Psionics: Do you use 'em or did you lose 'em

[woodelf]

I dislike Psionics. The whole crystal stuff makes me regurgitate, and it is just one type of magic too much (next to mages, sorcery and priestly magic, I already dislike the addition of sorcerers next to mages).

What flavor is psionics?

I keep reading I hate the flavor, and I don't understand it. I don't see psionics any different than magic except you get to see other spells than magic missle, fireball etc. To me, it adds a nice diversity to the game.

The flavor is just some trappings--as someone else pointed out, just ignore the flavor of the "psicrystal" in favor of the mechanical bits, and it still works. And so on, for the rest of the flavor bits (crystals, ecto-whatever, etc.).

And, in fact, that's my primary problem with D&D3E psionics (both PsiH and XPH): other than the flavor trappings, they're too much like magic. Pretty much anything you can do with magic, you can do with psionics, and vice versa, and they're roughly equally-effective at those things. I really wish they'd stuck to earlier D&D versions of psionics and, for that matter, typical representations of psychic powers in literature: really good at mental stuff, and maybe self-affecting powers, and less-good at anything involving the physical world. And none of this creating-stuff-from-nothing crap. IOW, make psionics really feel different from magic, and not just have different special effects. I want psychics that're much better than wizards at some things, and much poorer at others, and utterly incapable of a lot of things wizards can do. With the XPH, psychics can pretty much do the same things wizards/sorcerers can, and at roughly the same levels and effectivenesses. Sure, it makes balancing them easy, but it kills the flavor in the process. What's the point of having a second type of nifty power if it doesn't make your characters different?

 

[woodelf]

Actually, there most certainly is a scientific basis for all of the above, at least according to some theories, even if implausible or beyond our ability to accomplish currently.

So yeah, there is a big difference between psychic powers, which are fantasy, and all of the above, which are science fiction.

I think his point is that those are all things that don't have a good scientific basis, and are integral elements of Star Trek, which, according to the general public qualifies as science fiction [if science-poor scifi].

There're scientific theories to explain psychic powers (mostly having to do with quantum pairs) which're at least as sound as anything supporting warp drive, replicators, or teleporters/transporters.

That said, i'm in the "psionics good" camp, and agree that there's nothing inherent about "powers of the mind" that's incompatible with fantasy. In fact, i'd say they're more appropriate for pseudo-European fantasy than divine spellcasters, or fire-and-forget magic. Just ditch the superhero-ish manifestations, the new-agey crystal fixation, and all the creatures from nowhere. IOW, it's not psychic powers, it's the XPH that i think clashes a bit.

Or, as others have said, tie it into Indian/Chinese mysticism.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And none of this creating-stuff-from-nothing crap.

One of the classic tropes of psychic stories is creating matter from ectoplasm, which usually seems as if from empty air, since ectoplasm is not normally visible. But I hear what you're saying.

Flavor-wise, Telekinesis, Pyrokinesis, ESP, and Mind Control are probably the big 4 as far as most people's conception of psychic stuff goes. Astral Projection, talking to the dead and "reading" people/objects/places probably ranks up there, too. People who read more of the fiction would be familiar with biofeedback/mind over body type abilities.

I'm guessing it would not be feasible to limit a psychic powers rules supplement to just those listed above. Creating a rules supplement just hitting those more recognizable psychic phenomena would result in either a single class with a "kitchen sink" feel, or classes that have wierd power curves or classes that border on uselessness. Players would play a Telekinetic who would be able to toss crowds around, or possibly kill someone at range by pinching off their carotid artery...but the Medium? 20 levels of "I see dead people..."?

Thus (and wisely, IMHO), the WOTC psionics team seems to have scoured various genres to find a wide variety of psychic powers and abilities.

 

[Goblyn]

I voted that I love them and use them as both a DM and a player. Unfortunately the rest of my group could care less about psionics. I used the 3.0 psionics handbook, but ever since I took a break from DMing, there's been no psionic loving for me. Any time I'd play I'd always play a Psion, so now I'm giving it a break. I don't want to force my poor Dragonlance DM to accomodate a psionic character of mine in Ansalon again! If I ever play in an Eberron game, you can bet I'll be playing a Kalashtar psion.

It's too bad that I haven't had a chance since the new expanded psionics handbook came out. That one looks like the most fun psionics rules yet...

This is soo exactly a mirror image of what I would have posted if I didn't just quote it. Except the Dragonlance and Eberron stuff.

 

[woodelf]

Oh? What would that rationale be? It doesn't have a rationale that's any more scientifically grounded than magic.

You talking the specific sorts of psionics described in D&D3E? Or psychic powers in general? Because the latter actually has a plausible scientific explanation, involving the interactions of the brain and quantum pairs. But only for ESP/clairsentience, mind-control, and *maybe* firestarter type powers. Biology can possibly account for mind-over-body type powers. Even precognition could possibly be explained by quantum theory.

Of the most common psychic powers claimed, the only ones that are pretty much impossible to explain with current science, even fringe science, are spoonbending and astral travel. And, while literally sending a psychic body places can't be explained, most of the measurable results claimed by psychic travelers could be explained by the same sorts of things that explain farviewing and so on.

Again, I beg to differ. It's a different style of magic. It's magic with "willing things to happen" vice arcane gesture and rituals. Any this paradigm does go back quite a ways.

Now, if you simply define that way--which is pretty much what XPH psionics do--then, yes, it's just another type of magic. Which is my primary objection to D&D3E psionics. If i were going to actually have psionics in my game [i'm running AU, so i'm just sticking with the mind witches and other such things, which definitely fall into the "different style of magic" category], i'd insist on making them different in capability, not just style.

