Veven1290
First Post
And here is a super-cut of the greatest moments in this thread.
Running a spionic game
- Thread starter The DM
- Start date
And here is a super-cut of the greatest moments in this thread.
Gah, the whole "psionics = sci-fi" thing again.
Vancian magic is sci-fi. It comes from the Dying Earth series, where a post-apocalyptic Earth with a red giant for a sun is seeing a resurgence in magic, and "spells" are pseudo-intelligent creatures/programs that live in your mind after you read their code out of a book and they try to convince you to cast them all the time.
Meanwhile, the only thing making psionics seem different from regular fantasy magic is the fact that the names use more polysyllabic nomenclature. Sensitivity to psychic impressions ~ legend lore. Matter agitation ~ heat metal. restore extremity ~ regenerate. And so on and so forth. And Vancian magic is just as guilty of its "sciency-sounding names" with telekinesis, clairvoyance, polymorph, and such.
The next time you have a wizard mixing potions in a lab using the programs he's memorized, working with a psion meditating on a cushion and working magic through the power of his own self-confidence, stop and think which one seems more "tech" or "modern" and not so much "fantasy."
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Celebrim
Legend
I guess it depends on whether it's the 8+8 HD kind or not. Making assumptions about increased PC power tended to elevate the assumptions about monster power as well.
Celebrim
Legend
Huh? Where did that come from? I detest psionics in my 'sci-fi' for the same reason I detest having a mysterious force that binds us all together in my sci-fi - at some point that ceases to be sci-fi and becomes fantasy. The only way you can get away with that sort of stuff and still tell a good story is if you are cognizant of the fact that you are then writing fantasy.
I have the guys complete works on my bookshelf here, and I think you are very much missing the point. My point is that you didn't need a separate set of mechanics or a separate class to capture psionics IMO because (for a variaty of reasons) the D&D sorcerer (with its Vancian roots) already does a more than adequate job. The similarities were my point; thank you for helping me prove it.
And thanks again.
The next time you have a wizard mixing potions in a lab using the programs he's memorized, working with a psion meditating on a cushion and working magic through the power of his own self-confidence, stop and think which one seems more "tech" or "modern" and not so much "fantasy."
I'm versed in the fundamentals of historical magical traditions and neither of the things you describe strikes me as anything but very modern indeed and both come out of the same late 19th century tradition (theosophy) via slightly different paths. The modern D&D wizard goes back to the core occultist doctrines for its trappings but largely sheers off the spiritualism to make it about the power of the mind. The psion reaches back into parapschology which was nothing more than an attempt to ... wait for it, sheer theosophy of its spiritualism and focus on the power of the mind. The D&D cleric is about the only stock D&D class that isn't particularly modern, and sans perhaps his heavy armor and other Chanson de Roland trappings serves pretty well for anything historically considered a wizard. Nonetheless, I'm happy enough with the divine/arcane split as it is, and have yet to have anyone explain to me what psionics represent in any terms that markedly distinguish it from what 'arcane' is supposed to be. It's mechanical variation for its own sake.
We have, you just don't like the answer
Sorrowdusk
First Post
HEH XD
You assume the Balrog was "CR 20".
The Alexandrian - Archive
You may have to calibrate your expectations.
[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION]
But how many times have you heard of "aliens" with "psychic" or "mental abilties" like telepathy, telekinesis or the like?
It just feels Sci-Fi to me.
Pyschic abilities only become fantasy for me when you mix in the supernatural, like ghosts and hauntings as well-and even then it still feels a bit scifi-ish because it comes across as a mental thing more to me than a spiritual or supernatural, or just "magical" thing. ALBEIT-yes, you have the psychic gypsy fortune teller archetype and precognition.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
Many many times. And, it always annoys me. Telekinesis in particular defies the laws of physics. Where is the conservation of energy? Where is the equal and opposite reaction? The presence of TK's or TP's in a sci-fi tends to either reveal that the author knows no science (and may not even care for it), or that he's consciously trying to disguise his fantasy as science fiction by cloaking it in superficial genera trappings like spaceships and rayguns.
