Mike Mearls on D&D Psionics: Should Psionic Flavor Be Altered?

WotC's Mike Mearls has been asking for opinions on how psionics should be treated in D&D 5th Edition. I mentioned a couple of weeks ago that he'd hinted that he might be working on something, and this pretty much seals the deal. He asked yesterday "Agree/Disagree: The flavor around psionics needs to be altered to allow it to blend more smoothly into a traditional fantasy setting", and then followed up with some more comments today.

"Thanks for all the replies! Theoretically, were I working on psionics, I'd try to set some high bars for the execution. Such as - no psionic power duplicates a spell, and vice versa. Psionics uses a distinct mechanic, so no spell slots. One thing that might be controversial - I really don't like the scientific terminology, like psychokinesis, etc. But I think a psionicist should be exotic and weird, and drawing on/tied to something unsettling on a cosmic scale.... [but]... I think the source of psi would be pretty far from the realm of making pacts. IMO, old one = vestige from 3e's Tome of Magic.

One final note - Dark Sun is, IMO, a pretty good example of what happens to a D&D setting when psionic energy reaches its peak. Not that the rules would require it, but I think it's an interesting idea to illustrate psi's relationship to magic on a cosmic level."

 

[Von Ether]

I have zero confidence of this. It's entirely possible even the Forgotten Realms won't see a 5E book. The plan is to tell people to use a product from a previous edition (whether a used book or PDF) with 5E goodies scattered hither and yon in adventures and other, non-dedicated publications so that you really have to dig for that one paragraph on p. 124 of a book you never use to remember why the Harpers have no agent in Mirabar (totally made up scenario).

To clarify, that statement was based on the previous one. If they don't do the setting/adventure/rules product, then all bets are off.

If your comment is right, then all I can say is that your fellow RPGers let you down.

More than once, I've had GMs try to put a new campaign/RPG up to a vote only to have it be FR again and again as players bring 15-25 year-old books to the table. (Because if a gamer can't get a value out of book for 30 years, he's been cheated.)

That experience even let me win a bet once.

It seems to me that WotC is trying to find a way to earn a living with the way RPGers pay and play. And if it's all about nostalgia with 2e/3e reprints and PDFs, then I don't blame them.

Though this does dovetail nicely with Hasbro's constant desire to find a way to make DnD a "print it and stock it" product vs a product that has to be "re-energized" every other month with another product that cost labor and manhours to make. I guess they finally gave up on leading the charge with miniature games and board games and hope that PDFs and minis to fill the gap.

 

[Dausuul]

Except Athas is "disconnected" from the rest of the multiverse, well that's what they said and then eventually there was a Githyanki invasion, but it wouldn't be that hard to justify a different feel for psionics in a Dark Sun setting.

Dark Sun is the natural home of psionics in D&D. It's the one setting that has psionics front and center and always has. As such, psionics should not require a retrofit or a reskin to work in Dark Sun. You should be able to use it out of the box.

Has psionics ever been tightly coupled to the Far Realms in D&D? I don't recall such a connection in previous editions. Why add it now?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Has psionics ever been tightly coupled to the Far Realms in D&D? I don't recall such a connection in previous editions. Why add it now?

Yes, it was explicit in 4e. In earlier editions, though, the kinds of monsters that had psionics included the sort that eventually became associated with the Far Realms. The most notorious of psionic monsters, the Mind Flayer, being the prime example. So, in a sense, the association has roots going all the way back to the 1977 1e Monster Manual.

So the question isn't why add that association, now, but 'why remove it?'

And the answer is because 5e is a rule set presented as a starting point for the DM. It's not just that it doesn't need to be definitive, it's that it should avoid making anything too definitive for a DM to change/adapt/add-to easily. A given DM might not use anything like the Far Realm. Linking psionics the Far Realm can be accommodated - there can be plenty of nasty Far-Realm/Abberation monsters with psionics, for instance - but it needn't be hard-coded in.

It's a very different question from whether psionics should be 'magic' in the sense of leveraging existing mechanics and being subject to the few checks on magical power the game presents.

 

[Mercule]

More than once, I've had GMs try to put a new campaign/RPG up to a vote only to have it be FR again and again as players bring 15-25 year-old books to the table. (Because if a gamer can't get a value out of book for 30 years, he's been cheated.)

That doesn't surprise me, at all. If I didn't expressly rule out Forgotten Realms, I'm pretty sure I would have been "encouraged" to use it for 5E. I'm pretty sure the vote would have been: 1) Yes, please. 2) Always sounded neat. 3) Not ideal, but sounds like less work. 4) Whatever (because I'm going to ignore setting and stick my sword in things). 5) Huh? (Because I've never played before and am still trying to figure out the d20.)

Actually, what blew my mind was that I offered to either convert the modules to Eberron or to create a brand new setting. For Eberron, I said that I'd expect the PCs to draw from the Eberron fluff and the PCs to learn a bit. For home brew, I said I'd take my cues from the PCs and only develop what made sense and seemed important but would leave the rest vanilla/implied. I think it was unanimous for Eberron, in a beer and pretzels game. Pretty sure it doubled the work for everyone, which I don't mind, if rich setting is one of the goals of the campaign.

