Why don't your players like psionics?

[diaglo]

I AM Faerun's foremost collector of dull grey Ioun stones, however. But so far, it's worked pretty well.

i guess you aren't using the 3.11ed for Workgroups version then. purely a guess...

but they don't work the same iirc.

 

[The_Gneech]

Well in my group, the answers are:

From me: "I'd use 'em if I had a compelling reason, but I don't at the moment."

From the D&D Lifer: "I don't get psionics. They make no sense to me."

From the DM's Wife: "Psionics are just SF magic; why bother to include them in a fantasy game?"

From the 3.x Newbie: "I like pie." (He hasn't heard of psionics in D&D and doesn't know the cultural history attached, so the question doesn't mean anything to him.)

-The Gneech

 

[Arnwyn]

So, if you are a DM, have you run into an impressive LACK of enthusiasm for psionics in your games?

Yep, those are my players. There has only been one psion, and none ever again.

Now, as to "why"... well, my players aren't the most articulate folk at the best of times, so the most explanation I've ever got has been "psionics are boring" and "it's not traditional fantasy".

 

[Psion]

I have one player who plays Psionic characters 2/3 times or so. A few players that have since rotated out of my group also have played psionic characters as well.

The rest... well, some are still exploring all the basic options 3.0/3.5 has to offer. (Or for that matter, what the current campaign has to offer. I am playing second world, and one is shooting for Rune Warden, one for Motion Warden, and one for Lightning Warden.) Some just dig the classes that they dig. I've never had a player who told me they "didn't think psioincs belong in D&D" or somesuch.

 

[Wombat]

Okay, several reasons, but first let me start by saying that ONE of my players is disappointed that we don't use psionics. He is also disappointed that we don't use the Dragon Disciple and don't go plane-hopping. But overall he is very happy with the game.

Why don't we like them? Well, first of all, why bother? Unless you use the "Psionics Are Different" sidebar almost everything that can be done with psionics can be done with divine and arcane magic. Why bother to add just another odd option, including the various "magical" items? On top of this, there is a distinct "pseudo-science" feel to psionics, something that doesn't fit with the generally Renaissance/Medieval feel of the worlds we tend to play in.

But much more importantly, aside from the one, my players just don't like it and have no desire to use it. They don't like psionic combat, they don't like the psionic monsters, they don't like the mechanics, they don't like the feel.

So that's where we end up

 

[Haltherrion]

it is yet another mechanic to add to a campaign. as a player it makes your character too unique many times.

so finding items, backstory, or other tidbits often feels like railroading or poorly placed.

many of the things can be done by magic users or magic items created to do the things psionics do.

psionics only work if they are used in the campaign as much as magic or with monsters (pro, neutral, and con to your ideals).

I think you put your finger on the main point: it is another book to buy and understand. Whereas things like complete warrior can be used with a quick skim, the psionics material requires considerable effort to master. Then the ref has to remember to work the material into the campaign.

On top of that, most of my players do not like the flavor of it. Doesn't feel fantasy enough for them.

As a ref, I don't put myself in the "I love psionics" camp. I'd used them if the players insisted (and tried it in the current campaign on player request) but for the reasons you cite, I don't care for them.

I know for a fact 4 out of 6 players hate them. I asked in a survey I did a while back (surveyed a bunch of things, lke starting level, setting preferences, etc.)

Marc

 

[Nail]

"Psionics are just SF magic; why bother to include them in a fantasy game?"

Exactly.

It's simply a question of genre. Psionics are magic, magic is already in D&D, so....why include it?

Moreover, from a DMs perspective: It tends to be poorly balanced, even 3.0e psionics.

 

[Ao the Overkitty]

As a player, my dislike of psionics is very simple. Some seriously bad experiences with them in 2e have left me very jaded. I know psionics have changed a lot since then, but I still just don't like them.

Now, insert our most recent DM, who loves psionics. This is the fourth? campaign to take place in his very well mapped out (geographically & culturally) campaign world. In our current setting, psionics were introduced as being seen as very naughty and illegal by the state, but then he was sad that no one wanted to play one (in a campaign where we WANTED people to like us). We did have a rogue who multiclassed with psionics in 3.0 (the dex based class?) in this game, but the player felt the character was very weak and did not seek to get him raised when he died. The DM has since tried to downplay the illegality of being a psionicist; mostly saying, "Well... how do you prove someone is a psion to convict them?" As far as nemesii, we haven't gone up against many. This is probably in part due to my dislike of them.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

We didn't use much psi becuase the 3.0 psi rules just plain sucked, with a capital CRAP.

The XPH seems to be much easier to handle, even if there are a few problems. A few problems are easier to fix than a total system overhaul, (Which is what wizards did, as it were.)

With the XPH, I intend to use a lot more psi.

 

[Nifft]

My players were kinda excited by the XPH, and I've been using Psionic critters, foes and treasures in my homebrew setting for a while.

(It's fun to taunt the party Loremaster with "Yes, it's glowing... No, it's not magic!")

-- N