???
Pyschic abilities are supernatural. In fact, they are the definitive supernatural thing. I was trying to think of something that was equally completely supernatural and I couldn't come up with anything. Werewolves, ghosts and vampires are more scientifically pluasible than pyschic abilities. Action at a distance caused by an act of volition alone is definitive magic, and hense definitive fantasy.
How is it the fact that it 'mental' make it less supermaterial or supernatural than if it was 'spiritual'? If anything, the fact that it is supposed to be 'mental' makes it far less scientifically plausible than if it were 'spiritual'. It's conceivable that we (and most everything else in the universe) might turn out to exist in more than 4 dimensions. For example, string theory postulates that the reason gravity is so weak (relatively speaking) compared to the other known forces is that gravity acts asymetrically and its force is primarily directed into a universe perpendicular to our own. So its far more scientific and plausible to believe that there might be some hitherto undetectable 'spiritual' force than it is to believe that the increasingly well understood purely physical lump of grey jelly in our skulls is capable of generating force through previously unknown means without expending energy.
In fact, in the psense you are using it, 'mental' doesn't even make any psense if you'll think about it, and is I think only an attempt to disguise 'pspiritual' behind psuedo-pscientific terms. Do you really except that a particular pattern of neurons being fired causes action at a distance? If not, what then do you mean by 'mental'? What you mean by 'mental' is as far as I can tell only a psynonym for 'magical'. It's just 80 year old marketing by occult scholars that didn't want to lose their funding and had to think up a more politically correct word for 'magical' and 'spiritual', and back then - when the grey lump was a lot more mysterious - I suppose we can forgive people for being confused by this sleight of hand trick. Nonetheless, all it was and remains is an attempt to confuse the reader with technobabble.
Eldritch_Lord
Adventurer
I wasn't addressing that specifically to you; I was addressing it to people who say things like "It just feels Sci-Fi to me" (like Sorrowdusk just did) without going into the why or the how and without considering that maybe psionics is the more fantasy system and Vancian magic the more sci-fi one.
Glad to help. Again, I wasn't addressing the mechanical disparity, just the flavor one. Though I don't think the sorcerer is different enough in feel from the other Vancian casters to represent any sort of different system, psionics or otherwise.
Aside from the whole crystal fetish aspect of 3e psionics, I'm not seeing how the flavor has anything at all to do with parapsychology. 1e psionics had a much stronger parapsychology flavor to it, but 3e psionics has done away with that for the most part. It's basically "traditional fantasy magic" with a fancier naming scheme, since Vancian magic (even the sorcerer) doesn't have the right feel for what people generally consider "fantasy magic" nowadays (small signature repertoire of powers, limited scope, ability to vary the effort put into a spell, etc.).
From a flavor perspective, as I believe someone mentioned earlier, the difference is that an arcanist draws upon an external energy to work magic while a psionicist draws upon an internal energy to work magic. Originally, psionics had a fairly different flavor in that having it or not was based on a random "mutation" chance, it focused on mental combat and telekinesis, and otherwise had all the trappings of sci-fi that you said you detest.
If you don't like the flavor, from a mechanical perspective it's useful for providing a mechanical basis for someone to create a traditional fantasy caster type, just like the ToM and ToB systems provide mechanical bases for many more sorts of magic than their default flavor (for instance, incarnum does a very nice take on the anime martial artist in place of the monk/ninja/swordsage, and the binder can represent a primitive shaman who calls on the spirits fairly well).
Sorrowdusk
First Post
For me-when it comes to Science VS Magic in fiction, often (but not always) there's only ONE difference: The Trappings.
What you're talking about is the difference between HARD SF and SOFT Smoooshy SF. A mad scientist creates a "device" that does something, ANYTHING it doesnt matter what (How many times has Star Trek just 'invented' "sensors" for EVERYTHING) . The author may in fact NEVER attempt to explain the "how" at all, or he may just invent a "new particle" or "new type of energy" , or similar implausible unobtanium (How many times has Star Trek done that?) or whatever to handwaive it away that issue or that episode, because the "how" is not actually important to the plot. In effect, in this situation there is no difference between a Mad Scientist, a Magician, or an ancient shaman save the trappings the author uses to dress up what they do UNLESS you are Hard SF.
