Post/Author/DateTime	Post
protosswarrior 08-28-07, 09:18 PM	As many know, some DM's do not allow psionics in their games. There are essentially 2 reasons: -1) the DM doen't want to/have the time and or money to learn about psionics. this is a perfectly reasonable (if somewhat lazy) excuse. There aren't any true remedies to this type that i know of, so i'm no help to people with this kind of DM -2) the type i am writing this for are DM's who think psionics are too sci-fi. Here is a suggestion to help w/ the problem (no, this is not my idea, it is from Dragon Ninja, who may or may not be a member of these forums) : The New Magic Many fantasy settings in both games and literature present the idea of different forms of magic often taught in separate schools (*cough* arcane and divine *cough*) or common in different lands. If you want your DM to add psionics, consider it a new and different form of magic, it is possible to adopt the rules and powers of psionics and make them a new magic. In this case, psionic powers would be magical and would be affected by such spells as detect magic and anti-magic field, just as normal magic is. It is kept the same as psionics in all respects but terminology. Not only does "psionic" sound futuristic, but also the terms "psionicist”, and "power points" all seem more in keeping with a science fiction setting. Changing the term psionics to mysticism is a good start. "Mystic" can easily describe a power that is not standard magic, but not simple science or skill. Naturally, psionicists now become mystics and instead of power points, mystic powers can be powered by "chi” or possibly even “mana” Mysticism should be broken into the same six categories as psionics, but with new terms for a fantasy feel. The mystics could study the Philosophies of Self (psychometabolism), Truth (clairsentience), Force (psychokinesis), Mind (telepathy), and Space (psychoportation).
CrimsonDeath 08-28-07, 09:25 PM	Kind of like this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=470229&highlight=truenaming)?
protosswarrior 08-28-07, 09:38 PM	Kind of like this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=470229&highlight=truenaming)? I never said this was an original idea, i just thought it was worth putting out there. (i would appreceiate it if no one said anything along the lines of "it was out there before you" or the likes)
BW0222 08-28-07, 09:51 PM	protosswarrior There are essentially 2 reasons: ... Since I can come up with numerous reasons which are equally valid.. 3. Not all the players have the books so he doesn't want to unfairly give one player such an advantage. 4. The DM is aware that psionics have not been as well play tested as the core books and therefore realizes that there are balance issues in it. 5. The DM is aware that psioncis have not been as well play tested as the core books and has more rules discussions, rulings, and more time consuming to the game. 6. The campaign setting doesn't allow them. The entire Living Greyhawk campaign doesn't allow them for example. 7. The campaign setting hasn't considered psionics, so now he has more work to do to integrate them in. Which races can be psionic, which p-classes exist and where, etc. 8. The DM is less familiar with psionics and therefore it requires a lot harder to balance encounter, put in useful psionic items, which abilities ruin which encounters, etc. 9. Not all the players are familiar with psionics or you have new players at the table, so it tends to become boring for them -- as they have no clue what is going on or distracts from the game as it needs to be explained. 10. He feels that having to put in psionic encounters to make the game interesting for the psionic player is likely to detract from the campaign plots -- which only have a limited number of encounters and are hard enough to keep focused. 11. The DM just doesn't want so many books physically at the table -- hauled around, etc. 12. Other players have already agreed to play in the campaign and with the understanding that psionics would not be in the game (or at least nothing was said about it). etc., etc. ... I find that your statement that there are essentially two reasons why DMs don't allow psionics to be rather wishful thinking on your part. The entire Living Greyhawk campaign doesn't allow them. Many DMs also don't allow them for lots of reasons besides two you quoted -- and they aren't lazy or think they are too sci-fi. I'll also point out one other... 0. It is his game. He invited you to play. It is like being invited to a friend's place for dinner. You can ask about the menu, but if you don't like what he is having, it is rude to expect a change of the menu once others have accepted. After asking once and him having said "No", the polite thing to say is to say if you rather accept coming to dinner with that menu is "No thank-you." If you want to ask repeatedly for menu changes and then cast negative slants on his reasons why he isn't going to change the menu, he has a simple option ... don't invite you next time.
Bauglir 08-28-07, 10:54 PM	Allow me to make a few responses. 3. If another player wishes to use Psionics, I'm sure the person owning the book could easily lend it to them for a few days to let them get familiar with the system, etc. 4. Fewer balance issues than Core, though that might just be due to the ridiculous lack of support. There are problem powers, yes, but there are more problem spells. Unless you meant the Soulknife. But that's more of a problem on the player's side. 5. See above. 6. So? You're the DM. 7. And here we have reason number 1, laziness. 8. A DM never actually NEEDS to run a psionic encounter if he or she doesn't want to. With Magic-Psionics transparency, the interactions between the two work quite well, and it's perfectly possible (if a little implausible) for a Psion never to fight another Psion. Psionic items can be purchased, if need be, rather than handed out in loot. I prefer this system as it lets the characters build up the equipment they want, rather than the equipment I want. 9. Skip the explanations unless the player asks about it. Just say, "Make such and such DC save, you take such and such damage." You don't actually have to take a session to explain how power points work, etc. I mean, you don't ponder how many spell slots that wizard has left unless you're actually trying to win by attrition, which isn't a terribly good idea on a party's part as far as I know. 10. Honestly, unless I were a character built for fighting psionic things (which I obviously wouldn't be if I were trying to get it introduced), I wouldn't mind fighting non-psionic things as long as they're still interesting. After all, most psionic monsters differ from nonpsionic only in terminology (psi-like rather than spell-like, etc). Few have actual power points, and some of those, such as Mind Flayers, have arcane equivalents. 11. Oh, my. The XPH and the Complete Psionic weigh, what, 3 pounds put together? They're both small books, and there are only two of them. If only enough psionic material existed to make this argument reasonable. 12. If nothing was said, I see no reason not to allow psionics. If psionics was explicitly disallowed, then yes, you have a point. And, at any rate, you would clearly at least want to let people know you were planning to play a psionic character. Remember, D&D is a team game, and the team is often larger than just a player and a DM. There are usually, but not always, there are other players most people will take into consideration. Now, number 0, I grant you. But that, of course, goes both ways. It's the DM's game, and if they're cool with Psionics, then all is ok. Rule 0 isn't a good argument in most situations, I think. Now, I ought to apologize in advance if you don't actually think Psionics is unbalanced and were merely commenting on players trying to manipulate DMs, which I agree isn't a good thing. I may have misunderstood your intent.
AntiDjinn 08-28-07, 11:45 PM	There is a way around #1, but it won't always work and takes some time: Buy the DM a copy of the XPH. Assume the DM is a friend, and friends have birthdays and Christmas presents that you are going to get anyway. Anyone who receives a copy of a game book as a present has no reason not to read it, whether or not he likes it is another matter. This tactic worked well for me in getting a DM in our group to consider Eberron (he really wasn't into learning a new system at the time). Step 1: The Eberron campaign setting as a birthday present. He read it over several weeks, and began talking about incorporating changelings and shifters into a non-Eberron game. Step 2: Gave him 3 Eberron novels for X-Mas (first volumes of 3 initial series). He started getting into the noir skullduggery of the system as well as the industrial magic, he began plans to start an Eberron campaign and purchased several of the expansion books. Step 3: Loaned him Secrets of Sarlona. The material may not be appropriate for starting characters, but if the party doesn't eventually go up against the Dreaming Dark and the Inspired then he isn't making full use of the setting. Step 4: He has asked to borrow the XPH (yahoo!) and Comp Psi (yikes!).
RadicalTaoist 08-28-07, 11:52 PM	Bauglir has taken care of most of the points (Psionics, not as playtested as Core??? :rofl: ), but I wanted to say something. It is like being invited to a friend's place for dinner. You can ask about the menu, but if you don't like what he is having, it is rude to expect a change of the menu once others have accepted. After asking once and him having said "No", the polite thing to say is to say if you rather accept coming to dinner with that menu is "No thank-you." If you want to ask repeatedly for menu changes and then cast negative slants on his reasons why he isn't going to change the menu, he has a simple option ... don't invite you next time. All this means is that a player and a DM can disagree on the content of a game, and thus not fit eachother. That's all. This places no normative value on a decision that can't be completely reversed. Take a vegetarian friend. He really wants to enjoy a wide variety of food options like anyone else, he just doesn't do meat. You invite him to your house, but the menu always has meat for the main portions. He has the choice to go and only eat 10% of the food, or can decline. If you do not add some vegetarian options to the menu, he's stuck eating the salad at the beginning and then starving for the rest of the night. He may as well decline, and then no matter how good a friend he is, or how much you may enjoy each other's company, you've effectively shut him out of your house and dining room until you open up your menu. The analogy isn't perfect (you can allow psionics without running any of your own, and just let the guy be the only psion in the world, treating his system as reflavored transparent magic), as it's easier to allow psionics for one player than to cook good vegetarian cuisine. But the point is the same. Sure, you're the DM, what you say goes, and if you want no psionics then no psionics. But that player who wants them? He's decided to come to your game, and try to have fun with you and your group*. It's a group activity and everyone's fun matters, right? By cutting his favorite part of the game out just for the hell of it, you are punishing him for that decision. Do you really want to do that? *Barring the munchkin types who don't respect any rules think you can enjoy 40d10 Mind Thrusts at level 4. But that goes without saying, and they're a problem independent of psionics.
DrowBattlemind 08-29-07, 02:39 AM	5. The DM is aware that psioncis have not been as well play tested as the core books and has more rules discussions, rulings, and more time consuming to the game. 6. The campaign setting doesn't allow them. The entire Living Greyhawk campaign doesn't allow them for example. Concerning 5: Bull. The developer's team, ever since the 3.0 psi book, have been playtesting the psionics rules. The Expanded Psionics Handbook rules have been proven to be more balanced than either the Cleric or Druid classes in the PHB. 6: It's pretty well known that the RPGA despises psionics, in general. The only campaign they allow Psi characters in is Eberron, and then only if you play another character first and get a special card from the local RPGA DM, and THEN only if you play a Kalashtar, even though any race can be psionic. The Living Greyhawk arguement is fatally flawed, since Greyhawk's been around since 1st edition AD&D, where it was the core game setting, and psionic rules and psionic characters were in the Players Handbook back then. (Omigosh, that means IT WAS CORE!!!!)
CrimsonDeath 08-29-07, 04:43 AM	I never said this was an original idea, i just thought it was worth putting out there. (i would appreceiate it if no one said anything along the lines of "it was out there before you" or the likes) Then I'll simply say that you can draw a wealth of suggestions from likeminded people.
Callix 08-29-07, 07:42 AM	People who are worried about the cost issue should note that psionics are OGL material, and published in full, barring WotC intellectual property (Illithids, giths), on the SRD. Both d20srd.org (http://www.d20srd.org) and the Sovelior Sage SRD (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html) have the full psionics rules, class descriptions (including a better version of the Illithid Slayer), feats, powers, skills, items, and most monsters. It's in the flavor-divorced form common to all SRDs, but this just shows the DM how the flavor can be made up to suit the campaign.
Naderion 08-29-07, 07:58 AM	It's not, that I dislike psionics. If I would play Eberron, Planescape or Spelljammer, I would likely even enjoy playing a psion myself very much. But psionics are not just a mechanic of magic, they are also a flavour of magic. If there are psionics in the world, this raises certain expectations about the world with the players and it has an affect on the complete feeling and atmosphere of the setting. And in the setting of my campaign, this feeling just doesn't fit in. You can't really play middle-earth and there's a mind flayer coming round the corner or have star trek style space ships in star wars. It just doesn't feel right and disrupts the feeling of the setting. That's the main reason there are no psionics in my campaign and I'm sure this also goes for many other DMs too.
Artector 08-29-07, 09:36 AM	What no new name for Metacreativity? That makes me a sad panda.
Rageheart 08-29-07, 09:43 AM	If there are psionics in the world, this raises certain expectations about the world with the players and it has an affect on the complete feeling and atmosphere of the setting. What Expectations and affect do you refer too? You can't really play middle-earth and there's a mind flayer coming round the corner or have star trek style space ships in star wars. It just doesn't feel right and disrupts the feeling of the setting. That's the main reason there are no psionics in my campaign and I'm sure this also goes for many other DMs too. So my Telepath, standing on a natural land bridge, cannot manifest Suggestion, Psionic (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/suggestionPsionic.htm) on a Balor, (while yelling "You. Shall. Not. Pass!") to buy time for my Halfling freinds to escape without pulling out a snake’s tongue and either a bit of honeycomb or a drop of sweet oil (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/suggestion.htm) ...because it doesn't fit the flavor of Middle Earth?
BW0222 08-29-07, 11:06 AM	Folks, I'm amazed that I put out a number of perfectly legitimate reasons why DMs might not wish to include psionics in the campaign and then folks fly into a panic and try shooting down over a dozen reasons. The point of the post is that the DM may have a lot of legitimate reasons and not just "essentially two reasons" which the OP puts forward. I never even said that any of these would prevent me from including psionics in one of my campaigns. On some specific points. Bauglir Now, number 0, I grant you. But that, of course, goes both ways. It's the DM's game, and if they're cool with Psionics, then all is ok. Rule 0 isn't a good argument in most situations, I think. Now, I ought to apologize in advance if you don't actually think Psionics is unbalanced and were merely commenting on players trying to manipulate DMs, which I agree isn't a good thing. I may have misunderstood your intent. Accepted. Yes, the point of number 0 is that excessive attempts to dictate the content of the game after the DM has said "No" (or assuming the most negative reasons - i.e. "lazy") is rude. Keep it up and the DM is likely not to invite you the next game. DrowBattlemind Concerning 5: Bull. The developer's team, ever since the 3.0 psi book, have been playtesting the psionics rules. The Expanded Psionics Handbook rules have been proven to be more balanced than either the Cleric or Druid classes in the PHB. Sorry. It has not been as well play tested at the core rules. Just from the number of books sold, the fact that the core rules have been out longer, the lack of use of the books in the Living campaigns, etc. it is obvious that fewer players play under psionics than under core books. Those Living campaigns running psionics rules have had serious problems with them. Modules with errata saying "don't use this power", lists of banned powers, and their campaign source books (or erratas) include more stuff on psionics than anything else. Most LA judges can tell you horror stories of modules which slaughtered parties through one power, PCs who could walk through encounters solo due to power issues, rules arguements over powers, etc. The expanded psionics handbook included far more dramatic class and power changes than the core classes/powers in the 3.0 to 3.5 PHB. If they did such a good job in play testing the 3.0 psionics book... why so many changes? And what does the play testing from the only major living campaign to use psionics test us... well... Living Arcanic is currently replacing the entire expanded psionics handbook with their own. So, I find your statement that psionics are "proven" pretty funny. DrowBattlemind 6: It's pretty well known that the RPGA despises psionics, in general. The only campaign they allow Psi characters in is Eberron, and then only if you play another character first and get a special card from the local RPGA DM, and THEN only if you play a Kalashtar, even though any race can be psionic. The Living Greyhawk arguement is fatally flawed, since Greyhawk's been around since 1st edition AD&D, where it was the core game setting, and psionic rules and psionic characters were in the Players Handbook back then. (Omigosh, that means IT WAS CORE!!!!) Living Arcanis was part of the RPGA (until recently) and has always allowed psionics? And how is my Living Greyhawk arguement flawed? I stated that some campaigns don't allow psionics and pointed out Living Greyhawk. I didn't say Greyhawk. If your DM is running Living Greyhawk games... that's would seem like a pretty "essential" reason why he isn't allowing psionics? However, I find your counter arguement funny. They (WotC/Hasbro) don't allow psionics because they "despise" psionics in general. LOL. Just put the most negative slant on their reasons and blame them. Didn't they write the psonics books and can't one make a serious business case (i.e. money) why they would want to include it into the LGH campaign... and yet the only reason they didn't add it was because they "despise" psionics? There isn't possibly any other legitimate reason why they aren't making a simple decision which would lead to hundreds of thousands copies of their book being sold?
Tealgorthian 08-29-07, 11:41 AM	And how is my Living Greyhawk arguement flawed? I stated that some campaigns don't allow psionics and pointed out Living Greyhawk. I didn't say Greyhawk. If your DM is running Living Greyhawk games... that's would seem like a pretty "essential" reason why he isn't allowing psionics? Because Living Greyhawk isn't really D&D. It's a political game between the players, who strive to kiss as much rear end as possible so they can play what they actually want to play. 3.0 Psionics were broken. No one has ever said they weren't. 3.5, however, is 100% more balanced than the PHB. I bet I could find more DMs that have horror stories about Clerics, Druids, and Wizards blowing their games to pieces than you can about anything with 3.5 Psionics. And if we are using how much errata/faq/sage space is devoted to something, go read up on Wildshape and Polymorph sometime.
