Psionics -- why do people bother?

I have always been mystified by the presence of psionics in DnD.

I remember the psionics appendix in the 1st edition PHB (of course, since I was ten or eleven when I bought the original PHB, I referred to them as "P'sonics"). Even in my early adolescence they seemed ill-suited for fantasy campaigns.

Why have they persisted? They have always seemed like a bad idea for a "swords and sorcery" game like DnD. Why wasn't (or isn't) magic enough?

Exacerbating the problem of their "poor fit" with fantasy IMO, the rules for psionics have ALWAYS seemed problematic (at least as far as I can tell -- I'm no historian of DnD).

I'm genuinely curious why some people like including psionics in their DnD campaigns. What do they add to the game? (Aside from more rules, that is )

Basically, I agree the psionics dones't fit with my idea of swords and sorcery. That said, the current incarnation has a better feel to it than the standard fire and forget spell mechanism for magic. I'm tempted to run with psionics replacing magic - and just calling it , er, magic! Either way, its not part of that standard core, so if you don't like it, don't get it, but if you fancy a peek, just check out the SRD as the revised psionics is now part of it.

I hate psionics.

Well, there are some folks that actually like the psionics flavor. I guess there are enough of them, so it makes sense 'to bother'.

And to be honest, with mind flayers and such, psionics have pretty much always been a part of the D&D flavor.

I, personally, don't like psionics too much, either, mostly because of the 'problematic rules'. I don't mind the flavor, altho it would be something rare IMC only.

Bye
Thanee

I laughed when I read that you called them "p'sonics". I was also 10 when I first played D&D (back in 1981, for all you young punks out there) and I did the exact same thing. We also called paladins "pad-a-lins". Heh heh.

Why not just use magic? Well, you could also ask "Why do clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers need *divine* spells? Why not just make all magic arcane?" I suppose it all comes down to options.

Unlike you, I've always liked psionics, though to be honest, I don't often use them in games (I usually DM), simply because it tends to make things more complex than I'd like. The whole idea of "powers of the mind" perhaps seems more sci-fi than fantasy, but really, there is nothing even remotely "scientific" about being able to lift a chair and throw it across the room with a thought. Psionics, psychic abilities (whatever you call them) is pure fantasy.

What I like about psionics in terms of D&D is that it allows for a darker, more mysterious hero that doesn't quite fit into the traditional "magic user" mould, but isn't quite a warrior/expert type either. The few times I've played with psionics there was always one psion in the campaign, and he inevitably had tattoos all over his body, and scars, and a hood over his bald head, sitting alone from the other party members as the celebrated at the tavern. In short, the psion was always the "mysterious" guy that even the magic-users didn't feel quite comfortable around.

I have heard some pretty strong criticisms of the Expanded Psionics Handbook, however...people have said that psionics are simply another form of magic now.

They are in a separate rulebook. They are not core. You may as well ask why people use Relics & Rituals, or Elements of Magic, or whatever. Clearly, they like it. Who cares?

Me, I don't like psionics too much, but I don't hate them either. I am glad that they are in a separate book, and I think that's the best solution.

I do not see a problem with psionic's flavor, although the mechanics were always unbalanced, I agree.
The new ones seem balanced, so I have no problem with it. Although I don't like it in addition to divine and arcane magic - too many types of magic. I agree with wighair, I think it makes for a fine substitute for magic. (Though I have yet to see it in-game, so I may be mistaken.)

Psionics has three syllables in it, and is therefore 50% cooler than magic.

I do not use psionics in my game either... I suppose it's because I prefer the western Europe / Tolkien style of fantasy. Psionics don't really "feel" right to me in those settings.

Were I to run Dark Sun though... In that setting they made perfect sense. It's all about style, man!

Me and my friend came up with this theory: Nearly all of the pro-psionicists have gaming experience in a Dark Sun campaign. For those in the dark, Dark Sun was a TSR world. A desert world where survival was paramount and psionics was a normal way of life. Those who played had to get familiar with psionics. With familiararity came enlightenment. We didn't make the typical discriminatory excuses (it's a tacked-on system, it's wannabe-magic, it's too powerful, they might get to vote, they control the entertainment industry, whatever!). We learned and we loved, and isn't this what Mel Gibson wanted to convey?

And what is your definition of fantasy anyway? It seems like most people think of fantasy in terms of the "Medieval Europe." (White-centric aren't we) What about the Indian yogi's with the ability to shape both body and mind? Australian aborigine's ability to travel into the dreamtime? Chinese seers advising the emperor? True, it can be seen as magic as well, but I don't remember any of them waving around bat poop. While I'm ranting, might as well get rid of monks. I don't remember Gandalf chatting with Crouching Tiger the monk. Remember, there are other lands in fantasy worlds that haven't been explored. Doubtful they followed the same "sword & sorcery" path.

I got more to add, but I gotta watch this Hitler documentary on TV. He cracks me up.