So, Psionics, What Do You Think?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
They don't see a lot of use at my table outside superhero or modern horror campaigns.

That said, I did think the Expanded Psionic Handbook was a highlight for 3.5 Edition Dungeons & Dragons. The Psion is a very well-balanced class in that system. I played in a short psionic-focused campaign and would happily referee one.
 
I played in a short psionic-focused campaign and would happily referee one.
Does "psionic-focused" mean that there weren't any other caster-types, or just that they weren't emphazied?

Has anyone played in a D&D-type game where the magic system was completely replaced with psionics?
 
Does "psionic-focused" mean that there weren't any other caster-types, or just that they weren't emphazied?

Has anyone played in a D&D-type game where the magic system was completely replaced with psionics?

Yes.

Only Humans and Elans. Fighters, Rogues and the psionic classes.
 
The most bizarre element of a psionics only campaign is the amount of thought that goes into protecting your character's psionically focused condition while disrupting it in your enemies. That's how our "mundane" human rogue proved most valuable.
 
Yeah, I'm a big fan of psionics in fantasy, less so in SF. I do like that it presents a different flavor of "magic" other than spellbooks and incantations.

No implementation of Psionics in D&D and clones has been perfect to my mind:
  • Psionicist's Handbook (2e) and the accompanying Dragon articles presented some excellent Deryni-like flavor, but the rules left something to be desired.
  • Skills & Powers psionics rules were broken... you took more damage from a psionic attack than you inflicted.
  • 3e Psionics handbook wasted too much time fretting over stuff like making game effects treat it as orthogonal to magic. Nice they were going for ways to make it orthogonal to magic, but it was lots of effort to little effect and very artificial. And the classes were sort of weak sauce compared to core caster.
  • 3.5 made their classes much stronger, but I really loathed some of the new classes like Soulknife, and overall they lost a lot of their unique flavor from the 2e era.
  • Pathfinder had the Occult Handbook. It's classes didn't have a strong flavor in my mind. They did have a psychic class which felt a lot like a sorcerer with a different brand of spells. They did have a nice little subsystem for mental components which was hitting the right buttons for me in making it feel a bit different from core magic.
  • I did like a lot of the third party stuff by Dreamscarred. I eventually grafted on some of the mechanics from Occult Handbook to it to get a psionics system I liked.
 
If you want spheres of magic than I guess Psionics owns mind stuff (Telepathy, tele-sending, exploding skulls scanner style), moving stuff by thinking about it rather than using another force to do so (Telekinesis), which then can evolve to altering temperature (Firestarter) and transporting yourself (Teleportation).

This is more or less how I handle it in a system I have been working on recently. "Magic"/Supernatural stuff is handled through thematic "Effect Pools" that characters must purchase to gain access to effects they can use as magic. One type of Effect Pools is group by Spheres/Domains and "psionic" characters would just pick the mental stuff. "Wizards" who want mind control stuff also pick mental effect pools. The pools are divided into 12 domains grouped into 6 spheres: Artificial (Creation/Enchantment), Dimensional (Space/Time), Elemental (Energy/Matter), Mental (Psychokinesis/Telepathy), Primal (Animals/Plants) and Vital (Life/Death).

If I was using that for a sci-fi setting, I'd just limit the spheres to mental and maybe dimensional or something.
 
A near miss for my Appendix N post was Julian May's Saga of the Exiles. Which I've never been sure if it a sci fi series with fantasy trappings, or a fantasy series with sci fi trimmings.

But the idea of Psychic Space Elves and Space Dwarves is one that really appeals to me.
 
Ah, that is probably more complex than I'd probably go for, but it has some interesting considerations about how to handle magic energies and such. I tend to prefer a more simplified effect-focused approach to define different types of universal supernatural effect groups along the lines of your mentalist disciplines, but including non-mental stuff as well, then leave out the psionic vs magic specific stuff to a combination of RP, specializations, and maybe special methods of facilitating the generation those (otherwise generic/universal) powers along the lines of what you describe here for magic. Which could be used modularly to supplement the core rules for power usage.
I can't really parse what you are describing, but the goal was to create a system that mirrored real-world magical beliefs that still, in essence allows players to do anything, working within a very specific framework. It's not complex, actually really simple once a player knows the laws and familiarizes themselves with the Arts, it just causes them to approach things in a specific way, unlike Pionics and Powers, which are clearly defined abilities.

But then "effects-based" is the opposite of FASERIP (or Phaserip)'s approach. There's enough effects-based systems on the market I think.
 
  • 3.5 made their classes much stronger, but I really loathed some of the new classes like Soulknife, and overall they lost a lot of their unique flavor from the 2e era.

I've never known anyone play the Soulknife. Even the (thoroughly basic) psychic warrior got picked over the Soulknife in my groups.

Actual quote from a fellow player; "I'm not playing a soulknife, that's a stupid name."
 
Seems we have gotten into rules for Psionics. The rules under D&D (any edition) are the last place I'd look. The first rules I saw that would consider as a basis for building on would be Traveller, and then some very interesting concepts in Aftermath! (especially how other aspects of your character are amplified/serve as the basis for the effects of your powers).

Interested in hearing about other rule systems, I kind of stopped really looking decades ago after just made my own system that does everything I want without excessive book keeping. Perhaps this is more for another thread. Here trying to stick to the flavor I like, what I want a psionic system to do, and how incorporate in in various genres, or not.
 
How would you handle that distinction in practical game terms, though? Not asking just you specifically, but anyone who feels this way, since this is a sentiment I often see come up when discussing psionics.

Generally I treat psionics as a phenomenon like magic that has its own history (i.e. it exits for a reason, I as a GM know) and I apply that history to the context of the setting.

So - psionics and its practice necessitates the development of its own culture within my setting. Before I just wing it out there for players, I need to know the following

How prevalent is it?
How does one develop it? Random? Generational? Teachable? Can it be imparted through established methods?
How do traditional magic-users view it? Are they compatible? (usually in my game they aren't - but if it is, then I make it a very special thing like the Mystic Theurge PRC.
How does the public view it? Do they even make distinctions between it and Magic? do they even know about it at all?

Anyhow once I know this stuff I create the social constructs required to emulate those parameters in-setting.

So there might be an Order of ascetics that solely practice Psionics (they think) and they have some social mission in the world to do <X>.

Or it might be a "newly discovered" school of magic that all the spellcasters can't seem to master... but the new practitioners of this discipline seem to be able to do things traditional spellcasters can't (of course they haven't learned any of the downsides of it either which I will also drop on them in-game as a nasty surprise).

Or it might be some forgotten discipline that is newly discovered by adventurers. Where they find out that there are secret societies that still practice these arts.

I *never* let magic or psionics just exist "because" the rules say so. I find players like belonging to something bigger by contextualizing their abilities into something established (even if its extinct - the mere knowledge they possess something that was part of the setting makes them feel embedded).

In a system like FASERIP, for example, psionics are just handled through the power system just like everything else. But a magician would still have access to stuff like Telepathy or Mind Control, and the distinctions would just be handled thematically part of the character's background and the use of the Mystic Origin talent. But mechanically they all work on Power Rank intensity generating the specified effects, just like every other power.
Oh man, this is a good point. And it's something I try to teach new GM's about Supers too. I've noticed a LOT of Supers GM's (and Fantasy GM's too) ***hate*** things like Telepathy in particular when it comes to Psionics. There are reasons for this - one of them I call the "What's in the Box?" phenomenon, where PC's open up objects in a game and the GM gets flustered by having to extemporaneously decided what the fuck is in the box that they just had in the scene for window-dressing. Asking to read an NPC's mind is literally an open-ended version of that phenomenon.