Lokiyn 08-29-07, 11:51 AM	Tch, anyone who thinks core is balanced hasn't yet read the phb. Besides whats the minimum playtest requirement? 1 gaming group (the average Wotc Playtest) 10 Gaming Groups? 100? From the interviews i've seen and from what i've gathered talking to people most material for dnd is playtested in the designers group only, with prehaps one other group at most. Lets put it like this, Run XPH DMG MM through the board grinder for balance checks, you'll find an issue or two, nothing super major but you will find a couple issues (mostly situational, such as mind thrust at extreme low levels, or metapsioniced ego whips) Run PHB DMG MM through the Board Grinder and you get the CODZilla.
kyeudo 08-29-07, 12:31 PM	Wow, an anti-psionic person on the psionics boards again. I thought we had finaly driven them all out a year ago. Guess they're like cockroaches. 3. Not all the players have the books so he doesn't want to unfairly give one player such an advantage. Step 1: Go Online. Step 2: Search "SRD" on any search engine. Step 3: Print Psionics section of the SRD. Result: 1 nearly free copy of all the rules for psionics. If you need more copies for everyone wanting to play a psionic class, repeat step 3 until you have sufficient copies. Don't want to do all that?? Most people don't mind sharing a book. I've played with 2 PHBs between 6 players. 4. The DM is aware that psionics have not been as well play tested as the core books and therefore realizes that there are balance issues in it. 5. The DM is aware that psioncis have not been as well play tested as the core books and has more rules discussions, rulings, and more time consuming to the game. Ask the CO boards which is easier to break, Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, or Psionics. The answer is Divine Magic nearly every time. The other times they say Arcane. More time spent playtesting does not mean better quality playtesting. 6. The campaign setting doesn't allow them. The entire Living Greyhawk campaign doesn't allow them for example. Living Greyhawk is a sham of a campaign. Your not a DM, your a judge without access to even rule 0. Everything else can easily allow them in. I'd rebuttal more of your statements, but I don't have the time. Maybe later.
Greco 08-29-07, 01:02 PM	Psionics are concider to be stupid even in the hands of a game breaker. Not that DMs are lazy.
DeathByRodent 08-29-07, 01:30 PM	I've DMed off-on for 30 years and on three continents and with who knows how many different players, some who have played with psionics, most who haven't. When it comes to allowing material, it is not just a matter of how lazy I am to learn it well enough to work it in. Any time I allow more material, the one thing that has always, and I mean always (not mostly or sometimes) there will be at least one player who slows the game down to debate rules about the material. Psionics always seems to be worse in this respect. This experience has lead me to a policy that I encourage in every group I've been a part of, which is to be very cautious to allow additional material and to priortize - what do we want to allow? Which is more important to more players? Anytime we discuss what to allow, there is always something that we decide as a group should be allowed before psionics. So it's not because I don't allow it, it's because our group prefers other material over psionics.
Kursk 08-29-07, 01:44 PM	I don't use them as it means having two different spell casting systems in the game. One is enough for me. I also wouldn't use two different combat systems in one game...
axenome 08-29-07, 02:24 PM	Folks, Sorry. It has not been as well play tested at the core rules. Just from the number of books sold, the fact that the core rules have been out longer, the lack of use of the books in the Living campaigns, etc. it is obvious that fewer players play under psionics than under core books. Um... When you consider that here on the WotC website, the Magic and Spells forum has 45,000 posts in it, and the Psionics forum has 25,000 posts in it, I feel the need to point out that there are two main types of magic- Arcane and Divine- and then psionics, if we assume an even split between arcane and divine, we are talking about roughly 22,500 posts per arcane or divine, meaning that Psionics is actually the most popular brand of "magic" they've put out yet. When you count that the Magic and Spells forum also deals with such things as Warlocks, Shadowcasters, Binders, etc. then you start to realize that Psionics appeals to people on some level. In so far as balance issues, psionics can nova devastatingly, as has been mentioned repeatedly in the past by a bevy of Arcane/Divine fans who consistently whine about them. They're also good for one, maybe two encounters before they need to take a nap. Wizards, clerics, and druids are monsters if they've even got a few decent spells memorized, their much higher endurance leaves the Psion in the dust by encounter number four, and there are thousands of spells between core and all the expansion/splat they've put out to support them. I might also add that WotC has made a LITTLE effort at the cross polination of psionics and other forms of magic with new stuff they came out with- an example being the psionic feats for soulmeld users. But then, they did the same for Spells. And Invocations. YOU have an issue with psionics, not us, so why don't you stop trolling our boards looking for a fight over them? They're here, we like them, you don't, fantastic, now go away and quit harassing us. While you're at it, you might want to quit reading the psionics board altogether- the topics will just hurt your feelings.
Psionx 08-29-07, 02:40 PM	Nova-ing Psions win the battle... (Decently Played) Wizards win the war... (A player with intelligence as HIS dump stat) CODzilla wins at life. EDIT: Candle of Invocation, summon a celestial titan, command it to summon a celestial titan, command that one to summon a celestial titan... titan... profit... ? Candle of Invocation, summon an efreeti, 3 wishes, wish for a Candle of Invocation, wish for a klondike bar, wish for a klondike bar, use candle of invocation, summon an efreeti... Telekinesis+Shrink Item+Sh*tload of rocks ...Neo-Terminator... ...Omnifiscer... ...Artificer... ...Initiate of the Sevenfold (something)... ...Dweomerkeeper... ...Twice betrayer of Shar... ...Festering Anger... ...Cheater of Mystara... ...Arcane Nova... ...Ur-Priest... ...?
Ongorth 08-29-07, 02:42 PM	I don't use them as it means having two different spell casting systems in the game. One is enough for me. I also wouldn't use two different combat systems in one game... Well put. Is it entirely unreasonable to restrict things because there is too much stuff? One player is a Cleric One player is a Wizard One player is a Psion One player is a Chaos Mage [Mongoose](Assuming you fixed the DC equations, trigger and damage scaling problems to balance it) One player is playing a Gleaner [Atlas] One player is playing a Psychic [Green Ronin] One player is playing a Truenamer One player is playing a Magister [Malhavoc] Assuming these are both internally and externally balanced (after you tinkered them and such), is this extra effort making your game better then if you picked just a couple and ran with it? I mean, I wouldn't mind , personally, but I'm an obessive tinkerer. It is a lot of work and a lot of justification, particularly if you care about the flavor of each system. Psionics is just one of many alternate spellcasting systems you can use and whether or not it is better mechanically has only a little to do with it is preferable to the group. In some ways, Psionics is good, because its so similiar to Arcane/Divine magic its easy to learn. But, this is also a disadvantage because some might feel it isn't different enough to bother including. Psionics is probably better balanced, but in most people's games "optimized balance" really doesn't matter since the players don't play at that level where it matters. Most people learn magic first because its in the core and adding a second system seems extraneous or disruptive to the flow of the game, which is definately a valid reason. If this is your road block, then finding players who are more into tinkering, "optimized" gameplay, alternate systems and who overall have a less casual gameplay attitude is the best choice.
Nephlite 08-29-07, 02:50 PM	protosswarrior Since I can come up with numerous reasons which are equally valid.. I'll debate that. 3. Not all the players have the books so he doesn't want to unfairly give one player such an advantage. Why not print them out if you have a copier/copy machine. Sure, it wastes paper, but cheaper than buying book. plus, except for races all of the material is free on the net. 4. The DM is aware that psionics have not been as well play tested as the core books and therefore realizes that there are balance issues in it. Okay, you had me. I almost thought you were being serious. Please, have you even read/considerd what Core casters can do!? Gate, Polymorph, Shapechange, Disjunction, Wish, Miracle (free Wish almost), and thart is just a few gems. Not to mention Time Stop and other things. Psionics: Assuming 3.5, is so balanced broken stuff is usually costly (Exp) like the Psionic Polymorph costs exp, etc. Time stop, psionic shakens you (meaning, you can't use it again next round because you'll be frightened and must leave battle). Any DM should be aware Designers have well tested Psionics more than Core. And realizes Core has a lot of balance issues. Assuming you are right and Core was play tested more scares me: they sucked that bad at play testing. Psionics alot more balanced with less play testing?! Waltz Tango Foxtrot?! 5. The DM is aware that psioncis have not been as well play tested as the core books and has more rules discussions, rulings, and more time consuming to the game. Um, only if DM hasn't read the material. Psionics is more explanationable in the text. Less to refute, unless DM has hidden houserules. 6. The campaign setting doesn't allow them. The entire Living Greyhawk campaign doesn't allow them for example. Not everyone plays Living Greyhawk but yes this could be a legitamate reason. 7. The campaign setting hasn't considered psionics, so now he has more work to do to integrate them in. Which races can be psionic, which p-classes exist and where, etc. Why? There are no neeed to change anything. You can keep the psionic races psionic and the rest can take wild talent if they want to count as psionic or take a psionic class, seems rather simple. Why limit psionic classes?! 8. The DM is less familiar with psionics and therefore it requires a lot harder to balance encounter, put in useful psionic items, which abilities ruin which encounters, etc. Eh, there are few psionic items that must be in a game. Psions use headbands of Intellect. Psychic Warriors use Wisdom necklace. Wilders use Charisma cloak. I mean, throwing them a bone by giving them a Dojre (psionic wand) might be nice, but not neccesary. Just tell your players, "I won't put a lot of psionic stuff in treasure. So if you want a certain item: Crafting feats would be best". Boom, solved. Psionics is based on same idea as Wizards: 4 encounters/day. Wizard can spam best spells if 2/encounter a day. Same as Psionics except with power points. Some newbies to psionics might blow too much pp in one encounter, but that was their choice (hopefully they brung a crossbow or some weapon). 9. Not all the players are familiar with psionics or you have new players at the table, so it tends to become boring for them -- as they have no clue what is going on or distracts from the game as it needs to be explained. Why do they need to be explained? Nomad: I use this to move my ally 20 feet to the left. Simon, you can move 5 foot and full attack if you want." Simon: Uh, sure. I don't see the issue. Now: if you have enemy psionic manifesters: than maybe. But no one said yu had to: your choice. 10. He feels that having to put in psionic encounters to make the game interesting for the psionic player is likely to detract from the campaign plots -- which only have a limited number of encounters and are hard enough to keep focused. But these same things make arcane casters more powerful. So there will little difference in power if few encounters a day compard to Arcane. 11. The DM just doesn't want so many books physically at the table -- hauled around, etc. The players book not yours (if you were a fan of psionics or allowed them easily this wouldn't be a issue); plus print it out. So you have less. 12. Other players have already agreed to play in the campaign and with the understanding that psionics would not be in the game (or at least nothing was said about it). But not saying something does not mean no one wants this. They may not have known about it. You punish people for ignorance? Little mean. 0. It is his game. He invited you to play. So DM goes with adversial words? Okay, well I wouldn't play wth a jerk usingthose words. I want reasons, logic, logos; not mythos about his game. If he is this unreasonable before game: I'd hate to see him in game. People like him made Darwin Needed: Darwin was second to discover Evolution. In fact, Anaximander discoverd it back in 700 BCE (Before Common Era), but Aristotle couldn't accept this and argued against this (sadly guy was long dead so couldn't debate back). A little underhanded to debate a dead guy: you won't hear much rebuttles.
AntiDjinn 08-29-07, 03:14 PM	A DM's reasons don't need to be valid to be his reasons for including or not including something. Many reasons have been listed in this thread, whether or not they are legitimate concerns is beside the point. Within his campaign, the DM sets the parameters of what can and can not happen. If you want to play in a game that is set in a Dune-like world, or a Last Herald Mage world, or antediluvian Atlantis, or a Pliocene exile world, then you need a DM whose definition of fantasy extends beyond regurgitating yet another Middle Earth retread. If your DM is one of those, then discuss the appropriateness of material, provide something to spark interest in the group, or offer to DM yourself for a while, if not, then good luck getting anything beyond exactly what he has dished out in the past.
DMDarkJediKarr 08-29-07, 03:20 PM	Simple answer! "I am the DM and what I say is LAW!" I am running a game where I want to keep things under control I give the players a list of accepted and unaccepted books. Its not because I am Lazy! Far From it, as a DM your spending more time trying to make every player feel important and catering to one player only because they only like Psions then well Sorry figure out another character or dont play in my game. My Gaming group is completely fine with following the rules I have set forth in campaign guidelines. Tends to make them think about what they want to play using the resources open to them. By trying to force me into letting you play something that I have already said no too is a bit rude. I am more inclined to kill your characters then any other characters in the game just out of spite, and this leads to a point when I say I am sorry but your no longer welcomed in my games. IF a player ever called me Lazy that would be the last time they played in my game!
DrowBattlemind 08-29-07, 03:38 PM	and catering to one player only because they only like Psions then well Sorry figure out another character or dont play in my game. So, if only one player wanted to play a Wizard (or Sorcerer), then you're going to ban Arcane magic? IF a player ever called me Lazy that would be the last time they played in my game! Sir, if that is your attitude, then I am happy that I am not in "your" game.
Nephlite 08-29-07, 03:38 PM	Simple answer! "I am the DM and what I say is LAW!" I am running a game where I want to keep things under control I give the players a list of accepted and unaccepted books. Its not because I am Lazy! Far From it, as a DM your spending more time trying to make every player feel important and catering to one player only because they only like Psions then well Sorry figure out another character or dont play in my game. My Gaming group is completely fine with following the rules I have set forth in campaign guidelines. Tends to make them think about what they want to play using the resources open to them. By trying to force me into letting you play something that I have already said no too is a bit rude. I am more inclined to kill your characters then any other characters in the game just out of spite, and this leads to a point when I say I am sorry but your no longer welcomed in my games. IF a player ever called me Lazy that would be the last time they played in my game! But when all arcane books are allowed, but not psionics: there seems to be bias. If you have a good reason why: that works. But a lame reason is no: without even considering you might have forgotten to even consibnder others (also rude). If you are inclined to kill them: why kick them out? What would be the point of doing both?! Seems rather passive aggressive.
Fafnir 08-29-07, 03:49 PM	Simple answer! "I am the DM and what I say is LAW!" I am running a game where I want to keep things under control I give the players a list of accepted and unaccepted books. Its not because I am Lazy! Far From it, as a DM your spending more time trying to make every player feel important and catering to one player only because they only like Psions then well Sorry figure out another character or dont play in my game. My Gaming group is completely fine with following the rules I have set forth in campaign guidelines. Tends to make them think about what they want to play using the resources open to them. By trying to force me into letting you play something that I have already said no too is a bit rude. I am more inclined to kill your characters then any other characters in the game just out of spite, and this leads to a point when I say I am sorry but your no longer welcomed in my games. IF a player ever called me Lazy that would be the last time they played in my game! Interesting. What you wrote is the exact anathema of everything I believe in D&D. Which means you are either joking (good one, you had me there) or possibly the last DM I'd ever choose to play with.
Lycanthromancer 08-29-07, 04:16 PM	Winning friends and influencing people, you are not.
Novem 08-29-07, 04:40 PM	It's not, that I dislike psionics. If I would play Eberron, Planescape or Spelljammer, I would likely even enjoy playing a psion myself very much. But psionics are not just a mechanic of magic, they are also a flavour of magic. If there are psionics in the world, this raises certain expectations about the world with the players and it has an affect on the complete feeling and atmosphere of the setting. And in the setting of my campaign, this feeling just doesn't fit in. You can't really play middle-earth and there's a mind flayer coming round the corner or have star trek style space ships in star wars. It just doesn't feel right and disrupts the feeling of the setting. That's the main reason there are no psionics in my campaign and I'm sure this also goes for many other DMs too. And this is a failing of yours, not Psionics. Psionics does not require Illithids, starships, or any of the above. The "Flavour of Magic" arguement is false, because it is you, not Psionics, doing the stereotyping. This is a criticism of that school of thought, not you. No offense is intended. EDIT: Clerics are banned in my game, and Paladins restricted and discouraged. Perhaps the haters of Psionics will be more willing to be reasonable if other DMs took these measures. As Lycanthromancer said, Flavour is what you make of it.
Lycanthromancer 08-29-07, 04:52 PM	Damn near any anime series, fictional book series, or video game series ever made can be emulated (and quite well, usually) using psionics in one capacity or another. Just because Gandalf is dubbed a 'wizard' doesn't mean he's not actually a telepath. Richard Cypher (nee Rahl) could be a kineticist. Rand al'Thor could be one, too. Or Goku. Professor X is a telepath. Aang the Avatar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar:_The_Last_Airbender) is undoubtedly a kineticist with a few earth powers. Alucard (from Hellsing) could easily be an epic-level psychic warrior or an egoist. Luke Skywalker could be a nomad (and no, Star Wars isn't sci-fi - it's fantasy; ever seen The Force used in real life? It's frikken' magic). The Prince of Persia is obviously psionic, and I don't see a single starship anywhere. Flavor is completely optional; it has no bearing on this discussion at all (or at least it shouldn't). If a DM is that wrapped up in cut-and-paste DMing, he obviously has no imagination whatsoever.
AntiDjinn 08-29-07, 04:57 PM	Simple answer! "I am the DM and what I say is LAW!" I am running a game where I want to keep things under control I give the players a list of accepted and unaccepted books. As I said, a DM's reasons don't have to be valid and they don't have to be defended. Within the context of his game, his reasons define physical law. At the quantum level some of the physical laws of our own universe defy reason and common sense, but they are the rules by which reality is governed. Of course the difference is, we can't pick another universe in real life, but if a particular DM's style, world, or scope of imagination isn't to your liking then you can pick up an move to a different game. Heck, I changed groups once because the DM's lack of personal hygiene wasn't to my liking. It isn't like the relationship between DM and player is some dominant-submissive BDSM power exchange. Anyone can depart without needing a safeword. And the surest way to find a group with a DM who matches your style is to be the DM. A friend of mine found that was the only way to get his group to try Incarnum. He started his own game and integrated the three meld-shaping base classes and the races introduced in the book. None of the PCs used these classes initially, but they ran into opponents who were using the material. This also gave the DM a chance to figure out what worked and what didn't (and to note the power gap betweent the Totemist and the other two classes before the PCs could exploit it). So if your DM won't budge and won't listen to your reasons, start your own game.
