Psionics: Magic or Not

[MarkB]

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"?

If psionics is only just being introduced to a game-world, it can make a big difference in story terms, because even to wizards and scholars who know exactly how magic works, psionics will be unexplained physics-breaking stuff, and they have no idea how it's done.

Even in a world where it's well-established, it matters whether or not magic and psionics are the same or different - not just because of the anti-magic-field issue, but because that will affect how it's viewed by individuals, societies and religions, and how it interacts with the game-universe on a metaphysical level. That may never come into play in some campaigns, but it will impact others, and sometimes major plot points may hinge upon the difference.

 

[lutecius]

Psionics in D&D is one of those concepts that I really don't get. What makes a power psionics and not magic? is it the pseudoscientific name? is it the vaguely eastern flavour?
I understand that they have a different power source and "casting" method, but so do arcane and divine, as well as monster spell-like abilities and they're still all magic.

If the effects are awfully similar and the limitations and resource management are similar (in the end it's still a certain number of effects per individual, per day) except for a few arbitrary differences (like with Dispel Magic)... I think that keeping both "sources of supernatural powers" separate is thematically redundant and mechanically clunky, especially now that other casters are going to have a spell-point option (and I think they should).

I know that settings like DarkSun made the distinction pretty important but to me it kind of defeats the premise... "wow, so they ruined the world with their stinking magic? how convenient that we now have something that does pretty much the same thing without the side effects and stigma". As for those magical effects that do not have psionic equivalents, the same limitations could have been enforced by simply making some specific spells or schools "defiling" and others not.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If the effects are awfully similar and the limitations and resource management are similar (in the end it's still a certain number of effects per individual, per day) except for a few arbitrary differences (like with Dispel Magic)... I think that keeping both "sources of supernatural powers" separate is thematically redundant and mechanically clunky, especially now that other casters are going to have a spell-point option (and I think they should).

Yes. If. 3.5 psionics are basically magic. In 4e all powers are powers. But in other implementations in and around D&D, psionics has taken on very different forms, some of which have not resembled magic at all. That's one of its appeals.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

It sure isn't mundane.
Divine Magic is different than Arcane magic.
Psionics is magic, from a 3rd source. Mechanically, it operates this way.

 

[Argyle King]

I suppose a better answer than the one I gave already is that I don't feel -on a personal level- that psionics and magic are the same thing by default.

After that, it depends upon both setting and system. Some settings treat the two as being two branches of the same thing; some settings treat them as being distinctly different. Likewise, particular game systems are going to have different ways of handling the two concepts.

With that in mind, I suppose the question needs clarified. To some extent, I assume we're talking D&D since this was posted in the D&D section of Enworld, but I'm not sure that was outright stated in the OP, so that opens the question up.

 

[GravyFingerz]

I'm going to have to become foaming at the mouth and say that I don't feel like psionic abilities are magics. I feel they should be a separate source of power, completely disconnected with whatever source of power fuels magic.

 

[Tovec]

Psionics in D&D is one of those concepts that I really don't get. What makes a power psionics and not magic? is it the pseudoscientific name? is it the vaguely eastern flavour?
I understand that they have a different power source and "casting" method, but so do arcane and divine, as well as monster spell-like abilities and they're still all magic.

For my money, I don't really care if psionics is a form of magic. I think that distinction - the one represented by magic-psionics transparency - should probably be made on a setting/DM/game level rather than by WotC. However, as you (lutecius) correctly say there is already; arcane, divine, and spell-like abilities. All of which are "magic" or rather let me say all are "supernatural." In that same category I would put psionics. Psionics is different, for good or ill. It is not arcane, not divine, and in many cases not even magic at all. That is the property of it.

It is important in where it works, spells that might work against it, or if it can be countered. It matters in campaign settings like Dark Sun where arcane magic is basically outlawed. It is an important decision that it is not the same as magic.

Beyond that, if you (lutecius) still want an answer - then reread this thread as the "what makes psionic power different" has been answered over and over.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

I agree that system matters to the fiction that will be produced by RPGing with that system, but I don't think that it has to be that game rules mean something in the gameworld. (For instance, the rule in AD&D that you get XP from collecting treasure doesn't mean anything in the gameworld - if it wasn't already obvious, Gygax tells us as much.)

I do think that if there is going to be a arcance/psionics distinction it would be nice if it meant something in the world - I don't really see the point of mere "plot coupons" here - but that doesn't have to mean that psionics is not magic. (Eg in Rolemaster Mentalist magic is different from Essence (arcane) magic is different from Channelling (divine) magic, both in mechanics and fiction, but they're still all magic; in 4e psionics is different from arcane magic or divine magic in fiction, and sometimes in mechanics, but is still magic.)

D&D is a lousy platform for telling stories of 4-color golden age superheroics.

Now that's more contentious! I think 4e does a pretty good job of emulating a Claremont-era super-hero feel with fantasy tropes.

 

[Argyle King]

Now that's more contentious! I think 4e does a pretty good job of emulating a Claremont-era super-hero feel with fantasy tropes.

I agree that 4E would be a great game for supers. I'd go so far as to say I think it would possibly do better as a supers game than a fantasy game.

 

[Weather Report]

I agree that 4E would be a great game for supers. I'd go so far as to say I think it would possibly do better as a supers game than a fantasy game.

Also very good for Wuxia (Dragonfist, etc)