Psionics: Yea or Nay?

[Celebrim]

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?

Can't you have a magic system that is both formulas AND willing the world to alter itself?

I think you'll find that all magic depends on willing the world to alter itself. How that is accomplished is the decoration of that core concept. Even if how that is accomplished is 'Build a device designed by Nicolai Tesla, solve a complex system of differential equations, etc.', if the core concept is then buried beneath that, 'Will the world to alter itself', you've moved out of science fiction and into the world of fantasy.

In my campaign, magic - because it works and is real - involves manipulating real laws of the universe, creating real tangible effects, orderly manufacturing processes, and much application of perfect numbers and geometry to achieve a result. Something of this sort must be an aspect of anything that is real, otherwise we mean by magic only 'things I don't understand'. Even in this world, real believers in magic describe ostensibly plausible causes to explain why their particular thoughts would have real effects. Something real must be behind the mechanism of anything that has a real effect. But it is no less magic, because fundamentally the cause of the effect is thought.

 

[Celebrim]

I ran sorcerers as a psion substitute in early 3e, and I found the fit poor. For that matter I found the sorcerer sort of a thematically odd bird, though I understand the mechanical reasons it exists.

The idea of fixed spells in d&d producing fixed effect fits my concept of incantation style magic. Likewise, the idea of psionic powers varying in effect with expendiature of effort/force of will seemed natural for representing psychic powers.

Why? Just curious. Because I don't find spells so in opposition to the notion of 'varying in effect wtih expenditure of effort/force of will' as you seem to. In particular, I would say that a spell cast at the 6th caster level is more powerful than one cast at the 5th caster level because of differences in the expenditure of effort/force.

So what about psionics seem to you tied to the idea of flexible spending of points of effort, other than the fact that historically this was how they were represented (because historically, they were not strongly tied to the level of the character possessing them)?

But the sorcerer producing discrete effects as natural powers seemed an odder fit. It's magic, so it can be handwaved and justified, but endeavors to do so were less obvious to me.

So, for example, you consider 'Alter Self' a 'discrete effect'? How about 'Detect Thoughts'? Is that a 'discrete effect' incompatible with the notion of a 'natural power'?

 

[Dausuul]

In my campaign, magic - because it works and is real - involves manipulating real laws of the universe, creating real tangible effects, orderly manufacturing processes, and much application of perfect numbers and geometry to achieve a result. Something of this sort must be an aspect of anything that is real, otherwise we mean by magic only 'things I don't understand'.

I disagree with the assertion that magic must involve "orderly manufacturing processes" and the like. A magic system I'd like to develop would be what you might call "Heisenbergian magic"--in other words, while magic has laws that govern its operation, any attempt to determine precisely what those laws are is doomed to fail, because the act of discovering such a law causes it to change. When you bring magic into a lab setting and try to formulate hypotheses about how it works--even statistical, probabilistic ones--you keep finding exceptions, and every time you change your hypothesis to accommodate one exception, another pops up.

In practical terms, you can predict the result of a spell in a general way with a high probability of success, but the more specific you try to make your prediction, the lower the odds of being correct. If you lay a curse on somebody, it will probably have negative consequences in their life... but whether those consequences will take the form of overtly bad stuff, or good stuff that turns out to be a case of "blessed with suck," there's no way to say. And it's possible that the stuff which seems bad to begin with ends up leading them to a better life. The more you try to nail down the limits and parameters of what's going to happen, the more the spell finds ways to happen otherwise.

Of course, translating this concept into workable RPG mechanics is a hell of a challenge. I'm still trying to figure out how to make it work in a novel, let alone a game.

 

[Nifft]

in other words, while magic has laws that govern its operation, any attempt to determine precisely what those laws are is doomed to fail, because the act of discovering such a law causes it to change.

That's right out of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Geomancy".

Cheers, -- N

 

[Doug McCrae]

Celebrim, would psionics be more acceptable to you if it was regarded as a subset of magic? On a par with the arcane and divine subcategories. That's one of the options in the 3e Expanded Psionics Handbook. Another is that psionics are separate from magic and thus not affected by anti-magic field, etc.

 

[Dausuul]

That's right out of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to Geomancy".

Cheers, -- N

Is that an actual publication, or just a comment on the Douglas Adams-ishness of the concept?

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, would psionics be more acceptable to you if it was regarded as a subset of magic?

I regard that as mostly a mechanical issue, in as much as it addresses (as you mention) the question of how psionics interact with magic resistance, anti-magic fields, etc. I regard psionics as magic period in as much as regarding it as such is almost a requirement of adding it as a balanced subsystem that engages with the rest of the game. But I've been taking it as a given that its regarded as a subset of magic for these purposes. If it isn't even regarded as a subset of magic, but it is 'some other thing' mechancially, that makes it even less palatable than my default stance on it. If flavor wise it was 'some other thing', I'd still want magic resistance to apply.

