Unearthed Arcana Why UA Psionics are never going to work in 5e.

[Aldarc]

The brother's Grimm where German*, so not subjects of Queen Victoria.

Danke, dass Sie mich informiert haben. Ich hätte es nie anders gewusst.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Thank you for letting me know. I never would have known without your insightful tutelage.

When someone talks about the "Victorian Period" I think they are usually referring to stuff within the British Empire. There was no "Victorian Period" for the Grimms.

What happened in Britain under the aging Victoria, and America under Disney, didn't happen elsewhere in the world.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, that makes sense, and I laud the goal, but I think your zeal in pursuing that goal clouds the discussion.

The problem, I think, is that although elements of the fantasy genre are indeed fantastical, that is not what really what defines the fantasy genre. Thus not everything with fantastical elements belongs in the fantasy genre.

So when you use the phrase "science fantasy" to mean "like science fiction, but with pseudo-science", it is easy to misconstrue your intent to mean that it's a blend of the two genres.

Sure, as I wasn't even talking about the genres and you (and others) repeatedly seemed to think I was. I've wasted to much time on this so I will drop it. I wasn't trying to get into a discussion about this, I thought I was just making an obvious point that sci-fi =/= science.

 

[dave2008]

What types of science are there?

For this discussion they would be:
Science: real life hard science
Fictional Science: speculative scientific developments that are based in real life hard science. I.e. something that might be possible as we get better technology and or knowledge. AI is a good example.
Fantasy Science: Something that is impossible or highly improbable based on our understanding of hard science today. PSI abilities are a good example.

I've wasted to much time on this so I will drop it. I wasn't trying to get into a discussion about this, I thought I was just making an obvious point that sci-fi =/= science.

 

[dave2008]

But, you now realize that you are using the terms differently than everyone else right? You've actually stopped communicating and now you are forcing the rest of us to accept your new definitions for words that have well established meaning.

Fine, this is not a discussion I want to be in and not what I was trying to say. I don't really care about the "definition" of sci-fi or fantasy or any genre of fiction or literature / entertainment. It has no meaning in my life. The definition of science, however, does.

But, again, no one in this thread is doing that. I get the impulse, but, these are words with actual definitions. When you start creating your own definitions and then insisting everyone else use your definitions, then all you are doing is confusing the issue.

I am not insisting anyone take my definitions or even get into a discussion. I made what I thought was an obvious statement that sci-fi =/= science and that we need to be careful how we use those terms in society today (USA). Then people kept implying I said something else and I ended up defending or clarify what I was saying, but it never seemed to help.

I was never talking about science fiction and fantasy genres. I was talking about science, fiction, and fantasy and I even posted the dictionary definitions of those words to be clear how I was using them. So if you or others on this forum are using a different definition, than that is not my issue. I used the words according to the established definition, people just seemed to think I was talking about something else guess.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sure, as I wasn't even talking about the genres and you (and others) repeatedly seemed to think I was. I've wasted to much time on this so I will drop it. I wasn't trying to get into a discussion about this, I thought I was just making an obvious point that sci-fi =/= science.

Yes, it is obvious. Maybe that's what sandbagged us. We thought there was must be something deeper, and more relevant to the discussion.

I do think you're missing the point about our attempts to "define" the genres, though.

I, too, think it's largely a futile, pointless exercise. But there is a nugget of something relevant to this discussion. Somebody (Hussar?) said something about the Venn diagram, and how it's impossible to define the edges, and we can only define the centers. I think that's a really useful way of thinking about it here.

This all started with assertions that psionics don't really belong in fantasy; they're a sci-fi trope. Is this an important thing to discuss? Will it have any influence on WotC? Or even on posters with firm opinions? No.

But it's an interesting question, and we are (most of us) stuck at home, and many of us have insightful things to add that provoke thinking.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh yes, it something that has been evolving for longer than D&D as been around, but the various iterations have been based on the zeitgeist at the time it was created. So Gygax's 1st edition psionics is based on that "post-1950s sci-fi". We see a strong comic book influence in 2nd-3rd edition (especially X-men), and then in 5e the Psi Knight lifted straight from Star Wars.

I wouldn't lump 2e and 3e together like that. 2e was more of, "What would 1e psionics look like if we made it a class?" 3e went over the top with energy attacks, summoned constructs and such, and was more X-Men like.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I wouldn't lump 2e and 3e together like that. 2e was more of, "What would 1e psionics look like if we made it a class?" 3e went over the top with energy attacks, summoned constructs and such, and was more X-Men like.

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether to put 2nd edition in with 3rd, I agree with your interpretation.

 

[dave2008]

I do think you're missing the point about our attempts to "define" the genres, though.

I don't want to define the genres, I only mentioned them to try and clarify that was not what I was talking about; or gave my opinion when asked, without putting much thought into it. I agree it can be interesting, but not what I am interested in at the moment.

 

[Chaosmancer]

They all, however, deal with issues of identity, particularly in contrast with changing culture. Either the world changing around the protagonist, or the protagonist changing beyond the pace of the world. What does it mean to be human? What is moral and/or ethical?

The more I think through sci-fi stories I can bring to mind, the more common this one trait is: It asks a question that touches on ethics, morality, choice, or identity, and tries to explore how that question can be answered.

Fantasy, on the other hand, does not. It never tries to question the self; rather, it tries to manifest the inner self. Farm boy to hero. Believe in yourself. Destiny. Morality is simple; it's assumed to be true. You're the hero, and must defeat the enemy. It's a matter of holding onto your morals, and avoiding being corrupted (eg: Lord of the Rings).

I know you said this isn't a research paper, and my response obviously isn't, but this is just wrong.

Not only do we have JRR Tolkien's work which in part is a reflection on the War and industrialization, even things like The Wizard of Oz is full of allegories of a changing culture and people's place within it. Heck, I've never read it, but I'd guarantee that A Song of Fire and Ice deals heavily in Moral and Ethical questions.

On my bookshelf I have The Hollows series, The Mercy Thompson series, and the Kate Daniels series all of which deals with how humanity might react to magic appearing in the world, and touch on issues of class, various -isms that divide us (race, sex, gender, wealth, ect) and people just struggling to find their own place in the world.

The Stormlight Archive has no good and evil (even the big omnipotent evil force is actually just the emotion of Passion taken to the extreme) and focuses on how broken people try to hold themselves together and reach towards a moral ideal, even though they will always fall short.

Another one I've never read, but The Black Company certainly has never sounded like something with Destiny and simple morality.

And Sci-Fi? I'm not familiar with many sci-fi books, but let us take a moment for science fiction movies.

Pacific Rim? A straight Good vs Evil believe in yourself story.

Independence Day? Same thing

Avatar? Seems pretty simplistic in its presentation of morality.

Transformers? Heck, Power Rangers has some series that are completely science fiction, with no magic just "alien technology" like the Chrono-Rangers or Light Speed Rescue.


You may decide to argue that none of these simple Sci-Fi stories are "good" science fiction, but they are science fiction. And I'm sure if I went out on Amazon and looked for "valiant humanity fighting against the alien threat" I'd find quite a few black and white tales that don't try and make any deep statements.

Both genres have both sides, this is not a way to distinguish between them.