm just saying that there is nothing in the subsystem that (to me) justifies the latter position.
Quote:
I'm not saying toss the sub-system, my point is purely about language.
The problem is that some people use that as an excuse to toss the system. They don't even try changing the terminology- its baby + bathwater out the window.
Quote:
And I believe your justification, that a word is fine because the parts from which it's made are old, is a bad one. 'Psionics' has a modern flavour. 'Television' has a modern flavour. When we're dealing with rpgs, flavour is of great importance. Ideas, tone, worlds are communicated by the use of a few words, so it's important to get those words right.
I disagree.
They only have a modern flavor from our modern perspective. Looking from the perspective of a medieval scientist/arcanist researcher the words would have entirely different meanings. They could have called extremely good eyesight- or possibly some kind of scope- as "television" (with the greek root "tele" and the middle English "vision").
The point is that there is nothing intrinsically modern in the language itself, just to the meanings we have ascribed to them.
Now, for some of the more modern chimeric terms, like "biofeedback," the argument is a bit weaker...but it is just a modern version of doing the same thing the English language has been doing since it popped up on the scene.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