ANYHOW... back to Supers. My solution is simple and designed to add value to the context of the game and its players (that possess psionics). I make Psionics social.

What does that mean? Consider Marvel's Magic Community. Dr. Strange is the Sorcerer Supreme. But all of his interactions are with entities invisible (largely) to the public. But there are werewolves, vampires, magical societies, entities, extradimensional escapees/refugees/invaders all lurking in the shadows, using and abusing the same energies and powers, and invoking those energies from extradimensional sources all at the same time, against one another in the shadows. We call it "Magic". Magical heroes and villains *all* know one another (or at least know of one another if you're worth your salt).

I make Psionics no different. Professor X, Emma Frost, The Shadow King, Betsy Braddock, etc. etc. Telepaths specifically - I consider the "royalty" of the Psionic users. And I don't mean this literally, of course, but I place special dispensation on Telepaths because they can access "The Astral" plane which I'll broadly use as dimension of pure abstract thought. And I'll riff off it taking elements of D&D's Astral/Ethereal cosmological conceits (like shallow/deep) including populating it with entities (and monsters) that inhabit it. It's a place of wonder and terror to the uninitiated. And because it's non-local, it literally is what allows telepaths to do what they do (even if they don't know it).

So for Psionic characters in my Supers game, it's a shadow-society of sorts. Less codified than the Magical realms (who can access the Astral naturally) but natively when people "go Astral" they're really just in the shallow-Astral. Most magical astral travel is just that, skimming the surface of a much deeper dimension they know little about. It also allows for an environment where psychic phenomenon and magical phenomenon can connect. Which is something you see ALL the time in movies and fiction.

Psionics in my Supers game is very much a social thing at *some* point. And it's pretty exclusive even internally to other psionic characters that don't start with access (if ever) to this realm of play. But invariably it WILL come up. It also gives more context to the psionic villains. It either deepens their villainy or softens it. Emma Frost is a very powerful villain, but in my games she's also a major player in the psionic world that knows *real* monsters are out there, and she'll help the PC's against them, if only for her own mutual benefit. I've had shard-worlds, mental constructs where Psionic characters can meet others across vast distances - while you think your fellow PC is sitting in his room meditating, he's really having a meeting with some other telepaths (and maybe some non-TP hitchhikers linked to those TP's, talking about issues going on in different places - some places not even on Earth).

TL/DR - I make Psionics have their own community and deeper context to approach what you see in the Magic communities of my setting.



How much does it really add to the play experience to separate different styles of supernatural abilities at a core mechanical level and treat them as fundamentally distinct abilities, vs simply treating them like an RP or stylistic element as part of the character's background (or perhaps like situation modifiers like Shamans vs Hermetic Mages in Shadowrun)? Particularly considering that many of them do mostly the same thing.
Mechanically? Not much. Ironman's repulsors are Force Bolts, just like Dr. Strange's Eldritch Bolts are Force Bolts. Just like the Thing throws a rock at you which is a Force attack.

Contextually? Oh baby, it's WORLDS different. There is a reason why Tony Stark isn't the Sorcerer Supreme, right? Or the Thing isn't taking on the Shadow King in psychic combat (conversely the Shadow King isn't taking the Thing on in the Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation).

Mechanics are just expressions of how the characters do what they do. Context is where the flavor is.
 
Mechanics are just expressions of how the characters do what they do. Context is where the flavor is.

I don't completely agree, in that I think mechanics can be used to model the context.

But that's probably why effects-based systems like Hero don't inspire me the same way as FASERIP.

Sure you can start with the effect "blast" and then leave the context to define that as Human Torch's fireball, or Tony Stark's Repulsor Beam, or Psylocke's Psibolt, or Dr, Strange's Eldritch Ray, but I personally prefer an approach where the mechanics impart a different flavour and induce a different approach on behalf of the player

So, while the human Torch just says "Flame Off!" and hurles a fireball...
Tony Stark can reroute some of the energy to maintaining his forcefield to project a repulsor bolt
or Psylocke can draw upon her Willpower to manifest a concentrated psychic energy field that weaponizes her stress, disrupting the neurons of those in comes into contact with
or Dr Strange can utilize the law of law of reciprocity to bind an opponent to the flow of Fate, causing the harm they caused to others to be inflicted back upon themselves.

That first option is always there to fall back upon - simply model everything with Powers, but by providing a structure that shows how a character specifically goes about accomplishing things, and the forcing them to operate within a particular framework that forms the identity of their abilities, I think this both imparts individual flavour through the mechanics and also encourages player creativity by focusing their perception of their abilities towards the way their character views their reality.
 
The word 'psionics' reminds me of those old 50s scifi magazines that tried to push it as science. Categorized under names like 'psychometry' and 'telepathy' that don't really explain anything. Edging closer to superpowers.

I prefer the flavor depicted in movies like 'The Gift', where it's a strange and unreliable power that a person inherits... or maybe has thrust upon them due to an accident, near death experience, a tumor or a bad batch of cocaine. Everyone with it manifests it a bit differently and has different 'rituals' they've created for themselves to get it to work.
The book 'N0S4A2' has a girl who can find things/teleport using a bike and another who uses a bag of scrabble pieces. Someone like the kid in 'The Sixth Sense' can't really control it at all. The book 'Strange Toys' has a pair of sisters who come up with their own homebrew system involving dolls, but who later engage in actual occult study.
So it's a personal talent, not taught.

Comparing it to magic (or wild Kung Fu 'qi' powers) I'd say it's the same stuff, but studied and formalized to manifest the power in people who might not have the raw talent. Probably still personalized to some extent.
So a magic school or a psionic institute are the same sort of place, meant to train up the ability to push your brain into the space where those things can happen... but still strange and unreliable, potentially dangerous.

I'm not sure what system maintains the flavor I'd want for all of that, magic wielding PCs not in complete control and lots of personal quirks... DCC comes close, and has a fan 'zine covering psychic powers that I have yet to read.
 
The word 'psionics' reminds me of those old 50s scifi magazines that tried to push it as science. Categorized under names like 'psychometry' and 'telepathy' that don't really explain anything. Edging closer to superpowers.

I prefer the flavor depicted in movies like 'The Gift', where it's a strange and unreliable power that a person inherits... or maybe has thrust upon them due to an accident, near death experience, a tumor or a bad batch of cocaine. Everyone with it manifests it a bit differently and has different 'rituals' they've created for themselves to get it to work.
The book 'N0S4A2' has a girl who can find things/teleport using a bike and another who uses a bag of scrabble pieces. Someone like the kid in 'The Sixth Sense' can't really control it at all. The book 'Strange Toys' has a pair of sisters who come up with their own homebrew system involving dolls, but who later engage in actual occult study.
So it's a personal talent, not taught.

Comparing it to magic (or wild Kung Fu 'qi' powers) I'd say it's the same stuff, but studied and formalized to manifest the power in people who might not have the raw talent. Probably still personalized to some extent.
So a magic school or a psionic institute are the same sort of place, meant to train up the ability to push your brain into the space where those things can happen... but still strange and unreliable, potentially dangerous.

I'm not sure what system maintains the flavor I'd want for all of that, magic wielding PCs not in complete control and lots of personal quirks... DCC comes close, and has a fan 'zine covering psychic powers that I have yet to read.

Unknown Armies, maybe?
 