Two wizards and two spacers are communicating. Both pairs have "crystal globes" on their desks that allow one another to see each other and communicate, and both are wearing robes and have funny hats because their in fashion. The author never explains how either one works, but you make your assumptions based on the trappings of everything else.
Some require you to have a little suspension of disbelief and are ingrained in current knowledge "what could the future be like?" whereas variations may require you to throw it out the window.
What about Spiderman? There's plenty of "scientific" explanation for all his abilities he's a mutant. Plus Parker is really smart and into science himself. But...how did he get his powers? A radioactive spider bit him and somehow... who knows why this combined the spiders DNA with his own and... you see what I mean? Radiation is definitely a REAL thing, but it often comes up in Soft Sci-Fi to explain anything and everything-it never kills people or gives them cancer (unless they're red shirts), there's always one dude or fantastic four that survives and becomes changed in some beneficial way.
When they removed Doc Manhattan's "intrinsic field" -what was that really all about? What about all the things he could do? Was it magic or science? The language and the trappings tell us its "science" and for the purposes of the story IT IS albeit completely fictional. But magicians could just about do the same thing in another story, and it would be magic because they're magicians and not science at all.
By your "annoyance" at telekinesis defying known laws of physics, you seem to have a distinct preference of one over the other-which is fine. But simply being "soft SF" does not make something NOT SF. You seem to believe that because a fictional work or motif, or notion or what have you -should only have the SF tag if and only if it contains a certain % of actual known science, and everything depicted fits within the parameters what should actually be doable based on what we know.
I would consider Futurama for example a Sci-Fi Comedy, same with Venture Brothers (well the later is more specifically a Pulpy Sci-Fi-Action-Adventure-Comedy that draws heavily on Johnny Quest.)
"How does the ship get around the universe so fast?"
"It doesnt. It moves the universe around it."-Prof. Farnsworth
Let me throw Star Wars out there as an example. You've got this clearly SF setting at first glance and then BOOM-MAGIC. You've got a SF setting, but then you've got this quasi-religious order of monk like dudes that still study swordsmanship (albeit plasma beam swords), meditate, and channel "THE FORCE" a mysterious thing that no one can explain and they can see the FUTURE enabling them to avoid attacks, sense events across the UNIVERSE, and create forces at will to fight or lift space ships outta swamps.
But then... (and it miffed some people)
They remove a little of the mystical and bring in Medi-cholorians, little symbiotic life forms in peoples cells. This explains WHY some people are force sensitive and some people are not-so the potential is actually medically measurable and thus not just a spiritual thing. It also means that lots of cybernetics is bad for your force sensitivity (and suppposedly Vader could have been immensley more powerful than he already was. Its said that Sidious was dissapointed in him, because he had lost much of his potential).
Of course, you may still wonder HOW little symbiotic life forms actually enable people to tap into the force anyway, so its up to you to decide whether you think the Jedi are still mystical or they could entirely be explained by "science" that people of that setting just havent learned yet.
So what genre is Star Wars, or narrower- what is "the force" in Star Wars? Is it fantasy? Is it Science fiction? Is it Soft SF? Is it a fantasy story in an SF setting? SF with fantasy elements? Science-fantasy fiction? WTH knows.
And what about Ghost Busters? They encounter "psychoactive" slime that responds to emotions at a distance, and encounter "Class III Free Floating Non-Repeating Specters" which they acknowledge were created by cult activities in the Sedgwick Hotel's basement and later on EVIL GODS
"As a duly designated representative of the City, County and State of New York, I order cease any and all supernatural activity and return forthwith to your place of origin or to the nearest convenient parallel dimension."
"Are you a god?"
"...No..."
And what do they fight it with? SCIENCE not "magic" weapons. And they repeatedly tell people they are scientists.
I think it mostly comes down to your opinion and how you want to define all these lables.
