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."

 

[Mercule]

The names...I don't much care for. But the built in fluff of the Far Realms (which, yes, I know is easily stripped and they're just doing the whole brand-hammer thing for a great big "THIS IS WOTC'S DEFAULT PSIONICS FOR D&D/FR/THE FAR REALMS YOU'D BETTER NOT COPY US!" bs) is a non-starter for me. I'll just use my homebrewed psychics.

OK. Personal peeve, right here. While this may have happened previously, I'm only really noticing it since the release of 5E and their new focus on "brand management"....

Yes, I can ignore various injected fluff to core rules. Yes, they are (typically) small references. Those arguments suck. I'm well within my rights to object to unnecessary fluff being put into playtest material. That's the whole point of playtest, to get feedback on things people like and don't like. I'm also well within my rights to say that the "small references" in formally published materials are too many and too large and that they, in my opinion, have negative value and that I'd like future products to be different. Again, that's the point of customer feedback: improve future products.

With that in mind, I also dislike tying psionics to the Far Realms. It reduces the historic breadth of use for the subject matter. It's inconsistent with most of the early material (mind flayers got psionics because they had super-cool brains, not because they were alien). It's also problematic to resolve for things like Dark Sun.

If you'd like to discuss the relative merits of the Far Realm and how it improves psionics, I'm game for that conversation. If your response is some flavor of "get over it" (i.e. the fluff is minor/easy to ignore) then understand that you're not actually addressing any objections and pretty much admitting that there's no good reason to use the Realms other than "because".

 

[lkj]

OK. Personal peeve, right here. While this may have happened previously, I'm only really noticing it since the release of 5E and their new focus on "brand management"....

Yes, I can ignore various injected fluff to core rules. Yes, they are (typically) small references. Those arguments suck. I'm well within my rights to object to unnecessary fluff being put into playtest material. That's the whole point of playtest, to get feedback on things people like and don't like. I'm also well within my rights to say that the "small references" in formally published materials are too many and too large and that they, in my opinion, have negative value and that I'd like future products to be different. Again, that's the point of customer feedback: improve future products.

With that in mind, I also dislike tying psionics to the Far Realms. It reduces the historic breadth of use for the subject matter. It's inconsistent with most of the early material (mind flayers got psionics because they had super-cool brains, not because they were alien). It's also problematic to resolve for things like Dark Sun.

If you'd like to discuss the relative merits of the Far Realm and how it improves psionics, I'm game for that conversation. If your response is some flavor of "get over it" (i.e. the fluff is minor/easy to ignore) then understand that you're not actually addressing any objections and pretty much admitting that there's no good reason to use the Realms other than "because".

Out of curiosity (and forgive me if you've already answered this elsewhere. I haven't been back to psionics threads for awhile), but would you have an issue with the flavor if psionics were described generally as being powers that one can tap into with an 'awakened' mind. And there being say a sidebar that said one of the incidental properties of touching the Far Realm can be to trigger such an awakening (by, say, violently shocking your mind into a better understanding of the fabric of reality). So it has nothing to do with the Far Realm itself. The Far Realm just becomes one, of many, mechanisms by which a mind becomes awakened.

It's been awhile since I looked at the playtest documents. But my memory is that the fluff could have been interpreted that way (yes, I know there was room for interpretation, but playtest wording isn't worth the debate to me so long as I can give my feedback on it generally)

But let's say they went that 'sidebar' route. Psionic power comes to those who have awakened minds, by whatever mechanism. A side effect of exposure to the Far Realm can be such an awakening. Would that be a problem for you and others that don't like the connection generally?

For my part, I strongly support making psionics more general than a Far Realm specific thing. However, I kind of like the idea that the Far Realm might have 'psionic side effects'. It's a cool bit of flavor that I might use in my game. A sign of Far Realm incursion might be people going crazy in an area. Some of those people are exhibiting strange powers-- a magic none have seen before. It might be a fun way to introduce psionics into the game without letting people know right away. Perhaps existing psionicists would be aware that bursts of psionic talent in otherwise untrained individuals was a sign of the Far Realm. Perhaps they would consider such undisicplined powers to be extremely dangerous.

I'm rambling, but I guess what I'm saying is that adding the Far Realm side effect immediately spawned story ideas for me. Which is cool. Sure, I don't want my psionics to be restricted to a mashup with the Cthulu mythos. But if it's just a twist, then I like the stories it might engender.

Just a thought.