Oh I know, but had to get some more Hawkwind in there, so changed sonic to psionic :smile: Sonic Attack blew my mind first time I heard it.
Mine too. I had the Masters of the Universe album and I stand by every track on it as being a work of psychedelic genius. And Lemmy's bass too. Like a visit from some weird alien life form made of music.
 
How would you handle that distinction in practical game terms, though? Not asking just you specifically, but anyone who feels this way, since this is a sentiment I often see come up when discussing psionics....

Harkening to a point you made that damage is damage. Agree to an extent, in part a distinction can be made in types of damage fire vs ice are going to have different limitations and a system can readily give them additional effects in addition to pure damage, such as fire can set things on fire, ice can cause things to crack/slow you down. Similar concepts can be applied to magic vs psionics.

Below I tend to put more mechanical barriers on psionics because of (2); mundane means can often be used to constrain a wizard, a psion generally not.

As to magic vs psionic a couple was to distinguish (in no particular order):
(1) effects possible: some things are possible to do with magic and not psionics and vice versa. E.g., psionics can't do necromancy.
(2) the way the effect is created is different: magic often requires more than mere thought, words, gestures and components; while Psionics due not, they often simply require thought. This gives advantage to a psionic as while a bound and gagged wizard can't use magic, being bound and gagged will not limit the psionic.
(3) the speed of the effect is different: spells often take time, while psionic may not...but this is not necessarily the case.
(4) targeting: part of mechanics actually but a simple distinction, spells that shoot forth a missile may require a hit roll (that is the missile is not self guiding), while psionic power projection may not as the power isguided the whole way by the mind.
(5) the way the effect is created is different in degree and/or kind: for example a Heal spell may be easy peasy cures a certain number of HP, while psionic Healing is more akin to that of The Empath in Star Trek, you take the wounds upon yourself, which implies more limitations and risk but perhaps not as constrained in how many HP can be healed.
(6) items: magical power lends itself to items others can use, from potions, to scrolls to swords, psionic items tend to only be usable by psionics and sometimes they are not usable by anyone else.
(7) mechanics: not just that you use mana with magic skills to fuel spells and use psi with psi skills to perform psionics (not that there is anything wrong with that and 1-4 above may be enough to distinguish), but a different approach. For example, perhaps magic has a chance to fail and only consumes a mana resource to use, while psionics have no chance to fail but in addition to consuming a psi resource also consume physical resource like fatigue, or HP, etc. There are many ways to do this, one simple one is spells are fire and forget and psionics are not. Part of this can relate to different drawbacks.
(8) character resources: by this I meant to be a great wizard vs. great psion what attributes, and other character defining things are crucial to being powerful. The more required the harder it will be, but also they can simply be different. For example, a wizard may only need to be concerned about intelligence and mana; while a psion may need to be concerned about willpower and psi power and HP and perhaps other attributes as well.
(9) defenses: difference in kind as well as degree; for example: it may be hard to stop magic except with magic, perhaps though certain helmets can stop psionic mind reading powers.

That is the short list. It really isn't conceptually hard at all to distinguish them. The problem in my view comes in with people not being able to think outside the box of what has come before, and not paying attention to the details on how rules work out in play. The latter is easily discovered and adjusted for by good play testing.
 
I don't completely agree, in that I think mechanics can be used to model the context.

But that's probably why effects-based systes like Hero don't inspire me the same way as FASERIP.

Sure you can start with the effect "blast" and then leave the cntext to define that as Human Torch's fireball, or Tony Stark's Repulsor Beam, or Psylocke's Psibolt, or Dr, Strange's Eldritch Ray, but I personally prefer an approach where the mechanics impart a different flavour and induce a different approach on behalf of the player

So, while the human Torch just says "Flame Off!" and hurles a fireball...
Tony Stark can reroute some of the energy to maintaining his forcefield to project a repulsor bolt
or Psylocke can draw upon her Willpower to manifest a concentrated psychic energy field that weaponizes her stress, disrupting the neurons of those in comes into contact with
or Dr Strange can utlize the law of law of reciprocity to bind an opponent to the flow of Fat, causing the harm they caused to others to be inflicted back upon themselves.

That first option is always there to fall back upon - simply model everything with Powers, but by providing a structure that shows how a character specifically goes about accomplishing things, and the forcing them to operate within a particular framework that forms the identity of their abilities, I hink this both imparts individual flavour through the mechanics and also encourages player creativity by focusing their perception of their abilities towards the way their character views their reality.
Yep. We're on the same page. I was speaking to the surface assumptions of mechanics.

The deeper you contextualize these powers the more the actual differences come into play. Especially for Magic.
 
Going along with your class question. I split them out as a separate path, so if good in the role of psionic you cannot be as good in some other role as a non-psionic could be. Can do it by class features, point cost, many ways. Same as I view magic vs non-magic.

On psionic I tend to treat them differently than magic if they exist with magic, otherwise what is the point of the name but flavor.

I want my psionics to be able to emulate (at some point in character progression) what have seen in movies and books I've read. Like Fire Starter (Stephen King), The Demolished Man (Alfred Bester), World of Ptavvs (Larry Niven), Psion (Joan Vinge), Caverns (Kevin O'Donnell, Jr.), Babylon 5, Star Wars, Jumper (2008), Push (2009).
...of course with limitations/need to really level up to emulate certain powers. Most fiction show the psionic paying a price to use powers...always nose bleeds it seems. :smile:

EDIT: can’t believe forgot mystical like martial arts. I consider such as in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) and many powers of the Bene Gesserit to be forms of psionics so want to be able to emulate those as well.
Quoting myself so as not an edit to an older post, but also can't believe had forgotten David Brin (Uplift series).
Also want rules that cover the Acceptor -ab Tandu, -ab N'8ght; and Epsisiarch -ab Tandu, -ab N'8ght (to use their full names :smile: )
 
Yep. We're on the same page. I was speaking to the surface assumptions of mechanics.

The deeper you contextualize these powers the more the actual differences come into play. Especially for Magic.
For me in a SuperHeros game I might not be too concerned about differentiation. In fact, if they are very similar then it might lead to existential questions like what is magic, what are powers, why does context seem to matter? Of course if going for a specific universe one should try to get the feel right.
 
Generally I treat psionics as a phenomenon like magic that has its own history (i.e. it exits for a reason, I as a GM know) and I apply that history to the context of the setting.

So - psionics and its practice necessitates the development of its own culture within my setting. Before I just wing it out there for players, I need to know the following

How prevalent is it?
How does one develop it? Random? Generational? Teachable? Can it be imparted through established methods?
How do traditional magic-users view it? Are they compatible? (usually in my game they aren't - but if it is, then I make it a very special thing like the Mystic Theurge PRC.
How does the public view it? Do they even make distinctions between it and Magic? do they even know about it at all?

Anyhow once I know this stuff I create the social constructs required to emulate those parameters in-setting.

So there might be an Order of ascetics that solely practice Psionics (they think) and they have some social mission in the world to do <X>.

Or it might be a "newly discovered" school of magic that all the spellcasters can't seem to master... but the new practitioners of this discipline seem to be able to do things traditional spellcasters can't (of course they haven't learned any of the downsides of it either which I will also drop on them in-game as a nasty surprise).

Or it might be some forgotten discipline that is newly discovered by adventurers. Where they find out that there are secret societies that still practice these arts.

I *never* let magic or psionics just exist "because" the rules say so. I find players like belonging to something bigger by contextualizing their abilities into something established (even if its extinct - the mere knowledge they possess something that was part of the setting makes them feel embedded).


