What Should Be Done With Psionics?

[Mallus]

Personally, I'd like to see psionics as a separate system with its own mechanics jettisoned. Make it a school of magic.

I like lots of different powers/flavors, but with a single resolution mechanic. This is also why I like effect-based systems like M&M and Hero, which don't care how you define a power.

 

[GreatLemur]

There's nothing comtemporary about Uri Geller or that style of psychic. Indeed, by the end of the 1970s, they were kind of old hat.

I don't think anyone's objection to that style of psychic flavor is that the idea or tone is too new, but rather that its trappings don't really have a place alongside fantasy tropes. Uri Geller wasn't a character from 1970s fantasy novels; he was a character from 1970s talk shows.

But by summoning up Geller in the first place I was being woefully imprecise in my condemnation. I'm not aware of anything in current or past psionics rules about bending spoons or fixing watches. What I meant to suggest was a general objection to D&D incarnations of the kinds of "psychic" phenomena that people have--in living memory and in first-world countries--actually believed in and tried to codify through various flavors of bad science or flat-out pseudoscience. So when I see psionic items (a weird concept to start with) frequently made out of crystal, I roll my eyes and think of it as New Age stupidity. (And, to be honest, the whole crystal thing is something that could more accurately be blamed on Edgar Cayce than Uri Geller.)

I'd really like to see psionic flavor looking more towards the mantras and spiritual weapons of Hindu myth, the tulpas of Tibetan mysticism, and so on.

I wouldn't try and take away the astral projection stuff, though. While it's thoroughly New-Agey, it's got an obvious mythic foundation, and an existing history with D&D that cannot be ignored.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd really like to see psionic flavor looking more towards the mantras and spiritual weapons of Hindu myth, the tulpas of Tibetan mysticism, and so on.

I wouldn't try and take away the astral projection stuff, though. While it's thoroughly New-Agey, it's got an obvious mythic foundation, and an existing history with D&D that cannot be ignored.

Well, as I think I've said, I find the idea the psioncism should be bound very specifically to Central Asian mysticism every bit as annoying as psuedoscience-based psionics, and less justified or appropriate.

The vast majority of psionic powers are not connected with Buddhist monks or the like (Telepathy, which I would argue is by far the most major psionic power, for example, is not commonly attached to Buddhist monks in either the Western mind, or Eastern legend afaik), and Hindu mystics are just out-and-out wizards, who cast actual spells all the darn time, spells worthy of any D&D wizard, who call forth this and that from the sky, and so on. They in no way resemble D&D's psionics.

Now, if we get modern, we get to the 1890s and onwards, and as the world becomes more "real", the Fakirs, Yogis, and so on, have less exotic legends attached. They charm snakes, levitate, perform rope tricks, or cure diseases, instead of blowing people the freak up, uttering terrible curses or flying in the sky. This is exactly contemporaneous with similar things happening in the west. You seem to be under some misapprehension that claims of magic powers differed between the continents - they didn't, particularly. In the 1890s and onwards people started both testing these powers, and becoming interested, in a more general way, in the East, a fascination which only increased through the 20th century (and indeed was present even further back than the 1890s).

So, in the West, people claiming magic powers "scientizing" them and becoming psychics and mediums (almost interchangeable terms then), and in the East, we had people cutting their alleged powers down somewhat, in a rather similar way. People claimed to read minds, or contact ghosts, or possess telekinesis.

In the 1960s and later, you had the New Age movement, which brought these two things together in force (it had done before, but never on such a large scale), and lead to all sorts of idiocy.

I just don't see how you feel it's "justified" to involve Hindu mysticism and magic, and call THAT "psionics", when it was just as fanciful as Western magic and mysticism, and so similar. Equally, Tibetan monks, Indian fakirs and so on have long claimed (and indeed proven, to a very limited degree) biofeedback-type abilities, which are cool, but doesn't mean that every single psychic ability should be classed as "Eastern", given Eastern names and styles, and then well-established things like psionic items (which have been around since 2E) suddenly replaced by mantras and spiritual weapons. I mean, let's go through and look at the powers:

1) Telepathy - Claimed by virtually all cultures, biggest in the West, I would suggest.

2) Telekinesis - As in moving objects, is virtually entirely Western, as far as I'm aware.

3) Biofeedback - Mostly Eastern, with only vague hints of it in the West.

4) Pyrokinesis/Cryokinesis/Electrokinesis - Western, unless you count Russia as Eastern - Electrokinesis and "magnetic" powers seem popular in Eastern Europe and Russia.

5) Teleportation - Common as magic in all cultures - only seen as something else in the West.

6) ESP - Common in all cultures, often mostly overlooked in RPGs. I guess because you can't directly affect things with it.

As I've also said, there's a significant number of fantasy novels which incorporate psionics, or something very much like it, without recourse to psuedo-science or Orientophilia.

Examples:

The Assassin trilogy by Robin Hobb.

The Deryni novels by Katherine Kurtz.

The Herald novels by Mercedes Lackey.

Interesting, I think, that they were all written by female authors, unlike the bulk of fantasy. They are 1970s, 80s, and 90s fantasy novels, so unlike Uri Geller, more fitting for D&D.

Given that George Lucas managed to "Westernize" Buddhism and create "the Force" (which is indistinguishable from psychic/psionic powers - that was in 1977), I see no reason that D&D should go prancing off into some Central Asian wilderland, and make itself even more "setting incompatible" with "Hindu Psionics" or what have you. Instead, a mutual understanding should be reached, drawing on all traditions, and creating something uniquely D&D.

As for the crystal weapons and so on, well, I loathe the New Age, and I think crystal weapons and psionic items are totally cool, so YMMV on that one, that's for sure.

