Why don't your players like psionics?

[Calico_Jack73]

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

Honestly, I never understood the hubbub over "Names". In an old group of mine we used a homemade system of Action Points long before Unearthed Arcana and we just called them Hero Points. Anyway, one of the guys in the group began to run a Forgotten Realms campaign and changed the name to Weave Points and went into this long description of how the heros are tied into the weave and blah blah blah. The mechanics stayed the same, there was no difference whatsoever. Anything that I could do in the previous campaign with a Hero Point I could now do with a Weave Point. The DM stuck to his guns and insisted that Weave Points were different. Bah... Weave Point, Force Point, Hero Point, whatever! A Spell by any other name is still a Spell. I think people didn't like 3E Psionics because rolling a d20 to set your base difficulty is too random for some. People like the nice constant Base 10 DC for spells. They also like only having to use one stat for the DC bonus instead of every stat coming into play.

 

[Sir Trent]

honestly...

Honestly no one in my gaming group ever found psionics interesting. 'Thinking' someone to death is about as much fun as playing a bard... which I guess would be 'singing' them to death. Just not our cup o tea.

 

[Morte]

Too sci-fi for us.

This is kind of weird...

I play Traveller, a slightly-hard science fiction RPG with psionics which are built into the setting. I took psionics out of my game because, as I said to the players, "if I wanted magic I'd play D&D".

Whenever I'm thinking of using a new bit of setting material I have to weigh the ease of quietly ignoring psionics in that setting. I avoid the "Spinward Marches", probably the most commonly used part of the Traveller universe, because one of the major political powers there is a psionic society.

Ah well...

If I were playing D&D, I wouldn't mind using a setting with psionics but no arcane magic once in a while.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

I always liked psionics. As Myrvketh noted, it's a good way to model Jedi powers. (And Jedi Powers were much more fantasy than sci-fi until TPM) It also gives you a "fresh" set of spells (basically), with different options. The psionic feats in particular are quite an interesting approach.

I played a bit of Rolemaster, in which there were three types of magic: channeling (divine), mentalism (psionic), and the other kind that was arcane. One is from specific powers beyond you, one is from the power within you, and one is from focusing the power all around you. That made a good bit of sense to me. Is there any reason why two is the right number for "types of magic" and three is out? (Although, now that I think about it, does D&D already have Su and Sp abilities as "internal" magic?)

Psionics *is* magic - there's nothing scientific about it. It always bugged me that AD&D tried to claim psionics wasn't magic. It sure isn't real as I understand reality, no matter how many people believe in it (several billion people believe in divine magic, but I'm comfortable calling it "magic" and not "science")

I agree with jb - psionics would fit a lot better with fantasy-style names. The "specialist" names weren't bad. Perhaps rename the disciplines "nomad powers, shaper powers, etc." and rename the powers that have pseudoscientific names. Maybe the attack forms Ego Whip and Id Insinuation could be "Mindcleaver" and "Soulrender" or something.

Rounser - still not seeing how making psionics another type of magic would cheapen psionics in any way. You'd be changing it from its past definition in D&D (non-magic that does most of the same things as magic) and from its usage in sci-fi (a phenomenon that allegedly has a scientific basis) and making it something that works within the realm of the game. But D&D does that all the time, using a very odd definition of something from literature or history (e.g. "cleric") or changing definitions from one edition to the next. Maybe if they called it mentalism instead?

 

[WayneLigon]

So, if you are a DM, have you run into an impressive LACK of enthusiasm for psionics in your games? Players who will buy every Complete Splatbook there is, yet the only person in your group with a copy of a psionic book is you?

No-one has ever asked me to play a psion or even if they exist in my world. I think it's a holdover from 1e/2e when, really, only crazy people ever used the psionics rules. They were badly written, terribly unbalanced, etc etc, and I don't think those memories have faded. I might try to encourage it, later.

And yeah, I think I am the only one with the psionics book...

 

[Thanee]

Well, in my group there are players who like the idea of psionics (most don't like the horrible rules (3.0), tho), but I guess for most it's just another magic class, which is not really needed. That, and psionics are more of a science-fiction thing compared to fantasy. Many seem to think, that psionics don't fit into a fantasy setting.

There are basically two idealistic approaches to new stuff.

More is better - those players will enjoy psionics as a welcome change.
Less is more - those obviously like to stick with the core stuff.

Bye
Thanee

 

[trilobite]

Personally I have always thought that the Psion is way underpowered compared to the Wizard or Sorcerer.

 

[Thanee]

Personally I have always thought that the Psion is way underpowered compared to the Wizard or Sorcerer.

Depends on what extra rules you use... with all the stuff Bruce Cordell has written later (ITCK, Mindscape) and the PsiHB 3.0 as written, Psions are horribly overpowered compared to the other magic-users (mostly thanks to few highly unbalanced powers (Psychofeedback being the worst of the lot) and items (like torque of psionic might)). With only the PsiHB, while the unbalanced stuff is still there - Psions lack enough in all other areas to make them underpowered in comparison.

Still no clue about the 3.5 XPH, tho.

Bye
Thanee

 

[ph0rk]

Of course, but would you associate what the old ladies are doing more with "magic" than to "psionics"? There's the rub. None of us (well, almost none) believe in magic. Quite a few of us believe in psionic (psychic) abilities.

I'd wager there are plenty that prefer to believe in things they can see and touch, and I haven't seen or touched any ectoplasm recently. *cough*


To those that think psionics aren't very "action" oriented: crack the new book, and read about the psychic warrior. bonus feats, weapon spec, and spells in armor!

 

[rounser]

I play Traveller, a slightly-hard science fiction RPG with psionics which are built into the setting. I took psionics out of my game because, as I said to the players, "if I wanted magic I'd play D&D".

Not surprising at all. I think that the place psionics feels absolutely most at home is in a contemporary setting. Stephen King's "Carrie", for instance.

Rounser - still not seeing how making psionics another type of magic would cheapen psionics in any way. You'd be changing it from its past definition in D&D (non-magic that does most of the same things as magic) and from its usage in sci-fi (a phenomenon that allegedly has a scientific basis) and making it something that works within the realm of the game. But D&D does that all the time, using a very odd definition of something from literature or history (e.g. "cleric") or changing definitions from one edition to the next. Maybe if they called it mentalism instead?

Clerics are not the kind of thing you put on a pedestal, being one of D&D's most obvious weaknesses (both rules-wise because of the porkbarreling the class stands for because healing is dull, and archetype-wise, in that there is no solid external archetype except for some handwaving about crusaders/warrior priests/some fictional guy who used a mace, with significant archetypical overlap with the paladin).

I also disagree with your view that D&D didn't thoroughly play up the scientific angle, what with the Freud references in the attack/defence modes and the scientific latin names in the powers and the whole ignores-magic-resistance-because-it-isn't-magic-it's-psionics stuff and the whole "brain powers, not spells" thing which is what D&D psionics is clearly all about.

Changing the names to dilute psionics and pretend it's not psionics isn't going to help - if it's psionics, it's psionics. If it's an alternative magic system, make an alternative magic system, not some psionics/magic hybrid toting several suitcases of baggage from where it came from and with names changed to protect the innocent.