(I'll also bring up one RANDOM thing about Star Wars that just bugs me: If they have all this tech, everything else-why bother giving someone a mechanical hand or WHOA-A WHOLE BODY or something, rather than just cloning parts? Albeit, the full cyber and the helmet, and the breathing sound was badass. )
Um....why? I'm sure 99% of (basically I'm saying "most") scientists even open minded ones would propbably say they're all equally implausible and "silly". They dont exist. Albeit, you can come up with "scientific" explanations for both to justify their existence within a fictional setting, none of which are all that believable to most scientists -but have the trappings of "science" either because they use apply sciencetific principles (in both right and wrong ways), or simply use scientific sounding terms or terminology.
What I find interesting is that you will often see creatures or things that have fantasy origins explained in scientific terms in a fictional work(No we were wrong, they DO exist you fools! And here's why) but almost never do you see things with completely modern scientific origins explained in fantasy or magical terms (No we were wrong, the world isnt so scientifically explainable after all-its far more mysterious-)
(^EDIT: No, Lovecraft does that, albeit in the sense there are things we dont or cant understand, unkowable. But I dont think you see it written too often that science is just straight up wrong about something, and that a fantastical explanation is right. Until...you get religion. But I wont go there.^)
So tell me.
Where did psionics in DnD come from? What inspired its creators? The elder more spiritual psychic notion-or 80 years of marketing by occult scholars that has become apart of pop culture? That "grey lump of jelly" in our heads may not "plausibly" have any extraordinary abilities, but it seems a popular notion in fiction and pop culture (the "we only use 10% of our braaains" BS).
I WILL SAY that Gary himself has stated in interview and on this forum in FAQ that he does not belive in "magic" at all-but that he does believe in ghosts, because he has had what he believes to be experiences with them. Whether this means he believed in psychic abilities (of any origin, physical brain or spiritual) exactly, has not been stated. I myself do not believe in either.
I'm not saying there's any "right" or "wrong" way to portray psychic abilities in a campaign, its up to you as DM. Its SF to some people (mutant powers) and Fantasy to others (spirtualists and "psychic mediums), you could dress it up either way but at its core IMO when you strip it of everything, it doesnt belong to either one. Psychic abilities are NOT supernatural-but nor are they physical, what they are is fictional, and exactly what type depends on the author/creator and when you get down to it, the GM and the terms they wants to use.
Its just that for me if I were to depict it, I would call it SF most of the time (depending on what else is in my setting/campaign.) When I see it, I feel an SF vibe. I'm just curious as to where you belive the notion came from in DnD.
Last edited:
If you truly want to import any of the 5 Wizards, elder Elf, Balrogs, Dragons and Sauron into 3.x you need to use the rules in Deities and Demigods for divine rank to do them justice.
Characters that have no Divine rank:
The hobits, including Smeagol.
The humans.
The dwarfs.
The young Elves, including Legolas (he is only 500 or so in the book).
Young Orcs.
Half-Elves who choose to live as men, like Arwen.
Character that have Divine Rank 0:
Gandalf the Gray and the other wizard except Saruman the white.
Saruman after his staff is broken.
Elves whom have seen a age of Middle Earth (the third age was 3021 years long).
Gollum, he got this from owing/using the one ring for ~1500-3000 years.
Most Ents and all Hurons.
The very oldest of the orcs.
Characters that have divine rank 1:
Gandalf the White.
Saruman the White.
The lesser Nazgul.
Balrogs.
Treebeard and older Ents.
Elder Elves.
Shelob.
Characters that have divine rank 2:
The Witch-King of Angmar, the chief of the Nazgul.
Elven Lords whom hold rings of power, Elrond, Galadriel and whatever lord that gave up his ring to Gandalf.
Character that have divine rank 2-5:
Dragons, lesser
Character that have Divine Rank 5:
Sauron
Smaug and larger dragons
Character that have Divine Rank of greater that 5:
Morgoth had a divine rank of at least 10.
Tom Bombadil and his wife are divine rank is between 5-10 or more.
