[SCOOP] Psionics 3.5, The New Setting, and Dark Sun!!

[johnnype]

Fact: the Psionics message board on the Wizards website gets more posts than either Oriental Adventures, Manual of the Planes, Dieties and Demigods or the Epic Level Handbook. This is even though the PsiHB has been out longer than all of the other books.

I only point this out because I get the feeling that many think that the idea of psionics is a waste of time. To some, perhaps.

Then there are those who are dissapointed that this new setting might, MIGHT mind you, use psionics. I don't even know how to respond to this. All I can say is that you have a plethora of other published campaigns that do not. Do not get upset because they try to do something for those of us who do like psionics. As it is I can only think of 2 published (as in not PDF's) settings, Scarred Lands and Greyhawk, that use the system. Greyhawk doesn't even have supplements. The only way we know that it uses psionics is because it's assumed. The Scarred Lands only added it with the Relics and Rituals II supplement.

Look at it from WotC point of view. How could they possibly give us a a setting that was "the same but different" than anything not already in print? There have been a lot of suggestions and we've read many of the rejected proposals on these and other boards but in the end they HAD to go with something significantly different. Psionics, IMO, is a good start.

I ask nay sayers not to begruge us our desire for any and all things psionic. Most nay sayers do not understand how frustrating it is to like something so much but never have the right rules to use it. It's like having the holy grail within reach but having arms that are too short to grasp it.

Give us our day in the sun and maybe we'll shut up already.

Thanks for putting up with my rant.

 

[Taren Nighteyes]

Question

How does stating that Dark Sun or Psionics 3.5E or any other product is in the works get it killed? If work is already begun - therefor money spent, why would they kill it?

Heck, the only reason I could see anyone killing anything is if it isn't profitable, profitable enough. So if Dark Sun is being looked at and ends up not being produced, I would highly doubt it was the result of a "leak".

WOTC owns Dark Sun....it isn't like someone is going to go buy it now that they know WOTC is thinking or going to produce it.

And yes, this is my professional opinion as a Senior Financial Analyst for a company that I have signed a NDA agreement and can't buy or trade stock of said company outside of the stated rules of the "blackout" list. (Nor can I tell anyone to buy or sell my company's stock, of course)

Taren Nighteyes

 

[Knightfall]

Here's a thought...

What if the new campaign setting uses ONLY psionics. No magic whatsoever... now THAT would be different.

Of course, this is just my twisted mind considering the possibilities.

Later,

KF72

p.s. WotC... PLEASE, PLEASE , PLEASE bring back Dark Sun!!

 

[Sagan Darkside]

What if the new campaign setting uses ONLY psionics. No magic whatsoever... now THAT would be different.

That is what my original idea was for the campiegn I am putting together, but my players rebelled. I had hoped the only magic would be from those evil elves.

Oh well.

SD

 

[ssampier]

Psionics Handbook required?

If Dark Sun campaign setting did come out for 3e, I'd be overjoyed. However, call me cheap, but I'd like the psionic rules to be printed along with the sourcebook (at least in condensed form). Then it would be easier to start (low-barrier to entry as they say). As for the new campaign, I'd expect more of the same.

Comments?

 

[blackshirt5]

If it comes out, I'll probably pick it up.

However, I'd still like to see Planescape and Spelljammer get licensed out and redone for 3rd edition.

 

[Winterthorn]

I think a visit here, if one's curious, will help to refine one's speculations:

WotC's Business Plan...

Note how their research seems focused more upon DM's rather than players. (Do you, if you are a DM, spend 5 times more $$ than your players?) Additionally, there seems to be, research to support "crunch" over "story"...

So what does that mean? It seems, probably confirming much of what we have observed, that WotC is only interested in putting to market rules heavy products (and whatever may support those products I suppose). WotC is not really interested in supporting a setting beyond the "crunchy bits"! They've made that rather clear; look what happened to Wheel of Time--seems to confirm their business plan...

I think it most probable that the new setting will feature new and revised rules, possibly a rules support book, maybe an adventure module. And... That's all... Then? Off to the next rules heavy product--or revision

Thus it seems the upcoming new setting exists solely to market game rules that would attract DM's--and the type of player who would push a DM into buy the setting to access those rules! The core books are the "meat & potatoes" of RPG profits. Settings with "funky" rules are just gravy if they sell well...

My guess: a psionic fantasy setting sans arcane and divine magic is a very real possibility. Then it'll be dropped within a year for something else--after a few more "quick" surveys.

[rant]I know WotC is a business... But why do they pander to the idea we are fools? I'm tired of being treated like a stupid consumer. "Hey! WotC! Gamers have brains! Sell to our intellect!" BTW: I like what has happened to D&D beause of the pre-Hasbro efforts by the folks at WotC. I don't like the assanine marketing gurus at Hasbro dictating WotC's business strategy so as to keep the Hasbro stockholders happy... Big business is "bad business" for businesses involved in hobbies. I wish WotC was more "upfront" with their subordinate relationship under Hasbro...[/rant]

Sorry, corporate culture rubs me the wrong way today...

But, , if WotC were to mine old material for 3E, I might be interested :grin:

-W.

 

[Staffan]

3. darksun: setting wise I like the original darksun before it got all sisyfied and the good guys pretty much won the revolution in almost every city state. Don't know if the fan seting people have fixed that or not, but by the time dark sun came out the second time I felt the setting was much worse than the original.

Personally, I liked the changes to the city-states in Dark Sun Revised (DSR). In the original setting, all the city-states were mostly alike ("City ruled by immortal sorcerer-monarch served by corrupt templars"). In DSR, you got seven really different city-states:
Tyr - fledgling democracy.
Urik - pretty much as before, but closed to the rest of the world.
Nibenay - pretty much as before.
Gulg - pretty much as before but the SQ *seems* to become more ecologically-minded.
Raam - descends into total anarchy.
Balic - ruled by three merchant-lords of varying dispositions.
Draj - pretend it's business as usual with a figure-head king.

To me, that's much more interesting than seven city-states that are pretty much alike. For those who want to run a city-based campaign where the PCs struggle against the sorcerer-monarch's henchmen, there are still three cities for that (two of which were pretty well described in The Ivory Triangle - that's probably why those two particular monarchs survived).

Personally, I disliked the rule changes in DSR more than the setting changes: halflings suddenly can't be preservers/illusionists anymore, different (and worse) psionics rules, defiling on memorization, and where the heck did the templar class go?

 

[rounser]

But why do they pander to the idea we are fools?

Because, en masse, that's the way we buy. If you consider gamer buying patterns in general rather stupid, well, I agree. The "release core book and don't support" sounds like a Games Workshop strategy, hyping for a short while then dropping support and moving on. Suckers.

I'm tired of being treated like a stupid consumer.

Support one of the d20 publishers who caters more to your personal preferences then.

 

[Wormwood]

Note how their research seems focused more upon DM's rather than players. (Do you, if you are a DM, spend 5 times more $$ than your players?) Additionally, there seems to be, research to support "crunch" over "story"...

I must not see the problem.

If WotC's internal research is to be believed (and there is no reason to doubt it), then they are doing *precisely* what the majority of their customers want. More 'crunch', less 'story'.

This definitely appeals to customers like me, and I can only assume that I represent a comparatively silent majority.

Okay, back to the ranting