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

[Paul Farquhar]

Yep you pretty much nailed it, except for one clarification...
...I am not a scientist professionally, it was @Paul Farquhar I believe that said that. I am an architect professionally. I have friends who are scientists, but I am not one myself.

Strictly speaking, I am a science teacher now, but I have been a professional Astrophysicist.

Did you know Sir Isaac Newton was an Alchemist? Searching for the Philosophers' Stone that would turn base metals into gold and grant eternal life? Back in the 17th century alchemy was science fiction, but, as our understanding of the universe changed (in this case due to the discovery of the Periodic Table) alchemy became fantasy. And then the transmutation of the elements (if not usually into gold) became science again.

The border between science and magic is not fixed. It changes as our understanding of the Universe changes.

 

[Aldarc]

It refers back to how people view psionics, which has changed over the 46 years D&D has been in existence, from something based in the pseudo-science of the 60s and 70s to the space magic of the Star Wars era.

The trajectory is far longer than that. The term "psionics" didn't come about until the 1950s and sure it used the sort of expected terms of its era, but it's pretty clear from the sort of things included in psionics, that it's more than just "Post-1950s sci-fi" stuff. I would argue that what we think of as "psionics" and its associated paranormal powers largely exist as a 1800s post-Enlightenment reaction to Enlightenment scientific rationalism and empiricism. It was an attempt to maintain or preserve the illusion of the "magical" in landscape gravitating towards an increasingly scientific materialistic worldview. So a tremendous amount of what was magical became rationalized in pseudo-science.

 

[TheSword]

Well the good thing is that the last ten pages of pedantics on scifi/fantasy in this thread have demonstrated how easily we go down the rabbit hole and why our inability to keep perspective means WOC should absolutely go ahead and do psionics without worrying what we think, thus disproving the OPs thought.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well the good thing is that the last ten pages of pedantics on scifi/fantasy in this thread have demonstrated how easily we go down the rabbit hole

Maybe it has something to do with people being bored and the original topic being exhausted?

and why our inability to keep perspective means WOC should absolutely go ahead and do psionics without worrying what we think, thus disproving the OPs thought.

They should, but the interview posted in this thread shows they don't work like that, preferring to base everything on feedback.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The trajectory is far longer than that. The term "psionics" didn't come about until the 1950s and sure it used the sort of expected terms of its era, but it's pretty clear from the sort of things included in psionics, that it's more than just "Post-1950s sci-fi" stuff. I would argue that what we think of as "psionics" and its associated paranormal powers largely exist as a 1800s post-Enlightenment reaction to Enlightenment scientific rationalism and empiricism. It was an attempt to maintain or preserve the illusion of the "magical" in landscape gravitating towards an increasingly scientific materialistic worldview. So a tremendous amount of what was magical became rationalized in pseudo-science.

Oh yes, it something that has been evolving for longer than D&D as been around, but the various iterations have been based on the zeitgeist at the time it was created. So Gygax's 1st edition psionics is based on that "post-1950s sci-fi". We see a strong comic book influence in 2nd-3rd edition (especially X-men), and then in 5e the Psi Knight lifted straight from Star Wars.

There are other cultural trends in D&D as well. In the early days of D&D fantasy was trying to position itself as far from "fairy tales" as possible, since in the 70s they where seen as "for children". This is thanks to the sanitisation of those older stories by the Victorians and Mr Disney. Then, as people began to look back to the darker pre-19th century versions of those stories, they began to be reaccepted into fantasy, and we see the rise to prominence of the Feywild (and Pathfinder equivalent First World) in 3.5, 4e and 5e.

 

[Hussar]

Was there Feywild in 3e? I thought that was a 4e thing. Far Realms came to prominence in 3e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Was there Feywild in 3e? I thought that was a 4e thing. Far Realms came to prominence in 3e.

Not under that name I don't think. It was 3.5 with the addition of warlocks that was probably the start, if there was one, then Pathfinder ran with the ball and tossed it to 4e.

Anyway, whatever the exact timing, it reflects changing attitudes.

 

[Aldarc]

There are other cultural trends in D&D as well. In the early days of D&D fantasy was trying to position itself as far from "fairy tales" as possible, since in the 70s they where seen as "for children". This is thanks to the sanitisation of those older stories by the Victorians and Mr Disney. Then, as people began to look back to the darker pre-19th century versions of those stories, they began to be reaccepted into fantasy, and we see the rise to prominence of the Feywild (and Pathfinder equivalent First World) in 3.5, 4e and 5e.

You seem mistaken. I don't think that the Victorians were responsible for the sanitation of fairy tales. The Brothers Grimm were Victorian era, and that's basically the darker version for most of these tales, with gory mutilation of children and all. Sure, you'll find Central European grandmothers who make the stories more horrifying when they tell them, but I don't think that this is a Victorian softening of the tales.

 

[Aldarc]

Not under that name I don't think. It was 3.5 with the addition of warlocks that was probably the start, if there was one, then Pathfinder ran with the ball and tossed it to 4e.

Anyway, whatever the exact timing, it reflects changing attitudes.

Fey get a single one-word mention in the 3.5 Complete Arcane entry of the Warlock, which mostly assumes that the warlock's patrons are fiends. It was not until 4e that we get a Feywild and actual Fey Warlocks. The 4e World Axis was an attempt to bring D&D closer to a universe of myth and legend with its inclusion of a titanomachy, a land of the dead (Shadowfell), and a faerie world (Feywild).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You seem mistaken. I don't think that the Victorians were responsible for the sanitation of fairy tales. The Brothers Grimm were Victorian era, and that's basically the darker version for most of these tales, with gory mutilation of children and all. Sure, you'll find Central European grandmothers who make the stories more horrifying when they tell them, but I don't think that this is a Victorian softening of the tales.

The brother's Grimm where German*, so not subjects of Queen Victoria. They also died very early in Victoria's reign. There was a significant backlash against the Grimm stories in Britain (and America? Possibly too busy with a civil war?).

*Ish. I know there was no Germany at that time.