Dragonhelm wrote:What do you mean by "gobbledygook collection?" I don't follow.
That it's full of derp, and the ridiculous WikiKinderGarden of invented words (yes, that got into 4e
) underscores this. Not that the rest of terminology was less facepalm-worthy. "Astral construct" thingies that got nothing to do with how-planes-work as we know them in everywhere else
, even in the indecisively mumbling 3e form, random new-agey stuff like "autohypnosis", scurrying crystals and so on. In short, loonie stuff that is mostly unusable in any setting that isn't made for it, and - surprise! - ends up not used, or at very least thoroughly overhauled.
Dragonhelm wrote:I am not totally certain I'm following what you're saying, so pardon if my commentary is off.
Psionics have, unfortunately, not seen widespread support in novels. It's kind of a "taboo" subject.
3e stuff? Of course. Because material from the Book of Loonie cannot
be used anywhere decent without thorough overhaul - and then, why bother?..
Dragonhelm wrote: Likewise, novels are not always written with rules in mind. Oftentimes, when they are, they aren't as good as just regular prose.
Exactly. And this stuff is completely unusable
for anything that isn't written specifically for
it. While everything else can be adapted, more or less. Which demonstrates that it's a pile of game gimmicks, rather than tools fit to build a model for any
Again, the Thieves World is a good litmus test. It was adapted into AD&D, and into d20. The latter was very detailed, and... Magic was used with a few changes - but not something unrecognizable made from scratch, just extra rules that changed the basics of how
it's used. But it didn't use psionics from d20 despite novels having at least 3 different traditions (Bandaran, S'danzo and savages), all of which are obviously distinct from spellcasting and would be easy to build as AD&D2 / "The Will and the Way" era kits. Specifically because that system was made for flexibility and doesn't sit on a cartload of arbitrary loonie elements.
Dragonhelm wrote: However, I suspect that they'll say that psionics is mind magic, since D&D is a fantasy game.
That's strange. In 2e it wasn't, and it was more a fantasy game than MMORPG.
Another problem is that "it's one more magic" ends up answered with "then why bother?
The corollary is - trying to build it on concepts of 2e and
make sense would go against the flow: one's own power got to be more flexible and less blatant than external power, while 3e trend is "everything is the same" ("everything is 1d6" and "give everyone some sort of familiar" are part of this), and looking for H&S first (what happened to cantrips in 3e vs 2e variants shows the different approach).