Search results

I'm not sure how one would classify , say, Eastern mysticism as "psychic" without Victorian eroticism. Please explain the coexisting "magic" and "psionics" in pre-Victorian, non-European parlance. Because as far as I have ever encountered, the difference between what can be called "magic"...

That's not accurate. There were no "psychic beliefs" before the Victorians. It was all just "magic." Only Victorian pseudoscientism allowed for something distinct like psychic abilities.

Just to be clear: psionics is a perfectly valid magic system on its own. And it is a good choice if you want to hard juxtapose it against some other form of magic. But I really don't see the draw in a world with a bunch of other kinds of magic already.

There's nothing Alexander can teach that isn't better taught by Coville or Ginni D, without the ego.

Obfuscation. GNS is literally unimportant to this discussion and using it as a way to bypass the discussion is disingenuous. If the GM if constrained by the nat 1 or nat 20, or lack thereof, it is a narrative mechanic. If the GM.can do whatever they want whenever they want, then by definition...

And that's what makes it a narrative mechanic.

Watched it tonight. It was fine. That is all I can really say.

Maybe, but there is no way to know this outside of a well designed, totally public study. Which, by the way, I completely advocate for. Bring on the data!

But if the world includes psions to the same degree as wizards, everyone knows this and they take precautions. That's the point. Without the "mystique" what is the point of psions in a world that has 6 other kinds of magic already?

You are being pretty hostile. Not sure why.

So what does a world look like that includes both Magic and Psionics. And no Dark Sun -- making magic The Bad is cheating. I mean your typical D&D world that happens to also include psions alongside wizards, clerics and druids. How is that distinct? How does it MATTER?

This implies that all talents are wild talents, and that all magic is studied. Those don't track in fiction or D&D.

I am not sure how you would balance this in 5E's paradigm. It does not really do the whole "weak early to be powerful later" bit that "balanced" the wizard/m-u in earlier editions.

Aren't there equal differences in those things between wizards and druids and necromancers and clerics? Why are psions special here?

What is the true difference between "psionics" and "magic"?

And that's fine. That puts you in the "no narrative effects of a 1 or 20" category.

It's much more relaxing to do this stuff at work, you know.

Have you followed the thread?

I have never understood this particular distinction. Nearly every magic media at least strongly suggests that will power and mental stamina are important for "wizardry." Hell, even D&D fiction leads heavily into the trope. Why are psions special for this?

You're missing the point. The reason why the baron arrested them in the example wasn't because they failed, but because they failed with a natural 1 specifically. That is the whole crux of the discussion.