 

[fuindordm]

One of the reasons psionics was appealing in first edition was that it felt mysterious and undeveloped. No one in the setting knew enough about it to become a psionicist, and more often than not those who had it ended up dead. Psionics gave you the sense of playing with something unusual and exotic, in a way that magic-users could not.

Second edition psionics had a lot of great ideas for new powers, but whoever had the idea of adopting proficiency mechanics should get a boot to the head. Magic can be chaotic and random if you're working with powers that have that character, but psionics are all about self-control and their powers should be reliable. The scale of power points was also quite reasonable, I think--useful powers had a reasonably high minimum cost, and always represented a significant percentage of the psion's pool.

Third edition psionics is just another kind of magic. Again, cool power ideas--but so many of them have so little to do with our cultural expectation of what the human mind can do (or what we wish it could do). The psion's power set is different from a wizard's, but no more different than that of Arcana Unearthed's Magister. On the other hand, it did give the psion an impressive degree of control and flexibility.

Can fourth edition take the best of all three approaches? I think it's possible. My ideal psionics system would have the following features:

*A smaller set of powers, most of which match our cultural expectations. Body control does not mean polymorph, and pyrokinesis does not imply ectoplasmic acid balls of doom.

*The stronger powers should be quite flexible, rather than limited to one or two well-defined mechanical benefits. Precognition does not mean +1 to hit. It should be possible to enhance most powers by spending more resources on them.

*Since there would be fewer powers, it's OK for them to be organized into fewer "levels". Maybe they're feats and talents, maybe they're devotions and sciences, or maybe each one is just given a minimum character level without trying to organize them at all.

*A power point scale that encourages psionics of all levels to husband their resources.

*Psionic combat should be decoupled from the use of powers. There's no need to penalize psionics for expending their points--just introduce an analogy to the regular combat system that takes place between two psionics.

I think that three new classes, fifty powers, and any new rules required could easily slim down to one-third of a book.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fuindordm - I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Particularly about psionics being reliable - that's precisely what the name psionics means, psychic powers that are demonstrable and repeatable.

I'd love to see 4E's powers as you suggest, but I doubt we will, given the strongly reductive attitude they're apparently taking to magic, particularly disliking spells with multiple possible effects and so on.

 

[fuindordm]

I like your thoughts too--I guess we were typing at the same time.

I think more flexible powers can be well balanced by having fewer powers, but I agree that this bucks the trend evident in 2E->3E->3.5E. There are some hopeful signs in the XPH with the mechanics for augmented and metapsionic powers, however--all they would need to do is condense variant functions of a "core power" into one description and assign appropriate costs.

Another thing I associate with psionics is subtlety. I was really disappointed by the first 3E psionics handbook for that reason, what with the funky sensory displays and all. If the psionic powers are somewhat weaker than spells, perhaps that can be balanced by the fact that no one on the battlefield knows who's using them.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think more flexible powers can be well balanced by having fewer powers, but I agree that this bucks the trend evident in 2E->3E->3.5E. There are some hopeful signs in the XPH with the mechanics for augmented and metapsionic powers, however--all they would need to do is condense variant functions of a "core power" into one description and assign appropriate costs.

Another thing I associate with psionics is subtlety. I was really disappointed by the first 3E psionics handbook for that reason, what with the funky sensory displays and all. If the psionic powers are somewhat weaker than spells, perhaps that can be balanced by the fact that no one on the battlefield knows who's using them.

Those are both things I'd really like to see. The most offensive thing about 3E psionics, for me, initially, was all the "flashing lights" involved. We houseruled it out in my campaign, but I'd certainly enjoy seeing it as less "I shoot a laser beam from my head!" and more "mysterious", even at the cost of power. I remember in 2E, some of the psionicists did really cool (non-abusive) things which relied on their powers not being all loud noises and bright lights, which just weren't possible in 3E.

 

[sirwmholder]

I saw the latest Design and Development article, but you are just guessing that each class will use only one implement, correct? If not, could you please provide a source for your statements?...

No, what I was saying is they are all Wizards... similar to how a Wizard is in 3.5. The names I attached to the end ( my own speculation by reading into the post... probably reading too deep into the post and totally off base ) was to illustrate that under a Wizard heading they could have "Specialist" without bringing back the dreaded 8 schools of magic. I have no doubt a "Generalist" would use multiple implements... and with the "New" Design article cutting the list down to 3 makes it seem more likely that each implement is tied to an attribute / ability score... ( Orb = Int (Arcane), Staff = Wis (Divine), Wand = Cha (Nature) )

Just a random thought,
William Holder

 

[shadow]

If (or rather when) psionics appear in 4e, I want to see them as distinct from magic. Part of the problem with 3e psionics, and 3.5e psionics in particular is that they are simply magic with crystals and power points. Psionics needs to be do things that magic can't. Bring back psionic combat (but create a system that actually works well), allow psions to read thoughts and control minds, but please don't give psions the same powers as wizards with simply a different name.

 

[sirwmholder]

...[snip]...
Arms: Mundane Training and skill. In 4E this is the new Arms power source.
Essence: The power of a universal force of energy created by all living things. In 4E this is the Arcane power source.
Channeling: The power of the Essence of powerful beings (i.e., the gods) that they send to followers. In 4E this is the Divine power source.
Mentalism: the mentalist taps into the essence power contained within themselves. In effect they become tiny little gods. In 4E this is the Psionic power source.

You get some very interesting classes that combine the different power sources, which is something I would expect to see prestige classes using (e.g., the 4th Edition Mystic Theurge).

Rolemaster also has the Arcane power, which is the primal force of magic behind the other power sources. That's another power source I'd expect to see in D&D in an expansion...

Swap Essence = Arcane with Essence = Nature... now Arcane is Arcane according to Rolemaster.

It could work ,
William Holder