Psionics: Yea or Nay?

[Raven Crowking]

Most of the RCFG playtesters cut their teeth on WotC-D&D.

RCFG specifically includes magic that is not about combat, which was the case for AD&D 1e and 2e as well. If you read the 2e Complete series, you will discover rules for farming, politics, religious conversion, etc. OD&D and AD&D 1e both included magical means to avoid combat, which was at least as important as means to engage in combat.

AD&D specifically broke down wizard spells into Attack, Defense, and Other, with the explicit idea that the DM give the starting wizard one spell of each for his spellbook. (Going by memory on this one; the DMG isn't in front of me....it might have been Misc. instead of Other.)

It has taken a bit of effort to demonstrate to playtesters used to WotC-D&D that some of these effects/spells/abilities are as useful as a buff, or a combat spell. Meanwhile, those who have played earlier editions have no problem getting it from the word Go.

I have no problem saying, IMHO and IME, WotC-D&D is more combat oriented than TSR-D&D, and that by a considerable amount as editions progressed. I.e., TSR-D&D became less combat oriented with each subsequent edition; WotC-D&D has become more.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D spells are all for D&D activities - combat, general dungeon cracking, wilderness cracking, and some weird castle building and siege stuff like Move Earth. I agree that they are pretty weaponised. There's not much that would improve the life of a peasant farmer and his wife and kids.

I think pre-4e might be better balanced if magic were restricted to non-combat activities. Fighters would always rule the battlefield, without having their toes stepped on, but wizards could win in a wide variety of non-combat situations.

Hobo, your games are Call of Cthulhu-y D&D, aren't they? Low level, heavy on investigation, with a few fights against very powerful (relative to the PCs) supernatural foes. I would've thought no combat magic would suit you fine.

Hmm, or pehaps investigative magic, like Detect Thoughts, is OP in your game, so you restrict that, but it's fine for the magic guys to be capable in combat.

 

[Desdichado]

Hobo, your games are Call of Cthulhu-y D&D, aren't they? Low level, heavy on investigation, with a few fights against very powerful (relative to the PCs) supernatural foes. I would've thought no combat magic would suit you fine.

Yes, and yes. I've never been a fan of D&D magic as presented, actually.

 

[Haltherrion]

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?

For one thing, when a science fiction setting wants to introduce "magical powers" it is often treated as psionic powers, some sort of mental ability to see or control things. As example is the Traveller system and to some extent Star Wars. This makes psionics to me, something used more often in the science fiction realm. As I said in my OP, I clearly acknowledge this as a matter of personal aesthetics.

As something used in science fiction, psionics has pseudo-scientific jusitifications (in the literature). Why use something like that in a fantasy setting which by its nature does not require pseudo-scientific justification? Leave psionics for science fiction, leave magic for fantasy.

Regarding the Vancian origins of D&D wizard magic, that may have been it's origin but I've never cared for that rationale and dispensed with it my own settings long ago. Until this post I never really thought of it in terms of my natural distaste for psionics but that must have been a factor

On the otherhand, being a somewhat accomodating referee, I generally do not reject such things without some discussion with my players (and have tried it from time to time). Most of my players have similar aesthetic objections to it. Over the last ten players, it's probably:

1 likes it
4 don't seem to care
3 don't like it
2 really don't like it

Again, I freely acknowledge this is an aesthetic matter for me. Meaning, it suits my personal tastes and that there is no reason it cannot be successfully integrated into a game. I just don't care for it. Don't care for spaceships in D&D games or gunpowder weapons, etc.

 

[tleilaxu]

the last few pages contain one of the most interesting conversations i've seen on the boards for years.

 

[karlindel]

I voted hesitant.

I am not generally a fan of psionics in my fantasy, as I think that the flavor is closer to science fiction. In addition, if psionics has different rules from magic (as in D&D 3e and earlier editions), then it requires more work from the DM to learn that subsystem, and I do not think the benefit is worth the effort.

That said, there are fantasy novels that use "psionics" that I enjoy (deryni novels, Valdemar, etc.), so I am not inherently opposed to the idea of psionics. However, I prefer psionics being called by other names and using different terminology than is normally used for psychic/psionic powers.

Also, there are game systems in which it can be done without having to learn significant new subsystems (4e D&D, Savage Worlds, HERO, etc.). I would be much more open to the idea of psionics if I were playing in one of those systems.