HELP?! What can I do to convice a DM to use PSI in his game?

[Talmun]

I'm of the opinion that if a player really wants to use a particular concept, then it's usually worth the DM trying to allow it if it fits into the world...<snip>

I generally agree with this approach, when someone wants to play something that is within the milieu of the fantasy game, but how would you feel if someone in your traditional D&D game wanted to play a d20 modern gunbunny, or a bizarre mutated super ala Trinity...it might give you pause, rightly so...to me psionics is just as out of place in fantasy as a blaster-rifle wielding storm-trooper would be...Barrier Peaks not withstanding

On top of that, there are the other players' opinions to consider. Do I force them to play in a world with psionics just becuse one person wants to try out the new book?

All that being said, see my earlier post regarding what we decided to do...

 

[Piratecat]

how would you feel if someone in your traditional D&D game wanted to play a d20 modern gunbunny...

I would feel annoyed, and as DM I wouldn't allow it. I personally see psionics as fitting in perfectly within a fantasy milieu, but your point is a good one.

That being said, I would make the world match my own vision for it. If I decided I wanted psionics in my world and my players didn't, I'd probably include them anyways but disguise them somewhat, making sure that the players never had to learn new rules mechanics. They don't care what rules I use for my bad guys and NPCs as long as I'm fair and consistent. Adding non-rules-based societal roles (gunbunnies) that my group hated would take a gentler touch, and I'd give it long and hard thought before adding such a thing.

Sorry for rambling. I think my point is that if I decided to add psionics, it wouldn't work in my group to have them vote on it. While I'd certainly take their wishes into consideration, I'm not prepared to give up control of my "world vision" to my players. I'd either allow them or not, and tell the hopeful player accordingly.

 

[Talmun]

Sorry for rambling. I think my point is that if I decided to add psionics, it wouldn't work in my group to have them vote on it. While I'd certainly take their wishes into consideration, I'm not prepared to give up control of my "world vision" to my players. I'd either allow them or not, and tell the hopeful player accordingly.

No apology necessary.

I initially gave him a flat 'No'. We discussed it in a few e-mails back and forth, and then he started this thread. The fact that he signed up and made this his first post - added to the obvious excitement he has when talking about playing a psion - caused me to rethink my position on allowing it into the game. But because that position is shared by the majority of players in my group I cannot over-rule them.

I'm not a Deus Majora kind of DM, and most of my players know the rules just as well (better, in some cases) as I do, so I wouldn't be able to 'sneak' psionics into the game world as you suggested. Nor would I want to; our group is more of a democracy (well, republic) than anything else, it may not be for everyone, but it works for us.

 

[Spatula]

Who said psionics was so much like magic?

The 3.0 Psionics Handbook and the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook. There are options presented in both books to treat psionics differently than magic, but those are just options.

I suppose you could make it a whole lot like magic, but the rules don't.

The 1E & 2E psi rules don't... but we're presumably talking about a 3E game here.

 

[Psion]

Who said psionics was so much like magic?

The person I was replying to when you replied to me.

If you are going to join in the conversation, try to understand the context first.

Your axe example is truly well off the mark. More appropriate would be someone saying they want to use a subsonic sniper rifle from Spycraft.

MY example is off the mark?

 

[Psion]

My making it so that the world has a community of psions, you have changed the world. Is that not obvious?

It well may. But would that be such a bad thing?

I don't know about your world, but I know that mine has plenty of un-fleshed out places.

Now I can understand disallowing something because it doesn't fit the concept of your world. For example, if your world design includes cosmology facts that describe what magic is and why it works the way it does, then that might be a good reason.

But I do not see begruding a player a little lattitude because it would add a community that was not there before is a little petty. A world is a big place, and most homebrews have plenty of room. In some cases where I have done this, it has been a good impetus for fleshing out my world with details I wouldn't have thought of myself.

And the player got to try out a character they are interested in.

 

[buzzard]

The person I was replying to when you replied to me.

If you are going to join in the conversation, try to understand the context first.

Good to see you being your normal charming self. Sorry if I dared to reply to you without seeing something that wasn't quoted in your post.

MY example is off the mark?

You wrote the nonsense about the axe vs. sword being like wizard vs. psionics right? Or did I get my context wrong again?

Let me explain it simply.

Swords and axes are contemporary weapons equally valid in just about anybody's view of a fantasy compaign. If you think the difference between these weapons is akin to magic vs. psionics, fine, but I suspect you're be in a small minority.

Psions and wizard are drastically different in style, feel, and mechanic. The results can often be the same (especially with the Psionics handbook justification that psionics=magic), but the feel is drastically different.

Much like a subsonic sniper rifle from Spycraft vs. a longbow. They have approximately the same in game effect (damage, range, etc.) but I imagine you notice the feel is rather different.

buzzard

 

[buzzard]

It well may. But would that be such a bad thing?

I don't know about your world, but I know that mine has plenty of un-fleshed out places.

Now I can understand disallowing something because it doesn't fit the concept of your world. For example, if your world design includes cosmology facts that describe what magic is and why it works the way it does, then that might be a good reason.

But I do not see begruding a player a little lattitude because it would add a community that was not there before is a little petty. A world is a big place, and most homebrews have plenty of room. In some cases where I have done this, it has been a good impetus for fleshing out my world with details I wouldn't have thought of myself.

And the player got to try out a character they are interested in.

I can see the point, but I'm one of those stick in the mud people who think psionics isn't fantasy. Thus you change the tone of your world drastically by adding psioncs. Apparently the DM in question is of my opinion.

Now mind you, I'm a huge fan of the Julian May works upon which psionics are pretty much based. However, I don't see those works fitting in your normal D&D world.

buzzard

 

[Psion]

Swords and axes are contemporary weapons equally valid in just about anybody's view of a fantasy compaign. If you think the difference between these weapons is akin to magic vs. psionics, fine, but I suspect you're be in a small minority. [/b]

You are so missing the point. I gave it as an example because I perceive that the difference between axes and swords are small.

Nellsir was the one who claimed the difference (between psionics and magic) was small. My reply with the axe/sword example was to emphasize that even differences that seem small to one person can be important enough that a person would want to play a character based on those differences. I see players who use a different weapon as a central edifice in a character concept all the time.

I don't think magic and psionics are identical. (Not that I think they are "drastically different" either.)

 

[buzzard]

You are so missing the point. I gave it as an example because I perceive that the difference between axes and swords are small.

Nellsir was the one who claimed the difference (between psionics and magic) was small. My reply with the axe/sword example was to emphasize that even differences that seem small to one person can be important enough that a person would want to play a character based on those differences. I see players who use a different weapon as a central edifice in a character concept all the time.

I don't think magic and psionics are identical. (Not that I think they are "drastically different" either.)

No I am not missing the point, but I suspect you are.

Magic and psionics have very simmilar end results. They do the same flashy stuff. They, however, have very different trappings. Also, many people (apparently including the DM and players in this game) see them as very different in context.

I see this as quite equivalent to the subsonic rifle/bow. They are both ranged weapons, they both do 1d8, they both have a range increment of about 100. What's the difference? The rifleman won't have any real advantage over the bowman.

I may really want to be a rifleman, and I even manage to pick a rifle which is no better than the bow. However, the DM, seeing the fact that the rifle has no place in his world says no. Who is wrong?

I could easily use your argument that it's a minor difference and that everyone should accomodate me. After all, being a rifleman is really quite important to me. That should trump the integrity of the world right?

buzzard