Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5430004" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.</blockquote>

Verification