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

[Minigiant]

Pretty sure some of that existed in older editions or in the novels. I'm remembering some sort of liquid power from one of the books.

But the trope is there and you can easily utilize it in a game.

Besides, Elan are fused with dream spirits (not science) and the Gith are a race, so they are born with it. And I think they got mutated from constant exposure to psychic energy, so no reason to assume you can't do the same thing with constant exposure to magic. Especially given High elves, Firbolgs, Snirvelben, and all the other races with innate magic.

Like I said the trope exists.
It's just more common to be psionics in D&D.

D&D has this weird tradition were you only get magic via study, worship, heritage, or pact.
It also is not big on mortal experimenting on other mortals. Magical labs make monsters or summon them. People will get sacrificed to summon monsters way before someone would do brain surgery.

Only the abberations really go around transforming people. And they lean to psionics.

 

[Hussar]

I can agree to that basic premise, but I don't agree that Fantasy is defined by simply being black and white morality tales. There is simply too much fantasy that isn't for me to believe that is the case.

That's a bit of an oversimplification of what I said. I said that fantasy as a genre, grew out of morality tales and still has moral questions as the basic theme.

That's a long way from black and white. What does it mean to be good is a question for the ages and it's hardly a simple one. It's just a bit different (although, certainly overlapping) with the SF question of what does it mean to be human.

But, no, neither of them is "simpler" than the other. Or less full of nuance or anything like that. Different, yes, but, certainly not easier.

 

[Maxperson]

Pretty much every source for psionics has the power coming from somewhere. Whether it be the Force, a Mutant X gene, or the Vorlons medalling in human evolution. I don't think any source portrays it as a skill that just anyone can learn. A power that can be learned through study is wizard magic in D&D terms.

Someone earlier made the claim that Sorcery from the Belgariad was psionics. Sorcery in that world can be learned by anyone, though if you didn't have a lot of inborn talent, it was difficult and you were never very powerful.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's a bit of an oversimplification of what I said. I said that fantasy as a genre, grew out of morality tales and still has moral questions as the basic theme.

That's a long way from black and white. What does it mean to be good is a question for the ages and it's hardly a simple one. It's just a bit different (although, certainly overlapping) with the SF question of what does it mean to be human.

But, no, neither of them is "simpler" than the other. Or less full of nuance or anything like that. Different, yes, but, certainly not easier.

Ah, that is a far more nuanced approach than I thought you were taking. That I can see. Though "What does it mean to be good" and "what does it mean to be human" are often the same types of things, being a navel gazing species like we are.

 

[Hussar]

Ah, that is a far more nuanced approach than I thought you were taking. That I can see. Though "What does it mean to be good" and "what does it mean to be human" are often the same types of things, being a navel gazing species like we are.

Heh. I've run into this before, mostly because I'm much more of an SF fan than fantasy, that it sounds like I'm being judgemental. I'm really not trying to be. It is a very nuanced issue. I mean, heck, very smart people have been trying to answer both questions for a really, really long time.

Take the recent Netflix show, Altered Carbon. Now, "What does it mean to be human" in the face of immortality is a main theme of the show. But, it's also a lot of morality stuff too. Because, well, being human often means being moral. Those without morals are often shown as less than human. So, yeah, it's not a hard divide at all. Altered Carbon is most definitely SF, although perhaps not very hard SF, particularly the side plot of the AI hotel, but, it's straying towards fantasy themes of morality as well.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Take the recent Netflix show, Altered Carbon. Now, "What does it mean to be human" in the face of immortality is a main theme of the show.

And pretty much anything by Phillip K. Dick obsesses over the same question. But for Every Phillip K. Dick I will show you an E. E. "Doc" Smith - "let's throw a black hole at the evil aliens' homeworld!"

 

[Hussar]

And pretty much anything by Phillip K. Dick obsesses over the same question. But for Every Phillip K. Dick I will show you an E. E. "Doc" Smith - "let's throw a black hole at the evil aliens' homeworld!"

Well, fair enough. If you have to reach back nearly a century, before fantasy was even a genre in novel form, well, it's going to be a tough slog to have a discussion.

People tend to forget that when we talk about fantasy, it's a REALLY young genre. SF has been around for almost 200 years in novel form, but fantasy? Yes, I realize that there are fantasy novels out there, but, they are REALLY sparce on the ground until you hit the 1960's. And, really, it's not until the 80's that you would even bother separating out fantasy from SF. Everyone was writing SF back then. Was it you that mentioned planet stories? Again, we're rolling back a LONG way.

Sure, Flash Gordon looks like fantasy now. But, at the time, that was SF. Very, very soft SF, but, SF nonetheless. But, even back then, you would differentiate something like Flash Gordon from HG Wells or Verne.

The real trick is, when talking about the history of speculative fiction, is that up until the 1980's, the genre was so sparse. In the 1960's, there were maybe 10-20 genre titles coming out per year. Novels, I mean. Shorter fiction was a lot more prolific. Today, you get 10-20 original (as in not tied to some movie or TV show) genre titles A DAY. There's been more SF and fantasy printed after 2000 than before. By a considerable amount.

