D&D 5E Psionics in a sci-fi D&D

[Paul Farquhar]

Because you can have magic in sci-fi.

No, that would make it Science Fantasy.

 

[Minigiant]

No you can't, at least if we are making the dubious distinction between mystical magic and scientific psionics and science fantasy and science fiction.

Sure you can.

If the whole setting is hard sci Fi and there is one minor character who can shoot fire out his eyes, it doesn't become science fantasy.

No, that would make it Science Fantasy.

No it wouldn't.

Again. Hard SciFi with a single minor pyromancer doesn't make it Science Fantasy.

 

[Mind of tempest]

For a mass market product, sure. But isn't the whole point of of Level Up so people can prove how hardcore they are with complex mechanics and math?

The Psi Blast: The target takes damage equal to the natural logarithm of the number of psi points expanded multiplied by the cube root of your character level.

given that we want to make a new balanced system making it deliberately complex is pointless only even be as complex as it needs to be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So @Micah Sweet says. Have to admit I haven't been following the project so I'm just taking them at their word.

That is not what I said. I said Morrus has announced an upcoming sci fi supplement for LU, and I suspect that's what this is referring to. I also think such a supplement would be a good place to fit psionic rules. I never said psionic rules are in LU now.

 

[Shardstone]

So has the argument against Psionics just devolved to people saying "It doesn't fit the hardline definition of Fantasy, so we can't have it" ? That's really what we've resorted to saying? People are against the idea so much in their D&D that they resort to using trite definitions that D&D itself has never in any edition upheld? Crazy.

Anyway, while the topic is about psionics in sci fi D&D, I'm not sure what possible argument could be made to exclude them from sci fi. Plenty of sci fi, such as Star Trek and Dune, already has psionics. Dune is literally a huge amount of certain disciplines, such as biokinesis etc etc.

Note that just because the topic says sci fi btw, that doesn't make the bringing up of Science Fantasy illogical or false. The two genres heavily bleed into each other; Dune is arguably as much a science fantasy as it is a hardline science fiction, and its the pinnacle of both genres in many peoples eyes, even if they consider it just one genre. So, using genre definitions to try and shoot down psionics just doesn't make sense to me, especially in terms of D&D.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That is not what I said. I said Morrus has announced an upcoming sci fi supplement for LU, and I suspect that's what this is referring to. I also think such a supplement would be a good place to fit psionic rules. I never said psionic rules are in LU now.

Yeah, that sounds extremely plausible. Which presumably would mean it's only "science fiction" in the way that the "Alien Technology" section on page 268 of the DMG is "science fiction". If it's intended to sit alongside existing casting classes it clearly needs to be somewhat different. A reskin is only a good option if the class being reskinned is written out.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sure you can.

If the whole setting is hard sci Fi and there is one minor character who can shoot fire out his eyes, it doesn't become science fantasy.

No it wouldn't.

Again. Hard SciFi with a single minor pyromancer doesn't make it Science Fantasy.

Eh, no. That's not what hard science fiction is. Hard science fiction only uses real science, or what can plausably be extrapolated from real science. " a story should try to be accurate, logical, credible and rigorous in its use of current scientific and technical knowledge about which technology, phenomena, scenarios and situations that are practically or theoretically possible. " - Wikipedia. You can't break the laws of Physics "just a little bit". If you do it ceases to be hard. That means no warp drive, no psionics, and absolutely no magic!

The vast majority of science fiction is soft science fiction. Magic is justified with pseudoscience, technobabble, and Clarke's law - it's just "sufficiently advanced technology". Note that "soft" does not mean "not serious". Soft SF can be extremely serious.

Science Fantasy largely doesn't bother with technobabble. Magic just "is", or has an explanation that does not involve (pseudo)science.

If you mix Science Fiction elements with Fantasy, it defaults to Science Fantasy, as the genre that requires the lowest level of justification.

 

[Scars Unseen]

So has the argument against Psionics just devolved to people saying "It doesn't fit the hardline definition of Fantasy, so we can't have it" ? That's really what we've resorted to saying? People are against the idea so much in their D&D that they resort to using trite definitions that D&D itself has never in any edition upheld? Crazy.

Anyway, while the topic is about psionics in sci fi D&D, I'm not sure what possible argument could be made to exclude them from sci fi. Plenty of sci fi, such as Star Trek and Dune, already has psionics. Dune is literally a huge amount of certain disciplines, such as biokinesis etc etc.

Note that just because the topic says sci fi btw, that doesn't make the bringing up of Science Fantasy illogical or false. The two genres heavily bleed into each other; Dune is arguably as much a science fantasy as it is a hardline science fiction, and its the pinnacle of both genres in many peoples eyes, even if they consider it just one genre. So, using genre definitions to try and shoot down psionics just doesn't make sense to me, especially in terms of D&D.

I don't think anyone is arguing against psionics in general. It's just that there are two vocally dominant opinions on implementation that are in direct conflict with each other. On the one side, you have people saying that the concept of psionics is close enough to the concept of magic that reskinning the later to fit the former just makes sense in a tabletop RPG. No need to reinvent the wheel, as they say. On the other, you have people saying that the details of how the two play out in fiction are different enough often enough that reskinning magic would make for an unsatisfactory implementation of the concept, and that a more ground-up design should be considered instead. To parallel the wheel metaphor, a machine works better when purpose designed, not retrofitted.

There are other concerns being discussed, such as balance and fun, but on the whole, that's it.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't think anyone is arguing against psionics in general. It's just that there are two vocally dominant opinions on implementation that are in direct conflict with each other. On the one side, you have people saying that the concept of psionics is close enough to the concept of magic that reskinning the later to fit the former just makes sense in a tabletop RPG. No need to reinvent the wheel, as they say. On the other, you have people saying that the details of how the two play out in fiction are different enough often enough that reskinning magic would make for an unsatisfactory implementation of the concept, and that a more ground-up design should be considered instead. To parallel the wheel metaphor, a machine works better when purpose designed, not retrofitted.

There are other concerns being discussed, such as balance and fun, but on the whole, that's it.

Plus there's some semantic differences, since someone suggested reskinning by swapping out some class features and making a new spell list with some brand new spells - which a lot of people wouldn't call reskinning since you're changing the meat of the class (to extend the metaphor). Is a druid a reskinned cleric? If yes, then no one seems to think a psion can't be a reskinned full caster.

I do agree that most people aren't arguing for extremes here - very few people are saying "just play an evoker" and no one has yet argued for a totally independent system that involves totally different dice and resolution mechanics; it's all discussion about degrees of difference.

And really I think people care a lot more about how well done the end result is than exactly how different it is.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Plus there's some semantic differences, since someone suggested reskinning by swapping out some class features and making a new spell list with some brand new spells - which a lot of people wouldn't call reskinning since you're changing the meat of the class (to extend the metaphor). Is a druid a reskinned cleric? If yes, then no one seems to think a psion can't be a reskinned full caster.

I do agree that most people aren't arguing for extremes here - very few people are saying "just play an evoker" and no one has yet argued for a totally independent system that involves totally different dice and resolution mechanics; it's all discussion about degrees of difference.

And really I think people care a lot more about how well done the end result is than exactly how different it is.

you have a point but we need an idea of what it should be first in order for it to be made at all.