> You could make psionics a subset of TFT spells. So same rules, as
> magic but these spells are magic, and those are psionics, as David
I didn't suggest this.
Psionics isn't as common in stories as it was when D&D 1e came out but I guess not completely extinct. When you say "magic" you mean a power that isn't common, in cause or effects? SF doesn't have as much of that as it once did though computer hacking did it for a while. Nanotech was never that personal.
Hi David, Everyone.I confess, that the word "classic" in the original subject line gave mepause. I didn't consider the psionics from early D&D to be classic atall.The questions you ask David, I have grappled with a bit while I havewondered about putting psionics into TFT.Why add psionics to TFT?1) If you are doing a high tech version of TFT, (zombies, traveller, etc.)you may want "high tech magic". Psionics is basically magic, for SF.2) I think both are very similar. Both are examples of magical thinking.I define magical thinking as people who expect reality to be what theywant, rather than what it is. Much of literature is wish fulfilment & powerfantasies. Wouldn't it be cool if I could cast a lightning spell? Wouldn'tit be cool if I could bend spoons with my mind? I think that they aresimular since they spring from the same desires from storytellers &magical thinkers.3) Many stories have psionics. That is reason enough to include them,if you want to do similar stories or settings.4) The drama of mind to mind combat. (e.g. the ending scene fromScanners!)5) If psionics is rare (it normally is considered to be), then defensesagainst it are likewise rare or unknown. This gives low level PC's poorlydefended ways to attack the man. It also allows power over those wholack defenses. "These are not the droids you are looking for. Move on."______________________________
________________________You could make psionics a subset of TFT spells. So same rules, asmagic but these spells are magic, and those are psionics, as Davidsuggests. However, I've never seriously considered this.Why not make psionics a subset of TFT spells?1) I feel that two different things, (magic and psionics) should havediffering rules to reflect the differences between them. Now magicvaries from fictional universe to fictional universe (ficton). Andpsionics varies from ficton to ficton. So it is hard to be dogmatic aboutwhat is & is not in each set. (They are both fuzzy sets in mathematicalterms.) But I do feel that they have differences.2) TFT magic rules are 'industrial magic', with predictable effects andmagic items. Psionics (at least at TFT tech level) does not havepsionic magic items. In psionic combat, it is raw skill, not who has thebiggest bank account, who will win.3) If you have two different systems, they require more rules (which isbad). But they give more interest and texture to the campaign (which isgood). The trick is to make sure that coolness is more than the cost.4) In TFT, you need all three attributes. But psionic characters wantjust IQ and (maybe) psionic power. They can use ST and DX as dumpstats, except that they have to live in the real world. This suggests thatpsionic users will play differently from most TFT characters, which is agood thing.______________________________ ________________________Odd thoughts on the subject:I think that the reasons for including psionics is stronger than thereasons for making them not a subset of magic.I expect that there will be overlap. A seer makes a prediction of thefuture. Did she use...-- A divination spell? -- OR ---- The Clairvoyance psionic discipline? -- OR ---- A vision granted by a god?Magical thinking wants to know what is coming. Gods and spellswere the traditional way of getting around physics. Psionics is theearly 20th century version of wistful thinking. (Back when peoplereally hoped there was something to it.)The early D&D psionics had a combat module for psionic combatand a bunch of cool powers (which played like spells). In fact, severalof these powers said, "See this spell for how it works". If they stuck tothe spell like effects, I do not think that the D&D psionic rules wouldhave generated so much heat. (Most people hate them or love themwith the majority hating them. That said, the majority of DM's I playedwith never used them.)If you wanted to make a psionics system which was simply a sub-setof the spell list, I wouldn't criticize. You will be using a solid system,and the work is done.But I think that psionics has its own 'style' that is different than magic,and I would like to have rules that would support that.Warm regards, Rick.On 2016-10-18, at 8:04 AM, David Bofinger wrote:While I can see all this is possible, I'm a little at a loss as to why anyone would want to do it. Can you explain your motives?Is there, for instance, something about D&D 1e psionics that you consider particularly well-written and fun to use? Or is there some other reason you want to give TFT players access to it?IIUC you build up psionic power as unspent experience, and then one day give up being a psychic when you spend the experience on attributes or whatever. That strikes me as downright weird. It doesn't feel like something from a real world where the rules happen to be a little different, or something I'd like if it happened in a fantasy novel. Instead it feels arbitrary and gamey.There are spells in TFT that do psionic-like things. Telepathy, for example (though I ban that from my games), Control Person, maybe Images and Illusions (don't know much about D&D psionics). Would you want them to be still running in parallel with this system, or would psionics replace them? I guess it might depend on the campaign.--David