Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unhappy with Psionics requiring Far Realms flavor
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6659191" data-attributes="member: 58197"><p>Some "fluff"--a term I loathe to the core of my being, incidentally--is more changeable and some is less. In 4E, I had a player who wanted to use the artificer rules. The artificer concept didn't work for my campaign, so I told him, "You can use the mechanics, but you have to reflavor them as something else." It was a total failure. The player kept using the existing names for powers, and his efforts to change the descriptions were desultory and unconvincing. (In fairness to him, he was using the 4E character builder, which offered no support for such things.) I was left in the position of either living with it, rewriting all that stuff myself, or telling the player he had to rebuild his character. That experience made me a lot more skeptical of the airy, wave-of-the-hand "Just re-fluff it!" suggestion often heard on these forums. "Re-fluffing" can be a lot of work. </p><p></p><p>Likewise, as a non-fan of the Far Realms, the Great Old One warlock patron grinds my gears. You really can't take the Lovecraft/Far Realms theme out of that subclass--it's woven through every bit of it. Spell names, special abilities, everything ties them together.</p><p></p><p>If the psion (excuse me, "awakened mystic") class ends up being like that, I'll be the first to complain. And I agree with the OP that it bears watching. However, what we have right now is different. The Far Realms stuff is all contained in the introduction, which is pretty much never referenced in play. It's still not ideal, but it's a lot easier to excise. To me, this is tolerable.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with this. I don't mind the current theme, but I'd rather it moved a bit more away from magic and a bit more toward pseudoscience. The dead hand of J.R.R. Tolkien lies far too heavily on D&D as it is. (The irony here is that the Far Realms is copied straight out of Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos, which is nothing <em>but</em> pseudoscience. They kept the tentacled extraplanar horrors and got rid of the science fictional elements, which IMO is exactly backward.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 6659191, member: 58197"] Some "fluff"--a term I loathe to the core of my being, incidentally--is more changeable and some is less. In 4E, I had a player who wanted to use the artificer rules. The artificer concept didn't work for my campaign, so I told him, "You can use the mechanics, but you have to reflavor them as something else." It was a total failure. The player kept using the existing names for powers, and his efforts to change the descriptions were desultory and unconvincing. (In fairness to him, he was using the 4E character builder, which offered no support for such things.) I was left in the position of either living with it, rewriting all that stuff myself, or telling the player he had to rebuild his character. That experience made me a lot more skeptical of the airy, wave-of-the-hand "Just re-fluff it!" suggestion often heard on these forums. "Re-fluffing" can be a lot of work. Likewise, as a non-fan of the Far Realms, the Great Old One warlock patron grinds my gears. You really can't take the Lovecraft/Far Realms theme out of that subclass--it's woven through every bit of it. Spell names, special abilities, everything ties them together. If the psion (excuse me, "awakened mystic") class ends up being like that, I'll be the first to complain. And I agree with the OP that it bears watching. However, what we have right now is different. The Far Realms stuff is all contained in the introduction, which is pretty much never referenced in play. It's still not ideal, but it's a lot easier to excise. To me, this is tolerable. I agree with this. I don't mind the current theme, but I'd rather it moved a bit more away from magic and a bit more toward pseudoscience. The dead hand of J.R.R. Tolkien lies far too heavily on D&D as it is. (The irony here is that the Far Realms is copied straight out of Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos, which is nothing [i]but[/i] pseudoscience. They kept the tentacled extraplanar horrors and got rid of the science fictional elements, which IMO is exactly backward.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unhappy with Psionics requiring Far Realms flavor
Top