Oh man, this is a good point. And it's something I try to teach new GM's about Supers too. I've noticed a LOT of Supers GM's (and Fantasy GM's too) ***hate*** things like Telepathy in particular when it comes to Psionics. There are reasons for this - one of them I call the "What's in the Box?" phenomenon, where PC's open up objects in a game and the GM gets flustered by having to extemporaneously decided what the fuck is in the box that they just had in the scene for window-dressing. Asking to read an NPC's mind is literally an open-ended version of that phenomenon.

ANYHOW... back to Supers. My solution is simple and designed to add value to the context of the game and its players (that possess psionics). I make Psionics social.

What does that mean? Consider Marvel's Magic Community. Dr. Strange is the Sorcerer Supreme. But all of his interactions are with entities invisible (largely) to the public. But there are werewolves, vampires, magical societies, entities, extradimensional escapees/refugees/invaders all lurking in the shadows, using and abusing the same energies and powers, and invoking those energies from extradimensional sources all at the same time, against one another in the shadows. We call it "Magic". Magical heroes and villains *all* know one another (or at least know of one another if you're worth your salt).

I make Psionics no different. Professor X, Emma Frost, The Shadow King, Betsy Braddock, etc. etc. Telepaths specifically - I consider the "royalty" of the Psionic users. And I don't mean this literally, of course, but I place special dispensation on Telepaths because they can access "The Astral" plane which I'll broadly use as dimension of pure abstract thought. And I'll riff off it taking elements of D&D's Astral/Ethereal cosmological conceits (like shallow/deep) including populating it with entities (and monsters) that inhabit it. It's a place of wonder and terror to the uninitiated. And because it's non-local, it literally is what allows telepaths to do what they do (even if they don't know it).

So for Psionic characters in my Supers game, it's a shadow-society of sorts. Less codified than the Magical realms (who can access the Astral naturally) but natively when people "go Astral" they're really just in the shallow-Astral. Most magical astral travel is just that, skimming the surface of a much deeper dimension they know little about. It also allows for an environment where psychic phenomenon and magical phenomenon can connect. Which is something you see ALL the time in movies and fiction.

Psionics in my Supers game is very much a social thing at *some* point. And it's pretty exclusive even internally to other psionic characters that don't start with access (if ever) to this realm of play. But invariably it WILL come up. It also gives more context to the psionic villains. It either deepens their villainy or softens it. Emma Frost is a very powerful villain, but in my games she's also a major player in the psionic world that knows *real* monsters are out there, and she'll help the PC's against them, if only for her own mutual benefit. I've had shard-worlds, mental constructs where Psionic characters can meet others across vast distances - while you think your fellow PC is sitting in his room meditating, he's really having a meeting with some other telepaths (and maybe some non-TP hitchhikers linked to those TP's, talking about issues going on in different places - some places not even on Earth).

TL/DR - I make Psionics have their own community and deeper context to approach what you see in the Magic communities of my setting.




Mechanically? Not much. Ironman's repulsors are Force Bolts, just like Dr. Strange's Eldritch Bolts are Force Bolts. Just like the Thing throws a rock at you which is a Force attack.

Contextually? Oh baby, it's WORLDS different. There is a reason why Tony Stark isn't the Sorcerer Supreme, right? Or the Thing isn't taking on the Shadow King in psychic combat (conversely the Shadow King isn't taking the Thing on in the Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation).

Mechanics are just expressions of how the characters do what they do. Context is where the flavor is.

A lot this reinforces my view that a lot of the distinction between magic and psionics, is largely stylistic and RP rather than fundamental. In the case of magic vs technology the differences are more marked, because even though both could potentially produce a "Force Bolt" attack, the way they would do it is different enough as to operate under different mechanics even if the end result is the same, since Ironman's suit and similar technology might require technical knowledge to build, fix or operate, and could be affected by different things (computer viruses, EMP blasts, etc.) than a magical device, spell or power. Depending on the system, you might require a different skill check to even make the attack. But outside of D&D's "Wizards use Int, Clerics and Psionicists use Wis" distinctions most supernatural stuff tends to operate under the same types of skills and attributes (usually some variation of willpower and mysticism skill), or at least can be handled that way.

Another nitpick is the idea that telepaths can see the Astral plane in your world. The issue with that is that in many works of fiction and game systems, so can wizards, which again reinforces my view that psionics are just a variant of mages, perhaps more focused on mentalist schools of magic or mystical activity. I always hated the way that D&D wizards can't even detect magic without wasting a spell slot. If it were up to me, all magic users would be like Shadowrun mages, who all can look into the Astral plane.
 
A lot this reinforces my view that a lot of the distinction between magic and psionics, is largely stylistic and RP rather than fundamental. In the case of magic vs technology the differences are more marked, because even though both could potentially produce a "Force Bolt" attack, the way they would do it is different enough as to operate under different mechanics even if the end result is the same, since Ironman's suit and similar technology might require technical knowledge to build, fix or operate, and could be affected by different things (computer viruses, EMP blasts, etc.) than a magical device, spell or power. Depending on the system, you might require a different skill check to even make the attack. But outside of D&D's "Wizards use Int, Clerics and Psionicists use Wis" distinctions most supernatural stuff tends to operate under the same types of skills and attributes (usually some variation of willpower and mysticism skill), or at least can be handled that way.

Another nitpick is the idea that telepaths can see the Astral plane in your world. The issue with that is that in many works of fiction and game systems, so can wizards, which again reinforces my view that psionics are just a variant of mages, perhaps more focused on mentalist schools of magic or mystical activity. I always hated the way that D&D wizards can't even detect magic without wasting a spell slot. If it were up to me, all magic users would be like Shadowrun mages, who all can look into the Astral plane.

The thing here is that psionics come out of pseudo-science and sf and Science Fantasy where it was usually the go-to rationalization for magic.

Essentially 'what we called magic was really psionics mannn!!'

So I think there are good reasons to keep it distinct from magic. Psionics has more of a pseudo-scientific explanation with a dash of mysticism whereas magic is straight-up mysticism.

If I recall right Pratt's excellent The Blue Star 'explains' magic as psionics as does some of the wild Science Fantasy by Van Vogt and early Andre Norton.

So having both actual magic and actual psionics in the same setting is a bit odd but that's D&D for you!

Although to be fair most of the Science Fantasy pulp writers weren't that particular about their science or explanations for magic, they frequently mixed sf and fantasy concepts at will so it isn't like D&D doesn't have some precedence for it.
 
Harkening to a point you made that damage is damage. Agree to an extent, in part a distinction can be made in types of damage fire vs ice are going to have different limitations and a system can readily give them additional effects in addition to pure damage, such as fire can set things on fire, ice can cause things to crack/slow you down. Similar concepts can be applied to magic vs psionics.

Yeah, I didn't think to make that disclaimer, but different damage types exist. My point was more that they're all handled mechanically mostly the same way, and distinctions are more about source in terms of gear/technology vs trained abilities vs supernatural powers vs natural powers vs environmental hazards, which may have different mechanics when it comes to actually delivering that damage. But damage from supernatural powers could be handled the same way, barring differences between damage types and such.

Below I tend to put more mechanical barriers on psionics because of (2); mundane means can often be used to constrain a wizard, a psion generally not.

