Why don't your players like psionics?

[Felon]

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.

Yes, but one way sounds patently more sci-fi than the other. The key is acknowledging a difference between denotation and connotation. Words like "teleportation" and "precognition" have found a place within the modern lexicon. "Biocurrent" and "psycholuminescence" have not, and thus folks are left to attach their own connotation to it, and the one that many folks attribute is a pseudo-scientific one.

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.

I have to say, it seems kinda out-to-lunch to me to deny that there was a definite intent on the designers' part to inject a scientific connotation into psionics with their general naming convention.

 

[Acid_crash]

I'm on the polar end of the majority in the fact that I like psionics, always have, and I have always hated the magic system in any incarnation of D&D... which is why I don't use magic in my D&D games anymore.

 

[mmadsen]

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

I don't think this can be emphasized enough. The pseudo-scientific language around psionics and psychic powers was invented specifically to give old superstitions a "modern" veneer and make them more plausible to a late 19th-century audience.

In the same way, UFO stories transformed age-old stories of visits from angels, demons, gods, and spirits into something more plausible in the nuclear age.

 

[Green Knight]

Back in the Olde Days of Yore, everyone in my old group loved Psionics. Whenever starting a new campaign we'd always have everyone roll to see if they had a Wild Talent. We also had a player who absolutely loved psionics, his favorite PC class being the Psionicist. Good fun, all around.

So that batch of players, anyway, has always loved psionics. Even back in the 2E days. Speaking for myself, I plan on getting the Expanded Psionics Handbook.

 

[mmadsen]

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?

Back in the old days (i.e., first edition), psionics were the D&D way to create Jedi powers -- that was the allure, back then -- but now that we have d20 Jedi classes, why not use them?

Has anyone here run a "D&D" game using Star Wars rules?

 

[Templetroll]

I sometimes like peanut butter in my chocolate but I do not necessarily like chocolate in my peanut butter.

If the setting has a good reason for having psionics in it then I will play the setting but not necessarily play a psionicist.

DarkSun was/is cool but I would prefer to play a cannibalistic halfling rather than a brain melter.

Darkover would be a waycool setting for psionics and I would play a psionicist about half the time. The other half I would want to play a non-psi just so I could cop an attitude about the psions.

Way back in the day, one guy cheated like crazy on the "random rolls" and always had psionics. He also always had the healing, teleport and all offenses and defenses possible and around 200 psi points (I forget the details, just lots of power.) For some reason his characters always died. but that kinda soured me on psionics in D&D.

In my homebrew the major lich on the world created a barrier to all psi creatures. mind-flayers in my world were the magic blasting types instead of the psi types. they ate brains instead of melting them.

 

[Tessarael]

In Mystara's 2e era was any material ever written that 'placed' psionics in the setting and gave it some specific flavor?

Not that I'm aware of, but I've never been a Mystara DM and I don't read the source material. That said, I've had a number of characters in several different campaigns in the setting. Here are the only times (that I know of) where we've come across psionics:

- Cranium Rats (guessing here, failed spellcraft)
- Mind Flayers
- magic in the Alphatian Home System

Now that last one may have been DM flavor, but it was somewhat cool. "Wait, they don't cast magic like us?"

To the best of my knowledge ...

 

[ChromWolf]

I myself have always liked the concept of Psionics---I wasn't hardcore into gaming back when 2e was the new kid on the block, and never participated in 2e psionics, but I pretty universally hear that 2e psionics were VERY broken. Beyond never having had access to the psionics materials back then, there's not really any reason I didn't play one.

When the original 3.0 Psionics Handbook came out, I was thrilled---I personally like 3.0 MUCH better than 2e, and adding psionics to what I viewed as a "much better balanced and thought out" ruleset (don't bother to argue; I'm not saying that's how it is, just that it's what I think, and it's perfectly okay if it's *not* what you think...). Was it? Well, 3.0 Psionics were certainly cool in their day, IMO, and my group used them. To date, I've made a psion (who went very far, including into Metamind), and two psyhic warriors (one in a campaign that never got off the ground, and the other suffered an unlucky crit), and I enjoyed each of them.