BW0222 08-29-07, 05:15 PM	Folks, This is so funny. :P The lengths to which folks will go to in order to not accept the possibly there might be reasons other than "lazy DMs" and "sci-fi centered view" as to why some DMs don't use psionics. Because Living Greyhawk isn't really D&D. It's a political game between the players, who strive to kiss as much rear end as possible so they can play what they actually want to play. LOL. That's your arguement? Insult hundreds of thousands of players, DMs, authors, campaign staff, and WotC/Hasbro itself in one sweep? LG is the largest campaign in world. It is responsble for more play testing, rules fixes, errata, FAQs, etc. than anything else. They have a near direct line to the WotC writers. It more closely follows core rules than just about any campaign you can mention. Looking at their campaign source book is like looking at a pre-release of the errata. And you still haven't given a reason why they aren't using psionics? Considering that WotC/Hasbro has a vested interest in having players use psionics... rather than toss insults at them... maybe you might wish to consider that the might just have a reason why they don't allow their use in the campaign? kyeudo... good point on #3 being less of an issue with being able to download the SRD. I still see it as a reason because it is expensive and time consuming to print hundreds of pages and carry them around. However, calling LGH a "sham of a campaign" gets you the same response as anyone else tossing insults out as arguements. :( LGH is a different type of campaign and it isn't for everyone, but that doesn't warrant insults to those involved with it and the insults still don't explain why they don't have a legitimate reason (other than the OP's two) as to deciding not to use psonics? Any insults for the Living Arcanis folks? They actually used both the 3.0 and 3.5 psionics... and are dumping them. Not a real campaign, lazy, sham, ... anyone? The fact is that lots of other folks who don't use psionics and there are legitimate reasons for it -- other than the two the OP included. Tossing insults at groups known for specifically not using psionics certainly won't convince me otherwise. Finally, for those who don't understand point 0, I'm truly sorry. The DM is the one making the campaign. They are doing the majority of the work, spending the obsene amounts of time preparing, and working hard for your enjoyment. Presumably, that person is also your friend. They are inviting you to play. Just like a dinner (or any other social) invitiation. You are their guest. You are certainly free to ask about the activity and even make suggestions as to changes, but when they say "No" to assume negative reasons for them not accepting your suggestion (i.e. "lazy") is simply rude. If I'm invited to any social event (say dinner and a DVD), its fine to ask about the menu, and make suggestions about the DVD. Fine. However, if my host says "No" to my suggestions, I don't come back with assuming that he is "lazy" because he won't take my menu suggestions or that he is "sci-fi" fixated because he won't pick my choice of a group DVD. If you really can't stand the terms of your host... the polite answer is "No thank-you." If you want to start with complaints about his motives about not taking your suggestions... then don't expect to be invited again.
Tealgorthian 08-29-07, 05:41 PM	LOL. That's your arguement? Insult hundreds of thousands of players, DMs, authors, campaign staff, and WotC/Hasbro itself in one sweep? LG is the largest campaign in world. It is responsble for more play testing, rules fixes, errata, FAQs, etc. than anything else. They have a near direct line to the WotC writers. It more closely follows core rules than just about any campaign you can mention. Looking at their campaign source book is like looking at a pre-release of the errata. Yeah. Got a problem with it? LG is basically tournament D&D. I've played in a few games, and a few tourneys back in 2e. None of their fixes work on anything that is remotely a problem. Psionics is far easier to use, and fair less easy to abuse than any full caster in the PHB. LG is mostly about trying to get the cards to play the class/race you really want to play. It's ridiculous. Either material should be open, or it should be banned. Or there should be a more structured system of allowing/disallowing than cards being handed out by a DM. And you still haven't given a reason why they aren't using psionics? The Living Greyhawk Gazateer does not include them, and I believe that is what they base most of the system off of, nevermind that is written well before the Psionics handbook. 2e, and 3.0 were broken, and that creates a large bias against the current system. Most of them are not even willing to read it. Still, I am not sure what your point is. Why the hell should I give a crap if LG allows it or not? They don't ban things based on power level, or the cleric and druid would be right the hell out. LG is not a good base to measure power by. If you look, they are not using the new Wild Shape errata, which makes Druids even more powerful. So, in the future, I am just going to ignore any statements about the RPGA. Like most bad DMs, they are incapable of adapting to changes. As for the DM spending more time than the players: Frankly, if you don't like spending that much time to be a DM, stop doing it. Don't whine to me about all the hours of labor you put into your world/story/plot/adventure. It's a choice you make when you say "I'll DM." So suck it up. If you put all that work into it, why are you going to make a player unhappy with your setting by saying "No, I won't even consider it!" Not smart. Unhappy players means all that work you did, gets to sit on your shelf and take up space, since you don't have anyone to play it. DM Elitism is why people leave D&D. I've met alot (15) of older players that say they stopped playing because their DM turned into a powertripping ass. Something you might want to think about next time you spout your "I'm the DM, my word is law!" crap.
Ongorth 08-29-07, 06:05 PM	Flavor is completely optional; it has no bearing on this discussion at all (or at least it shouldn't). If a DM is that wrapped up in cut-and-paste DMing, he obviously has no imagination whatsoever. Flavor isn't optional. In fact, you made an entire list of characters who certainly have flavor. Without flavor, I'm not sure what the actual gameplay is. A bunch of statblocks comparing numbers, I guess. What I think you mean to say is that flavor is mutable. Which is a big difference. Mechanics are just as mutable. I mean, who hasn't houseruled a spell or written a fighter fix? The merits of a system, thus, should be how readily adaptable it is. Does it run cleanly out of the box? Is its flavor inspiring? Do the mechanics enhance or stall gameplay? Does an existing mechanic already work well enough for the same thing? Does the flavor text need to be redone to fit in my game? Do these mechanics fit a niche that my game would benefit from? Flavor should be a factor. It need not be the deciding factor or the only factor. Chaos Magic by Mongoose has awful mechanics but good flavor, so I use it after fixing the mechanics. Tome of Battle has great mechanics and terrible flavor, so I use it after fixing the flavor. Same deal.
nobodez 08-29-07, 06:28 PM	LG is basically tournament D&D. I've played in a few games, and a few tourneys back in 2e. None of their fixes work on anything that is remotely a problem. Psionics is far easier to use, and fair less easy to abuse than any full caster in the PHB. LG is mostly about trying to get the cards to play the class/race you really want to play. It's ridiculous. Either material should be open, or it should be banned. Or there should be a more structured system of allowing/disallowing than cards being handed out by a DM. I'm as much a fan of psionics as the next guy on this board (well, most of the next guys), but I'm going to have to disagree with this quoted paragraph. LG is not tournament D&D. It's a worldwide campaign guided by six DMs (the Circle), who have groups of three assistant DMs (the Triads) in different regions, with a bunch of tertiary DMs (the writers) who write adventures. The Triads and the Circle guide the adventures, and the Judges (table DMs) run the adventure. There's no points, and you can't "win". Also, up until less than a year ago those fancy cards didn't unlock any races for LG, just for the D&D Campaigns (I don't play these, so I can't comment). There have been no unlocked classes from the cards. As for psionics in LG? Well, aside from the fact that they don't allow any of the other alternate magic systems (invocations, binders, truename, etc.) except shadowcasting (and that's only as a reward from a Core Special advenure last year, not a card). They don't allow any alternate races (except for the recently unlocked snow elf and kobold, as well as a few of the MM elf/halfling/dwarf variants) either. They were hesitant in allowing the extra base classes (swashbuckler, marshal, healer, etc.), and they still haven't allowed all of the non-oriental Complete ones (the spellthief and the spirit shaman for instance). It's a very limited Campaign, mainly because there are roughly 20 thousand LG players (from a recent RPGA web article, though I can't find the link), and less than 100 Senior DMs (Circle and Triads). That's a 1:200 ratio. You'd limit your campaign too if you had to administer 200 players. As for psionics in games, I've found that, as long as you don't get hung up on the psudo-science of the names (which are old D&D anyway), or the alternate power source (PP versus slots), there's really no flavor/story reasons to restrict psionics. I have a larger problem with Truenamers, Binders, and Incarnum users than I do with Psions, since at least the psionics are closer to the Vancian norm than the other "freaks". Also, as has been detailed many time before, psionics (if you remove the pseudo-science) is closer to most non-D&D fantasy magic than the Core "Vancian" system.
kyeudo 08-29-07, 06:45 PM	kyeudo... good point on #3 being less of an issue with being able to download the SRD. I still see it as a reason because it is expensive and time consuming to print hundreds of pages and carry them around. However, calling LGH a "sham of a campaign" gets you the same response as anyone else tossing insults out as arguements. :( LGH is a different type of campaign and it isn't for everyone, but that doesn't warrant insults to those involved with it and the insults still don't explain why they don't have a legitimate reason (other than the OP's two) as to deciding not to use psonics? Any insults for the Living Arcanis folks? They actually used both the 3.0 and 3.5 psionics... and are dumping them. Not a real campaign, lazy, sham, ... anyone? I'd freely insult/compliment Living Arcanis if I had any experience with it, but I don't. However, I have plenty of experience with the problems that Living Greyhawk entails. I spent 6 MONTHS trying to contact the local triad to get ONE regional adventure. LG restricts the material that I can use to play for no apparent reason, requires incessant paperwork, and gimps characters on both XP and gear. I got into Living Greyhawk as a way to learn how to run a campaign, since I could get free adventures that I supposed were well written and fun, but the thing was is that the supposedly interesting skill challenges and their riddles were either pointless or they were impossible, while combat was either a cake walk or a TPK. I tried to get the hang of it. I read the material ahead of time, read all the rules, and even hand made the encounter maps ahead of time. Somewhere between all the paperwork and the stupidity, I just quit. They had a good idea with some of the adventures that I got ahold of, such as the Blood on Bright Sands series, but they buried the spirit of D&D under six feet of paperwork. The only good thing good that came out of my stint with LG is my group found a new word for "loot the bodies and the rest of the room for anything that apears valuble/important". We now Greyhawk things, even in Eberron. Now that I got that rant out of my system, I would like to say that there are likely legitimate reasons for excluding psionics other than flavor or not wanting to take the time, but all of the reasons you have suggested are completely debunked.
Nephlite 08-29-07, 07:26 PM	As for psionics in LG? Well, aside from the fact that they don't allow any of the other alternate magic systems (invocations, binders, truename, etc.) except shadowcasting (and that's only as a reward from a Core Special advenure last year, not a card). They don't allow any alternate races (except for the recently unlocked snow elf and kobold, as well as a few of the MM elf/halfling/dwarf variants) either. They were hesitant in allowing the extra base classes (swashbuckler, marshal, healer, etc.), and they still haven't allowed all of the non-oriental Complete ones (the spellthief and the spirit shaman for instance). It's a very limited Campaign, mainly because there are roughly 20 thousand LG players (from a recent RPGA web article, though I can't find the link), and less than 100 Senior DMs (Circle and Triads). That's a 1:200 ratio. You'd limit your campaign too if you had to administer 200 players. So they restrict not on power, but whether it is Core? I mean, the healer is weaker than the Cleric and Swashbuckler isn't that good by itself.
CrimsonDeath 08-29-07, 08:44 PM	The only good thing good that came out of my stint with LG is my group found a new word for "loot the bodies and the rest of the room for anything that apears valuble/important". We now Greyhawk things, even in Eberron. I ran into that expression recently, used by one of the members of my current gaming group. (About half of them are involved in LG; I'm not, and I'm not terribly interested in it because I like house rules to come from somewhere a bit more local.)
BW0222 08-29-07, 11:19 PM	Tealgorthian, Yeah. Got a problem with it? Yes. I already said, I don't buy insults towards people as arguements as to their motives. If name calling is acceptable to you, then rational discussions with you is pointless. LG is basically tournament D&D. Nonsense. It is a shared campaign. Nothing like a tounament at all. You can't "win" and no one plays to complete against anyone. None of their fixes work on anything that is remotely a problem. Virtually every change from 3.0 to 3.5 was directed by them. You can go through all the changes in 3.5 and relate most directly to an issue brought up in LGH. Perhaps you don't realize that the RPGA is run by WotC. The FAQ isn't official for them, since if they have a rules question, they ask the writers directly. If you go to a convention... it isn't a coincidence that you have 400 tables of Living Greyhawk running and WotC employees and writers are in the next room announcing new products, signing books, and discussing rules. Psionics is far easier to use, and fair less easy to abuse than any full caster in the PHB. Which is still not a reason why LG (and most other campaigns) don't use psionics. LG is mostly about trying to get the cards to play the class/race you really want to play. More nonsense. No one plays RPGA events to collect player reward cards -- which the RPGA sends out just for registering any game you play with them, showing up to a public game day, etc. Lots of time folks at tables couldn't care less about cards. Folks happily share them at the table. WotC gives them away as a marketting tool. Last world game day, I think we gave away 300 of them. It's a campaign. Lots of folks getting together to play D&D. Nothing more. Nothing evil or worth of insulting people over. It's ridiculous. Either material should be open, or it should be banned. Or there should be a more structured system of allowing/disallowing than cards being handed out by a DM. Hundreds of thousands of players play the campaign. Go to any major convention and they are running thousands of tables of it. No one player LGH for cards. You could get the same cards playing any other Living game, or just posting your home campaign games to the RPGA site. >And you still haven't given a reason why they aren't using psionics? The Living Greyhawk Gazateer does not include them, and I believe that is what they base most of the system off of, nevermind that is written well before the Psionics handbook. 2e, and 3.0 were broken, and that creates a large bias against the current system. Most of them are not even willing to read it. Gazateer is all flavour-text -- setting, countries, gods, etc. The LGH campaign source book (online and free) includes all sorts of materials (the entire complete series) added long after LGH was started. The campaign switched to 3.5 long before anything else. What a small view you have of everyone else? No LGH player has ever read the psionics book? None of the RPGA staff (all WotC employees) have ever read the psionics book? They haven't discussed using it? The RPGA (and LGH specifically) exists to help market D&D -- both to encourage play and as a community to directly market books to. You seriously want me to believe that someone at WotC/Hasbro hasn't walked down the hallway and discussed to sales impact allowing the psionics handbook in LGH with senior RPGA folks? Still, I am not sure what your point is. Why the hell should I give a crap if LG allows it or not? They don't ban things based on power level, or the cleric and druid would be right the hell out. LG is not a good base to measure power by. If you look, they are not using the new Wild Shape errata, which makes Druids even more powerful. And because they must have some reason for not using psionics -- other than being (insert your insult here). So, in the future, I am just going to ignore any statements about the RPGA. Like most bad DMs, they are incapable of adapting to changes. ROTFHLMAO. I see, anyone who doesn't agree with your take on psionics can't possible have a legitimate arguement. They must all be bad DMs? Hundreds of thousands of them, including WotC employees themselves? As for the DM spending more time than the players: Frankly, if you don't like spending that much time to be a DM, stop doing it. Don't whine to me about all the hours of labor you put into your world/story/plot/adventure. It's a choice you make when you say "I'll DM." So suck it up. If you put all that work into it, why are you going to make a player unhappy with your setting by saying "No, I won't even consider it!" Not smart. Unhappy players means all that work you did, gets to sit on your shelf and take up space, since you don't have anyone to play it. More nonsense. DMs spend more time than players. That deserves a "Thank-you" and some respect. It also gives them the exclusive right to limit how much time and effort they are willing to put in to it. DMing isn't some open-ended contract of unlimited time. The DM can set any conditions of the campaign he or she wishes ... once a week, core-only, etc. Heck, she can say she is running LGH or a set series of modules. Same with the dinner argument. The person making the invitation can set any conditions they wish. The invitees only have two (polite) responses, "Yes, please." and "No thanks." Assuming that you are entitled to any more than you were offered or leveling insults at the person inviting you to the event for not spending the extra time is thoughtless, ignorant, and rude. There is no reason for the players to be unhappy about the menu (or gaming limits). If the DM says "No" to psionics, and you are going to be unhappy without them, then it is your fault for accepting the invitation. "No thanks" prevents your unhappiness if you can't stomach playing with psionics. DM Elitism is why people leave D&D. I've met alot (15) of older players that say they stopped playing because their DM turned into a powertripping ass. Something you might want to think about next time you spout your "I'm the DM, my word is law!" crap. This isn't a "My word is law" arguement. It is common decency. You are invited to a social occation. Someone is hosting that occation. You have asked for a change in the occation. They have said "No". You are now complaining. Sam: "Joe, I'm having a dinner party... would you like to come out?" Joe: "What are you making?" Sam: "Hamburgers" Joe: "How about veal?" Sam: "Sorry, Joe, I was only planning hamburgers?" Joe: "What if I ask everyone else if they want veal? What if I bring the veal over? I can print off the recipies for you. It isn't that hard to make. A few extra hours tops." Sam: "Joe, I'm not making veal. The invitation was for hamburgers, are you interested?" Joe: "So it's your way or nothing... right? You won't make veal... is that it?" Sam: "Humm... you can always so 'No'. Perhaps some other time, I'll make veal, or maybe you can make veal some time and invite me over?" Sam: "Joe, I'm starting a campaign. I'm willing to DM. Would you like to come out?" Joe: "What kind of campaign?" Sam: "Core only. I was thinking FR setting." Joe: "How about psionics?" Sam: "Sorry, Joe, I was only planning PHB and FR races only." Joe: "What if I ask everyone else if they want psionics? What if I bring the books over? I can print off the copies for you. It isn't that hard to use? A few extra days of reading tops." Sam: "Joe, I'm not including psionics. The invitation was for PHB and FR only, are you interested?" Joe: "So it's your way or nothing... right? You won't allow psionics... is that it?" Sam: "Humm... you can always so 'No'. Perhaps some other time, I'll run a campaign using psionics, or maybe you can run a psionic campaign some time and invite me over?" Same principle. DMs are the ones spending the time and making the invite.