So, relying on fiction that's coming up on a century old to prove your point might not be the best way to convince a modern audience of anything.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, fair enough. If you have to reach back nearly a century, before fantasy was even a genre in novel form, well, it's going to be a tough slog to have a discussion. People tend to forget that when we talk about fantasy, it's a REALLY young genre.

The Faerie Queene, 1590.

The Tempest, 1623.

Dracula, 1897.

Tarzan the Terrible, 1921.

SF has been around for almost 200 years in novel form, but fantasy?

I assume you are going from Frankenstein, 1821. Which shares it's roots with Dracula, and several other tales of the supernatural. Because no one cared about "genre".

Yes, I realize that there are fantasy novels out there, but, they are REALLY sparce on the ground until you hit the 1960's. And, really, it's not until the 80's that you would even bother separating out fantasy from SF. Everyone was writing SF back then. Was it you that mentioned planet stories? Again, we're rolling back a LONG way.

That's rubbish. Both Science Fiction and Fantasy where a big part of pulp fiction from the 30s through the 50s. But people where less obsessed with genre Pidgeon-holing back then. They where just fantastic stories, full of adventurers fighting monsters.

So, relying on fiction that's coming up on a century old to prove your point might not be the best way to convince a modern audience of anything.

No need to go back any particular length of time (The Lensman stories date from the 1950s BTW). Stories of the fantastic, written for no reason other than entertain, and not needing to be pigeon-holed into Science Fiction or Fantasy, have been around since the start and still being written now, as Star Wars proves. Trying to stick things into boxes is a stupid exercise at the best of times, trying to do it on the basis of how it addresses "moral issues" is snobbery.

 

[Aldarc]

The Faerie Queene, 1590.

The Tempest, 1623.

Dracula, 1897.

Tarzan the Terrible, 1921.

Le Morte d'Arthur, 1485

A Midsummer's Night Dream, 1596

The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus, 1592
(Goethe's Faust, 1808)

1001 Nights / Arabian Nights (as received in English), 1706-1721

Gulliver's Travels, 1726

Vathek, 1786

The Monk, 1796

Hans Christian Andersen's Fairy Tales (1837) and New Fairy Tales (1844)

A Christmas Carol, 1843

Phantastes: A Faerie Romance for Men and Women, 1858

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, 1865

The Princess and the Goblin, 1872

The roots of BOTH modern science fiction and modern fantasy largely stem from the Romantic period's reaction to scientific materialism, realism, and rationalism. One's not really older than the other, though the popularity has variously waxed and waned for both over the past 200 years.

 

[Hussar]

The Faerie Queene, 1590.

Not a novel.

The Tempest, 1623.

Not a novel.

Dracula, 1897.

Finally a novel. Horror, not fantasy, but, at least it's a novel form. You would have better choices than Dracula, but, ok.

Tarzan the Terrible, 1921.

Not a novel. If you had been paying attention, we have been discussing novel form, not short story or oral tales or plays.

/snip

No need to go back any particular length of time (The Lensman stories date from the 1950s BTW). Stories of the fantastic, written for no reason other than entertain, and not needing to be pigeon-holed into Science Fiction or Fantasy, have been around since the start and still being written now, as Star Wars proves. Trying to stick things into boxes is a stupid exercise at the best of times, trying to do it on the basis of how it addresses "moral issues" is snobbery.

Nope. It's called academia. I get that you don't like the genres, and that's fine. Lots of people don't. But, that doesn't change anything. Oh, and 1950 is getting pretty close on a century btw.

But, no, it's not snobbery. It's about actually looking at the similarities between different works and realizing that genre, while porous, does allow us to have rational conversations without having to redefine words every time we have a talk.

Look, it's fairly simple. On one end, which we'll call Fantasy, you have those works that everyone will agree are fantasy. Tolkien, Howard, J. K. Rowlings, that sort of thing. And, what do those works have in common? Well, often they are morality tales, and typically, the non-real part of the story (ie. magic) is used as a plot device. The hero needs to see the Medusa, so, he gets a magic shield. Find the Horcruxes Harry! That sort of thing.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have those works that everyone will agree are SF. Heinlein, Asimov, Herbert, for the golden age stuff, Stephen Baxter, Robert Reed, James Corey (The Expanse), and others. ((Ok, I admit, I read a LOT more SF than fantasy, so, my list is a bit biased)) What do these have in common? Well, often they are about what it means to be human. Also, the non-real part of the story (the "science" stuff) is generally central to the theme of the story rather than something needed by the plot. Data is an android trying to be human. The idea of "sleeves" and "stacks" are central to the themes of immortality but not really a major part of the plot. Note, Altered Carbon isn't a PK Dick story.

Again, it's totally NOT about one being better than the other. But, there are very clear cut differences between the two at the extremes. Now, in between those two ends are a whole host of other stories. Where those stories fall on the spectrum is certainly up for debate. But the idea that there is no difference between SF and Fantasy is pretty easily disproven.