Psionics: Magic or Not

[Li Shenron]

I like it as non-magic.

I like it as an extended capability of the natural mind, while I don't like magic to feel natural (and even worse magic-as-technology).

I like psionics in modern RPG settings, not so much in classical fantasy settings (at least with regard to PCs and humanoid creatures, I am more more ok with monsters).

When using psionics anyway, let's say in a kitchen-sink campaign, I like the idea that psionics works where magic doesn't (e.g. in an antimagic field, cannot be dispelled etc.) and viceversa, i.e. I like them separate and different even if some end results overlap.

I haven't thought about this until recently, but I think I like Psion as a sort of Monk rather than Mage for these reasons.

 

[pemerton]

Whether psionics falls under the umbrella term "magic" is about as important as whether the red dragon breathes 40 points of "fire" damage at you or the white dragon breathes 40 points of "cold" damage at you. Perhaps there is some aspects of the game that modifies "magic" or "psionics". Perhaps one comes with a rider effect, like flames tend to have rider effects like "you are now on fire", but the core of the matter is the same. You have a character with plot coupons that allow them to do things not covered by the Joe Blow rules of the game meant to handle ordinary interactions of the game.

I can see where you're coming from, but I think you're wrong to identify these keywords as purely "plot coupons".

First, consider the dragon breaths. Regardless of mechanical rider effects, we know that a red dragon who is breathing "fire" damage can burn down trees, and melt ice, but can't evaporate all the water in a river. And we know that the white dragon breathing "cold" damage can't melt ice, but can freeze the water on the top of the river so that it can be crossed on foot.

In other words, those damage keywords play a central role in establishing fictional positioning for action resolution when pushing beyond the formal mechanics.

Power sources are similar, though (at least in AD&D and 4e - I'm not sure about 3E) the fictional positioning is often less important. But if psionics is not magic, then that affects not just mechanical keyword interactions, but tells us something about the fiction which can matter for action resolution. For instance, an Arcana check used to augment an Insight check to notice an illusion will probably help if the illusion is created by magic, but not if the illusion is created psionically and psionics are not magic. This is the sort of thing which I'm assuming won't be spelled out in the formal mechanics won't spell out (like my "using cold breath to freeze rivers so we can cross them on foot" example) but could nevertheless easily enough come up in the course of play.

In 4e, at least, the fact that psionic is a form of magic is in part signalled by the fact that all PP-using psionicsts have Arcana available as a skill. (They also all have Bluff, Diplomacy, Insight and Intimidate as class skills, telling us something about the "mind magic" nature of their abilities). Whereas if psionics was a natural ability you'd expect them to all have Nature available.

 

[SkidAce]

In either case, it's out of place.

If psionics is magic, it's redundant to magic.

If psionics isn't magic, it's game breaking, and adds an unnecessary complex system.

If psionics is magic, its different methods bring in uniqueness .

If psionics isn't magic, it could be game breaking , or used to set up the extreme difference in the culture, race, etc that uses it.

 

[Weather Report]

At this point Gary Gygax's resentment of including Psionics in the 1st Ed PHB is making sense.

 

[Argyle King]

I do not believe psionics and magic are the same thing. They may be able to produce similar results, but I believe the power source and the methods behind using them are different enough to not be labelled as the same thing. I do not view psionics as being the same as magic for reasons similar to why I do not believe the usage of chi to generate a fiery punch or a lightning kick are the same thing as magic.

 

[Mistwell]

What does it look like to a peasant who sees it?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

What does it look like to a peasant who sees it?

Sufficiently advanced technology.

 

[Andor]

the game is up to the designers, the world is up to the campaign setting and the DM. when you mix them too much you start limiting concepts, saying that all the cool concepts that involve non-lawfull good paladins cant exist wont work.

I politely disagree. I see a lot of people try to seperate the game from the world and it is an exercise in abstraction. I tend strongly towards simulationist design aesthetics, if not always playstyle, and efforts to escape the notion that the games rules actually some how actually mean something in the world always strike me as an effort at deliberate self-deception.

That does not mean that Sir Xe Elpam, Paladin of the Silver Tower, knows he has 76 hp, but it does mean that he knows a 20' fall holds little danger for him even if it's likely to kill his trusty henchman Patsy. He also knows that he can stand in a burning room for longer then he could as a mere stripling. What exactly those hitpoints represent in game (and the seperate question of what Sir Elpam thinks they mean) is immaterial next to the fact that they do mean something. They are not merely a storytelling abstraction or the Paladins increasing willingness to stand up to hails of arrowfire actually becomes the story of a heroes descent into madness as a lifetime of adventuring take a toll on his psyche.

Even from a narrativist pespective a game engine (The mechanical system of the game) is a device for story telling and like any good device it should be optimized for it's intended purpose.

So if you want to tell a fantasy story in the vein of Conan or Fafhrd, concentrating on valiant warriors fighting through hordes of lesser foes then a system like Iron Heroes or Riddle of Steel is the optimal tool. If you want to meddle in the affairs of Wizards then you should prefer Ars Magica with its rich and subtle magic system. If you want to concentrate on affairs of state and courtly romance then a system like Blue Rose or 7th Sea will serve you better. If you want to tell intricate tales of espionage and intrigue in a future trans-human body-jumping society then Eclipse Phase will serve you much better than Bunnies and Burrows.