Novem 08-29-07, 11:35 PM	Please stop posting inflammatory things about Psionics, laughing at our arguements, dismissing our motives, and other insults. Please do not insult Living Greyhawk or other campaign settings. The point of the RPGA arguement is false- there are, essentially,2 reasons MOST DM's don't use Psionics- 1.) Belief in balance issues, true or false; and/or a belief that it will be difficult/too complicated to learn. 2.) Problems with Flavor, whether it's the sci-fi, RPGA, or anything else of that nature.
Ongorth 08-30-07, 12:32 AM	The point of the RPGA arguement is false- there are, essentially,2 reasons MOST DM's don't use Psionics- 1.) Belief in balance issues, true or false; and/or a belief that it will be difficult/too complicated to learn. 2.) Problems with Flavor, whether it's the sci-fi, RPGA, or anything else of that nature. You missed 3 - its one alternate system in a sea of alternate systems. The reason you don't use it could simply be that you are already using Vancian Magic, Chaos Magic and Incarnum. Psionics just isn't unique enough to include when the game already has Sorcerors who are very similiar. It isn't that its unbalanced or difficult to learn, its just that it makes for more stuff on the pile. Most people have a limit on the amount of stuff they like work with at once. Psionics may well be fine, but (particularly if you're flavor swapping anyway), there's no real motivation to have both. They are slightly different mechanics that (besides the details) do the exact same thing. Magic generally gets the green light because its core and because its a fantasy game so everyone expects magic. You could easily do a game without Vancian Magic where psionics fills the "magic" role if you didn't feel like including multiple systems. But to say that it has to be about flavor, balance or complications is silly. Even if you personally try to jam every single alternate system into the game, you should at least be able to see why someone else might not want to. And if you're only going to add one, well, there is a very good reason why you wouldn't want to use Psionics: its just magic again and the core system already has that, so what's the point? I mean, I let everything in my games. Player's are required to balance there own characters against the campaign standards, so I don't really care what you use as long as you stay inside the boundries and design a thematic niche. However, I can certainly understand someone not letting me play a Psychic in their game, particularly if they are using Psionics due to the thematic overlap with the Psion.
Kazuhiro 08-30-07, 12:53 AM	I'm a DM who doesn't allow psionics because they seem out of place, as well as for oodles of reasons posted right in this thread. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13587295&postcount=4)-- and I think that the OP here is a marvelous idea. One of my players likes pisonics and would love to play a psion. I know he wouldn't mind in the least if psionics got tweaked to be "just another type of magic;" he just thinks he'll enjoy playing the build. One thing's incorrect, though.1) the DM doen't want to/have the time and or money to learn about psionics. this is a perfectly reasonable (if somewhat lazy) excuse. There aren't any true remedies to this type that i know of, so i'm no help to people with this kind of DMhttp://www.d20srd.org/
Ongorth 08-30-07, 01:09 AM	One thing's incorrect, though.http://www.d20srd.org/ The concern that reading stuff takes time will always be correct, whether or not its on a website.
BW0222 08-30-07, 02:13 AM	Novem, The point of the RPGA arguement is false... Since I brought up the RPGA arguement (in the form of LGH)... Point #6 was clear. There are certain campaigns which do not allow psionics. If your DM is running one of those campaigns... they aren't being lazy or anti-sci-fi focused in not allow the use of psionics. He is following the rules of the campaign. If someone invites another to a Living Greyhawk game, they can't allow you to use psionics. That seems like a perfectly reasonable reason to say "No" besides the two which the OP presented? That's the only point. All other discussions about the RPGA/LGH were in response to insults tossed towards the organization. The point was not that it should or shouldn't have included psionics (or that we must follow their lead), but only that the RPGA/LGH didn't dismiss the inclusion of psionics without some reason for it and it had to be a pretty good reason considering who made that decision and the financial stake the have in that decision. It certainly wasn't one of the two reasons the OP included. Ongorth, You missed 3 - its one alternate system in a sea of alternate systems. Excellent point. I stopped at 12, but I certainly assumed didn't exclude the possibility that someone actually willing to think about it could come up with more. But to say that it has to be about flavor, balance or complications is silly. Even if you personally try to jam every single alternate system into the game, you should at least be able to see why someone else might not want to. I'm glad someone gets the point. :cookie: I'm amazed that some folks can't even consider the possibility that others might have reasons for not permitting X in their campaign. That they need to resort to insulting folks who even suggest possible reasons and trash groups who don't permit X in their campaigns. I personally don't have strong opinions on psionics. I've played psionic characters and I've DM'd in campaigns which allow them. I've also played and run campaigns which do not allow them. Not thrilled either way. Honestly, my biggest concern in LA is having to lug another book to a convention. However, I don't immediately dismiss arguements against inclusion of psionics with insults and I can at least consider the possibility that groups not allowing their use might have some legitimate reason.
Shaggy_Shaggs 08-30-07, 03:19 AM	I just thought I'd point out that the dinner guest argument as given is flawed as it ignores a key factor - without guests, the host doesn't get any dinner. A potluck argument would be more relevant to the subject at hand, but that would most likely be ignored or attacked by the troll since he can't keep pressing it as his ridiculous "my way or the highway" card.
johnkretzer 08-30-07, 03:19 AM	I don't use them as it means having two different spell casting systems in the game. One is enough for me. I also wouldn't use two different combat systems in one game... I am wondering which one did you cut out to bring it only to one? Arcane or Divine? Because the difference between Arcane and Psionic is about the same as between Arcane and Divine? So the game already has two casting systems. I mean the only thing that is really different is power points and slots...and that can be explained in about 10 minute...I just think it is sad that people judge it without reading it.
johnkretzer 08-30-07, 03:36 AM	Tealgorthian, Yes. I already said, I don't buy insults towards people as arguements as to their motives. If name calling is acceptable to you, then rational discussions with you is pointless. Nonsense. It is a shared campaign. Nothing like a tounament at all. You can't "win" and no one plays to complete against anyone. Virtually every change from 3.0 to 3.5 was directed by them. You can go through all the changes in 3.5 and relate most directly to an issue brought up in LGH. Perhaps you don't realize that the RPGA is run by WotC. The FAQ isn't official for them, since if they have a rules question, they ask the writers directly. If you go to a convention... it isn't a coincidence that you have 400 tables of Living Greyhawk running and WotC employees and writers are in the next room announcing new products, signing books, and discussing rules. Which is still not a reason why LG (and most other campaigns) don't use psionics. More nonsense. No one plays RPGA events to collect player reward cards -- which the RPGA sends out just for registering any game you play with them, showing up to a public game day, etc. Lots of time folks at tables couldn't care less about cards. Folks happily share them at the table. WotC gives them away as a marketting tool. Last world game day, I think we gave away 300 of them. It's a campaign. Lots of folks getting together to play D&D. Nothing more. Nothing evil or worth of insulting people over. Hundreds of thousands of players play the campaign. Go to any major convention and they are running thousands of tables of it. No one player LGH for cards. You could get the same cards playing any other Living game, or just posting your home campaign games to the RPGA site. Gazateer is all flavour-text -- setting, countries, gods, etc. The LGH campaign source book (online and free) includes all sorts of materials (the entire complete series) added long after LGH was started. The campaign switched to 3.5 long before anything else. What a small view you have of everyone else? No LGH player has ever read the psionics book? None of the RPGA staff (all WotC employees) have ever read the psionics book? They haven't discussed using it? The RPGA (and LGH specifically) exists to help market D&D -- both to encourage play and as a community to directly market books to. You seriously want me to believe that someone at WotC/Hasbro hasn't walked down the hallway and discussed to sales impact allowing the psionics handbook in LGH with senior RPGA folks? And because they must have some reason for not using psionics -- other than being (insert your insult here). ROTFHLMAO. I see, anyone who doesn't agree with your take on psionics can't possible have a legitimate arguement. They must all be bad DMs? Hundreds of thousands of them, including WotC employees themselves? More nonsense. DMs spend more time than players. That deserves a "Thank-you" and some respect. It also gives them the exclusive right to limit how much time and effort they are willing to put in to it. DMing isn't some open-ended contract of unlimited time. The DM can set any conditions of the campaign he or she wishes ... once a week, core-only, etc. Heck, she can say she is running LGH or a set series of modules. Same with the dinner argument. The person making the invitation can set any conditions they wish. The invitees only have two (polite) responses, "Yes, please." and "No thanks." Assuming that you are entitled to any more than you were offered or leveling insults at the person inviting you to the event for not spending the extra time is thoughtless, ignorant, and rude. There is no reason for the players to be unhappy about the menu (or gaming limits). If the DM says "No" to psionics, and you are going to be unhappy without them, then it is your fault for accepting the invitation. "No thanks" prevents your unhappiness if you can't stomach playing with psionics. This isn't a "My word is law" arguement. It is common decency. You are invited to a social occation. Someone is hosting that occation. You have asked for a change in the occation. They have said "No". You are now complaining. Sam: "Joe, I'm having a dinner party... would you like to come out?" Joe: "What are you making?" Sam: "Hamburgers" Joe: "How about veal?" Sam: "Sorry, Joe, I was only planning hamburgers?" Joe: "What if I ask everyone else if they want veal? What if I bring the veal over? I can print off the recipies for you. It isn't that hard to make. A few extra hours tops." Sam: "Joe, I'm not making veal. The invitation was for hamburgers, are you interested?" Joe: "So it's your way or nothing... right? You won't make veal... is that it?" Sam: "Humm... you can always so 'No'. Perhaps some other time, I'll make veal, or maybe you can make veal some time and invite me over?" Sam: "Joe, I'm starting a campaign. I'm willing to DM. Would you like to come out?" Joe: "What kind of campaign?" Sam: "Core only. I was thinking FR setting." Joe: "How about psionics?" Sam: "Sorry, Joe, I was only planning PHB and FR races only." Joe: "What if I ask everyone else if they want psionics? What if I bring the books over? I can print off the copies for you. It isn't that hard to use? A few extra days of reading tops." Sam: "Joe, I'm not including psionics. The invitation was for PHB and FR only, are you interested?" Joe: "So it's your way or nothing... right? You won't allow psionics... is that it?" Sam: "Humm... you can always so 'No'. Perhaps some other time, I'll run a campaign using psionics, or maybe you can run a psionic campaign some time and invite me over?" Same principle. DMs are the ones spending the time and making the invite. I'll say this about the RPGA I have had nothing but very bad experience with them...major metagaming cheese issues, but that being said it is a very large organization run by humans so there is bound to be corruption. Now to your other point: So the players don't spend anytime making their characters? I know I spend alot of time just writting a background. Also shouldn't a good host be more accomandating to his guest...I mean maybe he should discuss with the group what is allowed...before he lays down the ground rules.
ShinoAburame 08-30-07, 03:40 AM	It's easier for people to just assume something's broken then try it out. That's why im developing a purely psionic based game. That way even if they think it's broken, they think everybody's equaly broken. I did see an oppurtunity for the wilder and soulknife to get shafted, so I let them have double starting gold. It's not a big power boost, but it gives them an advantage in gameplay having more and better gear.
DrowBattlemind 08-30-07, 06:06 AM	So they restrict not on power, but whether it is Core? I mean, the healer is weaker than the Cleric and Swashbuckler isn't that good by itself. That's their excuse, but since psionics got added to the SRD (and therefore became Core, automatically), the argument leaks like a sieve. <snip> I've played in Greyhawk since the WoG boxed set came out, and psi was there since the beginning. The RPGA's arbitrary rulings on psi were just that, arbitrary. We're talking about a campaign world who's original PHB had psi right there in the book, for pete's sake. After all, ever since Eberron came out, they've had mini-campaigns start and end like hotcakes, when the Psi rules got added to the SRD, the LG campaign should have taken the fact that it became core into account, and started allowing it in. Instead, Psi remains shuffled away into Eberron, where you have to play some other class before the DM hands you a happy little card that says johnny has been a good boy, he can actually play a class that he wanted to in the first place. Except, he's still limited to playing a twiggy little Kalashtar.
Fafnir 08-30-07, 06:34 AM	http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1653/0002e4dtgc4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Kursk 08-30-07, 09:38 AM	I am wondering which one did you cut out to bring it only to one? Arcane or Divine? Because the difference between Arcane and Psionic is about the same as between Arcane and Divine? So the game already has two casting systems. I mean the only thing that is really different is power points and slots...and that can be explained in about 10 minute...I just think it is sad that people judge it without reading it. Ya, right. :rolleyes:
Psionx 08-30-07, 12:09 PM	http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1653/0002e4dtgc4.jpg (http://imageshack.us) Got my lulz for the day right there :) :cookie:.
Bauglir 08-30-07, 05:41 PM	I'm amazed that some folks can't even consider the possibility that others might have reasons for not permitting X in their campaign. That they need to resort to insulting folks who even suggest possible reasons and trash groups who don't permit X in their campaigns. I don't think the point is that there is no legitimate reason, but that all of yours fall under the two given reasons or aren't good ones to begin with. You're right that a DM not wanting to put psionics into their campaign because it's more (possibly unnecessary) work for them is fine. It just happens that that reason was already given.
tiercel 08-30-07, 06:07 PM	Here's a fairly heretical thought: DM won't allow psionics? Try this: Talk to your DM. Seriously. However many reasons you may think there could be for a DM to not allow psionics (2, 3, 17, or none), chances are that your DM feels he has one or more reasons if he's decided not to allow them. All the message boards in the world won't help if you don't understand your DM's reasons. If you feel your DM's reasons to be lacking, then reason with him calmly and constructively, addressing his concerns. And remember, sometimes it is a matter of taste... just like you could say "DM won't allow point-buy/dice rolling for character generation? Try this!" or "DM won't allow custom magical staff creation? Try this!" or "DM enforces training times/costs to gain levels? Try this!"
RadicalTaoist 08-30-07, 08:35 PM	*sigh* My post (#7) was obviously ignored. Here, I'll quote an old post from before the board purge. Maybe people will read that. I'm sorry arrisnyte, but I had to report you to the "New System Goon Squad." They will be over to your house shortly, kick in your door and force you to read all the supplements WotC published. I have also filed an injunction to have you incorporate ALL WotC Products or have your DMing privileges revoked. Have a nice day. Seriously though, does everyone except me have totally dysfunctional, paranoid, uncommunicative gaming groups? When does the DM have to police everything that every player does? Where is the trust, people? You do not have to learn all the ins and outs of every system present in your game as long as you trust your players are doing it right. As a Player and a DM, I have eschewed my Knowledge(arcana) for Knowledge (psionics). I *might* be able to name a 20 spells (not counting trees like hold X or summon X) on the arcane and divine lists combined from memory. On the other hand, I can practically list every psionic power AND it's strengths and weaknesses on a moment's notice. Does this mean that I come to these boards and rant about how I don't want to add Arcane and Divine to games I run? NO Unless I am running/playing in a pre-published world where XXX does not exist, or I am learning a world where there are many variant rules, I say anything goes under several conditions: a. The character has a good story that fits ecologically into the world. (I will work with a player/DM to make this so) b. The character can work well with the rest of the party. (This involves talking to the other players OOC) c. The player accepts all the social/material reprecussions of playing XXX. (ie. not finding scrolls/wands/potions in a low arcane world, facing persecution by the wizards guild for being a psion, getting chased out of villages for being a thri-kreen etc. . .) and the most important one (of course) is: D. EVERYONE AT THE TABLE HAS FUN. If you have a trustworthy player who *really* wants to play that XXX class and fulfills conditions a-c, then why not let them do it? Maybe Psionics won't be allowed in every game. I can accept that. But treating the tired old "The DM can just say no and you can't argue with that!!!" argument as though the choice to deny your player part of the game he/she enjoys didn't have any ramifications gets under my skin.
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 12:52 AM	Ya, right. :rolleyes: Ok what is the difference between psionic and arcane or divine magic? The only one that might require a little work is power points...but as I said that is easy.
sijigs 08-31-07, 01:14 AM	LMFAO.. thanks Fafnir. Post #52.
