Why don't your players like psionics?

[Psion]

Don't like how arcane and divine magics use one system but psionics use a second system.

First psionics is too much like magic and now it's not enough?

You psionics bashers really need to get your story straight.

 

[Psion]

I just don't happen to think it's 'the real reason'

Just for the record, I don't necessarily think that people need a real reason. If it's not their cuppa, the reason can be entirely emotional and the person has a "real reason" -- they don't enjoy it. Since enjoyment is the object of gaming, that's reason enough.

That said, people who try to prop these up as "reasons psionics SHOULD NOT be in the game" are the ones that get me in an arguing mood.

That's okay. I realize they are in the minority, at least here. There is consistently a ~2/3 majority here in polls related to people that "would use psionics" or "have or will buy psionics material."

 

[The_Gneech]

First psionics is too much like magic and now it's not enough?

You psionics bashers really need to get your story straight.

You do realize the thread is "why don't your players like psionics," right? It's perfectly possible for Poster A to think it's too much like magic, Poster B to think it's not enough, and for there to be no inconsistency!

-The Gneech

 

[reiella]

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.

Just a comment about the ignores-magic-resistance. That's not the case anymore. At least by default.

First psionics is too much like magic and now it's not enough?

You psionics bashers really need to get your story straight.

Can't please everyone .

Just for the record, I don't necessarily think that people need a real reason. If it's not their cuppa, the reason can be entirely emotional and the person has a "real reason" -- they don't enjoy it. Since enjoyment is the object of gaming, that's reason enough.

I agree with ya . I don't think folks need a real reason, either. And if they just said "it's a matter of opinion/taste" I'm ok . And I think we're in the same boat about these arguments getting us into an argumentative mood . I just don't think it's a "fair cop" to psionics .

 

[Psion]

You do realize the thread is "why don't your players like psionics," right? It's perfectly possible for Poster A to think it's too much like magic, Poster B to think it's not enough, and for there to be no inconsistency!

Yes, I realize that. Just highlighting the subjectivity of the point.

 

[NCSUCodeMonkey]

I tend to like psionics because they are different. It gives me the chance to create mystical encounters and mysterious characters. In fact, my favorite character from 3.0 was a psychic warrior.

I've pitted my party against psionic opponents and there is a psychic warrior in the party itself. I think that flavor is a perfectly valid reason to leave psionics out of a game, from a DM standpoint, but I find it sad that a player would be disuaded from playing a psion because they don't believe they'll receive psionic items or fight psionic opponents. As a DM, adding these elements to the game is no different, in my opinion, than including the ranger's favored enemy or working in a character's backstory.

I also agree with the opinion that 3.0 psionics + the Malhavoc press publications + the WoTC web supplements can create some insanely broken combinations. Of course, that's usually the result when you mix too many uncoordinated source books together.

NCSUCodeMonkey

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I've noticed that several people like psionics because it is the "D&D way" to create Jedi powers. Why not just use the Vitality/Wound system in Unearthed Arcana and port the Jedi Classes over? Wouldn't be too hard and the powers are perfectly in-line with Jedi powers. Weapon feats would have to be redone and inappropriate skills would have to be swapped out for appropriate ones but then you really would have a Jedi in D&D.

 

[Psiblade]

I have to agree with Morte on the Sci-fi issue. I do not want psionics or jedi in my Sci-fi games. The only exception is Star Wars which is more space fantasy than Sci-fi anyway. I prefer the more realist approaches.

I also like variety in my games. I want to avoid the D&D only equals European medieval settings. I include OA & Psionics to introduce Chinese / Indian elements into the game. The additional variety makes it more fun IMHO.

I am much happier with the XPH (3.5) than I was with the PsiH (3.0). The classes are balanced better against the PHB classes. Also, the rules are easier to integrate into a campaign. No more psionic combat to slow things down with obscure rules. The removal of MAD also went a long way towards fixing a lot of the balance issues with PsiH(3.0).

-Psiblade

 

[jgrabowski]

I've run into both extremes in the games that I DM. I have one player who adamantly refuses to use psionics (he doesn't believe psionics fit into a fantasy medieval setting), and one player who will play a psionic character almost every chance he gets.

I have to say that the group as a whole, however, is rather indifferent to psionics in general. To them, it's simply another option (and my group tends to LOVE more options--the more unique some of my players can make their characters, generally the better).

As a DM, I try and use psionic stuff (NPCs, items, creatures, etc.) every once in a while, even if no one in my current group is playing a psionic character. It helps with maintain the believability of psionics within the campaign world. I personally like psionics and like what they did with them in 3.0. I'll hold my opinion on 3.5 psionics until I've purchased the book and had a chance to thoroughly review the changes made.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

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.

I'm not "putting clerics on a pedestal". I'm using them as an example to show that, in D&D, terms mean what the designers want them to mean. "Trolls" might be another. "Broadsword" and "flail" - let's not get started. Putting something on a pedestal means holding it up as an example of what is good. I was merely showing an example of what *is.*

"Psionics" as a word has *no* objective reality that I need to care about. The fact that it may have some history of use as a term in sci-fi literature doesn't really matter to me - I'm not playing a B5 RPG. The fact that it used to be a "non-magic equivalent of magic" is irrelevant, because 1E is irrelevant. If I want to use the word to describe "mind magic," then I can. Because basically that's what it feels like to me.

And, yes, I agree with you that D&D *has* played up the "scientific" angle in previous editions and carried over the nomenclature. That's why I'm happy throwing all of the psuedoscience names in the trash, keeping the powers and mechanics, and renaming all of the powers. I always thought it was stupid to pretend that psionics wasn't magic - mind-reading and teleporting are magic, pure and simple. Fortunately, 3E does not try to pretend that psionics is non-magical (or dragon breath, for that matter).

I just think you're placing too much importance on what psionics used to be. It's something different (and much more sensible) now - it is now a form of magic. I think that 3E psionics - which *is* "D&D psionics" - clearly is just another form of magic, like arcane and divine, with its own spell list.