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."

 

[Yaarel]

Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.

Consider how some D&D players dislike the ‘scifi’ flavor of psionics in their Tolkienesque setting.

One could simply tell them to reflavor the psionics. Of course, most of these players cant or wont.

If WotC forced these Tolkienesque players to use a setting featuring parapsychological nomenclature, many of them would switch to a different game.

In the same way, when WotC required a setting that included gods, I was unable to play it.

If WotC forced a setting for psionics that I disliked, I would be unable to play it.

No it's not [relatively easy to take out lore if you dislike it]. It's actually much more of a pain when they tie abilities to some lame-ass piece of lore to extract them from it, because they usually write the rules to reference that lore.

This is my experience too.

 

[aramis erak]

Well, yeah, it shouldn't be so directly tied to something like the Far Realm that you're required to incorperate it. I was just disagreeing with it needing to be removed completely. Because it's cool.

I think the far realms are pretty lame. Just like I find the whole Cthulhu mythos as lame as a 1-legged horse.

I feel like the Warlock patron "Great Old One" is basically the level of Far Realms which I want to see in the core rules.

I think it goes too far even there.

 

[Remathilis]

Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.

Consider how some D&D players dislike the ‘scifi’ flavor of psionics in their Tolkienesque setting.

One could simply tell them to reflavor the psionics. Of course, most of these players cant or wont.

If WotC forced these Tolkienesque players to use a setting featuring parapsychological nomenclature, many of them would switch to a different game.

In the same way, when WotC required a setting that included gods, I was unable to play it.

If WotC forced a setting for psionics that I disliked, I would be unable to play it.




This is my experience too.

I haven't seen someone this angry about D&D gods since the local B.A.D.D. meeting!

Here is the problem, in a nutshell: you can't please everyone and SOMEONE is going to have a problem with something.

People complain about drow, dragonborn and tieflings in the 5e PHB.

People complain about Come and Get It and other "martial mind control" in 4e.

People complain about the "blood of dragons" origin for 3e sorcerers.

People complain about oriental monks being in the 1e PHB.

Hell, people complain thief shouldn't have been a class in OD&D!

You can't design a ruleset vague enough to encompass every type of fantasy (nor should you; D&D has never been generic) and any attempt to would be as bland, boring, and useless as warm wet cardboard.

 

[darius0]

Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.

Consider how some D&D players dislike the ‘scifi’ flavor of psionics in their Tolkienesque setting.

One could simply tell them to reflavor the psionics. Of course, most of these players cant or wont.

If WotC forced these Tolkienesque players to use a setting featuring parapsychological nomenclature, many of them would switch to a different game.

In the same way, when WotC required a setting that included gods, I was unable to play it.

If WotC forced a setting for psionics that I disliked, I would be unable to play it.




This is my experience too.

Again, some people might consider including Dragonborn intolerable. Does it mean they should not include them in the books? It is easier to just not use Dragonborn than it is to create the race if it isn't included. just including a race or psionics or whatever can influence the setting. If everything is stripped out that someone doesnt like then you will end up with an entirely generic set of rules.

 

[tomBitonti]

On second look at the tweet by Mearls, I am reading it as: There is a cosmic conflict between *magic* and *psionics*. One ultimately undermines the other. Individualistic internal psionics in a cosmic conflict against antihuman external magic, can be an interesting theme for a specific setting.

Psionics is a method that is humanistic, natural, and personal - the power of ones own mind over matter.

I dunno. Consider the Borg, and that this seems to be a natural outcome for psions, if they are not careful.

Also, psionics seems to provide the ultimate intrusive tools: Telepathy and mind control. I think Babylon 5 was on to something with the PsiWar concept.

Thx!

TomB

 

[Mercule]

Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.

Some level of flavor is unavoidable.

Take elves, for instance. The PHB requires that you have elves that are roughly human-sized. Gone is the option for "little folk" elves. Sure, you could use gnomes, but then you'd be yanked out of your immersion every time you looked up a rule. 4E split elves into high-elf eladrin and wood elf... erm... elves. Eladrin were "my" flavor of elves, so I sucked it up and just called them high elves and wood elves.

The 5E Warlock has the Old One pact. I loathe the Far Realms and Lovecraftian injections into D&D. I don't even like the things around the fringes of the Far Realms. In 30+ years of primarily DMing D&D, I could count the number of times I've used aberrations on my thumbs and have room to spare. They're just dumb monsters (IMO). But, I really liked Vestiges from the 3.5 Tome of Magic. So, Old Ones are just Vestiges, in my game. Whatever.

If 5E psionics have a throw-away line about "psionics are the result of friction between the PC's reality and the Far Realms, which psionic individuals are able to tap into", I'll roll my eyes and internally chastise the developers. Then I'll let my players know I think it's stupid and that psionics are the result of people born with raw batteries of power. And, we'll all move on.

On the other hand, if the psionic mechanics are rife with sanity checks, chances to attract the attention of Cthulhu, and powers that project the character or her foes into the Far Realms, I'll be very unhappy and find the expansion unusable. Ditto if every other power or class ability makes reference to the Far Realms and/or there are strong ties to aberrations.

 

[steeldragons]

Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.

Consider how some D&D players dislike the ‘scifi’ flavor of psionics in their Tolkienesque setting.

If WotC forced these Tolkienesque players to use a setting featuring parapsychological nomenclature, many of them would switch to a different game.

In my experience, this is untrue. They would certainly make snarky comments about the chocolate in the their proverbial peanut butter. They would, most likely, ban it from their games and play as if it doesn't exist regardless of what a manual/guidebook for the game says...and in their game/their world, it wouldn't exist.

But they are highly unlikely to drop a game they enjoy because of this single piece of fluff they deem undesirable or useless.

One could simply tell them to reflavor the psionics. Of course, most of these players cant or wont.

<emphasis mine>

Let's be fair here, Yaarel, and call a spade a spade. We're talking about a game of make-believe fantasy played in no small part with one's imagination. So, there really is no "can't" involved. Especially in terms of flavor/fluff where you don't have to touch the rules at all [such as playing clerics without deities] if you can imagine it, it can be done.

So there really is, only, "won't" here. And that's totally your prerogative, for whatever reason, though I think most will find it lacking or difficult to understand.

There can certainly also be "don't want to"...but that's kind of a subset of/reason for "won't". But there is no "can't." It's a make-believe game and world.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Many aberrations have psionic powers. Wherever aberrations come from, it's a place where psionics are far more common. That adds to their mystique. It's cool.

What isn't cool is the idea that my psion is getting his powers from the far realm, or from aberrations, unless I write that into his backstory.

 

[Mallus]

Baking in a flavor makes a product unusable for many players who object to that flavor.

In the same way a sushi restaurant is unusable for people who want Italian.

One could simply tell them to reflavor the psionics. Of course, most of these players cant or wont.

Can't? Won't? I think you're giving D&D audience far too little credit, almost to the point of being insulting.

 

[SkidAce]

Many aberrations have psionic powers. Wherever aberrations come from, it's a place where psionics are far more common. That adds to their mystique. It's cool.

What isn't cool is the idea that my psion is getting his powers from the far realm, or from aberrations, unless I write that into his backstory.

I agree...

My campaign's psionics originated in pre-history, hence why (IMO) ancient aberrations have it.

The gods try to persecute it, both to subdue all the ancient evils, and because psionics is a path to challenging their sovereignty. (Of course they have the welfare of all..and the BEST intentions for doing so...)