Ongorth 08-31-07, 01:29 AM	Ok what is the difference between psionic and arcane or divine magic? The only one that might require a little work is power points...but as I said that is easy. Well lets be fair. Arcane and Divine magic basically are the same thing during interactive gameplay. The only differences come in the aquisition and refreshing of spells, which need not even happen at the table. Psionics isn't that much different, but its differences actually show up during table time, so its more of deal to everyone involved, even the guy playing the half-orc fighter (i.e. Me) if problems occur because it slows down gameplay. However, I agree with you. The differences are very small and it isn't hard to learn, but as I said this is as much a con as a pro. Since its so similiar, it is very easy to label it extraneous. The mechanics don't do things that differently from magic. So why add psionics to the game, when you could add psychics which actually adds something different? I mean, you can add every single alternate system to the game. I know I jam them all in there. The Guiness Empire has (with various mechanical tinkering) Refresh Shadowcasters, Truenamers, Binders, Psions, Wilders, Psionic Warriors, Incarnates, Totemists, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, Warblades, Swordsages, Crusaders, Chaos Mages, Psychics, Wizards, Witches, Shamans, Clerics, Gleaners, Sympathetic Mages, Avatars, Beguilers, Warmages, Magisters, Marksmen, Samurai, Holy Warriors, Unholy Warriors, Healers, Battle Sorcerors, Beserkers, Weapon Masters, Marshals, Dancers and god knows what else all running around at the same time. But is it so insane to not want to add all of these things? And is it criminal, if you chose not to add everything, to give psionics the cut? P.S. You'll note from my list no mention of Druid. That's because I hate them so much, I didn't even bother to fix them. Druids are the epitome of suck. They just get cut, period.
Terazul 08-31-07, 02:01 AM	Well lets be fair. Arcane and Divine magic basically are the same thing during interactive gameplay. The only differences come in the aquisition and refreshing of spells, which need not even happen at the table. Psionics isn't that much different, but its differences actually show up during table time, so its more of deal to everyone involved, even the guy playing the half-orc fighter (i.e. Me) if problems occur because it slows down gameplay. ...How does Psionics slow down gameplay any more than spells do? Mind, this is not an attack on you or anything, I simply just wish to understand the reasoning behind this. I mean, they pretty much don't do anything too differently. Say the power, roll the save (if there is one). Hell, I tend to spend more time deciding which spell slot I'm blowing as opposed to how much I'm going to augment Power X. And even with the latter, does nobody play with calculators at their gaming table?
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 02:08 AM	Well lets be fair. Arcane and Divine magic basically are the same thing during interactive gameplay. The only differences come in the aquisition and refreshing of spells, which need not even happen at the table. Psionics isn't that much different, but its differences actually show up during table time, so its more of deal to everyone involved, even the guy playing the half-orc fighter (i.e. Me) if problems occur because it slows down gameplay. However, I agree with you. The differences are very small and it isn't hard to learn, but as I said this is as much a con as a pro. Since its so similiar, it is very easy to label it extraneous. The mechanics don't do things that differently from magic. So why add psionics to the game, when you could add psychics which actually adds something different? I mean, you can add every single alternate system to the game. I know I jam them all in there. The Guiness Empire has (with various mechanical tinkering) Refresh Shadowcasters, Truenamers, Binders, Psions, Wilders, Psionic Warriors, Incarnates, Totemists, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, Warblades, Swordsages, Crusaders, Chaos Mages, Psychics, Wizards, Witches, Shamans, Clerics, Gleaners, Sympathetic Mages, Avatars, Beguilers, Warmages, Magisters, Marksmen, Samurai, Holy Warriors, Unholy Warriors, Healers, Battle Sorcerors, Beserkers, Weapon Masters, Marshals, Dancers and god knows what else all running around at the same time. But is it so insane to not want to add all of these things? And is it criminal, if you chose not to add everything, to give psionics the cut? P.S. You'll note from my list no mention of Druid. That's because I hate them so much, I didn't even bother to fix them. Druids are the epitome of suck. They just get cut, period. So what different about psionic that shows up during gameplay? I really don't have that issue. I mean sure we sometimes have to stop and look up a power but we do that far more often with arcane or divine casters. Power points? It is even easier to keep track of then spell slots...
Jaid 08-31-07, 02:27 AM	Well lets be fair. Arcane and Divine magic basically are the same thing during interactive gameplay. The only differences come in the aquisition and refreshing of spells, which need not even happen at the table. not true. divine spells have different rules for [alignment], for example. (restricted based on the priest/deity alignment... priests cannot use opposed, wizards can) using divine magic means you must become familiar with the deity granting the magic so that you know what code of conduct the priest must follow. you need to know what creatures the deity tends to use (for planar ally spells, for example) what the deity's favored weapon is (spiritual weapon), you have to keep an eye on religion-specific spells (i know i've seen a few in 3.0, not sure if i've noticed any in 3.5 yet, but the possibility remains to add them in). you need to worry about domain spells and powers. there is no arcane spell failure (though there is a possibility of arbitrary gear limitations). divine magic typically requires a divine focus, there's plenty of stuff that changes from divine to arcane. you just aren't looking for it. honestly, the difference between arcane/divine is not that much less than arcane/psionic or divine/psionic. to someone familiar with either arcane or divine magic, i could probably teach the basic psionic rules in about 1 minute. from there on, it's just a matter of specific powers, but after all, there's a lot more to worry there about arcane or divine then there is about psionics, because there's only a fraction of the volume of material to learn. people who complain about how much psionics adds actually have it backwards... if they were to ban arcane and divine magic instead, they'd have a lot less powers to have to study up on (unless they restrict themselves to only what's in the PHB, that is) not saying that a DM should be forced to allow psionics or anything, and certainly i can see some valid reasons to not allow psionics (although most of these can be easily worked around if the DM is willing to spend a few minutes discussing things with the player). just pointing out that there are differences between arcane and divine, if you take the time to look at them, but you've become so familiar with them you don't even notice.
Ongorth 08-31-07, 02:37 AM	...How does Psionics slow down gameplay any more than spells do? Mind, this is not an attack on you or anything, I simply just wish to understand the reasoning behind this. I mean, they pretty much don't do anything too differently. Say the power, roll the save (if there is one). Hell, I tend to spend more time deciding which spell slot I'm blowing as opposed to how much I'm going to augment Power X. And even with the latter, does nobody play with calculators at their gaming table? So what different about psionic that shows up during gameplay? I really don't have that issue. I mean sure we sometimes have to stop and look up a power but we do that far more often with arcane or divine casters. Power points? It is even easier to keep track of then spell slots... I'm definately not saying anything about what is better, faster or more complex: magic, psionics or any other system. What I am saying is when you are using multiple, different systems, its more likely you are going to run into complications. If you are using one system everyone is familiar with, you can help each other out. When one person doesn't know a rule, someone else can clarify. When different people are each using different systems that are only they are intimately familiar with, you are going to have more instances of confusion, because if that one person doesn't know something, they have to look it up. In gameplay, having a wizard and a cleric in the party doesn't raise the rules burden, because they have exactly the same features. Having a society mind and a psion in the same party doesn't either. But, if you have a wizard and a psion, then you are raising the rules burden. Each time the wizard looks something up, it doesn't help the psion or vice/versa. When the wizard checks the rules on somatic components, it does help the cleric because he won't have the ask that question later. Likewise when the psion checks the rules on displays, it does help the wilder for the same reason. Now, having two magic systems doesn't raise the rules burden much. But how about 3? 4? 5? Everyone is going to draw there line somewhere different, depending on their tastes. I mean, I might be willing to DM a Beguiler/Gleaner/Society Mind/Psychic/Chaos Mage/Truenamer/Magister/Swordsage party, but is it a slight against someone if they wouldn't be?
Ongorth 08-31-07, 02:48 AM	there's plenty of stuff that changes from divine to arcane. you just aren't looking for it. But, like I said, basically all of those things (besides ASF, really) are handled away from the table. You can't accidently cast protection from good as a good cleric because you didn't memorize it. Domain spells are memorized, so they don't come up at the table. Domain powers are not part of the spellcasting system, they're a class feature. Indeed, many of them are feats, so that's as much as part of the system as Scribe Scroll. Divine Focus is no different from Arcane Foci. Things like spirtual weapon are features of a given spell, not a system mechanic. The rest of the stuff is ingrained in the character's personality. The fact that my wizard likes to bind succubi is no less part of his character then it is the fact that pelor likes to send angels to his clerics. But most importantly, I don't think anyone is arguing that magic doesn't have more baggage then psionics. In fact, that very baggage is why magic tends to be seen as the default choice and psionics as the fringe system [in this case, the baggage of being the core spellcasting system].
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 03:02 AM	In gameplay, having a wizard and a cleric in the party doesn't raise the rules burden, because they have exactly the same features. Having a society mind and a psion in the same party doesn't either. But, if you have a wizard and a psion, then you are raising the rules burden. Each time the wizard looks something up, it doesn't help the psion or vice/versa. When the wizard checks the rules on somatic components, it does help the cleric because he won't have the ask that question later. Likewise when the psion checks the rules on displays, it does help the wilder for the same reason. But when the wizard looks up the spell components for Identfy it doesn't help the cleric because he has a divine focus. Or when the wizard looks up a Arcane spell failure check on a armor it doesn't help a cleric. Or if the cleric cast summons monster how does this latter help the wizard since the wizard will have more options? Or how about when a psion looks up the rules for Iron Body...which will help the wizard since it is pretty much the exact same thing. Or if there is a cleric and a psion in the group both don't have to worry about failure due to armor. Now I can really understand people saying I don't allow Marshals, Truenamers, Binders, the classes from the Book of Nine Broken Rules...um sorry I mean Swords. Because they do put into the game radically different systems from the standard...I just don't see this with arguement with psionics.
Ongorth 08-31-07, 03:18 AM	Now I can really understand people saying I don't allow Marshals, Truenamers, Binders, the classes from the Book of Nine Broken Rules...um sorry I mean Swords. Because they do put into the game radically different systems from the standard...I just don't see this with arguement with psionics. Isn't assigning what is 'radically different' a taste thing? Personally, d20 mechanics are simple that I don't think anything is 'radically' different from anything else. Which is probably why I use everything. However, I don't look down on people who don't use, umm, Psychics, because its kind of there choice to make. And I still think the fact that psionics isn't radically different gives a very good reason NOT to use it: why learn a new system if its basically the same thing? Maybe because its better, but if you're already invested in magic (i.e. the baggage), whats the point of having basically the same thing when you could get something that is actually different? (Psychics)
Fafnir 08-31-07, 08:55 AM	I, for one agree with RT. I'll leave you to your flamewar. :rolleye2:
Nephlite 08-31-07, 09:08 AM	Well lets be fair. Arcane and Divine magic basically are the same thing during interactive gameplay. The only differences come in the aquisition and refreshing of spells, which need not even happen at the table. Psionics isn't that much different, but its differences actually show up during table time, so its more of deal to everyone involved, even the guy playing the half-orc fighter (i.e. Me) if problems occur because it slows down gameplay. However, I agree with you. The differences are very small and it isn't hard to learn, but as I said this is as much a con as a pro. Since its so similiar, it is very easy to label it extraneous. The mechanics don't do things that differently from magic. So why add psionics to the game, when you could add psychics which actually adds something different? I mean, you can add every single alternate system to the game. I know I jam them all in there. The Guiness Empire has (with various mechanical tinkering) Refresh Shadowcasters, Truenamers, Binders, Psions, Wilders, Psionic Warriors, Incarnates, Totemists, Warlocks, Dragonfire Adepts, Warblades, Swordsages, Crusaders, Chaos Mages, Psychics, Wizards, Witches, Shamans, Clerics, Gleaners, Sympathetic Mages, Avatars, Beguilers, Warmages, Magisters, Marksmen, Samurai, Holy Warriors, Unholy Warriors, Healers, Battle Sorcerors, Beserkers, Weapon Masters, Marshals, Dancers and god knows what else all running around at the same time. But is it so insane to not want to add all of these things? And is it criminal, if you chose not to add everything, to give psionics the cut? P.S. You'll note from my list no mention of Druid. That's because I hate them so much, I didn't even bother to fix them. Druids are the epitome of suck. They just get cut, period. No one said add every variant: Normal Shadiowcasters no refresh. WotC only: Truenamers, Binders, Psions, Wilders, Psionic Warriors, Incarnates, Totemists, Warlocks (don't they get included anyway?), Dragonfire Adepts, Warblades, Swordsages, Crusaders, Psychics, Wizards, Witches (npc class?), Spirit Shamans, Clerics, Beguilers, Warmages, Marksmen, Healers, Battle Sorcerors (isn't that just a Sorceror), and who cast nothing but here anyway Marshals. Yuo forgot Binders. Samurai aren't an alternate system: they do suck though... Some of those aren't even WotC classes. Witch is an npc class in DMG... Battle Sorceror is just an alternate way to do sorceror... not really alternate system... I'm not even sure how Marshal fits here...
Ongorth 08-31-07, 12:18 PM	No one said add every variant: I know no one said add every variant. But, if you're only going to add one variant, which on do you pick? There is some much in the way of alternate class material to choose from, its not funny. That fact that you didn't recognize some of the material (Mongoose has a Samurai class that does indeed use an alternate system, Green Ronin has a Witch PC and so does Mongoose, Malhavoc, The Le. etc.) just helps illustrate this. You [yes, you personally] could have all that stuff and more. In fact, you could have party where 4 people play classes whose name is 'Witch', but none of them are using the same mechanics! But would you want to? No, probably not. You'd probably draw a line somewhere. Maybe you'd draw the line at no third party products. Which is fine, but completely arbitrary, and really no less arbitrary then choosing psychics over psionics.
Ongorth 08-31-07, 12:20 PM	I, for one agree with RT. I'll leave you to your flamewar. :rolleye2: So do I. What's you're point?
Nephlite 08-31-07, 12:35 PM	No, probably not. You'd probably draw a line somewhere. Maybe you'd draw the line at no third party products. Which is fine, but completely arbitrary, and really no less arbitrary then choosing psychics over psionics. Acually, it is. Third party is notoriously less balanced compared to Second and first party. Now, WotC has balance issue too, but at least they kinda had D&D in mind.
Ongorth 08-31-07, 01:14 PM	Acually, it is. Third party is notoriously less balanced compared to Second and first party. Now, WotC has balance issue too, but at least they kinda had D&D in mind. While I thank you for the compliment, I don't feel it is justified. Shouldn't we evaluate materials on their individual worth rather then making sweeping claims based on whether or not WotC published them? Just because you have a reason for your line drawing doesn't it make it less arbitrary. Not allowing Psionics because I already read the core magic system is a perfectly good reason, but its also completely arbitrary.
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 01:29 PM	Isn't assigning what is 'radically different' a taste thing? Personally, d20 mechanics are simple that I don't think anything is 'radically' different from anything else. Which is probably why I use everything. However, I don't look down on people who don't use, umm, Psychics, because its kind of there choice to make. And I still think the fact that psionics isn't radically different gives a very good reason NOT to use it: why learn a new system if its basically the same thing? Maybe because its better, but if you're already invested in magic (i.e. the baggage), whats the point of having basically the same thing when you could get something that is actually different? (Psychics) I agree with you for the most part most of those things that do use the d20 mechanics are really simple. I don't look down on people who don't use psionics. I just thinks DMs (the good ones atleast) should atleast listen to their players when they bring these things up. Instead of just saying no. Also because psionics is not radicallly different is agood reason to use it because then there isn't the confusion you talked about earlier. Because there are minor differences between Psionics and Arcane or Divine there is a flavor difference that also opens some conceptual ideas which is in my opinion great. It is like saying well since Arcane and Divine are so similar I am cutting out Wizards and sorcerers. If you want to play a wizard it is just play a cleric or druid and call it a wizard. Mechanics support flavor and concept in my opinion. Also I am unfamilar with Psychics so I can't really judge then that well.
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 01:29 PM	I, for one agree with RT. I'll leave you to your flamewar. :rolleye2: Flame war?
wonlee76 08-31-07, 02:51 PM	No, I haven't read the other posts in detail so I have no idea whether I'm just repeating what someone else has said. So my apologies if I'm repeating stuff that has already been said. As many know, some DM's do not allow psionics in their games. There are essentially 2 reasons: -1) the DM doen't want to/have the time and or money to learn about psionics. this is a perfectly reasonable (if somewhat lazy) excuse. There aren't any true remedies to this type that i know of, so i'm no help to people with this kind of DM I dislike the implication that if a DM doesn't want to learn the psionic rules, its because he/she is lazy. DMing takes up a lot of time with or without psionics and its just a matter of budgeting my time. To spend a few hours to grasp my head around psionics or should I spend those hours developing plot threads, NPCs, dungeons, maps, etc. for my group of players. Generally, if only 1 Player is asking fpr permissin to use something at the cost of the other player's expense (ie. DM's "free" time in making up a campaign for the whole group), the answer is no. Just maybe, as a DM, I would find my time better spent buffing up the warrior types by reading up on Tome of Battle so I can properly DM ToB PCs so that the gap in power between spellcasters vs. non-spellcasters is narrowed a bit... There's more than just lack of money or desire to learn/use psionics rules. There are other considerations on the DM's mind. -2) the type i am writing this for are DM's who think psionics are too sci-fi. Here is a suggestion to help w/ the problem (no, this is not my idea, it is from Dragon Ninja, who may or may not be a member of these forums) : I agree flavor reasons regarding psionics is somewhat of a weak reason not to permit it considering the flavor could be re-done but this goes back to my first response. The DM's time is a limited resource and how he allocates that time is up to him. Whether to spend time to re-flavor psionics so he could have it in his campaign world or not. Maybe I don't want to spend time re-flavoring Psionics as another "magic" like system in the game. Well, I would add there are a few more general reasons why a DM might not allow psionics besides the two you mentioned. 1: Psionics is overpowered (in the opinion of the DM which is a mistake but its not the first time a DM felt something "different" is overpowered and has that knee jerk reaction of not allowing it). I do not believe psionics is overpowered. I'm just expressing the fact that some DMs and players have this opinion and use it as an excuse not to allow psionics. 2: Bad back syndrome: WOTC + Third Party Products = quite a few forests that have been destroyed to publish these rules. In order to save money being spent on a chiropractor, maybe its better to limit the general # of books to be used in a campaign. 3: Efficiency: Adding more and more rules and supplements increases the time spent in the game flipping through books. Psionics is not that complicated to understand but it does add another book or two to be flipped through during the game further slowing it down. If there are already 20 other books that are being flipped over, psionics may be the set of books that gets the cut compared to other books present at the table (or maybe a different book but you get the idea... some books are going to be cut due to trying to run a tight efficient game). 4: Campaign specific reasons that does not fall under any of the above reasons or excuses to disallow psionics. I've run games where arcane magic was a lost art and very rare. Or games where the divine casters don't have the power they used to because the gods have been weakened for some reason. These campaign reasons can equally apply to why psionics doesn't exist or is extremely limited in some fashion as well.