As to magic vs psionic a couple was to distinguish (in no particular order):
(1) effects possible: some things are possible to do with magic and not psionics and vice versa. E.g., psionics can't do necromancy.
(2) the way the effect is created is different: magic often requires more than mere thought, words, gestures and components; while Psionics due not, they often simply require thought. This gives advantage to a psionic as while a bound and gagged wizard can't use magic, being bound and gagged will not limit the psionic.
(3) the speed of the effect is different: spells often take time, while psionic may not...but this is not necessarily the case.
(4) targeting: part of mechanics actually but a simple distinction, spells that shoot forth a missile may require a hit roll (that is the missile is not self guiding), while psionic power projection may not as the power isguided the whole way by the mind.
(5) the way the effect is created is different in degree and/or kind: for example a Heal spell may be easy peasy cures a certain number of HP, while psionic Healing is more akin to that of The Empath in Star Trek, you take the wounds upon yourself, which implies more limitations and risk but perhaps not as constrained in how many HP can be healed.
(6) items: magical power lends itself to items others can use, from potions, to scrolls to swords, psionic items tend to only be usable by psionics and sometimes they are not usable by anyone else.
(7) mechanics: not just that you use mana with magic skills to fuel spells and use psi with psi skills to perform psionics (not that there is anything wrong with that and 1-4 above may be enough to distinguish), but a different approach. For example, perhaps magic has a chance to fail and only consumes a mana resource to use, while psionics have no chance to fail but in addition to consuming a psi resource also consume physical resource like fatigue, or HP, etc. There are many ways to do this, one simple one is spells are fire and forget and psionics are not. Part of this can relate to different drawbacks.
(8) character resources: by this I meant to be a great wizard vs. great psion what attributes, and other character defining things are crucial to being powerful. The more required the harder it will be, but also they can simply be different. For example, a wizard may only need to be concerned about intelligence and mana; while a psion may need to be concerned about willpower and psi power and HP and perhaps other attributes as well.
(9) defenses: difference in kind as well as degree; for example: it may be hard to stop magic except with magic, perhaps though certain helmets can stop psionic mind reading powers.

That is the short list. It really isn't conceptually hard at all to distinguish them. The problem in my view comes in with people not being able to think outside the box of what has come before, and not paying attention to the details on how rules work out in play. The latter is easily discovered and adjusted for by good play testing.

A lot of these are potential distinctions that could work in a specific game or setting, but aren't necessarily fundamental distinctions conceptually speaking between magic and psionics. They could work if you want to handle magic vs psionics that way in your game, but aren't necessarily the only or most obvious way to handle either, and tend to fall into what I would consider artificial distinctions to justify keeping them separate for "it's a game" purposes, rather than stuff that truly emphasize their differences, like in Tristan's write up where he explained the way he handles it in Phaserip.

1) Generally this tends to work in only one direction. Magic can usually do anything that psionics can do, but not the other way around. Telepathy, psychokinesis, mind reading, mind control, etc. ALL of this stuff can be done through magic without calling it "psionics". Psionics tend to operate more like a school of magic than a fundamentally separate ability.
2) This one depends a lot on the system, and tends to be more prevalent in D&D than other games. But it's probably the most solid distinction conceptually speaking if you want to work off those classic trappings of "wizards need words and gestures, psionicists don't".
3) "but this is not necessarily the case" Pretty much.
4) This also depends on the system, as well as the type of effect being created. Some magic effects might also target the subject of the effect directly or be self-guided.
5) Some spells may also work the same way as the example you provide. There's no fundamental reason why psionic healing couldn't heal the target without transferring the damage to the psionicist. It could go either way. And the distinction would probably exist mostly for class-style niche protection, rather than because psionics have to work that way, which would be a metagame design consideration.
6) This doesn't necessarily has to be that way, and there are instances where it could be the inverse (only wizards can use magic wands).
7+) This might be a way to do it, but a lot of it feels artificial and potentially applicable to either one. Magic could also cause stamina or HP damage too.
 
A lot this reinforces my view that a lot of the distinction between magic and psionics, is largely stylistic and RP rather than fundamental. ...
That I agree with but doesn't mean it cannot be done and done well. What of the stuff that does not reinforce your view? That is more where you'll find what you are looking for to distinguish.
 
That I agree with but doesn't mean it cannot be done and done well. What of the stuff that does not reinforce your view? That is more where you'll find what you are looking for to distinguish.
Some of what Tristan brought up regarding the different ways wizards go about gathering their magic energy or calling upon supernatural entities might be more along the lines of a more clear cut distinction, since that's something that's decidedly wizard-like but has little to do with psionics. Another thing might be the idea of psionic combat, which AD&D 2e botched, but still highlights an almost uniquely psionic activity. Granted, I could envision wizards having mental battles, and think I've seen in fiction (though, "where" I saw it escapes me right now), but even then it's even more prevalent amount psionics and something that truly highlights what psionics are about.

Though, even then I still tend to think that "psionics" is largely just magic by another name and that from a game mechanics PoV in particular it's more effective to handle all of it using the same core mechanics as a base. But you could still add little side components as extra elements to highlight specific mystical practices, such as ritual casting or psionic combat. And distinctions could be made more on the skill-level, even if I want to keep the core system for supernatural powers the same.
 
As I've said I never cared for the take on psionic battles in 2e, I assume it comes out of some of the pulp sf stories of the 50s that I haven't read although I do have the Wilson Tucker novel Wild Talent that I need to read sometime that is in the bibio for the Complete Psionicist.

You do see it portrayed in Cronenberg's Scanners quite memorably but that came out post-1e and I'm not sure it would be a very fun approach for an rpg unless the game focused more on the conspiracies and factions and the fights were one-roll combats leading to exploding heads (maybe not a bad idea I'm thinking?).

The more immediately engaging idea I think is the psionic combat we see represented between Professor X and The Shadowking in the X-Men and the excellent Legion tv series. I believe we have a thread here somewhere where we discuss it.
 
A lot of these are potential distinctions that could work in a specific game or setting, but aren't necessarily fundamental distinctions conceptually speaking between magic and psionics. They could work if you want to handle magic vs psionics that way in your game, but aren't necessarily the only or most obvious way to handle either, and tend to fall into what I would consider artificial distinctions to justify keeping them separate for "it's a game" purposes, rather than stuff that truly emphasize their differences, like in Tristan's write up where he explained the way he handles it in Phaserip.

There are few to no fundamental distinctions, I could go on about the few but that is pointless. This is all about game design, this is make believe stuff. You can certainly draw lines anywhere but what is here is based on genre guidance. There are plenty of examples of what psionics can do in literature and media that guide one to create verisimilitude, where players will say yes that is psionics. Same with magic.

1) Generally this tends to work in only one direction. Magic can usually do anything that psionics can do, but not the other way around. Telepathy, psychokinesis, mind reading, mind control, etc. ALL of this stuff can be done through magic without calling it "psionics". Psionics tend to operate more like a school of magic than a fundamentally separate ability.
Says who? I am not talking about what certain games have done, I believe most do it very poorly. I am not talking about a survey of what games have done or most do. You asked how they can be differentiated, I answered specifically in 9 ways, with examples and not just making conclusionary statements. Personally I think do (1) as much as possible but you will have overlap. (7) and (8) are the real way to do it by design.

Your last sentence above is simple a conclusion, based on what others have done that you have seen, it doesn't advance how one can differentiate.

2) This one depends a lot on the system, and tends to be more prevalent in D&D than other games. But it's probably the most solid distinction conceptually speaking if you want to work off those classic trappings of "wizards need words and gestures, psionicists don't".
Forget system, magic requiring all of these things is THE genre, historically and much fantasy literature speaking. Fantasy novels that have spells cast by thought alone are genre breaking.

