Why don't your players like psionics?

[johnsemlak]

Certainly in my experience one major problem is player's not having hte PsiHb. Often, only the DM has that book, as far as I've seen. This is particular true among casual players.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

I think that more players would choose to play psionicists if psionics were better integrated into the core rule books and better play tested.

This right here is why I've never been interested in psionics as a player, and even less in them as a GM.

I've only seen how psionics were handled in 2nd edition and the third edition book, and both of them radiated strong auras of "this will take a lot of work to integrate into the game as it is written" and "this hasn't really been playtested with the rest of the game." So I steered clear of them. Now it's reached the point where I'm not even all that interested in glancing at the XPH, because their previous attempts have been so unimpressive.

I don't want to have to work that hard to get psionics to fit into a game unless the payoff for it is huge. The payoff for psionics, though, seems to be minimal at best. It just doesn't seem to do anything for the game that needs to be done, so I don't see the need to clutter up the game with it. And especially not when adding it means so much more work for me.

--
preaching laziness as a self-defense mechanism against unnecessary complications
ryan

 

[cybertalus]

I'm agreement with others who've said that psionics seem too sci-fi for D&D. Whenever I hear about telepathy or telekinesis I think about the PsiCorps on Babylon 5, or that old Thames TV show from the early 70's, The Tomorrow People, that Nickelodeon used to run all the time when I was a kid.

That being said, I'm all for psionics in d20 Modern. In fact the only reason I bought the Psionics book was to import more of the powers into Modern. I'll never use it in D&D.

I think JGBrowning is on to something too with the terminology. Rename the powers, change "power points" to "mana", and package the current psionics rules as an alternate magic system and there would probably be more interest in it.

 

[reiella]

D&D has it's share, but to a much lesser ratio.

Ablating, Affinity Field, Apopsi, Biocurrent, Biofeedback, Catapsi, Telempathic Projection, Combat Precognition, Psycholuminescence, Matter Agitation, Combat Prescience, Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Ecto Puppet, Body Equilibrium, Metaphysical Weapon, Duodimensional Hand, Ectoplasmic Form, Improved Biofeedback, Dismiss Ectoplasm, Wall of Ectoplasm, Inertial Barrier, Clairtangency, Metaconcert, Greater Biocurrent, Reddopsi, Hypercognition, Improved Clairtangency, Probablity Travel...

... Snipe Snipe ...
You can have psionics without modern terminology. They decided not to go that route for many of their powers. Some (like Bite of the Tiger) do go a more "mystical" route rather than a modern route, but there's a significant % of powers that are named according to a modern perspective. This is utterly jarring for me. I have a dwarf, an elf, and a human all wearing chainmail armour and wielding swords speaking about "psycholuminescence" or "matter agitation." Just not jiving with me, and I imagine, many others...

joe b.

Now, let's approach this from a different manner.

Most of those terms are ones that were developed as far back historically as Ancient Greece and Rome (even the awkward Ablating). The three most recent (I believe) are constructs taken from current 'real world psionics' (Apopsi, Catapsi, Reddopsi).

However, I'm confused utterly by some of the selections. Metaconcert seems particularly odd, unless you feel that metamagic is too modern of a term as well?

One way to consider them is from the Hermetic/Alchemical romanticized ideals. Quite often, latin word usage would be quite pervasive.

I do understand how the text may seem too modern, but mostly as our current society uses latin words often to refer to more scientific topics. And typical (at least for D&D / rpgs) fantasy has magic users using some 'foreign language' entirely instead of latin, resulting in a greater percieved departure.

Out of curiosity, would it be more acceptable if the powers had the same names, just in the Draconic alphabet?

 

[Sir Whiskers]

My current group tends to be willing to try new things, so the "sci-fi feel" objection isn't much of an issue for us. Instead, it's about playability and whether psionics add something positive to the gaming experience.

I saw psionics badly abused in early versions of D&D, so I was hesitant when the 3.0 PsiHB came out. After reading the book and creating a couple characters, I decided the designers still didn't have it right. A pity, because I was ready to try out a psionic character, just for something different.

Maybe they've finally fixed the system with the 3.5 PsiHB, maybe not. If I still hear good things about the book a few months from now, I may give it another shot. But the result has to be worth the expense and effort - which hasn't been the case with any previous edition.

