D&D 5E What's wrong with this psion?

[Minigiant]

Again, because you don't seem to be listening -- the designers design first, people vote on it last. People voting on things, or having inputs, is the last step after the designers have a crack at being creative. Psionics went through a ton of iterations -- all rejected by the users. This is not a case of restricted design freedom because they get customer feedback, because that feedback comes at the end of the design but before final polish.

And, I don't know who you're quoting there about the best products, but that's not true. Lots of truly crappy products have met needs people didn't know they had and been improved through the customer feedback loop, and plenty of great products exist that meet needs people know they have. It's a cliched statement that shows it's flaws on even the most shallow of inspections.

Psionics in 5e is not a case of restricted design. The WOTC designers were decently creative with psionics. The issue them attempting to make a "psionics for everyone" knowing that many don't care for it and still using those opinions.

Psionics being shoved into a popular opinions shows how their plan was doomed.

 

[Eric V]

Again, because you don't seem to be listening -- the designers design first, people vote on it last. People voting on things, or having inputs, is the last step after the designers have a crack at being creative. Psionics went through a ton of iterations -- all rejected by the users. This is not a case of restricted design freedom because they get customer feedback, because that feedback comes at the end of the design but before final polish.

And, I don't know who you're quoting there about the best products, but that's not true. Lots of truly crappy products have met needs people didn't know they had and been improved through the customer feedback loop, and plenty of great products exist that meet needs people know they have. It's a cliched statement that shows it's flaws on even the most shallow of inspections.

When you say users, to whom are you referring? People who vote on UA polls?

As for the second thing...it is true. You're wrong on this one. In fact, it's the marketing ideal, because it means one is dictating the market instead of reacting to it. It's one of the top goals for marketing and product pushing.

Maybe you're the one who is shallow. Something to consider, as you type your next unnecessarily snarky response.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Psionics in 5e is not a case of restricted design. The WOTC designers were decently creative with psionics. The issue them attempting to make a "psionics for everyone" knowing that many don't care for it and still using those opinions.

Psionics being shoved into a popular opinions shows how their plan was doomed.

So, wait, psionics in 5e isn't restricted design, it's problem was that it was restricted by popular opinion? What? Pick one.

Psionics in 5e tried a bunch of ways to work. The customers didn't like them. Designing something the customers don't like isn't at all a matter of restricted design or bad plans -- it's exactly what you want to avoid doing. What WotC is going to put out for psionics is going to not be what all of the nostalgic older gamers want, but they're a fraction of the user-base and WotC couldn't have pleased any more than maybe half of them anyway. Instead, we're getting a psionic design that pleases or works for the largest possible customer base.

I get that you want to make this WotC's fault -- but it's not. They tried, hard. No one wanted it. That's facts.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When you say users, to whom are you referring? People who vote on UA polls?

Yup, which is a substantially large number of players, many of whom do not match the demographics of this board.

As for the second thing...it is true. You're wrong on this one. In fact, it's the marketing ideal, because it means one is dictating the market instead of reacting to it. It's one of the top goals for marketing and product pushing.

Maybe you're the one who is shallow. Something to consider, as you type your next unnecessarily snarky response.

No, it's not, and I didn't call you shallow. I said a shallow analysis will show the faults in the truism -- meaning even a trivial look at it shows it's flaws. I gave that analysis, and showed the faults -- it fails far, far more often than it succeeds, most of the "best" products are the ones that follow the initial market opening, often by competitors who understand the new market better than the originators, etc, etc. And, citing marketing departments is a pretty bad support for your argument -- marketing departments neither drive nor do design (or shouldn't, though this is where a lot of Dilbert comes from) -- they sell what's made. By the time marketing is involved, the creation is over, so any truism marketing has is very disconnected from actual design work.

Maybe I don't know anything, I'm just an systems engineer who designs and manages system and system of systems creation and sustainment for customers for a living.

 

[Minigiant]

So, wait, psionics in 5e isn't restricted design, it's problem was that it was restricted by popular opinion? What? Pick one.