At some point in game design you have to make choices. If you are not building a toolkit game like the Hero System, or a complete hodgepodge to the point of crossing a melting pot with a black hole like Rifts, then you will have to and want to make choices about the world you portray and the stories you want to tell in it. Sideplots in OoTS aside, D&D is a lousy platform for telling stories of 4-color golden age superheroics. It's also a lousy choice for corporate skulduggery in a high-tech dydtopian future. So you cut those choices out. If you don't see why I encourage you to imagine the flamewars that would ensue if 5es basic class lists included "Alien Star-god", "Cyborg Delivery boy", and "Chibi Pastel Equinette."

Good game design demands that choices be made and that the games focuses on some smaller goal than modeling "anything I can imagine." One of the primary aspects of any well written fantasy world is it's magic system and attendant cosmology. D&D is and has always been pretty sloppy about this and it inevitably gets worse as the edition wears on and class bloat sets in.

That having been said, they have an opportunity here at the outset of 5e to try and set some clear lines for what, if any, differences exist between Arcane, Divine and Psionic (and shadow and binder and truename and incarnum, etc, etc, etc, etc) powers and what those differences mean. Conversely if they lump "everyone but cleric" into a single umbrella class then that too has meaning although I would anticipate years of glorious internet nerdrage over what that meaning is, exactly.

 

[captpike]

I politely disagree. I see a lot of people try to seperate the game from the world and it is an exercise in abstraction. I tend strongly towards simulationist design aesthetics, if not always playstyle, and efforts to escape the notion that the games rules actually some how actually mean something in the world always strike me as an effort at deliberate self-deception.

That does not mean that Sir Xe Elpam, Paladin of the Silver Tower, knows he has 76 hp, but it does mean that he knows a 20' fall holds little danger for him even if it's likely to kill his trusty henchman Patsy. He also knows that he can stand in a burning room for longer then he could as a mere stripling. What exactly those hitpoints represent in game (and the seperate question of what Sir Elpam thinks they mean) is immaterial next to the fact that they do mean something. They are not merely a storytelling abstraction or the Paladins increasing willingness to stand up to hails of arrowfire actually becomes the story of a heroes descent into madness as a lifetime of adventuring take a toll on his psyche.

Even from a narrativist pespective a game engine (The mechanical system of the game) is a device for story telling and like any good device it should be optimized for it's intended purpose.

So if you want to tell a fantasy story in the vein of Conan or Fafhrd, concentrating on valiant warriors fighting through hordes of lesser foes then a system like Iron Heroes or Riddle of Steel is the optimal tool. If you want to meddle in the affairs of Wizards then you should prefer Ars Magica with its rich and subtle magic system. If you want to concentrate on affairs of state and courtly romance then a system like Blue Rose or 7th Sea will serve you better. If you want to tell intricate tales of espionage and intrigue in a future trans-human body-jumping society then Eclipse Phase will serve you much better than Bunnies and Burrows.

At some point in game design you have to make choices. If you are not building a toolkit game like the Hero System, or a complete hodgepodge to the point of crossing a melting pot with a black hole like Rifts, then you will have to and want to make choices about the world you portray and the stories you want to tell in it. Sideplots in OoTS aside, D&D is a lousy platform for telling stories of 4-color golden age superheroics. It's also a lousy choice for corporate skulduggery in a high-tech dydtopian future. So you cut those choices out. If you don't see why I encourage you to imagine the flamewars that would ensue if 5es basic class lists included "Alien Star-god", "Cyborg Delivery boy", and "Chibi Pastel Equinette."

Good game design demands that choices be made and that the games focuses on some smaller goal than modeling "anything I can imagine." One of the primary aspects of any well written fantasy world is it's magic system and attendant cosmology. D&D is and has always been pretty sloppy about this and it inevitably gets worse as the edition wears on and class bloat sets in.

That having been said, they have an opportunity here at the outset of 5e to try and set some clear lines for what, if any, differences exist between Arcane, Divine and Psionic (and shadow and binder and truename and incarnum, etc, etc, etc, etc) powers and what those differences mean. Conversely if they lump "everyone but cleric" into a single umbrella class then that too has meaning although I would anticipate years of glorious internet nerdrage over what that meaning is, exactly.

I agree that the nature of the rules change what kind of stories are best told by a system. however the designers should do their best to make it as broad as possible, and should not put limitations for no reason other then "fluff" like for example alignment restrictions or having one power sources be better then another for no reason other then fluff.

in the case of power sources it is the designers job to make sure they are all equal in power and scope, and that simply being arcane does not give you more power and awesome then if you were psionic. if I want to do that as a DM I can easily just say "arcane characters are two levels higher then everyone else"

 

[Mistwell]

Sufficiently advanced technology.

LOL exactly, it looks like magic.

Why does this distinction really matter, given it all looks like magic? Why is telekenisis with "mind powers" meaningfully non-magical in a world where a wizard also moves objects about without touching them? Isn't this all "Unexplained mysterious physics-breaking stuff that a few can do"?