 

[jgbrowning]

Now, let's approach this from a different manner.

Most of those terms are ones that were developed as far back historically as Ancient Greece and Rome (even the awkward Ablating). The three most recent (I believe) are constructs taken from current 'real world psionics' (Apopsi, Catapsi, Reddopsi).

However, I'm confused utterly by some of the selections. Metaconcert seems particularly odd, unless you feel that metamagic is too modern of a term as well?

One Mind, Joining Power, Group Merge.... There are many different titles that could apply without using a modern naming convention. Personally, I'm not too fond of metamagic either. I don't know why they couldn't have just been called "Magic Feats" or "Magic Manipulation Feats." *shrug*

One way to consider them is from the Hermetic/Alchemical romanticized ideals. Quite often, latin word usage would be quite pervasive.

I do understand how the text may seem too modern, but mostly as our current society uses latin words often to refer to more scientific topics.

This is the root of the problem to me. The language used to name psionics is similiar to the language used in science or in the modern period. Pyrokinesis is how it would be described today, while fire control would be more "fantasy."

I just get the feeling that Mulder and Scully named a lot of these things...

Using the language (latin for a lot of these) that is also used in our modern world for scientific discourse increases the lack of fantasy. Ironically enough, given our American Cultural bias, using germanic roots words wouldn't be an issue so much to me as using latin. Although germanic words are used quite a bit in science (geology for one) they don't have the strong cultural association with the modern for most Americans.

I think people know latin has this baggage. Just like if I was to call a psionic ability "Flowing Red Dragon Claw" or "Thunder Punch of the Monkey" would have an (albeit turgid) asian association.

And typical (at least for D&D / rpgs) fantasy has magic users using some 'foreign language' entirely instead of latin, resulting in a greater percieved departure.

Out of curiosity, would it be more acceptable if the powers had the same names, just in the Draconic alphabet?

No. It's not just the name that's part of my issue, it's also the overall tone of the work. Just the change from "caster" to "manifester" rubs me the wrong way from this angle. And in case my tone is being lost through the written format, I'm far from fanatical about this. It doesn't even qualify as a pet peeve of mine, but it is one of the reasons why I think psionics are overlooked as viable by many D&Der. It's jarringly modern.

joe b.

 

[rounser]

Rename the powers, change "power points" to "mana", and package the current psionics rules as an alternate magic system and there would probably be more interest in it.

This is what it seems to get used for half the time, but I'm of the opinion that if you want an alternative magic system, make an alternative magic system...don't compromise psionics by removing the flavour that actually makes it psionics...and I view the "same-as-magic" thing as purely a design convenience, a patch.

 

[drnuncheon]

My players don't seem to want to learn psionics - and in many of the settings, they wouldn't work well. They can work just fine in a fantasy world - take Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar or Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover (OK, that's technically sci-fi) as examples, or even the source of the D&D psionics, Julian May's Saga of Pliocene Exile and related books.

On the other hand, I would love to run a game where psionics replaced magic. Maybe combined with Bastion's Airships and Doomstriders to get sort of a mecha-psi-fantasy thing going.

J

 

[Psion]

One Mind, Joining Power, Group Merge.... There are many different titles that could apply without using a modern naming convention.

You could, but since the spells don't do it, why bother.

Sorry Joe, I really think attitudes like this betray bias. It seems pretty clear to me that latin gets used in D&D either way. Being finnicky about the amount just seems like you are trying to conjure up a reason not to like it.

If you don't like it, that's fine, but this line of argument seems out to lunch to me.

 

[Ozmar]

I think JGBrowning is on to something too with the terminology. Rename the powers, change "power points" to "mana", and package the current psionics rules as an alternate magic system and there would probably be more interest in it.

That would be hilarious! I dare someone to take all the SRD 3.5 psionic rules, and publish an "alternate magic" spell book with "mana" and renamed powers. I bet it would out-sell the ExPsiHB.

Ozmar the Amused Advocate of Plagiarized Products

(P.S. My players deliberately destroyed psionics in my home brew world. They used an artifact in my epic game to wipe out the entire mind flayer race and destroy all psionic powers. I announced that my new campaign, set in the same setting, would not have psionics and everyone cheered. *sigh* Well, I'll use psionics in my Eberron campaign...)

Ozmar the Lonely Lover of Psionics