CrimsonDeath 08-31-07, 02:54 PM	Book of Nine Broken Rules Wait, wait, wait... We're talking about Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Psions... and you're implying that Tome of Battle is overpowered? Just because you have a reason for your line drawing doesn't it make it less arbitrary. Actually, it sort of does, by certain definitions of the word "arbitrary".
InkBlot 08-31-07, 03:11 PM	Wait, wait, wait... We're talking about Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Psions... and you're implying that Tome of Battle is overpowered? Broken doesn't mean overpowered. It just means unplayable. 3.0 psionics were broken, the Divine Mind is broken, and the Frenzied Berserker is broken. Still, wtf? The Tome Of Battle: The Book Of Nine Swords* is one of the most balanced splatbooks WotC has published for 3.5e. If you don't like the flavor or style, or if you feel the mechanics are clunky, then that's one thing, but it's not broken or overpowered. *I love long titles.
johnkretzer 08-31-07, 04:20 PM	Broken doesn't mean overpowered. It just means unplayable. 3.0 psionics were broken, the Divine Mind is broken, and the Frenzied Berserker is broken. Still, wtf? The Tome Of Battle: The Book Of Nine Swords* is one of the most balanced splatbooks WotC has published for 3.5e. If you don't like the flavor or style, or if you feel the mechanics are clunky, then that's one thing, but it's not broken or overpowered. *I love long titles. I do feel the mechanics are very clunky to the point of being unplayable this is by your defination is broken. I also really wished instead of coming with a new mechanic to make non-casters comparable to caster they did it by not making them effectively into casters. So even flavor wise I feel this book fails on that level also. Hence of my use of the word broken But I have taken the time to read it and allow my players to use it. I don't like it and I really wished they just made fighters better than coming up with a bunch of mystical warriors classes.
Ongorth 08-31-07, 05:39 PM	Actually, it sort of does, by certain definitions of the word "arbitrary". It would if there was a standardized reason for which material is included in D&D campaigns. As far as I know, there isn't. "I only use balanced materials", "I only use first party material", "I only use material that fits my campaign's flavor" and "I only use core material" are all equally arbitrary standards for inclusion. Within the particular standard, decisions aren't arbitrary (that is, not allowing Psychics in a "only first party material" game isn't arbitrary, because Psychics are third party material), but the actual standards themselves are arbitrary.
yrogerg 08-31-07, 08:21 PM	I dislike the implication that if a DM doesn't want to learn the psionic rules, its because he/she is lazy. DMing takes up a lot of time with or without psionics and its just a matter of budgeting my time. To spend a few hours to grasp my head around psionics or should I spend those hours developing plot threads, NPCs, dungeons, maps, etc. for my group of players. Generally, if only 1 Player is asking fpr permissin to use something at the cost of the other player's expense (ie. DM's "free" time in making up a campaign for the whole group), the answer is no. A counterpoint: In most campaigns I've played in, we've only had one arcane/divine spellcaster, or two, tops. I've never played a game with more than one player interested in playing an artificer, warforged, psionic character, monk, wizard, cleric, barbarian, knight, druid, or ranger, and I've played with exactly one person who wanted to play around with the Tainted feats from Heroes of Horror. Does this mean the DM is justified in dismissing each and every one of these ideas out-of-hand? Because only one person was interested in them? Honestly, the reason some of the best campaigns I've played in worked so well is that our DM listened to what we wanted to play, and worked those threads into the story in a way that made it more engaging for the players, resulting in interested players, a diverse party, and a set of actual reasons to for the characters to follow the campaign. Yes, it may take some more time, but that time is still time you're spending developing the campaign, not time taken away from it. I really do see a DM who rejects player ideas because he "doesn't want to take time away from campaign building" as largely akin to players who refuse to follow plot hooks: you're shooting yourself in the foot by not letting the story -which is just as much about the characters as the campaign world- develop, and frankly, you're kinda getting in the way of everyone actually having fun with the game.
Ongorth 08-31-07, 10:53 PM	I really do see a DM who rejects player ideas because he "doesn't want to take time away from campaign building" as largely akin to players who refuse to follow plot hooks: you're shooting yourself in the foot by not letting the story -which is just as much about the characters as the campaign world- develop, and frankly, you're kinda getting in the way of everyone actually having fun with the game. Too true. So long as you have players who are willing to undertake the challenge of adapting materials so that they fall in line with the campaign standards and thematics, its really sort of unneccessary to place lots of restrictions on the players. However, that really should fall entirely on the player to do. Like I said before Druids are not allowed in my games. If someone wanted to play a Druid in one of my games and Shaman, Spirit Shaman, Witch (GR), Greenbond or the Guiness Revised Cleric wouldn't do, because it HAD to be a shapeshifting divine caster with a saving throw bonus against fey, then it'd be up to them to rewrite the class at the power level and within the power benchmarks of my game. If they aren't willing to put in the effort to do that, I really don't have any sympathy for them not being able to play what they want.
yrogerg 09-01-07, 01:36 AM	Too true. So long as you have players who are willing to undertake the challenge of adapting materials so that they fall in line with the campaign standards and thematics, its really sort of unneccessary to place lots of restrictions on the players. However, that really should fall entirely on the player to do. Well, keeping in mind individual players and DMs, at least. Plenty of people don't have a strong sense of mechanical balance (myself included), and plenty others aren't terrific at adapting flavor. I do think this is a place where players and DMs can collaborate, at least informally, even if it's only insofar as kicking around suggestions during character creation. ("Instead of a Venerable Dragonwrought Kobold, have you looked at the Poison Dusk Lizardfolk? They even have an interesting niche in the setting") Even if the DM's not under any special obligation here (and I agree, they're really not), it does help to keep the creative strengths and weaknesses of your players in mind, especially if you're about to ask them to rewrite a balanced Druid on their own, or add a society of Binders to your setting.
Ongorth 09-01-07, 01:45 AM	Even if the DM's not under any special obligation here (and I agree, they're really not), it does help to keep the creative strengths and weaknesses of your players in mind, especially if you're about to ask them to rewrite a balanced Druid on their own, or add a society of Binders to your setting. Obviously. There certainly is a nice middle ground in between: 1) "I want to play this make it for me!" and 2) "If you want to play that scratch build it into something that meets these abstract standards and baselines you probably don't understand because you just started playing last week." But, then again, if a player really doesn't have a very strong mechanical knowledge or insight, is there gameplay experience REALLY going to be noticable by the difference between the Spirit Shaman with Polymorph and the Druid? I'd say, as a general rule, if the player doesn't have the game knowledge to write a reasonable skeleton of how what they want should work mechanically, a proxy mechanic will suffice.
CrimsonDeath 09-01-07, 02:12 AM	It would if there was a standardized reason for which material is included in D&D campaigns. As far as I know, there isn't. "I only use balanced materials", "I only use first party material", "I only use material that fits my campaign's flavor" and "I only use core material" are all equally arbitrary standards for inclusion. Within the particular standard, decisions aren't arbitrary (that is, not allowing Psychics in a "only first party material" game isn't arbitrary, because Psychics are third party material), but the actual standards themselves are arbitrary. In what way are the standards "arbitrary"? Is it not possible that those criteria for including or excluding certain material might be justified, perhaps even for good reasons?
Ongorth 09-01-07, 03:04 AM	In what way are the standards "arbitrary"? Is it not possible that those criteria for including or excluding certain material might be justified, perhaps even for good reasons? Sure, they could have very good reasons. But what are those standards based on? Indeed, what are standards based on? Well, I'd hope its based on what you think would make the game most enjoyable for the group. Or, to put it simply, because thats how they like it. Doing something because you like it is pretty much THE arbitrary standard as its entirely subjective. I mean, if you can think of a reason to include or exclude material that doesn't eventually lead to "It'll make the game more fun for me" or "It'll make the game more fun for the group" I'd like to hear it.
CrimsonDeath 09-01-07, 04:28 AM	Sure, they could have very good reasons. But what are those standards based on? Indeed, what are standards based on? Well, I'd hope its based on what you think would make the game most enjoyable for the group. Or, to put it simply, because thats how they like it. Doing something because you like it is pretty much THE arbitrary standard as its entirely subjective. I mean, if you can think of a reason to include or exclude material that doesn't eventually lead to "It'll make the game more fun for me" or "It'll make the game more fun for the group" I'd like to hear it. By that line of reasoning, has there ever been a decision made that wasn't arbitrary?
Nephlite 09-01-07, 11:23 AM	By that line of reasoning, has there ever been a decision made that wasn't arbitrary? That is deep.:D What if chose to do something you didn't like... would that be arbitary too?
Lokiyn 09-01-07, 12:06 PM	Long story short, If you feel like you could make the same argument about any other class and have the players accept it, go for it. "Fighters just don't fit the flavor of my setting" "Bards are too hippyish" "Druids are too eco terrorist" etc etc. If you can use the exact same "logic" to ban any of the other classes then go ahead. no one is going to show up at your house and beat you with a baseball bat, unless of course you want us to do give you some sort of strange street cred. But if your argument is entirely based on subjective reasoning and has no real mechanical grounding and relies mostly on the fact that you do not trust your players to be honest and forthwright then you might want to take a hard look at your game's settings and your group.
Ongorth 09-01-07, 12:12 PM	By that line of reasoning, has there ever been a decision made that wasn't arbitrary? If it was made using some kind of agreed upon standard. Like I said, not allowing Psychics in a first party only game is not an arbitrary decision. Thats a decision that clearly uses the standard in an objective manner. However the choice to use that standard is pretty arbitrary. "What I like" and "What my group likes" is arbitrary because the standard changes with each individual or group of individuals, and often changes from day to day or minute to minute within the game individual. So, no, there has never been a decision made that wasn't arbitrary. Which is why in order to have discusions we form standards. However, in the case of where an individual group should draw a line on what material to use, they pretty much should be allowed to just go by there feelings. I mean, its there game. The best we can do is share our knowledge and experience to help guide them to making the best decision. But, obviously saying something like "Psionics is more balanced and is worth the time to read" won't be very convincing to someone whose chief motivating factors are "I like things that are earthshattering powerful." or "I like reading novel mechanics that significantly change my play experience." You help where you can, but sometimes it just doesn't work because you prefer a different kind of fun. Now, if we were trying to form some kind of formal play organization, then there'd be a need to get some kind of overarching standard.
CrimsonDeath 09-01-07, 02:04 PM	If it was made using some kind of agreed upon standard. Agreed-upon by whom? If you mean the DM and players of the particular game in question (or, in a broader sense, everyone affected by the decision), then I agree, that's an acceptable standard. So, no, there has never been a decision made that wasn't arbitrary. In that case, is arbitrariness a valid grounds for criticizing a particular decision?
Ongorth 09-01-07, 02:59 PM	In that case, is arbitrariness a valid grounds for criticizing a particular decision? When was I criticizing a decision? I, if you noticed, called the decision "perfectly good" and then later "fine". I'm not criticizing it at all. What I was saying is that trying to use the goodness or badness of that decision in that particular case doesn't really apply to the same decision in any other place. Indeed, two groups with the exact same information available acting perfectly logically could make completely different decisions because they have different tastes. That is why its arbitrary. To judge someone else's group decision using your groups standard just doesn't work.
wonlee76 09-01-07, 04:23 PM	A counterpoint: In most campaigns I've played in, we've only had one arcane/divine spellcaster, or two, tops. I've never played a game with more than one player interested in playing an artificer, warforged, psionic character, monk, wizard, cleric, barbarian, knight, druid, or ranger, and I've played with exactly one person who wanted to play around with the Tainted feats from Heroes of Horror. Does this mean the DM is justified in dismissing each and every one of these ideas out-of-hand? Because only one person was interested in them? At the very basic, if I'm running D&D, we're running with at least the PHB, DMG and MM. So whatever is in there (barring houserules) is presumed to be within the knowledge of the DM and doesn't require "extra" time to learn and study from the DM's position. If I'm DMing or playing in an Eberron campaign, playing warforged, shifters, or artificers is part of the job of DMing an Eberron campaign. That's part of the setting and learning about the setting as a DM to run a campaign in it. As for "other" classes and material, it depends on whether a DM wants to budget time into learning the rules about psionics, tainted feats from Heroes of Horror, Tome of Battle Martial Adepts, Vestiges and Binders, Shadowcasters, Incarnum PCs, True Namers, Skill Tricks, Luck feats, Ship to Ship combat rules from Stormwrack, Reserve Feats or what have you. A great deal of what a DM is willing to allow is a matter of personal preference or interest of course. Honestly, the reason some of the best campaigns I've played in worked so well is that our DM listened to what we wanted to play, and worked those threads into the story in a way that made it more engaging for the players, resulting in interested players, a diverse party, and a set of actual reasons to for the characters to follow the campaign. Yes, it may take some more time, but that time is still time you're spending developing the campaign, not time taken away from it. I really do see a DM who rejects player ideas because he "doesn't want to take time away from campaign building" as largely akin to players who refuse to follow plot hooks: you're shooting yourself in the foot by not letting the story -which is just as much about the characters as the campaign world- develop, and frankly, you're kinda getting in the way of everyone actually having fun with the game. I disagree that if a DM doesn't allow a player to play [insert whatever new class, rules, feat, etc. from whatever new book just came out] is taking the fun away from everyone playing the game. In fact, by focusing more on general things that could interest the whole group of players instead of one set of materials for the whims of one player, I would argue that the game could end up being more fun. A lot fo what a DM is wiling to budget his time into depends on that DM's interests. I as a DM may think clerics/wizards are already powerful as is. Why bother reading another book that introduces similar type of powers (Tome of Magic, Psionics or Incarnum). By comparison, I like warrior types and think they're too weak compared to casters so I will rather spend that time I could be spending on reading/learning about psionics with reading/learning about Tome of Battle. Its a combination of budgeting and interests that determines what a DM would choose to include in a game.
CrimsonDeath 09-01-07, 05:14 PM	When was I criticizing a decision? I, if you noticed, called the decision "perfectly good" and then later "fine". I'm not criticizing it at all. What I was saying is that trying to use the goodness or badness of that decision in that particular case doesn't really apply to the same decision in any other place. Indeed, two groups with the exact same information available acting perfectly logically could make completely different decisions because they have different tastes. That is why its arbitrary. To judge someone else's group decision using your groups standard just doesn't work. Ah. That makes sense.
