Which element could D&D stand to lose more?

[ProfessorCirno]

The most bizarre thing about the whole "psionics = sci-fi" is that I only see this thrown around by either older people or really, really, really big "into it" types who scour the internets for D&D chat times.

Most standard players that aren't 30-40 don't make the psionics = sci-fi connection. It's just "that weird mind magic," qhich frankly is exactly what most people want psionics to be.

As Hobo mentioned, the biggest problem is that wizards have been engorging themselves on every type of "magic" ever concievable for a long time now. It didn't help that in 3.5 there was this horrifying idea that every damned book needed to have at least one or two new arcane spells in it - even the psionics book had new wizard spells!

The answer then isn't to cut out psionics, it's to start trimming the (very, very large) fat off of wizards. Each edition has a large number of different "fightan man" types of characters - it's absurd to think there should be only one type of "wizard" character.

 

[FireLance]

Most standard players that aren't 30-40 don't make the psionics = sci-fi connection. It's just "that weird mind magic," qhich frankly is exactly what most people want psionics to be.

Heck, I'm 30-40 and I don't make the psionics = sci-fi connection. As I mentioned, it's probably because the first time I encountered the word was in the AD&D PHB!

The answer then isn't to cut out psionics, it's to start trimming the (very, very large) fat off of wizards. Each edition has a large number of different "fightan man" types of characters - it's absurd to think there should be only one type of "wizard" character.

To be fair, every edition of D&D since AD&D has had two or more flavors of wizard.

AD&D had the illusionist.
2e had specialist wizards.
3e had specialist wizards, sorcerers and (later) the warmage, the beguiler and the dread necromancer. Arguably, you could also add warlocks, binders, shadowcasters and truenamers.

The real problem is that the generalist wizard, the character with the potential to learn (almost) any and every spell and to create (almost) any and every magical effect to overcome the problems he encounters, is such a popular and compelling archetype (and, arguably, one which many D&D players self-identify with) that attempts to cut back on its power and flexibility are often met with disapproval.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Oh please.

"Help, help, I'm being oppressed" is ridiculous.

Yes, you have the absolute right to bitch and whine whenever it so pleases you. I also have the right to point out that doing so in certain venues only hurts all of us and the hobby.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to silence my complaints Raven Crowking.

Not at all. Your complaints amuse me often, and sometimes inform me.

I am suggesting not that you shouldn't be able to complain, but that when you complain about others complaining, you should be aware that it sounds very much like.....well.....a Monty Python routine. If not the "Help, help, I'm being oppressed" one, I am sure you can think of a more appropriate routine.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

*blink*

You ask that of a guy tasked with policing and enforcing a particular standard of appropriate posting on a message board? One of the folks enforcing the "No politics, no religion" and Grandma rules?

If you are a mod on the CNN site as well, you have an absolute right to go there and delete those comments. Until that day, though, I imagine that the CNN mods get to make those decisions.

And, even here, you don't get to decide anything more than what is right for here. Because here is your house. Or, Morrus' house, and he delegates the authority to you. Just as I get to decide whether or not you can be in my house, and what you can do there.

And the complainer in both cases still gets to decide when and where they feel that complaint is justified, what context is appropriate, and what is the right timing. All you and I get to do is decide what the consequences are.

And, just as CNN would be ill-advised to tell you that you are doing a lousy job deciding what is appropriate here.......perhaps you are not best able to decide what is appropriate there?



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Frankly, this gets my vote for "what element D&D could stand to lose more".

I'm not condoning the complaints; I am suggesting that those people have a right to make those complaints.

Come to think of it, perhaps that's the best way to advertise 4E: play 4E and you can be assured that you will never interact with these people.

I would agree. Playing a game you enjoy is probably a better use of your time and energy that complaining that others complain.

Of course, if you wish to complain that others complain, I will stand by your right to do so. Of course, I might complain about your complaining that others complain, so that I can join you in looking like a Monty Python sketch.