Psionics in 5e tried a bunch of ways to work. The customers didn't like them. Designing something the customers don't like isn't at all a matter of restricted design or bad plans -- it's exactly what you want to avoid doing. What WotC is going to put out for psionics is going to not be what all of the nostalgic older gamers want, but they're a fraction of the user-base and WotC couldn't have pleased any more than maybe half of them anyway. Instead, we're getting a psionic design that pleases or works for the largest possible customer base.

I get that you want to make this WotC's fault -- but it's not. They tried, hard. No one wanted it. That's facts.

I'm not saying it was restricted at all. They designed a whole lot of psionics.

I'm not saying the WotC designed bad psionics. I'm saying they let the opinions of parts of the community who didn't care for psionics weigh too heavily.

Why requiring rather high satisfaction levels for playtest and UA material. they hurt any material that did not have solid argee-upon ideas shared by the majority of the community.

Rangers
Sorcerers
Psionics
etc

So they ended up please a large group but that group is indifferent and wont buy psionics product on its own. Hence it is in Tasha's.

 

[Eric V]

Yup, which is a substantially large number of players, many of whom do not match the demographics of this board.

So, here's the thing: People who have no intention of ever using psionics are voting on the psion. I mean, people -could- recuse themselves and leave only psion fans to vote (and just not bother with the material when it comes out), but...that doesn't seem to be the case. When you write "no one wanted it" that's simply not true. Lots of people liked the Mystic, but lots also didn't like it because a) "No new classes!!" b) "I hate psionics" c) "Why is it using a different system from spells?" and d) Constructive criticism

NOTHING will satisfy people who answered based on a) and b) and psion fans from previous editions have trouble with c) (Because it's always been non-spells).

The masses, in general, are very conservative in things like this, and so for something that is non-core like psionics, but still has a rich tradition in the game, it will never see light of day with the masses (many who were never going to use psionics in the first place) blocking attempts.

More generally, the conservative nature of the masses snips creativity/complexity in other classes as well; just compare playtest packets to what we got in the end. For a creative enterprise like an RPG, I hate that the generally conservative masses gatekeep the most interesting ideas.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, here's the thing: People who have no intention of ever using psionics are voting on the psion. I mean, people -could- recuse themselves and leave only psion fans to vote (and just not bother with the material when it comes out), but...that doesn't seem to be the case. When you write "no one wanted it" that's simply not true. Lots of people liked the Mystic, but lots also didn't like it because a) "No new classes!!" b) "I hate psionics" c) "Why is it using a different system from spells?" and d) Constructive criticism

One, you have no evidence to back up the claim that people not interested in psionics voted, although it's easy to assume at least some did, the quantities are unknown to you or me. Let's not state conjecture as fact.

Two, even if someone is uninterested in psionics, that doesn't render their opinion moot. They are still customers of 5e, and so have a vested interest in all design choices. I'm mildly interested in psionics (and have been playing for decades and recall 1e and 2e psionics well -- okay, 2e psionics well and 1e dimly). However, I'm also a GM who has players that are interested in psionics, so I have interest in what design choices are made because they'll impact me at the table. I might have zero interest, or hate psionics, in which case I still have a valid interest in responding to polls on psionics because my voice is still that of a customer. This entire argument, that only psionics fans should be allowed a vote is fraught with gatekeeping of the True Fans Only kind. And, who gets to define fans of psionics? How much fan do I have to be to be allowed a say?

NOTHING will satisfy people who answered based on a) and b) and psion fans from previous editions have trouble with c) (Because it's always been non-spells).

The masses, in general, are very conservative in things like this, and so for something that is non-core like psionics, but still has a rich tradition in the game, it will never see light of day with the masses (many who were never going to use psionics in the first place) blocking attempts.

More generally, the conservative nature of the masses snips creativity/complexity in other classes as well; just compare playtest packets to what we got in the end. For a creative enterprise like an RPG, I hate that the generally conservative masses gatekeep the most interesting ideas.

I'd suggest, then, that you try a game that isn't the biggest, most popular game on the market, because that game will be catered to the widest audience possible, so your pet systems are unlikely to show up. Homebrew, or look into OSR, you'll be happier if you want to play a game that isn't widely popular. I suggest branching way out, but I think that it's you that might be too conservative to really get into something like Apocalypse World. I could be wrong, and would be thrilled to find out I was.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I'm not saying it was restricted at all. They designed a whole lot of psionics.