Any power that directly affected the non-sentient outside world would be increased by 3 or more levels.So, the entire metacreative discipline would be gone, for starters--that's exactly the sort of stuff i don't want psychic powers doing. All mind-control/-reading powers would be reduced by about 3 levels, and mind-over-body stuff would be reduced by a level or so. Powers like astral travel and teleportation would be unable to affect anyone but the user. Probably some other changes, but those're what come immediately to mind.

Elsewise stories like Pern, the Coldfire Trilogy, and Darkover (fantasy worlds that are posited to be space colonies) would not exist.

Not to mention SkyRealms of Jorune (distinctly scifi, but with mystical powers) and Tekumel (distinctly fantasy, with an important scifi background).

 

[Desdichado]

Or, as others have said, tie it into Indian/Chinese mysticism.

That's where I see it too. That's why Green Ronin's Red Whatever-it-was psionic setting was set in a fantasy India of sorts, I think.

 

[Psion]

That's where I see it too. That's why Green Ronin's Red Whatever-it-was psionic setting was set in a fantasy India of sorts, I think.

Er, Mindshadows maybe.

Red Star is completely unrelated... (But oddly, it mixes magic and high tech. Oh noes!)

 

[fanboy2000]

You talking the specific sorts of psionics described in D&D3E? Or psychic powers in general? Because the latter actually has a plausible scientific explanation, involving the interactions of the brain and quantum pairs. But only for ESP/clairsentience, mind-control, and *maybe* firestarter type powers. Biology can possibly account for mind-over-body type powers. Even precognition could possibly be explained by quantum theory.

The problem is that ESP phenomena needs to be shown to exist before it can be scientifically explained. Ditto with the other examples.

 

[Zander]

I quite agree. But it seems to me that you are the one who is conflating the two [sci-fi and fantasy] and ignoring the differences. Psychic powers are indeed fictional, but are just as fantastic as a dragon. They don't exist, and never have, so they fall into the realm of fantasy.

No! You can't agree that fantasy is a sub-type of fiction (among others) and also claim that because psychic powers are fictitious they must therefore be fantasy and not some other genre of fiction. Your logic here is flawed.

Your reference to dragons is an interesting one. I have a book entitled The Flight of Dragons that attempts to explain, humorously and using (pseudo-) science, how dragons could do the things they do (fly, breath fire etc). The book is written tongue-in-cheek for the very reason that a fantasy creation (such as dragons) is based on imagery and can't be given a scientific or pseudo-scientific rationale. To do so would raise pseudo-scientific questions about every other element of fantasy which the genre can't sustain.

You seem to be unable to distinguish between science fiction and fantasy except by the trappings which surround them, which are actually beside the point.

I agree that trappings by themselves don't make a genre. In the case of fantasy, and some other genres, they are a necessary component however. The technology in most fantasy settings is similar to that found in Europe circa 1500 or earlier. Apart from vulcanised rubber for the tires and springs for the suspension, they had the technology in the 1400's to make a working bicycle albeit not a great one. If trappings aren't central to the concept of fantasy there's no reason not to have bicycles in such a setting. Most authors of fantasy (and probably most GMs of fantasy campaigns) would reject bicycles on aesthetic grounds. Those grounds may only be cosmetic, but they do, in part, define the genre. So trappings are indeed to the point.

Star Wars is fantasy despite having space ships, aliens and blasters, because space ships, aliens and blasters does not mean science fiction; those are just trappings that are often associated with science fiction. But by themselves, they do not make a work science fiction.

As I've already stated regarding Star Wars, crosses between genres are possible. But because fantasy is more dependent on appearances than most other genres, crossing fantasy with something else produces a hybrid that almost always resembles its non-fantasy parent. In the case of Star Wars, it's sci-fi. You and I, and probably most members of these boards, can perceive the fantasy elements in Star Wars but chances are that the overwhelming majority of Star Wars movie-goers would classify it as sci-fi. For Star Wars, the trappings and to a lesser extent the pseudo-science make it more sci-fi than fantasy.

 

[Desdichado]

No! You can't agree that fantasy is a sub-type of fiction (among others) and also claim that because psychic powers are fictitious they must therefore be fantasy and not some other genre of fiction. Your logic here is flawed.

No, it's not. Fantasy is not "the literature of imagery" as you seem to be claiming. Imagery has nothing to do with fantasy. My argument is sound. Yours is based on a "out of left field" definition of what fantasy is.

I agree that trappings by themselves don't make a genre. In the case of fantasy, and some other genres, they are a necessary component however. The technology in most fantasy settings is similar to that found in Europe circa 1500 or earlier. Apart from vulcanised rubber for the tires and springs for the suspension, they had the technology in the 1400's to make a working bicycle albeit not a great one. If trappings aren't central to the concept of fantasy there's no reason not to have bicycles in such a setting. Most authors of fantasy (and probably most GMs of fantasy campaigns) would reject bicycles on aesthetic grounds. Those grounds may only be cosmetic, but they do, in part, define the genre. So trappings are indeed to the point.

No, they are not. You are confusing "classic" fantasy with all fantasy. Psychic powers may not be "classic" fantasy (although I'll point to the whole sub-genre that Blue Rose is attempting to emulate to argue that actually they probably are) but they are fantasy, because they are fantastic. They completely do not exist, and cannot with our current understanding of the universe, so they are fantasy.

Please, if you're going to argue about the definitions of sci-fi vs. fantasy, don't make up your own definitions of the two. Find a good book on writing sci-fi or fantasy (or both) and see how the authors make the distinction. That's why we're fundamentally at odds on this thread; your definition of fantasy vis à vis sci-fi is one that you've concocted yourself.