Also, I did find that psionic combat pretty much never happened, as it added a new level of complexity to combat that most other players aren't really willing to sit through... I personally think the removal of psionic combat in the XPH was, overall, a good move---although I enjoyed the depth it added to psionic characters, it seemed a larger hassle than was worth, and was pretty nasty to those with the non-psionic buffer... 2d4 Wisdom damage---heck, even 1d4 Dex damage, for many characters---is pretty darn painful, but nothing compared to being stunned for 2d4 rounds... Or God forbid you choked on your save for Mind Blast---3 to 12 rounds? If the psion was smart, and brought along melee combatants, or has nasty area-effect damage powers himself, he sits back and toasts you. Clearly, there's a balance issue there.

I'll certainly never say that I'll never see a worthwhile psionic opponent, though... the aforementioned githyanki, for example, or if your DM allowed it (and you were playing the with "Psionics Are Different" rule), imagine the Psychic Warrior/Forsaker---You don't need magic... you've got psionics.

As for my homebrew world, I've tried to incorporate psionics directly into it, and *not* have psionics illegal (not everywhere, at least... The city where psionics were legal but magic was not was very fun, if stressful, on my players---made them sweat a little... > )... I like to think it worked out well. After all, not everywhere you go will be somewhere you like. ...Then again, I LOVE having options for my players.... I go to great lengths to make sure that there's PLENTY of different ways to take a character, to the point where a good 2/3rds of the work I do for my world will likely never be used by a PC... And that's okay. As long as they know it's there, then they're the ones that chose not to play it---I never said they couldn't.

Still, I think psionics seems to be "that addon" instead of a part of D&D... I suppose I can *sort* of see the arguement that psionics is a bit too sci-fi, rather than fantasy, but I personally believe that's just cuz things like Star Wars, a sci-fi fantasy (I'd just say sci-fi, but it's been argued that it's more mystical than that), essentially use it (Up the Walls? Telekinesis? Use the Force, Luke.), and have sort of "adopted" it as their own. On the other hand, I think the "psionics isn't present in classic fantasy" arguement is a bit odd... Arguably, *half* the things you find in the PHB, DMG, and MM don't appear in "classic fantasy".... It could be claimed that double-bladed swords shouldn't be included in the PHB, because they weren't actually used anywhere near what other weapons were, because of the realistic training required to wield one. And I've certainly never heard of a double-bladed sword in a tolkein book. And yet, in the PHB its entry sits. So why not psionics?

I never even remotely saw psionics as "steampunk". There's no gunpowder or technology to it, it's just the so-called "power of the mind". Making things happen with nothing more than the power of thought. Barring actual proof that psionic powers really exist (whether or not they do, I will naturally not get into), that sounds pretty "fantasy" to me. ...Still, the terminology doesn't need to define something... We call them dinosaurs. But some say way back when, they were called Dragon... Leviathan... Behemoth... Which is the "right" term? They weren't really called "dinosaurs" until the 1800's--does that mean "dinosaurs" (as in the monsters as listed in the MM) are "not fantasy"?

Honestly, I think people are just putting too much into what "psionics" includes today, and not really letting what they mean to the D&D game itself sink in.

 

[ruemere]

Psionics (XPH) are...
... new rules to learn.
... rule subsystem conflicting (or at best vague with regard to interaction) with magic system.
... unflexible and boring in the long run when compared to spells.

And should be replaced with Monte Cook's Psionics, which...
... use exisitng rules.
... are a part of greater metasystem of magic.
... are flexible, while providing different options to users.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. Death to power points idea. We have slots, dammit!

PS. Edited for the sake of clarity.

 

[berdoingg]

In my medievalish, high-magic campaign I don't allow:

1. Psionics
2. Dinosaurs
3. Guns

I just think they feel anachronistic in my (albeit quite standard Tolkein/Leiber inspired) world.

My players have never complained about this (apart from the guns bit, they really want guns) and have never asked if they could play a psionic character.