Paul Farquhar
Legend
Paranormal includes subnatural as well as supernatural.Is paranormal generally read as being closer to the mundane than supernatural? (But then I think of X-files and I guess not).
Paranormal includes subnatural as well as supernatural.Is paranormal generally read as being closer to the mundane than supernatural? (But then I think of X-files and I guess not).
What definition are you using for subnatural and do you have a favorite relevant sentence?Paranormal includes subnatural as well as supernatural.
Maybe?What definition are you using for subnatural and do you have a favorite relevant sentence?
I'd appreciate if you did, because without it I'm struggling with your last post (and a quick Google didn't help).Maybe?
"sub-": less thanI'd appreciate if you did, because without it I'm struggling with your last post (and a quick Google didn't help).
They aren't effectively synonyms within the context of comparing science fiction and fantasy.Tautologies are really getting out of hand, supernatural and paranormal are effectively synonyms. What's next, different rules for hand-to-hand combat and melee?
Psionics in a sci-fi D&D
How? Explain an actual functional metaphysical difference, not one that is merely circular semantics.They aren't effectively synonyms within the context of comparing science fiction and fantasy.
I am glad someone remembers what the topic of the thread was. Most people seemed to instantly ignore it, and merely started talking about introducing psionics into fantasy D&D.Whatever you think about any of the above, this entire thread is about implementing psionics in a sci-fi setting of 5E, so for the purposes of this thread, psionics is sci-fi, not fantasy.
No.The definition of what is and isn't science in fiction is entirely defined within the fiction itself. Their plausibility outside of fiction is irrelevant. It's why science fiction that falls outside of the narrow category of "hard sci-fi" is still called science fiction and not fantasy. Magic is magic because the fiction defines as so. When magic isn't magic, but just "sufficiently advanced science," again, it's because the fiction defines it so. If psionics is tapping into some "other," like the Force, then it could be plausibly compared to magic, but say if it's the result of using mechanical implants to harness and amplify unused portions of the brain, then it doesn't matter that the concept doesn't hold up under real world scientific scrutiny; pseudoscience is still within the purview of science in a fictional context, not magic.
And, since we're in the topic of "Psionics in a Sci-Fi D&D", then the worry about wizards disappears. This isn't straight up D&D, so, wizards, presumably, wouldn't exist in the setting. So, why are we worried about wizards getting psionic spells?
IOW, we're apparently concerned about a purely hypothetical.
I normally use the term "scifi" to also include fantasy. So, Lord of the Rings is scifi. There are too many shows (that I like) that blur the genres: Star Wars, Dr Who, Star Trek, superheroes, and so on. Its all scifi.
Others trying to maintain some theoretical distinction, might use the broad term "speculative fiction", where I use scifi.
That said, for me, there is a difference between technology and magic. Technology is a "tool", and can be bought and sold.
Magic is something that requires a "relationship", is inherent, and allows for a mental intention to manifest directly as physical reality.
Sci-fi vs Fantasy? In sci-fi psionic work for real! That‘s a kind of Fantasy!
If the magic items are virtually identical to technology, and feel like one can by them in a store or make one in a lab, then yeah, it is technology.Potions and magic items are technology?
This is really the big question that the OP doesn't mention. I assume @Morrus has some project in mind, but it's not clear if it's straight up D&D in space (Spelljammer) with existing classes and magic, a reskin (Esper Genesis), or something in between (Starfinder).And, since we're in the topic of "Psionics in a Sci-Fi D&D", then the worry about wizards disappears. This isn't straight up D&D, so, wizards, presumably, wouldn't exist in the setting. So, why are we worried about wizards getting psionic spells?
IOW, we're apparently concerned about a purely hypothetical.
My gut feeling on this is we should presumably continue to account for wizards, etc. as if it were standard D&D from a design standpoint. If you do, it makes it easier to evaluate/playtest for balance (you have already-published reference poinrs) AND it increases compatibility with the original game and whatever other stuff might be out there.And, since we're in the topic of "Psionics in a Sci-Fi D&D", then the worry about wizards disappears. This isn't straight up D&D, so, wizards, presumably, wouldn't exist in the setting. So, why are we worried about wizards getting psionic spells?
IOW, we're apparently concerned about a purely hypothetical.
I feel the exact opposite on this. The reason separation is needed isn't because of possibility of confusion. My reasons are basically twofold:And as there is no actual magic in scifi, no separation is needed and there is no possibility of confusion.
so clearly we need something rather different in at least a few ways?I feel the exact opposite on this. The reason separation is needed isn't because of possibility of confusion. My reasons are basically twofold:
Whether it's to use as intended in a sci-fi setting or to scavenge mechanics for use in a fantasy D&D campaign, there is just nothing really useable in a wizard-based psion that I couldn't already get from the PHB.
- I don't feel that the mechanics that define the D&D wizard would do a sufficient job of capturing the feel of a science fiction user of psychic disciplines.
- The wizard class is already so comprehensive that patterning a psion after the wizard would essentially just be a wizard with a restricted spell list. You could literally do that yourself by curating the spell list in about an hour, and if we're assuming that this is supposed to lead to a product, I'd be highly unlikely to spend money on something I could do so easily myself.