Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?

WotC's Mike Mearls has been asking for opinions on how psionics should be treated in D&D 5th Edition. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he'd hinted that he might be working on something, and this pretty much seals the deal. He asked yesterday "Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting", and then followed up with some more comments today.

"Thanks for all the replies! Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots. One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc. But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.

One final note - Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak. Not that the rules would require it, but I think it's an interesting idea to illustrate psi's relationship to magic on a cosmic level."

 

[Mercule]

However, that said, how "core" is psionics? My guess is not very (considering its not in the PHB), but more core than say Favored Souls which got an Unearthed Arcana workup. Introducing psionics in an adventure storyline (like genasi in the elemental storyline) would probably piss a lot of psionics fans off, and be wasted space for non-fans...so I'd expect something more.

Depends on what's meant by "core". If core means bare bones needed to play, then no. Ditto for the circular core = main three books. If core means "not setting specific", then I'd say psionics are definitely core. I used "bare-bones", earlier, to reference setting-free rules. I'd love a better word, though.

What's core (in the non-setting sense) shifts over time. Gnomes used to be woodsy folks that might set traps. At some point, the DL tinker gnomes had enough impact that gnomes are now mechanically apt. Artificer seems to have bled from Eberron to near-core, but Dragonmarks are setting specific and likely to remain so. BECMI and AD&D elves were magic first, with woodsy elves being an afterthought; 4E was almost the opposite, with magicky elves being renamed.

FWIW, I like the 5E way of handling races via sub-races. The default elf, IMC, is high elf but I have stats for the others. Gnomes and tech don't mix, in my game, and that's not hard to do. The 2E/3E/Planescape tiefling is the right way to do a flavorful, but open race. The 4E tiefling, with the ancient pact baked in, is the wrong way.

How would many of you feel if the psionics players book was relatively generic, but was "meant" for play in a story arc adventure that featured Far Realms?

In general, I think tying rules expansions to adventures is a bad idea. Psionics is a large enough expansion that it's double edged in that it could support its own book (and has in the past), thus doesn't need to be tied to an adventure to sell; it's also large enough to get fans to buy the book, even if they don't want to run the adventure (say, if it was a Far Realms thing, or Athas-centric). Leaving my general misgivings aside, though....

It depends. If the rules are pretty stand-alone, then I'd be fine. If there is heavy flavor text or rules for "if you meet an aberration" or similar stuff, I won't be happy. Even the 3E overdose of crystals, tattoos, and pseudo-science terms was pushing it, for me. I didn't hate any single piece; it was just too much. But, I used it.

Sometimes a bit of flavor is unavoidable. There's no point in having elves and gnomes if they're just like humans with some stat modifiers. It's a balancing act. The key is to not lock the DM into anything. Greyhawk Druids follow the old gods. Forgotten Realms Druids just follow nature gods. In my home campaign, Druids are animists and even nature gods have Clerics. The mechanics don't have to change for any of those options.

As long as 1) I'm not beat over the head with optional flavor and 2) I can swap out all the flavor without touching the mechanics, I'm fine. I don't want my players to come to me expecting psionics to be tied to the Far Realms, but I do want them to be able to use the book.

 

[Yaarel]

It seems a free basic version of D&D goes a long way towards restricting branding to official settings. The core rules, while peppered with sidebars pointing to settings, do a pretty good job of steering away from a specific setting as well. I expect no less for psionics.

Even the core Basic Rules enforces the Hasbro WotC corporate branding.

For example, the Cleric class forces every setting to have gods, who the character must then worship.

Personally, I cannot tolerate the flavor of gods.

This is a case of WotC trademarking and marketing D&D gods.

In the Players Handbook, even the Bard class defers to the ‘words of the gods’.

This is too much enforcement of an unwanted setting into the core of D&D. For me, the inability to escape the undesirable branding of healer classes, killed my ability to enjoy D&D 5e.

My gaming table requires a different setting. And likes healers.

If Hasbro WotC branding again forces some unwanted setting flavor into the core of psionics, it will kill my ability to try return to D&D 5e.

 

[darius0]

D&D has always had some kind of built in flavor. It helps DMs who don't want to come up with everything themselves. You can always change it. If you are not playing D&D 5th edition now because of the flavor, why would not flavoring psionics change that?