3) "but this is not necessarily the case" Pretty much.

There are psionics in Star Wars that are rapid and others that seem to take time. My comment was you don't need this to differentiate but one can certainly have a system where psionic are usually super fast. It is really a natural consequence of (2)

4) This also depends on the system, as well as the type of effect being created. Some magic effects might also target the subject of the effect directly or be self-guided.

I think we are talking pass each other, all of this depends on the system. This is all about design principles and how you can make a system that differentiates and trades off of the common zeitgeist of psionics and magic, not those that break genre.

What I gave is merely an example, most magic system I like and gravitate towards require a to hit roll for magic, that D&D does not, who cares.
Again these are ways to differentiate, ways to approach designing or tweaking a system. If you require a "to hit" roll for magic to work no reasonable person is going to scream "but that is not how magic works!"

5) Some spells may also work the same way as the example you provide. There's no fundamental reason why psionic healing couldn't heal the target without transferring the damage to the psionicist. It could go either way. And the distinction would probably exist mostly for class-style niche protection, rather than because psionics have to work that way, which would be a metagame design consideration.

I really think you think I am talking about a specific game. I am not. None of this has to work any specific way.

Again healing is but one example, and the: take damage onto ones body (for psionics) has actual support in the media and genre. But does it have to work that way? Of course not. It doesn't have to work any specific way. But if one wants examples of how one might differentiate, with a concrete example within genre, this is one.

When you say there is "no fundamental reason psionic healing couldn't heal the target without transferring the damage to the psionicist" what is that based on? I'm pretty sure Star Trek is not the only place have seen this, it is a common trope. To me that is about as "fundamental" as you can get. It has a basis in the genre and has the feel of psionics, versus magic, that is "fundamental" enough for design.

I think when it comes to magic and psionics most of magic is pure metagame. Magic has a very historical basis, and very rare is the RPG that is anywhere close. Likely because it would be unplayable for a game. Just because this metagame type magic was put into a few books after centuries after the fact and into D&D doesn't make it any less metagame. Magic has been in the media in so man flavors pretty sure you caould have it work almost any way and people would be OK with it. Placing some rails on it aint' going to freka them out.

6) This doesn't necessarily has to be that way, and there are instances where it could be the inverse (only wizards can use magic wands).

Holy moly it can be any way you want. Nothing has to be necessarily any way. Once you get past that you can see how it can be done.
These are just ways to differentiate that align with very common genre conventions so when you are designing game rules you can differentiate with verisimilitude.

7+) This might be a way to do it, but a lot of it feels artificial and potentially applicable to either one. Magic could also cause stamina or HP damage too.
(7) and (8) are actually key differentiators where you can get the most bang for your buck. The details are up to you as a designer.

The design goal is to differentiate, so look for the points of genre differentiation (NOT overlap) and makes use of those. All of this could be either one, that is because it is all based on our imaginations...there is no touch stone, like how far a bow shoots. That is COULD be either way misses the point. The point being in finding how it differs, how it often differs, and going from there to differentiate in a manner that maintains verisimilitude.

What is important are choosing distinctions that are supported by genre conventions, not all examples of the genre will follow these distinctions, but if you aggregate them well you will distinguish magic and psionics in ways that feel right to players (especially ones who want them to be different) and be able to effectuate that through rules that are internally consistent.

Where you exactly draw the lines is up to you. There is no one set of lines, but these 9 areas are examples where you can draw them.

I do not think personally any 1 of the 9 ways I bring up will do it. However in aggregate, more so in some areas and less so in others, these nine design elements can be used to differentiate psionics from magic with verisimilitude. Each one is based upon common examples in the genres (not RPG games, but history, books, movies) that can be used to draw a distinction, there is nothing more "fundamental" than that.

Recall, my post was in response to a question on how this can be done. Not has it been done or how you would do it.
 
For me in a SuperHeros game I might not be too concerned about differentiation.

Here's one of my favourite quotes about Magic in superhero comics (so much so, it opens the chapter on the Supernatural in my game):


"Not so long ago, there was a magic based mini-series (which I won't name) that climaxed in a battle between a good wizard and an evil wizard. After the evil wizard head-butted the good wizard, it cast a spell on some innocent bystanders by pointing its evil wizard finger at them and uttering that most famous of magical phrases, 'Bang!'...Reading that sequence kind of crystallized some of the things I had been thinking about regarding magic in comics. Magic is not a gun. It should look and feel different from technology or from a mutant power. Magic should be depicted in an imaginative manner. Magic only exists in our shared imaginations, so a writer needs to provide that kind of convincing detail in order for the reader to 'believe' in what they're reading...The rules have gotten rather mushy, but 'The Magic Gun Syndrome' can be stopped. If a character or a creature manipulates magic in a new and different way, fantastic, but the reader needs to understand how. The magic has to make sense. Not rational sense, but it should have what Jung referred to as 'Mythopoeic' meaning."

- David Sexton

In fact, if they are very similar then it might lead to existential questions like what is magic, what are powers, why does context seem to matter?

Indeed, I address and answer all those questions in Phaserip.
 
I have no issues with Psionics. They're cool. Gamers who care deeply about psionics however, tend to be dickheads and I have no interest in plumping up their feelings of entitlement when it comes to how they think they should be serviced by games designers who deign to tread on their holy cow carpet.
 
Paradoxically, I don’t really like psionics in the fantasy genre because they feel more science fiction-ish, but I’m not that much a fan of them in science fiction because they seem more fantastic than scientific!
 
Last edited:
Paradoxically, I don’t really like psionics in the fantasy genre because they feel more science fiction-ish, but I’m not that much a fan of them in science fiction because they more fantastic than scientific!
Catch 22 , it's a good one :smile:
 
I've never known anyone play the Soulknife. Even the (thoroughly basic) psychic warrior got picked over the Soulknife in my groups.

Actual quote from a fellow player; "I'm not playing a soulknife, that's a stupid name."
It is my favorite non-casting class in all of 3.X, especially in the DSP Pathfinder version. I prefer playing casters-- in the Bard/Druid range-- but I always sneak in as many levels of Soulknife and Soulbow/Soul Archer as I can.
 
Paradoxically, I don’t really like psionics in the fantasy genre because they feel more science fiction-ish, but I’m not that much a fan of them in science fiction because they seem more fantastic than scientific!
They only feel 'science fiction-ish' because of that name and how they're depicted, as quick, repeatable/reliable and tech-like. But go look at stories of mediums and seers and mystics who can do those things... creepy little girls who can read minds or star fires... blind old women in the woods who speak with the dead and can tell you who your sword has killed.
In 'Lost Highway' there is a weirdo called 'Mystery Man' who seems able to project himself elsewhere... or something... nothing overtly scifi about him.
 
They only feel 'science fiction-ish' because of that name and how they're depicted, as quick, repeatable/reliable and tech-like. But go look at stories of mediums and seers and mystics who can do those things... creepy little girls who can read minds or star fires... blind old women in the woods who speak with the dead and can tell you who your sword has killed.
In 'Lost Highway' there is a weirdo called 'Mystery Man' who seems able to project himself elsewhere... or something... nothing overtly scifi about him.
Thing is, I wouldn’t ascribe things like mediums, seers, mystics or anything that occurs in David Lynch movies to psionics. I would explain these things through different paradigms.
 
I think we are talking pass each other,

I think I am.