AD

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes, I can ignore various injected fluff to core rules. Yes, they are (typically) small references. Those arguments suck. I'm well within my rights to object to unnecessary fluff being put into playtest material. That's the whole point of playtest, to get feedback on things people like and don't like. I'm also well within my rights to say that the "small references" in formally published materials are too many and too large and that they, in my opinion, have negative value and that I'd like future products to be different. Again, that's the point of customer feedback: improve future products.

So the next question to be asked of you then is... "Is there anything else to say?"

I agree 100% that you have the right to say you don't want the Far Realms fluff in psionics. You have an opinion, you've expressed it here (and maybe in the feedback forms WotC has requested for all the playtest material). You've made your point by your post that you hope it doesn't come about. You've accomplished what you've set out to do.

So then what?

If that's it, and that's all that matters... then it doesn't matter if someone comes back to say that you can just ignore fluff. Because your statement was one of opinion, not something that can be "discussed". Their saying you can ignore the fluff does not go back and remove your original intent, which is that you wanted WotC to know you didn't want Far Realms fluff in the rules for psionics. That still happened, your voice was still heard, and nothing has erased that. So there's no real point to get upset, because what you wanted to occur still did. You were successful.

But it also means that if someone tells you to just ignore the fluff, and for some reason that does bother you... then there's something more here. It's no longer just whether you can state your opinion... but rather it's now about the quality of your opinion. If you're getting upset that people aren't agreeing with it... then that's where the discussion is going to occur-- whether or not your opinion is meaningful.

And that's a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[steeldragons]

OK. Personal peeve, right here. While this may have happened previously, I'm only really noticing it since the release of 5E and their new focus on "brand management"....

Yes, I can ignore various injected fluff to core rules. Yes, they are (typically) small references. Those arguments suck. I'm well within my rights to object to unnecessary fluff being put into playtest material. That's the whole point of playtest, to get feedback on things people like and don't like. I'm also well within my rights to say that the "small references" in formally published materials are too many and too large and that they, in my opinion, have negative value and that I'd like future products to be different. Again, that's the point of customer feedback: improve future products.

With that in mind, I also dislike tying psionics to the Far Realms. It reduces the historic breadth of use for the subject matter. It's inconsistent with most of the early material (mind flayers got psionics because they had super-cool brains, not because they were alien). It's also problematic to resolve for things like Dark Sun.

If you'd like to discuss the relative merits of the Far Realm and how it improves psionics, I'm game for that conversation. If your response is some flavor of "get over it" (i.e. the fluff is minor/easy to ignore) then understand that you're not actually addressing any objections and pretty much admitting that there's no good reason to use the Realms other than "because".

I'm not entirely sure what you're responding to. I'm 100% ya on everything you said.

I hate tying the Far Realms into psionics. I hate the hamfisted overuse of "branding" as an excuse for injecting [Forgotten Realms specific] flavor into [pretty much] everything 5e.

You absolutely ARE within your rights to tell them, "I don't like this!" I'll say it with ya! lol.

So I'm not sure what the quoted post of mine (simply responding to CapnZapp's query about what the existing 5e psionics material entailed) is something you're responding to/for.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I hate tying the Far Realms into psionics. I hate the hamfisted overuse of "branding" as an excuse for injecting [Forgotten Realms specific] flavor into [pretty much] everything 5e.

To be fair, it's not Forgotten Realms-specific flavor that's being tied in-- the Far Realms / psionics connection was made explicit in 4E so it's more of a Nerath-specific flavor that's becoming theoretically multiversal. The Forgotten Realms are just having their flavor changed to match.

But your actual point is made.

 

[Mercule]

Out of curiosity (and forgive me if you've already answered this elsewhere. I haven't been back to psionics threads for awhile), but would you have an issue with the flavor if psionics were described generally as being powers that one can tap into with an 'awakened' mind. And there being say a sidebar that said one of the incidental properties of touching the Far Realm can be to trigger such an awakening (by, say, violently shocking your mind into a better understanding of the fabric of reality). So it has nothing to do with the Far Realm itself. The Far Realm just becomes one, of many, mechanisms by which a mind becomes awakened.

Nope. All good. IIRC, the play test doc said "it ties to the Far Realm". It gave some setting-specific flavors, in a later paragraph, that seemed a bit out of place with the Far Realms. Really, my objection is that they seem to want to tie it to a particular piece of fluff. I can definitely see where the Far Realms would be one way for a mind to be awakened -- Eberron pretty much does this, and I'm fine with the Eberron implementation.