 

[Shasarak]

I hope that they do not link Psionics to the Far Realm.

Infact if the Sundering can retcon the Far Realm then that would be even better.

 

[Fralex]

Aww, but the Far Realm is cool! I'd rather they continue making lore for it since it's relatively easy to take out an element of lore if you dislike it, but a lot of work to create lore if they stop providing it.

 

[Yaarel]

For me, the ‘intended’ setting for psionics is best if it is a Modern or near-future setting.

LOL, that way, I am least likely to deal with setting flavors that I hate.

Besides I love X-Men, Harry Potter, Dresden Files, Mutant-X, Tomorrow People, Alphas, Marvel comics, Charmed Ones, The Flash, Vampire Diaries, and much more. I desperately need a setting neutral Modern D&D game that can present this fun.

Psionics mechanics, including body alteration, makes all of this possible.

At the same time, the ‘intended’ setting needs to be easily separable from the classes, so I can use them effortlessly in any kind of medievalesque settings.

Dabbling in a Lovecraftian campaign can be a nice place to visit, but I dont want my psionics to live there.

I am likely to visit Eberron. I am less likely to visit Dark Sun.

I want my psionics to enjoy freedom to travel anywhere.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

RE Far Realms: I like htm, but they're not everyone's cup of meat. So while I like Psi as the cure for the infection caused by incursions from that plane, I could just as easily see it described as reality's reaction to the overuse of magic.

"All magic has its costs...and Psionics is collecting on the debt."

Or given no "reason" for existing at all- it just is.

 

[Yaarel]

D&D has always had some kind of built in flavor. It helps DMs who don't want to come up with everything themselves. You can always change it. If you are not playing D&D 5th edition now because of the flavor, why would not flavoring psionics change that?

If psionics expedites a flavor that I enjoy, then I can use the psionics books only.

 

[jbear]

For me, as I imagine psionic powers, it is far closer to a martial skill than magical one. I imagine it as the types of powers that one could gain by learning to use new areas of the brain. In the end the brain is an organ. Something natural. Using more of it is not bound to chanting secret words, using special charms, or drawing energy from the blood. A silent, invisible and terrifying power of mind over matter. It is the type of power that I could atcually imagine human kind eventually developing over a very long time perhaps in combination with certain types of psychotropics asper Frank Herbert's magnificent Dune, or perhaps in combination with highly sensitive technology to amplify mental commands, a realty just around the corner for us in the real world with technology being developed to respond to brainwaves of paraplegics for example.

The powers one might obtain should reflect what you might actually do with your mind: move things from afar, heighten your ability to use you body in ways beyond its normal limits, read or influence the minds of others, extend your senses beyond the body and gain a 6th sense for example.

The naming of things ... well, I guess the words related to psychic powers all come from the greek, which makes it sound scientific. Tele: Far Kinesis: Movement - Would "Move from Afar" sound better? Not convinced. Psycho: Mind Metry: Measuring so Mental Measure? Better ...? Okay, so I'm obviously not a pro at coming up with alternative names, I guess. It might be fun for us to have a go at it!

As for the origins. Being so internal how could it be connected to another plane? ANy other plane? It comes from our own inner plane in my mind. Dark Sun gives specific conditions for such powers to flourish. The conditions are so hostile that as a question of survival the mind has been forced to develop in new ways. A natural evolutionary step. The environment is a catalyst, but there could be many other ways such powers could develop. I imagine that extreme situations generally result in extreme solutions i.e physical and mental torture as per Stephen King's Carrie. Perhaps a contact with unspeakable horrors such as those of the Far Realm, could twist the mind and cause it to expand beyond its default use... but that should only be another possible catalyst amongst many (and one with its own uniquely mad flavour), not the one source.

That's my view of things. Tinker away, make it unique, but do not tinker too Far perhaps?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I seem to remember Mind Flayers coming from the future and not the Far Realms so I could see a relevance to humanoids from the future having developed powers using the mind and these creatures brought it with them to the past and those abilities were passed on.

I had forgotten that! Thanks for the reminder. That secret about the origin of the illithid is much more disturbing than any Far Realms tie-ins.