Looking back on it I was overly critical and nitpicky in that post and sort of missed the point of most of what you said. I even hesitated to post it, because I wasn't sure I was expressing myself correctly or looking at it from the right angle. But I was distracted and about to do other stuff, and thought I was overthinking it, so I just posted it on impulse rather than scrap it and come back to it later. Now I see that was a mistake and would retract most of it with apologies.

A lot of what you pointed out were valid ways of handling distinctions between magic and psionics in the game, which is relevant to my original question as well as the topic of the thread (just not my favorite way of handling it), so it was wrong of me to dismiss them.

However, one point that I would make that I think relates to item #1 on your list is that conceptually speaking a "wizard" or general practitioner of magic can pretty much do anything that a psionicist can. They can control people's minds, read their thoughts, look into the past, foretell the future, scry events at distant places, move objects with their minds, etc. And this is a fundamental issue when it comes to distinguishing between psionics vs just "mind magic", because if a wizard can already at least potentially do (depending on spells or whatnot) anything a psionicist can that means that they will inevitably outclass them, since they can also do things psions can't. There's too much overlap and things in favor of the wizard, and it's very difficult to distinguish psionics from mind magic without placing arbitrary limits, which I'm generally not a fan of.

I tend to look at magic more from the point of view of something like Mage: The Ascension, where mages are awakened beings capable of tapping into and reshaping the fabric of reality with their wills. And gestures, material components and incantations are just trappings that the mage can eventually outgrow, or perhaps use to aid their use of magic rather than as a requirement. From that perspective a "psion" is just a mage (in the "awakened" sense) focused on the mental sphere of reality.
 
The problem with 2e Dark Sun is that some of the distinctions between magic vs psionics make sense (sort of) on a setting backstory level, but mechanically they're a mess. Most 2e Psionic powers are weak compared to magic or just do stuff you can already do with spells, and add extra steps requiring checks on top of paying psionic strength points (PSP) from you limited pool. Then they had psionic combat, which was a separate mess that dried up all your PSP just keeping enemy psionics from doing anything (while you did nothing either), making it largely a wasted effort. It's been years since I've looked into them, so I don't recall all the details, but psionics in D&D had so many issues WotC largely abandoned the class, and had to be dragged by the community into adding newer supplements for it.

Their 2e CH: P/Will&Way conceit advantages were: 1) playing blackjack for potential critical bonus effect (whose risk for said feature is potentially crapping out), 2) psi points could recharge faster than needing full 8 hrs rest and +X memorizing time, and 3) possible subtlety versus VSM "magic song & dance" tip offs.

Psionic's differing conceit restrictions, risks, & benefits created a different coherence on how it approached engaging the fictive world. Their new cost/benefit analysis opened lateral ways to tackle the same adventure, making old material fresh for the curious. And it tapped into a new mood.

That said, I understand your feelings where it seems akin to reskinning. A lot of that feeling arrived during my "mid skool?" gaming around the rise of d20 WotC (2000-2010) and a noticeable flattening of settings' teeth. Mechanics held precendence and players started to joke about & disengage from the fiction's atmosphere, as if it was made of tissue and disposable. But that was my experience observing others.
 
.....However, one point that I would make that I think relates to item #1 on your list is that conceptually speaking a "wizard" or general practitioner of magic can pretty much do anything that a psionicist can. They can control people's minds, read their thoughts, look into the past, foretell the future, scry events at distant places, move objects with their minds, etc.
Here is my disconnect, where are you getting this from that magic can do anything? I agree it is current thinking, but magic is not real, any one can type anything on page and say it is "magic" especially sufficiently advanced technology. :smile: I fear you are taking what you have seen people do in across the spectrum and deciding well if a couple of people say magic can do this then magic can do this. Which is very counter productive and fruitless if you are looking for ways to distinguish.

Or another way to put it, if looking for a way to draw lines that can have some rationalization...go to primary sources. Avoid looking to RPGs and CCG which are tertiary at best and may have a lot of incentive to kitchen sink it, you know to sell more books or cards

For example, controlling people (but not in the way Thrin do) is a thing in magic, scrying (but only with aid of a pool, mirror or crystal ball), and telling the future (but only in cryptic general ways) are part of magic going back. Telepathy and moving objects? Not really. Sure it is in RPGs and possibly a few books that predate D&D, but overall not really. Mind control, not in the way the Thrin do it, magic mind control is typically more subtle making one believe lies or preying on their vices.

And this is a fundamental issue when it comes to distinguishing between psionics vs just "mind magic", because if a wizard can already at least potentially do (depending on spells or whatnot) anything a psionicist can that means that they will inevitably outclass them, since they can also do things psions can't.
The idea of a mind magic is a complete modern fabrication, in one can cast spells merely by thought. That is magic by mortals cannot use the mind alone. Frankly to me "mind magic" is included in RPGs is simply a whiny power gamer concept, as if a few hand motions and words was way too much restriction on exercising the power of magic. You could complete exclude "mind magic" and be on solid ground.

I agree once you allow "mind magic" there is no distinction, don't allow it.

There's too much overlap and things in favor of the wizard, and it's very difficult to distinguish psionics from mind magic without placing arbitrary limits, which I'm generally not a fan of.
There is too much overlap if one again looks at all that has been done and what RPGs and modern books do, and include all they do.

Also to an extent all of this is arbitrary, but the lines I am giving examples of are not. What has been arbitrary (or artistic license) is the inclusion within magic by games and authors of things that never were part of the overall tradition and especially the simplification of what it takes to cast a spell. These things make for great stories but they are the new view, based on only what works for dramatic (or game) purposes.

Historically, and I do mean historically going back to earliest written history. Spells always required words or writing, and likely items of some sort. It may be a simple word, it may be carving a rune...it was never just a thought to use magic by a mere mortal.

Usually spells required sympathetic components, often gathered and prepared in elaborate ways under the right astrological signs. Incredibly time consuming stuff often requiring ritual purification of the practitioner, more so than even "Double double toil and trouble/Fire burn and cauldron bubble." That however is completely unworkable for most action oriented RPGs or novels.

In many traditions you need to summon the help of a extra planar force. Now much more likely to work, but can you imagine what the satanic panic would have been like if D&D said wizards made packs with demons to get magical power.

To control or influence someone you needed a piece of them (a finger nail, a lock of hair, a drop of blood), the whole RPG where you just say a few words, and wave you hands is the arbitrary simplification made for game purposes. In most cases an item, be it a doll or potion needed to be prepared to even begin to influence them.

My view is you are conflating what people have done with magic in recent times, they have done everything, with whatever basis we have in reality for what magic has been held to do. (we need to exclude the wish as mere mortals cannot grant those).

In essence, just because RPGs, CCGs, etc. have arbitrarily expanded what magic can do, and have become self-referential, doesn't make it fundamental.

I tend to look at magic more from the point of view of something like Mage: The Ascension, where mages are awakened beings capable of tapping into and reshaping the fabric of reality with their wills. And gestures, material components and incantations are just trappings that the mage can eventually outgrow, or perhaps use to aid their use of magic rather than as a requirement. From that perspective a "psion" is just a mage (in the "awakened" sense) focused on the mental sphere of reality.
Nothing wrong with viewing it that way, but if you are looking for distinctions then you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Mage: The Ascension is just a game and whatever theory of magic in there was chosen for the game. That one can outgrow the need for words, sympathetic materials, and just manifest with ones mind is completely counter to the whole magic tradition with no basis in history at all, and would be an arbitrary expansion of what it can do and a gross simplification of how it works (historically). If anything magic in RPGs is sand upon sand upon sand...Mage certainly was influenced by D&D (which is sand)...Gygax based his magic on Jack Vance (which is also sand).