Though this does dovetail nicely with Hasbro's constant desire to find a way to make DnD a "print it and stock it" product vs a product that has to be "re-energized" every other month with another product that cost labor and manhours to make. I guess they finally gave up on leading the charge with miniature games and board games and hope that PDFs and minis to fill the gap.

If this is the goal (and I think it is), then it makes much more sense to do a new version of the settings, too. That way the "evergreen" setting matches the core rules and can be stocked on the shelf right next to the core rules. Maybe they do intend to print an evergreen book for some of the settings, eventually. What I've heard doesn't sound like it, though.

This is the sort of thing that makes me really cringe at the 5E "brand management". I'm sure they have some sort of numbers to drive their decisions, but the decisions being telegraphed are mystifyingly out of sync with anything that makes sense with what I can see. I know there are some smart folks at Wizards, who love the industry and are good at what they do. I have to assume that there's an exec, somewhere, who is the living embodiment of the Peter Principle and the RPG staff is desperately trying to keep a great product from being "managed" into the ground.

I don't remember what the current Brand Manager's name is, but all indicators that it's either him or whomever he reports directly to (with him being the last sane person in the chain). Every single thing he says sounds like someone who doesn't even know what the D&D brand actually is and/or can't figure out that there are other brands associated with D&D that could be built upon more effectively (say, Forgotten Realms).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, it was explicit in 4e. In earlier editions, though, the kinds of monsters that had psionics included the sort that eventually became associated with the Far Realms. The most notorious of psionic monsters, the Mind Flayer, being the prime example. So, in a sense, the association has roots going all the way back to the 1977 1e Monster Manual.

Also the Intellect Devourer and later classics, like the Aboleth. (Probably didn't need saying, but I like the sound of my fingers typing on a tablet.)

 

[steeldragons]

Always with "the Mind Flayers this, the Aboleths that. Wah wah tentacles."

No one every thinks of the poor lil' BRAIN MOLE!

Moleymoleymoley...Gonna eat'cher braaaaaainssss!

 

[Bacon Bits]

Except Athas is "disconnected" from the rest of the multiverse, well that's what they said and then eventually there was a Githyanki invasion, but it wouldn't be that hard to justify a different feel for psionics in a Dark Sun setting.

Athas was disconnected because the chargen rules for Athas made characters that were significantly more powerful (because the planet was going to kick your ass eventually anyways, if the Dragon Kings didn't get to it first). Namely, you could begin play as a Half-Giant with Str 20+ (and that's when percentile strength was a thing) or as a Thri-Kreen (4-10 attacks a round, IIRC) or a Mul, which don't exist outside Athas. Also, everybody was at least a psionic Wild Talent, and setting-specific classes like Gladiator, Preserver, and Defiler exist. Making Athas explicitly closed prevented players from claiming their Thri-Kreen Ranger and Half Giant Fighter travelled by spelljamming or fell through a portal into Sigil or Krynn or Toril or Oerth. The lore made that forbidden.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

We're running a Dragonlance campaign right now. How do you reconcile healing bards with the idea that all healing comes from the divine?

According to the 3e book, you don't. The magic of bards is based in the (arcane) primal sorcery, and they function as normal, except they lose access to Conjuration (healing) spells.

Due to 3E tradition, I could see one in the Psionics Handbook, but only in context of a section on how psionics can be added to a setting...

At what point in 3e did the Far Realms and Psionics become connected? I certainly don't remember any mention of the Far Realms in the 3.0 Psionics Handbook, nor in the 3.5 Expanded Psionics Handbook.

Yes, it was explicit in 4e. In earlier editions, though, the kinds of monsters that had psionics included the sort that eventually became associated with the Far Realms. The most notorious of psionic monsters, the Mind Flayer, being the prime example. So, in a sense, the association has roots going all the way back to the 1977 1e Monster Manual.

But when did Mind Flayers become associated with the Far Realm? As someone mentioned earlier on this thread, in 2e they were time travelers from the future.

And on that point, when did the Far Realms first appear in D&D at all?

Before 4e, I don't even recall if (all) aberrations were explicitly connected to the Far Realm.

I'm not sure how much of this Far Realms-Psionics connection has any real traction in pre-4e history, and how much of it is back-reading it into it after it was made explicit in 4e.

Can anyone provide any references?

 

[Tony Vargas]

But when did Mind Flayers become associated with the Far Realm?

When the Far Realm was introduced as a point of origin for all those Lovecraftian monsters D&D has always had.

And on that point, when did the Far Realms first appear in D&D at all?

Not sure. 3.x sometime, I think, maybe Planescape? It's a mostly semantic question, though, as it's just a convenient signpost for things Lovecraftian.

Edit: Google seems to think it was Gates of Fire Storm Peak in 1996, that introduced the Far Realms

IIRC, the Far Realms are just one possibility for such critters in 5e. The obvious thing would be to associate Psionics with aberrations or whatever label or plane of origin a given setting or campaign settles on for Lovecraftian horrors with tentacles and mental powers.

It's also worth noting that in the old 1e MM, Demons & Devils were also psionic, so one could associate psionics with /their/ influence, as well as (or instead of) aberrations.

 

[Ristamar]

The Far Realm was at least strongly hinted at in the waning years of 2nd edition. I can't recall if it gets explicitly labeled as the Far Realm in The Illithiad, but a lot of the descriptive language is similar.