Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8100799" data-attributes="member: 16814">Oh, I think there was a large group of people downvoting psionics in each of the UAs, but they weren't general anti-psionics folks but rather pro-psionics folks that wanted it their way or the highway.  You say that there are a few die-hard anti-psionics people you've seen, and I don't doubt you, but I've seen lots more pro-psionics people nixing the playtests because it wasn't what they wanted.They do show up in these discussions. I have seen them and so apparently has [USER=7635]@Remathilis[/USER]. Maybe you genuinely haven't, although that would be a lot easier to believe if you hadn't repeatedly tried to put word in my mouth that I never uttered, seemingly in an attempt to make my position seem more extreme than it actually was. In addition to the whole "cabal" thing, I also never said "hate" and I certainly never said "we would have psionics by now" or whatever other nonsense you want to ascribe to me.</blockquote>Okay, I apologize -- I had no idea that that word would be so offensive to you, and if I did I would not have used it.  It was a mildly humorous toss out on my part, as "informal cabal" is an oxymoron, nothing more.  However, it's a bit cheeky to use a complaint that I put words in your mouth to accuse me of dishonesty in what I say, isn't it?  I am ambivalent about psionics appearing in the game -- if they get in, cool, if they don't, no sweat.  This doesn't mean that I don't want to look at how those psionics are going to work or discuss approaches that I might find interesting.  I really liked the psi-die approach, actually -- it moved my needle.  I would be interested in having that psionic mechanics in my game because I felt it flavorful and evocative but not mechanically intense.  The pro-psionics crowd, though, largely hated the mechanic and not only said they were going to vote it down but also largely said they did.  Okay, no big, I liked it but whatever.  Because, I'm ambivalent as to what actually makes it into the ruleset.  Whatever it is, I can work with it.However, I do find it of interest when people start ascribing potential blame to nebulously defined and suspected classes of players.  That seems, to me, to be a way of avoiding what's staring you in the face -- the largest enemy of psionics in 5e is people who are passionate about psionics being their preferred way.  It's not people who are passionate about hating all forms of psionics.  Those people probably exist, but in vastly insufficient number or motivation to actually move the needle, here.  The group that does exist, clearly so, are the ones that think psionics should look a certain way and are opposed to psionics in most other forms.  If the division was really people who like psionics and people who dislike psionics in general, we wouldn't be having this argument about how psionics are being implemented in 5e -- we'd be having an argument about if psionics should exist at all.  This isn't that, it's a discussion about what psionics should look like.  To that, I'm largely ambivalent, or, at least, to apathetic to get up any gumption to tank something.  I vote for things I like, and generally do not for things I don't.[/QUOTE]

Verification