I'm not saying the WotC designed bad psionics. I'm saying they let the opinions of parts of the community who didn't care for psionics weigh too heavily.

So, here's the thing: People who have no intention of ever using psionics are voting on the psion. I mean, people -could- recuse themselves and leave only psion fans to vote (and just not bother with the material when it comes out), but...that doesn't seem to be the case. When you write "no one wanted it" that's simply not true. Lots of people liked the Mystic, but lots also didn't like it because a) "No new classes!!" b) "I hate psionics" c) "Why is it using a different system from spells?" and d) Constructive criticism

NOTHING will satisfy people who answered based on a) and b) and psion fans from previous editions have trouble with c) (Because it's always been non-spells).

The masses, in general, are very conservative in things like this, and so for something that is non-core like psionics, but still has a rich tradition in the game, it will never see light of day with the masses (many who were never going to use psionics in the first place) blocking attempts.

More generally, the conservative nature of the masses snips creativity/complexity in other classes as well; just compare playtest packets to what we got in the end. For a creative enterprise like an RPG, I hate that the generally conservative masses gatekeep the most interesting ideas.

The UA psionics suggestions weren't only for 'fans of psionics' to say "Do these match what I think psionics should be?" They were for 'D&D players' to say "Do I like this system?"
The demographic to disparage something because of its name are a small, spiteful minority. Most of the people answering the poll would likely have given their thoughts about the systems based on whether they liked them. If a lot of people liked them, then a product containing them will sell better than if a lot of people disliked them.
The entire point of the UAs was to come up with systems that a lot of people would be fans of.

Why would they restrict themselves to only selling to "psions fans"?

 

[Minigiant]

The UA psionics suggestions weren't only for 'fans of psionics' to say "Do these match what I think psionics should be?" They were for 'D&D players' to say "Do I like this system?"
The demographic to disparage something because of its name are a small, spiteful minority. Most of the people answering the poll would likely have given their thoughts about the systems based on whether they liked them. If a lot of people liked them, then a product containing them will sell better than if a lot of people disliked them.
The entire point of the UAs was to come up with systems that a lot of people would be fans of.

Why would they restrict themselves to only selling to "psions fans"?

because that's the only group who would buy a product for psioinics.

I believe aew things

1. Few fans will purchase Tasha's Cauldron of Everything for Psioinic Spells. At best it is just a bonus for those who would be buying the book already.
2. If Psionics were to debut in it's own handbook like it did in the past, it would not look like this nor be converted into spells to be subclasses of fighter, rogue, and sorcerer.
3. If Psionics were to be debut in a setting book like a Dark Sun setting book, it would not look like this nor be converted into spells to be subclasses of fighter, rogue, and sorcerer.

Opinions on psioinics was divided. Instead of choosing one of the sides that was passionate about it and refining that choice, they picked the least offensive and modular option that could be put in a popular book that wouldn't drag it down by it.

The Psioinc Soul Sorcerer debuting in Tasha's is telling.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

because that's the only group who would buy a product for psioinics.

In which case, WotC would have no interest in such a product. That group too tiny to cover production costs. And also so divided that whatever approach WotC took at lease half of those people would hate it anyway.

I believe aew things

1. Few fans will purchase Tasha's Cauldron of Everything for Psioinic Spells. At best it is just a bonus for those who would be buying the book already.

True.

1. If Psionics were to debut in it's own handbook like it did in the past, it would not look like this nor be converted into spells to be subclasses of fighter, rogue, and sorcerer.

No such book is going to be made by WotC.

If Psionics were to be debut in a setting book like a Dark Sun setting book, it would not look like this nor be converted into spells to be subclasses of fighter, rogue, and sorcerer.

Dark Sun psionics will look exactly like this. Dark Sun is the whole reason WotC are bothering with psionics at all.

Opinions on psionics was divided. Instead of choosing one of the sides that was passionate about it and refining that choice, they picked the least offensive and modular option that could be put in a popular book that wouldn't drag it down by it.

True.