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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7965061" data-attributes="member: 18">I don't think so mate. You did say the second thing. There may be more to your view, but you did say that so you can't criticise me for what you said.I also absolutely genuinely DO think the 2E and 4E Psionicists have ton in common! And 3E. And you saying they don't and claiming it's a "strawman" solely on the grounds that I didn't read "established" as indicating variance is bizarre in the extreme and rather unfair.That is itself a strawman. I specifically asked for what percentage of people wanted 1E-style Psionics, and I asked a specific person, who hasn't answered, and you used that, and then went off on a tangent, and because I disagree with your opinion, which is just an opinion, not supported by facts (your numbers appear to all be made up on the spot which is fine, but is not acceptable as "indications"), you're trying to claim something else? I don't think so.There's also no way in heck that 100% of people who started with 1E, prefer 1E Psionics, because I know tons of people who started with 1E who utterly hated 1E Psionics. 3/4s of my original D&D group played 1E first and they universally prefered 2E Psionics. So even your 23.8% of players (have no idea where that is coming from btw) started with 1E, it's a subset of that which prefers 1E. The same is true of 3E-4E. First off, lumping them together makes no sense. It's like lumping cats and dogs together. No two editions have had such opposed "fans". Second off, even if 2-4E fans (let's not exclude 2E fans like myself entirely, eh?) prefer slightly inconsistent things - there's one thing they do like - a psionics focused class, and a connected psionics system worthy of such a class.Sadly I think Deryni is another one of those "actually good" fantasy series of the 1980s and 1970s (and 1960s) which is almost entirely ignored by the under-40s, and ignored by most under-50s too (I am 42, for the record), along with literally everything Michael Moorcock ever wrote. It's not really their fault but I find it kind of bizarre junk like Shannara (sorry guys but that series was so bad, even fourteen-year-old me was like "This is really badly written...", and I was fourteen, so had low standards, going back twenty did it no favours at all) from the same era is still much-read and strangely "okay"-regarded.Just about to start on the series myself btw. I mean, I read one of the books years ago, loved it, never read the rest, but anyway am coming back to read it in order.</blockquote>

Verification