D&D 5E Psionics in a sci-fi D&D

[Aldarc]

I'm sorry to challenge your personal belief system, but yes, psionics is always scientific bollocks.

A signficant chunk of science-fiction is scientific bollocks that involves a lot of hand-waved mumbo-jumbo explanations about its setting elements.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A signficant chunk of science-fiction is scientific bollocks that involves a lot of hand-waved mumbo-jumbo explanations about its setting elements.

Oh yes, I agree completely.

My point is, trying to argue that one version of psionics is better than another on the basis of "scientific plausibility" is an epic fail.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Oh yes, I agree completely.

My point is, trying to argue that one version of psionics is better than another on the basis of "scientific plausibility" is an epic fail.

And the point several of us making is not that. The point is that designing a class that doesn't take the fictional conceits of the concept it is built around into account is unlikely to produce a satisfying result. Taking a chassis designed for an entirely different type of fiction and filing off the serial numbers even less so.

Obviously, this is an opinion, and clearly it is not universal as evidenced by the 27 pages of this discussion. But the relation to real science isn't the basis for that opinion.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And the point several of us making is not that.

It definitely is the point several people have been making.

The point is that designing a class that doesn't take the fictional conceits of the concept it is built around into account is unlikely to produce a satisfying result. Taking a chassis designed for an entirely different type of fiction and filing off the serial numbers even less so.

Obviously, this is an opinion, and clearly it is not universal as evidenced by the 27 pages of this discussion. But the relation to real science isn't the basis for that opinion.

Give the psion the spells that feel thematically appropriate. Same than with every caster class. You don't need to invent an entire parallel magic system for that, any more than you would need to invent a parallel combat system to include laser guns.

 

[Hussar]

And the point several of us making is not that. The point is that designing a class that doesn't take the fictional conceits of the concept it is built around into account is unlikely to produce a satisfying result. Taking a chassis designed for an entirely different type of fiction and filing off the serial numbers even less so.

Obviously, this is an opinion, and clearly it is not universal as evidenced by the 27 pages of this discussion. But the relation to real science isn't the basis for that opinion.

But that's pretty easily disproven.

Casters in D&D do not emulate fictional conceits. Like, at all. I cannot think of a single fictional example (outside of D&D fiction of course, but, even then, usually not) that follows D&D casting rules.

Never minding the combat oriented classes using a combat system that is pretty much entirely abstracted and actually follows virtually no genre conceits. The complete lack of "stunting" mechanics in most version of D&D is a good example here.

The classes are not, and nor have they ever, been built around the fictional conceits of a concept. The classes are built around making the game fun. Any fictional conceits come a very, very far second place to that primary goal.

And that ignores the fact that the "fictional conceits" of psionics is an incredibly broad category. Do we mean psionics like Babylon 5 - where it's more or less just telepathic style powers? Or do we mean something like Dune where psionic powers can move you across the stars? Or psionics like Star Wars where it is very much just magic by another name and can do anything you want it to depending on the needs of plot?

So, I guess the basic question is, if you want to fit fictional conceits, "which fictional conceits"?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And the point several of us making is not that

True, but some are.

The point is that designing a class that doesn't take the fictional conceits of the concept it is built around into account is unlikely to produce a satisfying result.

True. However, many of those conceits have become clichés. Avoiding and Subverting are also ways of taking something into account.

It depends what effect you are trying to achieve with the setting. There is nothing wrong with retro, there is nothing wrong with subversive.

Taking a chassis designed for an entirely different type of fiction and filing off the serial numbers even less so.

But the D&D magic system as it stands now isn't based on any type of fiction. It has evolved a very long way from that. It is based on being playable, easy to use and fun. Things like exhaustion systems, regenerating spell points and cooldowns sound good on paper but in practice turn out to be awkward to track and unfun in a tabletop game (although may work well in computer games).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

nor have they ever,

I might challenge that, at one time they where based around fictional conceits (ranger = Aragorn) but the game has moved a very long way from that now.

 

[Mordhau]

And the point several of us making is not that. The point is that designing a class that doesn't take the fictional conceits of the concept it is built around into account is unlikely to produce a satisfying result. Taking a chassis designed for an entirely different type of fiction and filing off the serial numbers even less so.

Obviously, this is an opinion, and clearly it is not universal as evidenced by the 27 pages of this discussion. But the relation to real science isn't the basis for that opinion.

Actually I don't think the mechanics in D&D have been historically distinct due to the needs of the game's fiction. I think the opposite is more the case, psionics have always had distinct mechanics because otherwise they would simply never have felt distinct enough.

The game has always relied on the meta of the mechanics to elide the fact that psionics and magic have never really been well distinguished fictionally.

 

[Hussar]

I might challenge that, at one time they where based around fictional conceits (ranger = Aragorn) but the game has moved a very long way from that now.

Fair enough. I did forget the ranger to be honest. Was focusing more on the casters. But, even then, ranger=Aragorn... well, certainly the inspiration is there. Sort of. Mostly in the flavor stuff like not owning more than you can carry and whatnot. But, even a 1e ranger could cast Magic Missile (after a while) and didn't really look much like Aragorn. And certainly by 2e, that was largely gone.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

D&D classes as whole are certainly based on archetypes, but the mechanical minutiae of them mostly exists for gameplay reasons.