Over the years, I've seen little "throw away" bits of fluff turn into major themes. For example, when 3E was first released, the Sorcerer had a line to the effect of "no one is sure where their power comes from, but one rumor is that they have a dragon in their ancestry." My table didn't really care for the whole birthright thing (we actually use psionics for that sort of thing), so we just played it as a different way of studying magic -- one with focus on skill rather than knowledge, trading flexibility at preparation time for flexibility at casting time. It worked beautifully throughout 3E, especially for those of us who hated playing Wizards because of the need for a player with a crystal ball. Feats and prestige classes drifted a bit towards canonizing the birthright fluff, but it was "easy to ignore".

In 5E, the Sorcerer can't have the birthright aspect stripped out. The class would simply fall apart. What's more, the new preparation system makes the original mechanical appeal of the Sorcerer a bit redundant. Based on that and the multiple bloodlines, I'm not exactly weeping about the change to the Sorcerer. Still, it's an example of how even a single line of fluff can end up dominating something. I do not want to see the 6E (or whatever) Mystic end up tied to the Far Realm in the same way the Sorcerer ended up tied to bloodlines.

I'm rambling, but I guess what I'm saying is that adding the Far Realm side effect immediately spawned story ideas for me. Which is cool. Sure, I don't want my psionics to be restricted to a mashup with the Cthulu mythos. But if it's just a twist, then I like the stories it might engender.

I don't mind the idea generator. In fact, I think that's been one of D&D's historic strengths. When the designers/developers latch on to one idea too strongly, though, the result is that flavor that should be set at the group/table/campaign level is passed down with too heavy of a hand.

If 5E has a singular weakness, it would be (IMO) that the team pushes concepts just a bit too far. They go from idea generator or example to soft-canon. They've done an amazing job with the mechanics, but they're ham-fisted with the IP.

 

[Mercule]

I'm not entirely sure what you're responding to. I'm 100% ya on everything you said.

I'm more jumping on board your train than rebutting anything you said. Carry on.

 

[Mercule]

So the next question to be asked of you then is... "Is there anything else to say?"

Sure. Tell me why you think tying it to the Far Realms would be beneficial. Have an actual conversation, instead of just being dismissive.

But it also means that if someone tells you to just ignore the fluff, and for some reason that does bother you... then there's something more here. It's no longer just whether you can state your opinion... but rather it's now about the quality of your opinion. If you're getting upset that people aren't agreeing with it... then that's where the discussion is going to occur-- whether or not your opinion is meaningful.

And that's a whole different kettle of fish.

My opinion is equally meaningful as any other poster, here. I'm not upset that people don't agree with me. I think it's odd "ignore the fluff" is seen as anything resembling an intelligent response in a conversation on a playtest document.

There are really two conversations going on. One is "Does the fluff matter"? The other assumes flavor matters and is "Is it appropriate to tie psionics to the Far Realm?" Neither one of those is appropriately responded to by "Just ignore the fluff."

My answer to the first question is "yes". I've given reasons multiple times, so I'll save some space. To the second, I say, "No". I've also given reasons for that.

If one disagrees with either of my answers, I'm more than happy to hear why and to see their reasons.

The general expectation of a conversation, however, is to actually reply on topic. "Just ignore it," is not on topic. It dismisses the entire conversation as irrelevant and not worth having.

So, the next question to be asked of you is "why are you even reading this thread?" You clearly don't feel like there's a conversation to be had here based on merit of actual discussion. You've got a pat answer for anyone who disagrees with you, and it doesn't even require you to justify it. So, you've accomplished your intent.

 

[Azzy]

They tied the flavor explicitly to the Far Realms.

This thread is older, obviously, but there are at least 2 Unearthed Arcana articles on psionics for 5e. They call it "The Mystic" and the subclasses we've been shown thus far, I believe, are the "Awakened Mind" and the "Immortal."

The names...I don't much care for. But the built in fluff of the Far Realms (which, yes, I know is easily stripped and they're just doing the whole brand-hammer thing for a great big "THIS IS WOTC'S DEFAULT PSIONICS FOR D&D/FR/THE FAR REALMS YOU'D BETTER NOT COPY US!" bs) is a non-starter for me. I'll just use my homebrewed psychics.

Then get on Twitter and tell Mike and Jeremy that you don't like the Far Realm connection, and you'd rather it be in a sidebar as one interpretation of how/why psionics exists for some settings—just like the sidebar that mentions the Weave in the PHB.

 

[steeldragons]

Nice idea. Hope people do. I don't twitter.