Psionics Too Psi-Fi?

[Mallus]

I think neither one of us has anything like an authoritative survey of the genres to know that.

Yeah... sorry to get so back-and-forth-y. I don't have any data, just my impressions as a life-long genre fan.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'll agree that the terms are more common in sci-fi, but I'll dispute that the effects those terms describe are any more common in sci-fi than fantasy.

Wizards have been moving things with their willpower and reading minds for at least as long as Tekes and Espers.

 

[Mallus]

But if we're going to drag up and debate every thematically dubious name in D&D, we'll still be arguing here when 5E is released.

Aha, but that's just it... what makes those elements 'thematically dubious'? They've always been present. There are quite a lot of them. Rather than being dubious, they help establish the theme.

 

[Dausuul]

I'll agree that the terms are more common in sci-fi, but I'll dispute that the effects those terms describe are any more common in sci-fi than fantasy.

No one is disputing this.

 

[Umbran]

"Hypnotism" is new...

If 1843 is considered new.

"Polymorph" is just a Latin donkeyhorse

Yes, but thematically, the fact that it is Latin, rather than modern technobabble, probably matters.

What I'm taking from this is that the thematic content... can be rather muddled. While it doesn't directly decide the matter, the age of the term (or at least of it's obvious roots) does matter. So does the meaning of those roots.

 

[Mallus]

I'll agree that the terms are more common in sci-fi, but I'll dispute that the effects those terms describe are any more common in sci-fi than fantasy.

In many cases, the difference between science fiction and fantasy is no more than window dressing and jargon. Particularly when it comes to what are essentially adventure stories.

I've always though it was better to distinguish between SF and F based on themes ie, science fiction is about societies dealing with technology change and fantasy is about literalizing psychological/internal phenomena.

 

[Doug McCrae]

there aren't really good alternatives to "teleport" and "telekinesis," and I would add "disintegrate" to that list.

That raises an interesting question. Are the spell names intended for the reader, in which case they should explain the concept as succinctly and clearly as possible, not shrinking from modern terminology, or are they the terms used by the inhabitants of D&D world?

And what sort of place is D&D world anyway? Is it medieval, renaissance, a post-apocalyptic Vancian dying Earth? Or had Gary not really given it much thought in the 70s, just using the first term he thought of, and liberally consulting his thesaurus where necessary?

 

[Umbran]

Are the spell names intended for the reader, in which case they should explain the concept as succinctly and clearly as possible, not shrinking from modern terminology, or are they the terms used by the inhabitants of D&D world?

I think the answer to that is... yes Some of the spells have colorful names, that seem to be in-game things (the spells named after in-game magi especially), while others are simply descriptive.

And what sort of place is D&D world anyway? Is it medieval, renaissance, a post-apocalyptic Vancian dying Earth?

I think the answer there is also... yes The original offerings are a mish-mash of periods and themes, and I think that was deliberate. Gary was certainly collecting many influences into one place. I think if Gary and the folks he worked with liked it, it got incorporated.

Or had Gary not really given it much thought in the 70s, just using the first term he thought of, and liberally consulting his thesaurus where necessary?

Looking at materials like 1e, I would not expect there was a whole lot of... forethought put into it. It seems to have incorporated whatever the authors found to be fun, and unity of theme or cohesive patterns be damned!

 

[Desdichado]

Psionics have a biological psuedo-science explanation for why they work at their root. They're science fiction, regardless of the type of fantasy they show up in.

That strikes me as an arbitrary and unclear and undiscernable distinction. Is animal husbandry, then, a science fiction field rather than a fantasy one? If I breed griffins in my fantasy setting to be larger and faster fliers, am I not using principles of biological pseudo-science?

But if we're going to drag up and debate every thematically dubious name in D&D, we'll still be arguing here when 5E is released.

That statement doesn't mean what you think it means.

Thematically dubious? How about thematically definitive? I came to D&D after reading stuff like Tolkien, Lloyd Alexander, and stuff like that, so I initially wanted a very "pure fantasy" take on the game. The fact of the matter is, D&D is a poor choice for that, because it was never a design goal of D&D to emulate that kind of setting, and it doesn't really do it well. You either wrestle constantly with the square peg and round hole nature of your situation, or you pick a different game other than D&D, or you embrace the inherent thematic diversity that ranges from fantasy to science fiction, to horror, to weird tale, to mythology, to sword & planet, to Arthurian romance, to Tarzan to... well, all the crap that's in D&D and always has been.

I think you're wanting D&D to be something that it's not really and never has been. I'm with you; I've certainly been there, and after coming around the bend and approaching it from a different angle, I'm there again for completely different reasons... but at some point, you call a spade a spade.

 

[Arlough]

Rose by any other...

Once again, I ask...

Is the name so very important?

Don't like Psionics because it sounds to futureistic? Call the source "Gate" because that is the backstory of where they came from.

Don't like polymorph because it brings up images of donkeyhorse, call it Lifewarp.

The name is just flavor, and can be ignored.

Is there a problem with the mechanics?
That is the valid question to ask here.