Lokiyn 09-01-07, 10:03 PM	And i Disagree with the idea that the dm Must budget more time to learn a new system. A dm might benefit from learning the new material, making the encounters more varied and tossing some novelties in for the players, but the dm isn't required to learn any new system. Generally if a dm doesn't have time to learn the system they don't need to. I generally assume that most people actually trust the people they play with not to lie or cheat. In that case the Player needs to learn the system he wants to learn meaning its a player's personal time being expended, if an issue arises the player is required to provide rules support for his action. Usually its pretty easy to grab the player after the game and have them show you what they did to get "questionable act X" if they can show the rules in support then good job you added someting novel and new to a game that can be pretty generic if you aren't careful. If not then you dock them some of the session exp and tell them that you will be watching in the future for similar slip ups. The dm never actually needs to learn the system in detail, they can but its not required, the player is the one who needs to learn the system, after that its a matter of trust, and for the most part i assume that people aren't paranoid despots who control thier players like puppets in an ego play.
yrogerg 09-02-07, 02:45 AM	I disagree that if a DM doesn't allow a player to play [insert whatever new class, rules, feat, etc. from whatever new book just came out] is taking the fun away from everyone playing the game. In fact, by focusing more on general things that could interest the whole group of players instead of one set of materials for the whims of one player, I would argue that the game could end up being more fun. A lot fo what a DM is wiling to budget his time into depends on that DM's interests. I as a DM may think clerics/wizards are already powerful as is. Why bother reading another book that introduces similar type of powers (Tome of Magic, Psionics or Incarnum). By comparison, I like warrior types and think they're too weak compared to casters so I will rather spend that time I could be spending on reading/learning about psionics with reading/learning about Tome of Battle. Its a combination of budgeting and interests that determines what a DM would choose to include in a game. But, if none of the players in your campaign want to play ToB classes, but rather want to play Rangers, or Barbarians, or -god forbid- Knights, then all that time spent reading up on Martial Adepts is completely wasted anyway, which is a point you've missed somewhat. Not everyone wants to play ToB classes; not even everyone who wants to play a warrior class wants to play ToB classes. My points were pretty straightfoward: a)Players that are able to play characters they want, rather than the characters they're obliged to, tend to be much happier and more engaged in a campaign. This is a net benefit for a campaign, and time spent enabling this is hardly time wasted. I've seen plenty of players quit games because they were playing characters they didn't want to, and for bad reasons. b)Spending time integrating characters into the campaign's story is necessary anyway: if your set of rails don't include some reference to the specific characters themselves, you'll invariably find some of your players disengage from the game pretty quickly. This is much, *much* worse for a game than spending some time bothering to learn enough of a new mechanic that a player's interested in, or creating a society or organization for a character to be associated with. What you've just managed to do is create a means for the player to interact with the campaign world in a meaningful way, as well as a reason for a character to *want to* interact in the world. These are *good* things, and things that a DM should be doing with his players anyway. c)Ultimately, D&D campaigns aren't simply "the DM's story". They're collaborative stories between the players and DM, where characters are the players' primary tools for manipulating the campaign world. Restricting options to players simply because you don't want to deal with the extra rules is, as I said before, pretty much the same as having players who refuse to bite on plot hooks, and instead try to settle down and opening a successful practice as a barrister that they insist in roleplaying out at the table, turning your planned-out storyline into a game of Lawyers and Ledgers.
Ongorth 09-02-07, 03:02 AM	Not everyone wants to play ToB classes; not even everyone who wants to play a warrior class wants to play ToB classes. Aka the Bruce Willis factor. Krazy Kung Fu has its place, but its not the be all and end all of attack roll combat. Some people just want a character who kicks ass because he is badass, not because he can do a manuever that he forgets how to do until he thinks about it again for six seconds. Some people want simplicity. I mean, I know people that hate humans because they have to pick an extra feat and thats a lot of work for them. The game should cater to all kinds and it can, so long as people are willing to give each other a little room.
yrogerg 09-02-07, 03:22 AM	Aka the Bruce Willis factor. Krazy Kung Fu has its place, but its not the be all and end all of attack roll combat. Some people just want a character who kicks ass because he is badass, not because he can do a manuever that he forgets how to do until he thinks about it again for six seconds. Some people want simplicity. I mean, I know people that hate humans because they have to pick an extra feat and thats a lot of work for them. The game should cater to all kinds and it can, so long as people are willing to give each other a little room. Exactly. Don't get me wrong, ToB classes are in the queue of things I, personally, want to try out more in the future, but I definitely loved playing the last Ranger character I had, and ToB didn't make me love that character any less, or any less willing to a Barbarian, Ranger, or even a Paladin, Fighter or Monk in the future. To digress a bit, though, I just noticed that the classes that got the ToB treatment are the ones where the maneuver mechanic does have the best fit with flavor, since they do represent the formally trained and divinely inspired warrior classes. Rangers' and Barbarians' "quasi-untrained man of the wild" flavor just kinda seem like better fits for the "always on" mechanic than the other three, IMO.
wonlee76 09-02-07, 11:47 AM	But, if none of the players in your campaign want to play ToB classes, but rather want to play Rangers, or Barbarians, or -god forbid- Knights, then all that time spent reading up on Martial Adepts is completely wasted anyway, which is a point you've missed somewhat. Not everyone wants to play ToB classes; not even everyone who wants to play a warrior class wants to play ToB classes. Its not a complete wast eof time if I can use Martial Adepts as the latest BBEG or tag on a few levels of Warblade to the latest Orcish Chief that the PCs have to deal with. Though I admit time might be better spent elsewhere, just because none of the players are interested in using that particular rule set doesn't mean that the DM should be precluded from using it. My points were pretty straightfoward: a)Players that are able to play characters they want, rather than the characters they're obliged to, tend to be much happier and more engaged in a campaign. This is a net benefit for a campaign, and time spent enabling this is hardly time wasted. I've seen plenty of players quit games because they were playing characters they didn't want to, and for bad reasons. Generally I agree. However, I've also found that PC "types" that a player would want to play doesn't always necessitate the use of other materials. A player wants to play a blaster caster of some sorts. That could be a kineticist or a sorceror (if they like the spontaneous aspect of sorceror/psion). You look at it as "forcing" a player to player a certain character. I look at it as reasonable restrictions on what a player is not allowed to play due to time constraints. Just because I said no to say Tome of Magic material doesn't mean the player cannot play a Wizard that has the "feel" of a binder or shadowcaster. b)Spending time integrating characters into the campaign's story is necessary anyway: if your set of rails don't include some reference to the specific characters themselves, you'll invariably find some of your players disengage from the game pretty quickly. This is much, *much* worse for a game than spending some time bothering to learn enough of a new mechanic that a player's interested in, or creating a society or organization for a character to be associated with. What you've just managed to do is create a means for the player to interact with the campaign world in a meaningful way, as well as a reason for a character to *want to* interact in the world. These are *good* things, and things that a DM should be doing with his players anyway. And if I'm running a homebrew campaign world where I never considered the role of psionics (because I never bothered to read the Expanded Psionics SRD) or had a fit into the world and a player "demands" to be allowed to play his psion or psi-warrior, I'm to drop everything to first learn about psionics rules and then figure out where to shoehorn in the world that has already been created so that the PC has a starting point? This is like a Player asking if his PC can carry around a laser gun from d20 Future books (which has happened to me and I still laugh at his argument of allowing it. "Its a WOTC book...") despite the fact that all material about the world has been provided to players ahead of time. Sure, I might consider psionics and spend the next week of time learning about psionics so that the player can have his fun. But that's time that I spend away from preparing NPCs, bad guys or plot hooks for the PCs to participate in. This isn't to say that psionics will never be allowed. Its just a matter of availability of time. Some folks have more time to dedicate to learning and fitting in psionics into a campaign world. I've personally already learned the rules and generally allow psionics in the game. Keep in mind, my whole gripe was that the OP implied that a DM who didn't understand or learn the psionics rules was lazy and that's really what annoyed me as there were more valid reasons why a DM would not have time to learn the psionic rules. c)Ultimately, D&D campaigns aren't simply "the DM's story". They're collaborative stories between the players and DM, where characters are the players' primary tools for manipulating the campaign world. Restricting options to players simply because you don't want to deal with the extra rules is, as I said before, pretty much the same as having players who refuse to bite on plot hooks, and instead try to settle down and opening a successful practice as a barrister that they insist in roleplaying out at the table, turning your planned-out storyline into a game of Lawyers and Ledgers. No argument from me but the DM does lay down the very basic guidelines in the form of what's allowed or not allowed in the campaign. The reasons why the allow or disallow material may be arbitrary or campaign driven but that is a DM's right. As for PCs expected to bite on plot hooks? I never expect them to. I usually have several plot hooks set up with several different adventures set up (or in the rare circumstance, multiple plot hooks leading to the same adventure). As you can tell... this is why I have very little time to learn an "extra set" of rules. You think it takes time to set up a nice story driven plot hook in a given week... try setting up three or four of them because you're not sure what your players are going to do.
Fafnir 09-02-07, 01:07 PM	I see it as a chance for world development. Here's an example. In my homebrew world, I never integrated Incarnum. I never bothered to study the mechanics in dept, as I never felt the need to use it. Now say I have a player who want's to play a Totemist. Suddenly, a lot of questions pop up. Where does it get his power? (i.e. what is Incarnum?) What's his role in society? Why did we never see Incarnum users before? This can be a world biulding experience. Suddenly you have the need to expand your cosmology to include a source for souls themselves; let's say, the Bastion of Unborn Souls. Ashardalon could show up (remember the Bastion of Broken Souls?), maybe as a vestige (works better with a Binder already in play). A single NPC the group met previously could show up again, revealing he's an Incarnate. The party's interaction with Druids could change... how do they view Totemists? Even after the PC has been played, the result is that your world has been forced to grow. Even if you were to remove Incarnum again (for any reason), the world is a bigger place. This is a good thing.
yrogerg 09-02-07, 01:36 PM	Its not a complete wast eof time if I can use Martial Adepts as the latest BBEG or tag on a few levels of Warblade to the latest Orcish Chief that the PCs have to deal with. Though I admit time might be better spent elsewhere, just because none of the players are interested in using that particular rule set doesn't mean that the DM should be precluded from using it. Not precluded, no, but isn't spending time on a pet mechanics that the players have no interest in to the exclusion of things that people in the group actually *do* want to try out actually a *worse* example of what I'm talking about? It doesn't actually matter if it's psionics or ToB; reverse the situation, and it's just as bad: "ToB classes are banned and psionics is allowed even though none of you like psionics because I like psionics and am going to be using it in the campaign, and therefore don't have enough time to learn about the mechanic you actually care about to allow you to use it. Sucks to be you." Yes, a DM can choose which optional mechanics he wants to include as long as there are players willing to play his game, but honestly, that doesn't mean that there aren't some exercises of that right that make that DM a jerk. Generally I agree. However, I've also found that PC "types" that a player would want to play doesn't always necessitate the use of other materials. A player wants to play a blaster caster of some sorts. That could be a kineticist or a sorceror (if they like the spontaneous aspect of sorceror/psion). Sometimes. There are a lot of times when that's not the case (Spellthieves, Warlocks, Incarnum, much of ToM unless you impose some severe roleplaying restrictions on the spells you cast, the majority of the Races books...). There are enough differences between psionics and normal spellcasting lists, monsters, and feats that telling a player to play a sorceror instead *can* be as much of a problem as telling someone who wanted to play a divine caster who wants to learn spells like a wizard or cast spells spontaneously like a sorcerer to just play a wizard or sorcerer instead and "flavor it" as though it were a cleric, archivist or favored soul. Also, when it comes down to it, the psionics is effectively the ToB treatment for Sorcerers: it manages to create handful of spontaneous spellcasting characters that can actually almost match up to a Wizard, unlike the mess that is the 3.5 Sorcerer. You look at it as "forcing" a player to player a certain character. I look at it as reasonable restrictions on what a player is not allowed to play due to time constraints. Just because I said no to say Tome of Magic material doesn't mean the player cannot play a Wizard that has the "feel" of a binder or shadowcaster. Less true for binders than Shadowcasters. And in any case, meh. There are, in fact, many times when "just play a vanilla character/weapon/high skill ranks and flavor things interestingly" is both unsatisfying and not quite adequate as a solution. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the rationale behind both ToB's maneuver mechanic and the skill tricks in complete scoundrel. And if I'm running a homebrew campaign world where I never considered the role of psionics (because I never bothered to read the Expanded Psionics SRD) or had a fit into the world and a player "demands" to be allowed to play his psion or psi-warrior, I'm to drop everything to first learn about psionics rules and then figure out where to shoehorn in the world that has already been created so that the PC has a starting point? Would you do this for another class that you liked more? I do agree that if a DM's looked at psionics, and it really doesn't fit in his campaign world, that's one thing. However, many, many players would meet their DMs halfway and look for a reasonable way to fit the mechanic into the game world themselves. But not being willing to read through the material and to see if it -or elements of it- could fit into the world is another thing entirely. I may be working on an Eberron campaign, but that doesn't mean I don't look at books like the Fiendish Codices on the off-chance that there's something interesting I can work into my campaigns. It's really the rejecting material to players sight-unseen because of the intention to keep it sight-unseen that rankles more than anything else. To ban outright is to limit a player's primary outlet for creativity in the world-building process. Good DMs, DMs that want to encourage creative players who are engaged in the story being told, *don't* ban things outright without looking at them. This is like a Player asking if his PC can carry around a laser gun from d20 Future books (which has happened to me and I still laugh at his argument of allowing it. "Its a WOTC book...") despite the fact that all material about the world has been provided to players ahead of time. As I said above, setting mis-match -especially when the player has knowledge of the setting in advance- is a very different thing from banning a set of mechanics because you don't want to read them. Up until now, you've been arguing the latter. Sure, I might consider psionics and spend the next week of time learning about psionics so that the player can have his fun. But that's time that I spend away from preparing NPCs, bad guys or plot hooks for the PCs to participate in. OR, you might come up with new NPCs, bad guys and plot hooks for the PCs to participate in that continue to improve the quality of your game. (*cough* Puppeteers) Don't you ever look through other sources for inspiration? Heck, I'm working on an Eberron Campaign, and I've looked through the Fiendish Codices, Frostburn, ToM, ToB, HoH, and a half-dozen FR books for inspiration: if a player approached me with a strong interest in material from a different sourcebook, I'd move that to the front of the stack. I'd simply also see if there was anything useful to my world-building at the same time. This isn't to say that psionics will never be allowed. Its just a matter of availability of time. Some folks have more time to dedicate to learning and fitting in psionics into a campaign world. I've personally already learned the rules and generally allow psionics in the game. Keep in mind, my whole gripe was that the OP implied that a DM who didn't understand or learn the psionics rules was lazy and that's really what annoyed me as there were more valid reasons why a DM would not have time to learn the psionic rules. I'm sure you can tell from my responses, though, that I do believe that the attitude of "I don't have time to read through the source material with the class/feat/mechanic my player wants to use, because I'm too busy building the campaign and there's no way that source material would be useful to my world-building," still contains a significant element of intellectual laziness. "I can't look at your character concept because I'm too busy building a campaign" largely misses the point that players and DM work in concert to tell the story, and that ultimately, the stories in D&D are necessarily character-based, and that consequentially, time spent on character creation *is* still time well-spent on the campaign. No argument from me but the DM does lay down the very basic guidelines in the form of what's allowed or not allowed in the campaign. The reasons why the allow or disallow material may be arbitrary or campaign driven but that is a DM's right. And that is the DM's right, yes, but it's the player's right to leave and find something better to do with their time if they're not satisfied with the game, even if doing so futher disrupts the game. That "nuclear option" is Rule -1, and DMs have to keep in mind that it exists as well, when they do feel like being overly arbitrary. They can't force players to stay, so it's really their responsibility to make sure that the players are enjoying themselves. As for PCs expected to bite on plot hooks? I never expect them to. I usually have several plot hooks set up with several different adventures set up (or in the rare circumstance, multiple plot hooks leading to the same adventure). As you can tell... this is why I have very little time to learn an "extra set" of rules. You think it takes time to set up a nice story driven plot hook in a given week... try setting up three or four of them because you're not sure what your players are going to do.[/QUOTE] There's not biting on hooks, though, and derailing the campaign into something the DM doesn't want to play. Barring suitable options to players, because you don't have the time to read it, is much closer to the latter.
deathbane 09-02-07, 06:12 PM	Nova-ing Psions win the battle... (Decently Played) Wizards win the war... (A player with intelligence as HIS dump stat) CODzilla wins at life. EDIT: Candle of Invocation, summon a celestial titan, command it to summon a celestial titan, command that one to summon a celestial titan... titan... profit... ? Candle of Invocation, summon an efreeti, 3 wishes, wish for a Candle of Invocation, wish for a klondike bar, wish for a klondike bar, use candle of invocation, summon an efreeti... Telekinesis+Shrink Item+Sh*tload of rocks ...Neo-Terminator... ...Omnifiscer... ...Artificer... ...Initiate of the Sevenfold (something)... ...Dweomerkeeper... ...Twice betrayer of Shar... ...Festering Anger... ...Cheater of Mystara... ...Arcane Nova... ...Ur-Priest... ...? Summoned monster can't summon other monsters. The monster has to actually be called to use summon(which is different).
