Running a spionic game

[Celebrim]

Sorrowdusk: I've had the whole "how do you tell if something is fantasy or science fiction" argument on before, and on EnWorld for that matter, and I don't really want to do it again. Suffice to say that I reject your formulation of what is science fiction and what is fantasy.

Star Wars is not science fiction. It is straight up fantasy. It involves an orphaned farm boy who happens to be the lost son of a mighty lord hearing about a princess in distress and then, with the help of his wizard mentor and a band of roguish outcasts he meets on the way, single handedly slays the dragon... I mean the 'death star' and saves the princess. It's not science fiction. It's fantasy with 'blasters'. It's major theme is about 'good' vs. 'evil'. It's not science fiction; it's fantasy. That's not an arbitrary classification. You can't write fantasy, put some ray guns in it, and turn it into science fiction.

Ghost Busters = fantasy. The psuedo-scientific trappings are to create reasonable suspension of disbelief when setting the fantasy in the modern era.

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?

That's less random than you think it is. The answer is, "Star Wars isn't science fiction."

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.

I agree. But that wasn't my point. I was merely pointing out that vampires as alien life form, and werewolves as some sort of shapeshifting nanoconstruct, and ghosts as some sort echo from an adjacent brane that interacts with this universes gravity are all more plausible and satisfying explanations for something that doesn't exist, than 'telepathy' and 'telekinesis' as they are often presented in neo-pagan myth stories (by that I mean that they are all variations on Heracles and such) like comic books, action adventure movies, anime, etc. The presence of techno-babble doesn't turn an old fashion story about demigods fighting demigods over questions of normative ethics into a science fiction story. Granted, there are some science fiction stories that actually have telepathy or telekinesis, but when you investigate you find that its not telepathy per se, it's that they have a radio embedded in their brain or that they have some other sort of superscience enhancement.

 

[Dandu]

So sci fi should not have supernatural things in it?

 

[Celebrim]

So sci fi should not have supernatural things in it?

That isn't exactly what I said. I'm not certain I'd go that far without completely thinking it through, but the vast majority of things that have supernatural things in them are not science fiction.

The sticky problem here to me are chiefly the works of Robert Silverburg, who tends to use supernatural elements to science fiction ends ('Time of Changes', 'Dying Inside', 'Downward to the Earth'...). Those are really on the boundary and in some cases ('Dying Inside'), I'm not really sure of the answer myself. Mechanically its pure fantasy, but in theme its science fiction and as many have noted in genera trappings its mostly neither. 'Lord Valentine's Castle' has superficial genera trappings of fantasy, but seems relatively uninterested in the normal good vs. evil questions that dominate fantasy. But it's still debatable (I freely admit) whether answering the question, "What is man?", with "Man is a creature with a soul." (as RS tends to do) is actually a science fiction story. (Of course, that depends on your interpretation of his works. And equally valid interpretation of RS is that RS writes that "Man is a creature who believes in souls." without usually committing to the existance of them.)

One way or the other, it's certainly alot more science fiction than Star Wars is.

However, all that is an interesting academic execercise. The point is that if science fiction is not just fantasy wearing polyester and spandex, and thinly dressing fantasies with scientific sounding words no more makes it science fiction than calling spiritualism parapsychology makes it a science.

 

[Starbuck_II]

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.

You hate the Force/Star Wars?
Because that was magic.

 

[Celebrim]

You hate the Force/Star Wars?
Because that was magic.

Reading comprehension please. You took from what I've been writing that I didn't know that the Force was magic? Really?

I'll give you a hint. Catch the exihibit 'The Making of Myth', and figure out why that second sentence you quoted might be relevant.

Then maybe you'll be in a position to write an essay on why 'midichlorians' is bad story telling, instead of just maybe feeling that its stupid but not being able to explain why you hold that opinion.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm stepping out of this.

But before I go, I just want to briefly discuss the role of psionics in 1e compared to latter implementations.

In 1e psionics made no real attempt to distinguish themselves on the basis of mechanism. There was no psionic vs. arcane power source issue at all. There was no need for a lengthy explanation of why, because the 'why' pretty much answers itself. Psionic power distinguished itself from the power of ordinary magic users in that it was innate, untrained, and largely untrainable. You were either born psionic, or you weren't. You had a certain degree of power, and it didn't depend on your experience at all. You might be 1st level but wield phenomenal power. It was magic which was not tied to the class system. That is what psionics was, and that served as something of an intriguing and flavorful niche.

And it's because later implementations have never utilized the very thing that made psionics interesting in the first place, than later editions have never managed to capture quite the flavor of the original. Much like the raging Barbarian and the shapechanging Druid, psionics became its own self-referential archetype, defining how we looked at fantasy and the expectations we had of fantasy from then on out. Some elements of that certainly preexisted D&D, but I think that it is D&D that really popularized them. I've heard people complain that the cleric is a D&Dism. Well, maybe, but to the extent that it is, the archetypal fantasy wizard as we know think of one is also a D&Dism. And the idea that psychic powers aren't magic is half-D&Dism and half the fact that so many people don't want to give up on magic even when, and maybe especially when, they don't believe in it and would be embarassed to be caught believing in it.

 

[Particle_Man]

To the OP:

It is fun. You might have to watch out for "spamming the battefield with Astral Constructs" but Complete Psionic put in a rule that said that unless there was a special exception you could only have one running around at a time. In general, Astral Constructs are tougher than summoned monsters, but less versatile.

I have run it under different "skins", like "Faerie Magic", "Cthulhu Magic" and "Gem Magic". It works. You can also remove Arcane magic from the game and use psionics instead and it works fine. Just call them "Witches" and call it a day.

Psionic template (or whatever it is called) on a Dire Bear is pure love.

Oh, Soulknives are kind of weak; you might want to bump their BAB to a fighter's (full progression).

 

[Dandu]

It is fun. You might have to watch out for "spamming the battefield with Astral Constructs" but Complete Psionic put in a rule that said that unless there was a special exception you could only have one running around at a time. In general, Astral Constructs are tougher than summoned monsters, but less versatile.

Complete Psionic earns the ire of many players for that bit of unnecessary nerfing. Along with... lots of other instances of really poor changes.

 

[Sorrowdusk]

Some elements of that certainly preexisted D&D, but I think that it is D&D that really popularized them. I've heard people complain that the cleric is a D&Dism. Well, maybe, but to the extent that it is, the archetypal fantasy wizard as we know think of one is also a D&Dism. And the idea that psychic powers aren't magic is half-D&Dism and half the fact that so many people don't want to give up on magic even when, and maybe especially when, they don't believe in it and would be embarassed to be caught believing in it.

Hm, shows you how influential D&D has been on gaming since, and perhaps many other forms of entertainment as well-perhaps even on people who have never played any variant of the game at all.

 

[The DM]

Wow, I never really realized how much forum topics can trail off from the original post.

Anyways, I've found myself a copy of the Expanded Psionics Handbook and am planning on reading it through. I can read incredibly fast and often read my new D&D books cover-to-cover. That should give me plenty of the information I need, flavourful and otherwise.

Thanks for all of your input. Continuing with the original post, any campaign ideas and/or advice is still welcome for when our psionic game comes around.