As much as it is a flavor issue, the problem is that no one seems able to explain what that 'some other thing' is without recourse to magic in so many words or less. It would be more acceptable to me if it could be showed to fill a niche not covered by another category of magic. The problem with that is that I tend to look on divisions like arcane/divine as being spanning, in as much as I would simply define 'arcane' magic as 'you do magic yourself' and 'divine magic' as 'someone does magic on your behalf'. Mechanically speaking, the only real difference between the two is one doesn't work so well with armor (you do magic yourself) and the other (someone else does magic on your behalf) isn't really effected by what you are wearing. This mechanical difference makes some sense with regard to the aforementioned split. However, there doesn't seem to be a third option between 'you do it yourself' and 'someone does it for you'. Thefore, it seems to me as if psionics are just a trivial variation on the theme of 'you do magic yourself', and not only trivial, but inexplicable in that I can't see any difference between a sorcerer that has the inate ability to detect thoughts and a psychic who has the inate ability to detect thoughts other than the mechanical artifacts of the system.

This is especially true when 'psion' ceases to be 'something you are' (as in 1e) and 'a class you have' (as in later editions). The justification for psion as a subsystem gets thinner and thinner. I'd understand if you wanted an alternate magic system and dumped sorcerer and wizard and picked up psionic classes, labeling them (or not) 'wizards', 'sorcerers', 'warlocks' or what have you. I don't really understand how they represent a separate thing in themselves. If they are a separate thing from magic, what are they? The answer, 'Duh, they are psionics', is fundamentally unsatisfying to me.

 

[Desdichado]

I guess I'm a little surprised at the numbers. I had actually suspected that there'd be more opposition to psionics, given how prevalent they seem to be in campaigns I've heard about. But with an 80% approval rating... that's good numbers.

I guess the problem has often been the specific implementation of psionics, though, which also isn't surprising, and certainly fits all the descriptions I've heard of the subsystems for psionics up through 3.5 or so.

I think that it's also not a question of the implementation of psionics, but the overimplementation of magic, which doesn't leave a lot of room for psionics in a lot of ways. Having things that have a psionic "feel" to them as a specialty that any wizard could specialize in, for example, makes it clear that the psionics concepts aren't the problem.

 

[Celebrim]

I disagree with the assertion that magic must involve "orderly manufacturing processes" and the like. A magic system I'd like to develop would be what you might call "Heisenbergian magic"--in other words, while magic has laws that govern its operation, any attempt to determine precisely what those laws are is doomed to fail, because the act of discovering such a law causes it to change. When you bring magic into a lab setting and try to formulate hypotheses about how it works--even statistical, probabilistic ones--you keep finding exceptions, and every time you change your hypothesis to accommodate one exception, another pops up.

That is not incompatible with what I said. A worker on an assembly line follows an orderly manufacturing process to produce a product which, in all likelihood he is able to take home and use. It doesn't follow that the worker knows how the product works, or understands all the steps in its manufacturing. He knows that at this stage, you wash the product with the stuff in the pink bottle. It doesn't follow that he knows why, or that he can build or even understand the operation of the intergrated circuit board he screws in with the power drill.

At this level, the worker is performing 'magic' by one common definition of the word. Magic is sometimes defined as anything which is not understood, but which seems to work.

In practical terms, you can predict the result of a spell in a general way with a high probability of success, but the more specific you try to make your prediction, the lower the odds of being correct.

In truly practical terms, to the extent that it has an actual impact on in game events, every thing beyond the bolded part is mere flavor. While its possible to have a game system that is truly unknowable, in as much as the factory worker not only doesn't understand the product and can't use it, but is never sure what he is going to make and the end of the assembly line is a seemingly random assortment of products (and non-products), such a system would probably never be more than a gag system suitable for chuckles in a session or two before being discarded.

In practice, whatever you may have as your cosmology level description of magic, it probably in practice doesn't match the cosmology level description you just gave. In my case, I'd just assume have a cosmology level description that actually matched the results seen by players in play.

Of course, translating this concept into workable RPG mechanics is a hell of a challenge. I'm still trying to figure out how to make it work in a novel, let alone a game.

Yes; good luck with that.

 

[Nifft]

Is that an actual publication, or just a comment on the Douglas Adams-ishness of the concept?

The latter.

I guess I'm a little surprised at the numbers. I had actually suspected that there'd be more opposition to psionics, given how prevalent they seem to be in campaigns I've heard about. But with an 80% approval rating... that's good numbers.

Haters are loud. Non-haters are generally quietly content.

Cheers, -- N