Psionics: Yea or Nay?

[Nifft]

Technically correct, which is the best kind. Particularly in a conversation about rules.

If "the rules" were identical to the Expanded Psionics Handbook, you might have a point. But thanks to the many versions of the SRD, they're not, and you don't.

The mechanics ("the rules") are unambiguous.

The layout & editing are responsible for some confusion.

See the distinction there?

Compare and contrast with the current debate about the new July 2010 version of 4e's Magic Missile, which might be an attack, or it might not. In this case, "the rules" are ambiguous: "attack" is poorly defined.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Doug McCrae]

If "the rules" were identical to the Expanded Psionics Handbook, you might have a point. But thanks to the many versions of the SRD, they're not, and you don't.

The mechanics ("the rules") are unambiguous.

The layout & editing are responsible for some confusion.

See the distinction there?

You've been in the rules forum too long.

 

[Nifft]

You've been in the rules forum too long.

Oh look, an ad hominem.

Well, that certainly ends any intelligent discussion we could have had.

Ciao, -- N

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Disclaimer: I am completely ignorant of the 4e implementation and do not include it.

The problem with psionics is terminological, rather than mechanical. If you called it (some kind of) yoga and appended it to an 'Oriental' setting then it would present no problem. A quick reskin is all that's needed for it to take its place next to other forms of magic without any lumps or bumps.

3.5e psionics is a weird mishmash of pre-3e psionics with Freudian memes, Tibetan tantra and the mental powers demonstrated by the characters in Julian May's Saga of the Exiles. Vajras, chakras, 3rd eyes meet Psychokinesis, Metaconcerts meet Id Insinuations and Ego Whips.

As with everything else in D&D, it's completely bastardized and syncretic, and that's fine.

 

[BryonD]

Oh look, an ad hominem.

Actually, an ad hominem is when you use a personal attack to make an unfounded conclusion about a position.

He used your position to make an unfounded personal conclusion.

Just saying...

 

[Barastrondo]

Very strong wife-veto against psionics as a concept, strong enough that my personal ambivalence toward the concept isn't enough to resist. I'm sure that psionics can be done in a cool and interesting way that dovetails nicely with a mythical setting (I'd love to see an Indian flavor-bomb putting everything in the context of pranas and chakras and such), but so far I haven't been converted by 1/2e's ambiguity, 3e's crystals or 4e's halos.

Reskinning mechanics is still fine.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I'm a strong 'no' on psionics. Fundamentally for me, psionics seems to be a science fiction game element that has no place (for my aesthetics) in a fantasy game. My other objections:

• Most systems, D&D in particular, already have many sources of magic power (divine, arcane-study for wizards, arcane-innate for sorcerers, demonic, etc.) why add one more with non-fantasy "flavor"?
• More recent systems are better but historically, psionics have been an ill-conceived, poorly executed after thought (especially the very old system of roll some dice and the lucky few gets some goodies).

I don't mix technology in my settings either so no crashed space ships (was surprised to read recently on wikipedia that Expedition to the Barrier Peaks was so well regarded; I've never cared for it since the day I played it in the late 70s), no steampunk.

It's purely a matter of personal aesthetics, however. There is no reason you can't have a good psionic rule base or can't integrate it successfully into a game.

I do like the psionics concept but for me its place is contemporary or future settings and fiction.

I honestly don't understand this.

Vancian magic is psuedo-science. It comes from a science fiction book. It has the same spells that psionics has, be it telepathy or telekinesis or charming others. It involves formulas and psuedo-scientific experimentation.

How is that less sci-fi then the magic system that has no science attached and is instead you willing the world itself to alter?

 

[Piratecat]

Guys, you're taking the topic too seriously. Don't look to take offense, and please stop being snippy.

 

[Desdichado]

Way to get passive aggressive there.

EDIT: Never mind.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm sure that psionics can be done in a cool and interesting way that dovetails nicely with a mythical setting (I'd love to see an Indian flavor-bomb putting everything in the context of pranas and chakras and such), but so far I haven't been converted by 1/2e's ambiguity, 3e's crystals or 4e's halos.

Just out of curiosity, although it's really a whole 'nother topic altogether... are you saying the a default D&D setting is a mythical setting? Or that your game has a mythical setting? I.e., does psionics have a place in D&D but not your game, or are you claiming that it doesn't fit in D&D at all?