Psionics: Do you use 'em or did you lose 'em

[Tharian]

I've allowed psionics in my campaigns, but then again, I've mostly had them used by NPCs. My players haven't had much of an inclination to use them. I've also allowed all the magics and ninjas and such. But then again, I really don't agree with what I have heard others call the "classic fantasy campaign."

On the flip side, when you consider that my first D&D book was Oriental Adventures followed by the DMG so I had no desire to recreate a King Arthur or similar setting. I wanted something that was more personalized for those in my group and none of us wanted to search for the Holy Grail. We wanted something a lot different.

I think, though, that that's the beauty of how far this game has come. Different campaigns can use the rules they lke without having to use the rules that don't fit in.

 

[Psion]

A few years ago, there was a protracted debate in Realms of Fantasy magazine about what is fantasy and what is SF (a debate you're no doubt already aware of). The editor concluded that SF is the fiction of ideas while fantasy is the fiction of imagery. The ideas that are fictionalised in SF are normally scientific or technological.

I don't see how this is helping your point. Psionics ARE magic by another name. They are not scientific or rational.

But again, the dichotomy is not as stark as you (or obviously, the editorial staff at Realms of Fantasy) would like to pretend, so it is, once again, irrelevant.

 

[Digital M@]

What flavor is psionics?

I keep reading I hate the flavor, and I don't understand it. I don't see psionics any different than magic except you get to see other spells than magic missle, fireball etc. To me, it adds a nice diversity to the game.

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

So, as it currently stands, at 234 votes, 65% of respondents like and use Psionics in some form or another, and only 35% avoid them.

This explains why WotC has included some psionics support in the race series, but it's sort of bewildering why there isn't more support, really.

It's been discussed before that a "Complete" book on psionics won't really work, and it certainly can't be shoehorned into another environment book, but with this much enthusiasim for psionics, I wonder if maybe why might see more genuinely psionic monsters in the monter supplements. It irked me that the Illithid, Aboleth and Yuan-ti were "standardized" to non-psionic versions, and I was pleased to see the psionic illithid in the XPH, but I kind of felt like it was akin to the inclusion of the "bearded dwarf" or the "stumpy halfling."

Why can't psionics, when they're working properly, be more included in the core material?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I said as much elsewhere, Arbiter.

Basically, my position is include Psi in the core rules the next time around. Why?

Not because I love it so, but rather because if they do, they'll be forced to playtest it alongside the other core classes. They'll know before release whether the psi powers are balanced re: other spellcasters, etc.

That said- I don't see that much of a balance problem with the current XPH stuff.

As an aside, there still seems to be a continuing misunderstanding of the underlying fictional origins of D&D. D&D's fictional inspirations were not all fantasy like LOTR, Conan, Elric, or Fafhrd & Grey Mouser. One of the clearest non-fantasy sources for things in this game are Jack Vance's Dying Earth' stories- sci-fi set in Earths' final eons. From it, we get the "IOUN Stones" and the entire "memorize and forget" magical system among other things- its called a Vancian magic for a reason. While expressed in clearly fantastic terms like "wizard", the setting is just as clearly a sci-fi setting. By way of contrast, most fantasy spellcasters (both modern and from the legends and faerie tales) have spells they know and can cast repeatedly...more like 3Ed's additional core class, the Sorcerer.

In other words, the setting as designed is ALREADY a mix of sci-fi and fantasy genres and tropes, even though it is expressed in entirely fantastic forms.

If you want PURE fantasy, merge the sorcerer and mage into an Int-based caster who casts like a sorcerer. He must still research spells to learn them, but once he learns them, casts them at will up to the extent of his power.

 

[mseds99]

Converted Psionics hater here

I'm a longtime player that has always hated psionics. The concept of it just really grated me. Recently, I wanted to play an oracle-type chracter without a divine bent and was attemtping the sorcerer thing. For some reason, it just didn't fit. Another memeber of my group suggested a seer type psion. I have to say, my creepy little halfling seer may be my new favorite character of all time. Love the system/love the feel, and I really love the powers. Great role-playing and story development opportunities. But holy cow, can u burn through those power points fast! I'm pretty sure that our group will never use a sorcerer character again.

BTW, my "psicristal" is the shrunken skull of my character's murdered brother. Same mechanics but with a whole different feel. Plus the others can't help but chuckle when it starts running around with ectoplasmic legs. Just wait till they see it fly for the first time in a few levels.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I know there's fantasy that features psychic powers, but I don't read those books. As a result, outside of the Eberron "Realm of Dreams" stuff, it never felt like a good fit for me. It does work quite well for me in Eberron, and if I ever were to use psionics in a game, it would have a comparable rationale. Having said that, my D&D experience has all been in pre-Eberron worlds, and no, I've never really worked it into my games.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

So, as it currently stands, at 234 votes, 65% of respondents like and use Psionics in some form or another, and only 35% avoid them.

This explains why WotC has included some psionics support in the race series, but it's sort of bewildering why there isn't more support, really.

What makes you think that this informal poll is at all representative of D&D players? I imagine most D&D players have not heard of ENWorld, let alone participate here.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What makes you think that this informal poll is at all representative of D&D players? I imagine most D&D players have not heard of ENWorld, let alone participate here.

All polls one agrees with have wide relevance. It's one of the truths of the Internet.

 

[Zander]

I don't see how this is helping your point. Psionics ARE magic by another name. They are not scientific or rational.

I never said that psionics are scientific or rational. They are, however, pseudo-scientific and have a rationale. Psionics aren't magic. Magic has a considerably older (literary) history dating back millennia and lacks any kind of pseudo-scientific basis.

But again, the dichotomy is not as stark as you (or obviously, the editorial staff at Realms of Fantasy) would like to pretend, so it is, once again, irrelevant.

While there is a partial overlap between SF and fantasy (Star Wars is a good example), just as there is between other genres (Aliens, for example, which is a cross between horror and SF), SF and fantasy are not the same. Several authors including Hickman & Weiss and Poul Anderson have used the incompatibility of science/technology (or the pseudo versions thereof) and fantasy in their novels. If there were no difference between the two, these stories would not have made any sense.