(If you don't recognize that complaining that others complain looks like a Monty Python sketch to begin with, I can't help you there.)


RC

 

[Umbran]

If you are a mod on the CNN site as well, you have an absolute right to go there and delete those comments. Until that day, though, I imagine that the CNN mods get to make those decisions.

When I make any suggestion that I want them deleted, perhaps that'll be relevant. Until then, it's hyperbolizing my position by implication.

And the complainer in both cases still gets to decide when and where they feel that complaint is justified, what context is appropriate, and what is the right timing. All you and I get to do is decide what the consequences are.

Yeah, right. Well, when someone comes into your house, drinks too much, and vomits on your carpet and your significant other, remember that it was his decision as to what was appropriate, and you only get to decide the consequences.

Me, I'll continue thinking that appropriateness is a matter of social conventions, not one person's lone opinion.

Thinking about it, though, whatever your personal beliefs on the matter are, it seems to me you are demonstrably incorrect as a practical matter. Our society has any number of clear definitions of appropriateness called "laws". If selfsame drunkard drives away from your house and runs over your begonias and crashes through your fence, you have a right to sue, because those things are not appropriate actions. Heaven forfend he runs over a person - by your rules, he gets to think that was appropriate, too!

(Yes, that's reductio ad absurdum - making a comment on a message board is not equivalent to running someone over with a car. But somewhere, it seems to me your logic fails. I think it fails at the very start. YMMV.)

And, just as CNN would be ill-advised to tell you that you are doing a lousy job deciding what is appropriate here.......perhaps you are not best able to decide what is appropriate there?

Again, appropriateness is a matter of social convention. I read CNN.com. I'm a member of the audience, so I get to have an opinion on the matter.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If selfsame drunkard drives away from your house and runs over your begonias and crashes through your fence, you have a right to sue, because those things are not appropriate actions. Heaven forfend he runs over a person - by your rules, he gets to think that was appropriate, too!

Sorry, but are you arguing that you get to determine what someone else thinks is appropriate? Because, yes, even Hitler had the right to think his actions were approriate; others had the right to impose consequences on what his actions were. Others had a right to believe his actions inappropriate. But, until George Orwell is proven right, wrongthink and thoughtcrime are outside our purview. IMHO. YMMV.

I get to have an opinion on the matter.

Of course you do.

If you wish to complain that others complain, I will stand by your right to do so. Of course, I might complain about your complaining that others complain, so that I can join you in looking like a Monty Python sketch.

(If you don't recognize that complaining that others complain looks like a Monty Python sketch to begin with, I can't help you there.)

And this is probably more than enough threadjacking for anyone, so I'll just let you have the last word, if you want it. Or not, if you don't.


RC

 

[Umbran]

Sorry, but are you arguing that you get to determine what someone else thinks is appropriate?

No. Folks get to think what they like. Folks also get to be incorrect, and make errors.

Because, yes, even Hitler had the right to think his actions were approriate;

Ah, thank you Godwin.

My last thought on it is a serendipitously timely piece on CNN.com. They're talking about far more weighty things than a hobby game, but that the news sites are finding a growing need to keep nastiness in check is perhaps still relevant.

News sites reining in nasty user comments - CNN.com

 

[Draconicarmagon]

deffinetly Psi....i already have enough on my plate to learn for the moment XD

 

[Desdichado]

If you wish to complain that others complain, I will stand by your right to do so. Of course, I might complain about your complaining that others complain, so that I can join you in looking like a Monty Python sketch.

(If you don't recognize that complaining that others complain looks like a Monty Python sketch to begin with, I can't help you there.)

You keep bringing up Monty Python. I don't know why.

If someone's acting embarrassingly churlish and rude in a social situation, it's not Monty Python esque to point out that it's innappropriate.

In fact, to repeatedly say something to the effect of, "well, it's their right to behave that way, and if you want to complain about it, well, I guess that's your right too but it sure is a stupid thing to do" is equally bizarre.