Not saying these ideas of magic are bad or not fun or don't work, they just slowly changed it, each step taking it further until at some point those small changes result in quantitative change that makes "Mage: The Ascension" a castle made of sand when it comes to a touchstone for anything fundamental about maigic vs psionics.

Again, need to ignore the tendency for people to label anything they cannot explain as magic.

Historically with magic you never get something for nothing, your will alone is never enough. It could be an item, it could be your soul, your life, but there is never just a channeling by will alone. Oh you need will to channel it and you must also pay a price (and not in some game currency such as mana that is renewable, that is not a price).

Now after all that, I do agree my point 1 is the hardest but do suggest try to make some areas where magic just can't do the same as psionics.
For me Telepathy is clearly one to exclude. Telepathy is like the poster child for psionics. No need to allow magic to read minds. Now magic may be able to compel someone to speak the truth, but that is different than mind reading.

But also (more importantly) never allow "mind magic." Excluding mind magic from the realm of what mortals can do is completely in line with what fundamentals we have on magic.

That gives you a good starting point.

If you need a "theory" magic channels energy from another plane (M-brane) while psionic channels/focuses energy from this plane (multi-world). Psionic energy is here, magic energy comes from there. Hence there is a need for an "exchange" to use magic not required for psionics. Psionics taps the force between the tree and the rock :smile: while magic pulls into our world energy from another plane.
 
Last edited:
A lot this reinforces my view that a lot of the distinction between magic and psionics, is largely stylistic and RP rather than fundamental. In the case of magic vs technology the differences are more marked, because even though both could potentially produce a "Force Bolt" attack, the way they would do it is different enough as to operate under different mechanics even if the end result is the same, since Ironman's suit and similar technology might require technical knowledge to build, fix or operate, and could be affected by different things (computer viruses, EMP blasts, etc.) than a magical device, spell or power. Depending on the system, you might require a different skill check to even make the attack. But outside of D&D's "Wizards use Int, Clerics and Psionicists use Wis" distinctions most supernatural stuff tends to operate under the same types of skills and attributes (usually some variation of willpower and mysticism skill), or at least can be handled that way.
Well your only distinction you're making here (Tech vs. Magic) is one is "real" and one isn't. I say "real" because in many cases the technology in question isn't itself real (X-ray gatling guns etc.) but because we say it's "technological" its implications and distinctions of effect are purely psychological (which counts in terms of aesthetics).

When you say "fundamentally" I think that's the point where we can get to common ground. For me "fundamental" as it pertains to phenomenon in my setting is *anything* that is imbedded narratively (RP as you put it) into the setting to the satisfaction of my players and more importantly - me.

Psionics has a higher bar for most settings by default because it's not nearly as common for most people who have grown up with "magical systems" and "magical settings" pre-conceived for them. Very few players, and even less GM's have been given strong settings where psionics as a phenomenon is explored. Star Wars and the Force? But the funny thing about Star Wars is *most* fans that describe and qualify Star Wars non-fans do it in "fantasy tropes" even calling the Force in magical terms. I blame Han for calling Obi-Wan a wizard, heh.

But yeah - the fundamental difference is narrative, which should be commensurate to your own standards. If you leave it to be some weird quirk that people with high-mental stats have randomly, then you get what you pay for. If you codify it and give it mechanical heft, and strong social ties (even bad ones) - then you'll get tons of mileage out of it.

System distinctions, like narrative distinctions will be choices you have to make.

Another nitpick is the idea that telepaths can see the Astral plane in your world. The issue with that is that in many works of fiction and game systems, so can wizards, which again reinforces my view that psionics are just a variant of mages, perhaps more focused on mentalist schools of magic or mystical activity. I always hated the way that D&D wizards can't even detect magic without wasting a spell slot. If it were up to me, all magic users would be like Shadowrun mages, who all can look into the Astral plane.

Well that's because I *want* the Astral plane - or the Psychic plane to be something the typical magical/psionic wielder to have their own incorrect assumptions about in order to justify

1) their existence
2) to passively indicate their own ignorance of the wider cosmology
3) to give a place where psionicists can natively do things that magically based characters can't, necessarily without more effort, in ORDER to give them more distinction.

Plus it allows me to give myself room to maneuver to create content in order to expand the possibilities of psionics using the Astral plane as a sort of psychic frontier. Yes, Magic users can access the Astral, but again, I keep these things distinct in the sense that Magic users "typically" in my conception use ancient arts/formulae with systemic mindset to use ambient/invoked energies to do *something*.

The implications here for me are that the Astral plane transcends both Psionic and Magical disciplines, but it is a place overtly concerned with abstraction of thought and spirit. Magic and Psionics *both* are concerned with those elements, and many in both camps assume they are the masters of the Astral domain (they're both wrong). But that's all fodder for discovery.

I agree with you on the magic/detection thing. As for peering into the Astral ala-Shadorun, I'm iffy. I don't allow just *any* psionic character do "Astral-stuff" just because they're psionic, especially if they don't have telepathy. And even if they do, it's something they're trained to do (either by self-training or a mentor). I take a similar approach to Magic, generally, but it has different narrative trappings and assumptions. Psionics, for me, has a certain edge because I use the Astral plane as a conduit for specific elements that are defined by Psionic disciplines (Telepathy and its related sub-disciplines).

From a MSH mechanical sense, magic users cast a spell to pre-package their minds and spirits to go there. You learn the spell, you become proficient in the mechanics of casting it (whether it's ritual, invocation, or even mystical - in which case the magical energies you're utilizing simulate the psionic energies to do the same purpose).

So there is a gray area - but for me the "fundamentals" as you put it are deeper than the effects. And yes, it's narrative - but it's on me as the GM to make it matter to the degree that my players feel completely satisfied.

Now of course I'm speaking generally. But the more I think about it - doesn't matter whether I'm running D&D, Cyberpunk (I've used psionics from Mekton in my CP2020 games), Rifts, Savage Worlds, MSH, I'm pretty uniform about my approach with it. The *systems* will definitely impact the use of psionics internally, but the cosmological map of how I use them doesn't really change at all.

Another place where magic and psionics connects in my current game of MSH is The Dreaming. Psychics and Magical people all dreaming, some lucid, some not - all in Morpheus's realm and places adjoining it. We had an adventure last week where all the PC's woke up in the Yomi Kingdom where we had a good ol'fashioned Oriental Adventure-style crawl.
 
I enjoy psionics in games where their presence brings something to the table. I find that psionics work well in weird fantasy and Mythos games where sorcery draws upon alien science, extradimensional mathematics, and cosmic forces beyond mortal understanding. I think psionics can work in sci fi as well; I particularly like how it is handled in Stars Without Number.

On the other hand, I don't think psionics works well in mainstream D&D with the whole arcane/divine divide, clerics who channel divine power, traditional deities and the like. It just feels tacked on and kitchen sinkish.
 
On the other hand, I don't think psionics works well in mainstream D&D with the whole arcane/divine divide, clerics who channel divine power, traditional deities and the like. It just feels tacked on and kitchen sinkish.
Do you think this holds for Dark Sun?

Edit: And yes I know Dark Sun isn't "mainstream" D&D. heh. I'm asking specifically because I believe the reason you might feel that way is because there is practically *zero* in-setting support in "mainstream" D&D fantasy for Psionics. It literally is, as you put it, tacked on. Whereas in Dark Sun, you see it as part of the in-setting culture.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top