Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

Yup, and the only conclusion you can come to is the concept of "genre" is stupid. A story is what it is.
Genre is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and multiple genres can apply to a work. It's why we can credibly trace the influences of the science-fiction, fantasy, and WESTERN genres on fictive works like Star Wars and Firefly.

#WhyIsThisConversationWorthHavingforD&D

Edit: Can someone cogently explain to me what resolving this line of discussion achieves for the matter of psionics in 5e D&D? Anyone?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So, to repeat an early observation, are warp drives in Star Trek fantasy or science fiction? They can't be explained by known science.

In my mind they are 100% science fiction. I understand logically the argument of why they are fantasy, or both, or something, but I don't buy it. I find that argument to be combination of a very different definition of science fiction than the one I use, and clever semantic games.

I think it's pretty clear cut.
 

Missing the point Max.

@dave2008 is referring to our current culture. Where people put forth the "scientific fact" that there is a sun beneath the surface of our planet or the "scientific fact" that mercury gives off gases and electrical signals that make you drunk text your Ex-girlfriend.

Fictional science, Fantasy Science, Bunk Science. The point is it isn't real and it doesn't use Real Science.
LOL Hence Science FICTION. It doesn't need to be said that what we are discussing isn't real world current science. It's a discussion of science fiction and the people here in this thread aren't stupid. They're going to very clearly understand that science fiction isn't real science.
 

Edit: Can someone cogently explain to me what resolving this line of discussion achieves for the matter of psionics in 5e D&D? Anyone?

Um, nothing. It's just a good old fashioned argument, of the "I'm stuck at home and feel like arguing with strangers" sort. Which is true of the argument about psionics itself, so although the topic has drifted, it accomplishes the same purpose.
 


I find myself in the awkward position of essentially agreeing with Max. On the main point at least, if not in the particular sub-claims.
 

If I were rounding up examples of psionic/magic abilities in science fiction or speculative literature, I would definitely tag Dune. Dune draws on a lot of mysticism. How is the Water of Life purified in the body? Basically magic. We're not given a lick of science mumbo jumbo for it. There's the Voice, which is basically magic. There is the Other Memory, which is a mystical Akashic memory for the bloodline. There is precognition and human lie detectors who can sense these things with their minds. Bene Gesserits who are referred to as "witches" and "sorceresses" due to their powers. Sure, not everything that can be explained is necessarily "magic," but it's not exactly trying to be hard sci-fi here.
That's really more the distinction between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, not sci-fi and fantasy.

Hard sci-fi: Everything is explainable using known or theoretical science, and probably explicitly explained.

Soft sci-fi: A lot of the technical explanations are hand-waved, but anything done that isn't based on known technology is still assumed to be based on some sort of science. Some re-brand this as Science Fantasy because it's not "true" science.

There's also distinctions between hard magic systems and soft magic systems, although magic in general is optional (though common) in a fantasy setting.

Hard magic: The rules for magic are provided, and any new magic that shows up must follow those rules.

Soft magic: Rules for what magic is possible are only defined by what the characters in the story do.


The distinction between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, compared to hard magic vs soft magic, is very similar. The "hard" version provides the rules that define what is possible to the reader, and the reader could extrapolate what is or is not possible without needing to read more of the story. The "soft" version, however, only provides the effects that are used in-universe, and thus the reader can only know what is possible based on what has been done in the story.

2001: A Space Odessey is hard sci-fi. The rules for space travel, and how one interacts with the environment, are all spelled out based on our known understanding of physics. The one element that isn't strictly understandable is explicitly not understandable by humans. Star Trek is soft sci-fi. Warp technology, for example, is only known after the fact; we can't extrapolate it based on real-world, or even in-story rules. Thus, warp is a thing that can be done solely because we have been shown that it is a thing that can be done, and the limits of how it works are only known once we see such limits in story.

Star Wars is soft sci-fi, or science fantasy. The limits of the force, light sabers, hyperspace travel, etc, are only defined based on what we see in-story, not based on any particular rules. Though that doesn't prevent people from developing rules that they expect to be followed, based on what has been presented, and being upset when those rules are broken (see the sequel trilogy).

The Alex Verus series is urban fantasy using a hard magic system. The Harry Potter series is fantasy using a soft magic system. (Aside: "urban" fantasy takes place in the 'real' world; Harry Potter's world is theoretically modern, but sort of alongside the "real" world, so doesn't really count as urban fantasy.)


The distinction between sci-fi and fantasy thus largely comes down to what it is that defines the "rules" of the setting. If it's predominantly science, then it's sci-fi. If it's predominantly magic, then it's fantasy. Supernatural creatures like vampires and werewolves are a fantasy trope because their very existence depends on magic. However aliens, or nanotech-vampires, would be sci-fi.

It all depends on the justification used for the existence of the supra-normal elements of the story. Enlil and Enki the gods would be a fantasy setting. Enlil and Enki the aliens who crashed their spaceship on earth, but are worshipped as gods, would be sci-fi.


I have a hard time divorcing psionics from the sci-fi side of things, likely because it's based on the same root words as give us things like bionics or cryonic or cybernetics. The word itself evokes the idea of science, and particularly of artificially grafted (or possibly, evolved) powers. While it's rare to have in the same setting as magic, they are not mutually exclusive options. Psionics could be an attempt to artificially or rapidly boost power, as an alternative to the longer process of learning magic. It just fits better in a world where magic is fading, or no longer exists (and thus the introduction of psionics carries a secondary implication of the decline of magic).
 


LOL Hence Science FICTION. It doesn't need to be said that what we are discussing isn't real world current science. It's a discussion of science fiction and the people here in this thread aren't stupid. They're going to very clearly understand that science fiction isn't real science.

Sure, most people on this thread probably can make the distinction.

Of course, that is why Dave posted "given the current culture". you can say that his point wasn't needed, but he felt that it was. and his point was solely to make a distinction about "science" in literature and actual science.

You aren't clear on what fiction means? Or is it that you just have a problem putting science and fiction together?

So anything that is "fiction" and "science" together huh?

So, if we say that the physics of a fictional world (the science of a fictional world [science fiction]) allow for the statement Fuego to cause something the speaker is looking at to catch on fire, that would science fiction?

I mean, I know fiction means "fake" and I can put "fake" and "science" together into fake science.
 

So, if we say that the physics of a fictional world (the science of a fictional world [science fiction]) allow for the statement Fuego to cause something the speaker is looking at to catch on fire, that would science fiction?

I mean, I know fiction means "fake" and I can put "fake" and "science" together into fake science.
If you want to write a sci-fi book like that, go for it. You have no ability to alter the Dresden files to suit your needs, though. Butcher has defined it as magic and set up magical explanations, so it's fantasy, not sci-fi.
 

Remove ads

Top