Lokiyn 09-02-07, 07:29 PM	Candle of invocation is a Gate Calling, Titans have Gate as a spell like ability, etc etc.
wonlee76 09-02-07, 08:30 PM	Not precluded, no, but isn't spending time on a pet mechanics that the players have no interest in to the exclusion of things that people in the group actually *do* want to try out actually a *worse* example of what I'm talking about? It doesn't actually matter if it's psionics or ToB; reverse the situation, and it's just as bad: "ToB classes are banned and psionics is allowed even though none of you like psionics because I like psionics and am going to be using it in the campaign, and therefore don't have enough time to learn about the mechanic you actually care about to allow you to use it. Sucks to be you." If given an option as a DM, I wouldn't really want to learn either ToB or Psionics or what have you and "usually" the only reason why I would read those books is because a player is interested in playing one of those classes. But when I do have free time or just need a break from campaign building, as a DM I should have some say in what I choose to read and at my discretion using what I read. Yes, a DM can choose which optional mechanics he wants to include as long as there are players willing to play his game, but honestly, that doesn't mean that there aren't some exercises of that right that make that DM a jerk. Sometimes. There are a lot of times when that's not the case (Spellthieves, Warlocks, Incarnum, much of ToM unless you impose some severe roleplaying restrictions on the spells you cast, the majority of the Races books...). So a DM is a jerk because they choose not to allow whatever new flavor of the week came out of the latest supplement? Certain new options are easier to implement then others (mostly because they are just additions to existing mechanics vs. the creation of new mechanics such as Psionics, ToB or ToM). This is what bothers me about all the darn supplements that have come out over the years. There's just too many of them. :P I would find it likely a DM would let some spell from Spell Compendium or some new magical item from Magic Item Compendium to be permitted in the game since its building on an existing mechanic (or disallowing it since it doesn't take that much time to review 1 spell or magical item enhancement) as compared to allowing a whole new set of rules. But a DM who chooses not to read ToB or Psionics or Incarnum because they don't want to read up on that new material isn't a jerk. Just means he doesn't have the desire and/or time to want to read them. There are enough differences between psionics and normal spellcasting lists, monsters, and feats that telling a player to play a sorceror instead *can* be as much of a problem as telling someone who wanted to play a divine caster who wants to learn spells like a wizard or cast spells spontaneously like a sorcerer to just play a wizard or sorcerer instead and "flavor it" as though it were a cleric, archivist or favored soul. I didn't mean to say that a player who was interested in psionics to be forced to play a sorceror. I was saying that psionics is different enough that a DM has to spend some time to learn the rule system but not so different from traditional spellcasting that in the end, a DM may simply just don't have the desire to go through that trouble for one player. Its a matter of exclusion. A player who is not allowed to play psionics can play whatever other PC type he is allowed within whatever guidelines or restrictions the DM has in place. Also, when it comes down to it, the psionics is effectively the ToB treatment for Sorcerers: it manages to create handful of spontaneous spellcasting characters that can actually almost match up to a Wizard, unlike the mess that is the 3.5 Sorcerer. Less true for binders than Shadowcasters. And in any case, meh. There are, in fact, many times when "just play a vanilla character/weapon/high skill ranks and flavor things interestingly" is both unsatisfying and not quite adequate as a solution. In fact, I'm pretty sure this is the rationale behind both ToB's maneuver mechanic and the skill tricks in complete scoundrel. I'm probably one of the few people that think the sorcerors only need a minor tweaking. I actually like the straight sorceror PC as is and recognize the benefits of spontaneous casting can be quite handy compared to the vancian memorization system for a Wizard. But that's my opinion and I understand quite a few people dislike sorcerors or feel sorcerors are extremely underpowered compared to Wizards. If playing a "vanilla" character is that unsatisfying, why play the game some DM is holding with whatever restrictions they have in place on the game. If it gets to that point, stop playing since apparently you wouldn't have fun playing with your "vanilla" character. If a player did come up to me and said "I will only play your game only if you allow Psionics" then I might be prompted to read up on the psionics rules. On the flip side, its rare for me to have a player make an ultimatum to me as a DM. THey're more likely to hear about the details of the campaign, listen to whatever restrictions there are and then make inquiries as to how strict those restrictions might be. Would you do this for another class that you liked more? I do agree that if a DM's looked at psionics, and it really doesn't fit in his campaign world, that's one thing. However, many, many players would meet their DMs halfway and look for a reasonable way to fit the mechanic into the game world themselves. If I as a player went to a D&D game and demanded to play a Star Wars SAGA rules, how far do you think you will get with that DM? I very much doubt it would be halfway compromise between the rules. And what halfway compromise exists between a game using Psionics vs. a game without? A DM allows psionics under an extremely restricted basis? But not being willing to read through the material and to see if it -or elements of it- could fit into the world is another thing entirely. I may be working on an Eberron campaign, but that doesn't mean I don't look at books like the Fiendish Codices on the off-chance that there's something interesting I can work into my campaigns. It's really the rejecting material to players sight-unseen because of the intention to keep it sight-unseen that rankles more than anything else. To ban outright is to limit a player's primary outlet for creativity in the world-building process. Good DMs, DMs that want to encourage creative players who are engaged in the story being told, *don't* ban things outright without looking at them. As I said above, setting mis-match -especially when the player has knowledge of the setting in advance- is a very different thing from banning a set of mechanics because you don't want to read them. Up until now, you've been arguing the latter. I fully agree but I also recognize that its also a Good DM that allows things into their game only if they are familiar with those rules. Glancing at a book like the Expanded Psionics Handbook might be good enough to give a DM a basis to allow or disallow the material but it won't give that DM enough information to be a good DM when dealing with psionics. Half of the misperception of psionics being overpowered is due to a misunderstanding of the rules. OR, you might come up with new NPCs, bad guys and plot hooks for the PCs to participate in that continue to improve the quality of your game. (*cough* Puppeteers) Don't you ever look through other sources for inspiration? Heck, I'm working on an Eberron Campaign, and I've looked through the Fiendish Codices, Frostburn, ToM, ToB, HoH, and a half-dozen FR books for inspiration: if a player approached me with a strong interest in material from a different sourcebook, I'd move that to the front of the stack. I'd simply also see if there was anything useful to my world-building at the same time. I do but this then becomes a DM's preference of what he wants to read. I love fiends as enemies. So reading the Fineidsh Codices or even the Book of Vile Darkness for inspiration makes the time spent DMing "fun" for the DM since not only am I improving the game for my players but I'm reading something I like a lot. Some DM's just don't like psionics and would rather read some other book. I'm sure you can tell from my responses, though, that I do believe that the attitude of "I don't have time to read through the source material with the class/feat/mechanic my player wants to use, because I'm too busy building the campaign and there's no way that source material would be useful to my world-building," still contains a significant element of intellectual laziness. "I can't look at your character concept because I'm too busy building a campaign" largely misses the point that players and DM work in concert to tell the story, and that ultimately, the stories in D&D are necessarily character-based, and that consequentially, time spent on character creation *is* still time well-spent on the campaign. And I would say a player who can't choose a PC concept within whatever setting the DM is running is a creative imbecile. You might think a DM who doesn't have the time to read something new is lazy but a player who can only play a "psion/martial adept/binder/true namer" or whatever is just as lazy. And that is the DM's right, yes, but it's the player's right to leave and find something better to do with their time if they're not satisfied with the game, even if doing so futher disrupts the game. That "nuclear option" is Rule -1, and DMs have to keep in mind that it exists as well, when they do feel like being overly arbitrary. They can't force players to stay, so it's really their responsibility to make sure that the players are enjoying themselves. And that is the player's option. If he doesn't like the DM's rules or restrictions, its better to leave since the player may not have fun with those rules. By the same token, a DM has a right to have fun or did you think it was a paying gig where a DM must bow to the whims of a player and that the DM is being paid by the hour to read this new set of rules so that a player could use those rules? There's not biting on hooks, though, and derailing the campaign into something the DM doesn't want to play. Barring suitable options to players, because you don't have the time to read it, is much closer to the latter. So then just as its a players right to leave a game that they don't want to play, a DM has an equal right to simply not DM anymore. Let someone else take over the reigns. It would free my time up substantially if someone in my group volunteered to DM my games. :P
TikiMan 09-02-07, 11:02 PM	I also recognize that its also a Good DM that allows things into their game only if they are familiar with those rules. Not to be confrontational or anything, but I'd like to point out how terribly incorrect this statement is. Namely the 'only if' part. I have played psionic characters in multiple games under DMs who had no knowledge of psionics. I've done the same thing for ToB characters, Duskblades, and many other classes/races/etc. I have never had any problems in those games because I took responsibility as a player to make sure my character meshed well with the rest of the group, both in flavor and in mechanics. A current game I play in has a first time DM, though she's played the game for a few months now. Our group consists of a Scout, Ninja, Psion, and Swordsage. We spend maybe 10 minutes a night debating rules, mostly because everyone is playing a mechanic they enjoy/understand, but also because we're all trying to be nice to the new DM and each other. You'd be surprised how well 'group cooperation' fixes almost any problem. If a player is willing to work with the DM, it is a Good DM that bends to accommodate their players wishes. Assuming your player isn't a muchkin looking for an easy way to cheat, I bet you'll find that they'll bend over backwords to appease any rule/balance issues that crop up. While I understand the feeling, I seriously think you're just making too much work for yourself. If a player wants to play a psionic character, there is no need to 'incorporate' psionics into the game. No need for psionic encounters, or psionic loot (all I want for Xmas is a Circlet of Int really), or psionic NPCs, or psionic organizations. You can even go so far as to say 'psions are just a weird sect of wizards' if you have too, but seriously, how often do your players ask 'where do sorcerers come from'? Assuming you can trust the player all you've got to do is say "ok, but I don't know the rules for that system, so make extra sure you're following the rules and conform to the party's power level. If not I'll have to make changes to your character." Using this tactic has allowed me to teach a few DMs, and a couple dozen players, how to use psionics/ToB/etc. I've turned quite a number of people onto the psionics system just by being a decent person. And I've been able to gain actual experience using fringe systems so I can make an educated statement about their balance, which is something most people who ban Psionics/ToB/etc can't say.
Ongorth 09-03-07, 12:52 AM	Assuming you can trust the player all you've got to do is say "ok, but I don't know the rules for that system, so make extra sure you're following the rules and conform to the party's power level. If not I'll have to make changes to your character." Exactly. I think a lot of people are under the assumption that player's make it their job to break the game. That is, if the DM doesn't keep them under strict supervision and carefully control the amount of creative control they have over the game, they will without a shadow of a doubt break the game. Often on purpose. I mean, when I read a new sourcebook and see thematically desirable piece of crunch of questionable power, I don't think , "Man, I should take that so my character can kick everyone's ass!" I think, "Man, that thing is pretty cool, but it seems too good in my build. How can I tinker it so I can take it?" I read a lot of Mongoose sourcebooks, so this is a very good trait to have.
wonlee76 09-04-07, 11:16 AM	Not to be confrontational or anything, but I'd like to point out how terribly incorrect this statement is. Namely the 'only if' part. I have played psionic characters in multiple games under DMs who had no knowledge of psionics. I've done the same thing for ToB characters, Duskblades, and many other classes/races/etc. I have never had any problems in those games because I took responsibility as a player to make sure my character meshed well with the rest of the group, both in flavor and in mechanics. A current game I play in has a first time DM, though she's played the game for a few months now. Our group consists of a Scout, Ninja, Psion, and Swordsage. We spend maybe 10 minutes a night debating rules, mostly because everyone is playing a mechanic they enjoy/understand, but also because we're all trying to be nice to the new DM and each other. You'd be surprised how well 'group cooperation' fixes almost any problem. Well, the only reason why I believe a DM should be familiar with the rules of whatever mechanics there are for a PC in his campaign is because the DM is ultimately the final arbiter for the rules. If there is a rules dispute, its the DM who makes the final call on the rule. But without knowing the rule, it makes him a very poor judge. Though I do appreciate a player knowing the ins and outs of their PC whatever that may be but as a DM, I don't want to have a "WTF?" moment in a game when a PC pulls a trick out of their hat. I don't mean that in the sense the PC is cheating but rather it could be a PC misinterpreting a rule or simply put, a DM just not fully being aware of a PC's legit capabilities when designing an encounter. If a player is willing to work with the DM, it is a Good DM that bends to accommodate their players wishes. Assuming your player isn't a muchkin looking for an easy way to cheat, I bet you'll find that they'll bend over backwords to appease any rule/balance issues that crop up. If you have that type of player, that's great. I've had players who willingly nerf themselves or nerf spells that they realize is too powerful as written. By the same token, I've had players gripe and moan to me if I nerf or ban an uber spell that they wanted to get their hands on. As a DM, a player in category 1 is more likely to get a DM to accomodate a player then say a player in the latter category. While I understand the feeling, I seriously think you're just making too much work for yourself. If a player wants to play a psionic character, there is no need to 'incorporate' psionics into the game. No need for psionic encounters, or psionic loot (all I want for Xmas is a Circlet of Int really), or psionic NPCs, or psionic organizations. You can even go so far as to say 'psions are just a weird sect of wizards' if you have too, but seriously, how often do your players ask 'where do sorcerers come from'? Assuming you can trust the player all you've got to do is say "ok, but I don't know the rules for that system, so make extra sure you're following the rules and conform to the party's power level. If not I'll have to make changes to your character." This I disagree with just from a sense of it creates an imbalance in a campaign. Picture a campaign world with no Wizards/Sorcerors/Clerics/Druids. A player gets to play a Wiz/Sor/Clr/Dru with no restrictions. Against enemies that don't have access to those types of powers, its going the group is going to steamroll over the encounters. Take a group with a Psion with no other psionic enemies. Its not as bad as my hypothetical above since other spellcasting classes have capabilities similar to a Psion and presuming there is transparency of course but in my opinion, if the PCs are never confronted with a psionic enemy that can use the same or similar tricks as the PCs, it artificially increases the power level of the PCs as compared to the rest of the world. Yes, I follow the philosophy of whatever the PCs are capable of, the bad guys are equally capable of. Of course without "knowing" the rules for psionics, this is impossible for a DM to run properly. Using this tactic has allowed me to teach a few DMs, and a couple dozen players, how to use psionics/ToB/etc. I've turned quite a number of people onto the psionics system just by being a decent person. And I've been able to gain actual experience using fringe systems so I can make an educated statement about their balance, which is something most people who ban Psionics/ToB/etc can't say. I'm not a psionics hater or completely without knowledge of Psionic rules. Personally, I allowed psionics but it was only after I figured out the rules and looked over any concerns I had. The fun encounters of bad guy Psionic Shaper vs. the group was well worth it for me to learn the psionic rules. Or the PC Psionic kineticist tossing around maximized crystal shards vs. a beast with magical immunity. My issue was the OP implied its a DM who doesn't learn the rules for psionics is lazy. I could think of many reasons why a DM would not learn the rules. I admit some of those reasons are bad reasons (ie. The "Its overpowered" excuse) but there are some legit concerns (time management). Where one person perceives it as "lazy", I perceive it as a DM managing his time or simply his own personal interests (some people just don't like psionics for better or for worst and there really will be difficult to change that opinion).
Nephlite 09-04-07, 11:28 AM	This I disagree with just from a sense of it creates an imbalance in a campaign. Picture a campaign world with no Wizards/Sorcerors/Clerics/Druids. A player gets to play a Wiz/Sor/Clr/Dru with no restrictions. Against enemies that don't have access to those types of powers, its going the group is going to steamroll over the encounters. Now you are being funny. Without Wizards, unless you mean Dispel magic: there is little having other spellcasters can do that makes him worse. Plus, if he is only Wizard: he can't get additional spells beyond the 2 frees ones. He is worse off. Granted, the other three would work well. Take a group with a Psion with no other psionic enemies. Its not as bad as my hypothetical above since other spellcasting classes have capabilities similar to a Psion and presuming there is transparency of course but in my opinion, if the PCs are never confronted with a psionic enemy that can use the same or similar tricks as the PCs, it artificially increases the power level of the PCs as compared to the rest of the world. Yes, I follow the philosophy of whatever the PCs are capable of, the bad guys are equally capable of. Of course without "knowing" the rules for psionics, this is impossible for a DM to run properly. How does it increase his power? Why should you counter fire with fire: why not do it the easy way? Water.
TikiMan 09-04-07, 02:07 PM	Well, the only reason why I believe a DM should be familiar with the rules of whatever mechanics there are for a PC in his campaign is because the DM is ultimately the final arbiter for the rules. If there is a rules dispute, its the DM who makes the final call on the rule. But without knowing the rule, it makes him a very poor judge. Should be and Must be are two very different statements. I agree that it is better if the DM knows the rule system, but I totally disagree that he must, or that lack of knowledge of the rule system is a grounds for not allowing something in the campaign. And if he allows rules he doesn't understand, yes he will be a poor judge for a while, but eventually his judgment should get better, especially if the fringe system player politely talks to him about the rules out of game. Assuming you told the player up front that you don't know the rules and may have to randomly nerf his character, the player should be more able to accept poor judgment calls. It's not like psionic enthusiasts aren't already used to such treatment from WotC. :rolleyes: Though I do appreciate a player knowing the ins and outs of their PC whatever that may be but as a DM, I don't want to have a "WTF?" moment in a game when a PC pulls a trick out of their hat. I don't mean that in the sense the PC is cheating but rather it could be a PC misinterpreting a rule or simply put, a DM just not fully being aware of a PC's legit capabilities when designing an encounter. The problem here is that players regularly do that with nothing more then the PHB (or do you have 100% of core perfectly memorized?). I did that a couple of times with my Duskblade (sometimes just by giving the group wizard a little advice on spell selection). And if having your players surprise you is something you seriously don't like, tell your psionic players that. If they just want to use the mechanics, and not mess with their DM, you'll probably find them choosing lots of powers with abilities very similar to PHB spells so they don't pull any tricks on you. Or perhaps they'll tell you what powers are on their static list of powers known, and explain any with weird effects, thus allowing you to know everything they are legitimately capable of. I'm trying to accept "I don't like surprises" as a valid argument for not allowing psionics...but something in me just can't. I suppose my line of logic goes like this: DM: You can't play a psion because I don't like surprises. Me: OK, I'm going to play a wizard and try to surprise you as much as I can. DM: ... Me: What? I can't play a wizard now? DM: ... Me: Can I play a wizard if I promise to try to not surprise you? DM: Yeah, sure... Me: Can I play a psion if I promise to try to not surprise you? DM: No, I just said... Me: OK, I'm going to play a wizard and try to surprise you as much as I can. Now, I would never actually play that wizard, but I would argue with the DM because he's being a goober. If I'm going to be punished (not allowed to use my favorite toy) as if I were a problem player, then I'm going to threaten to be a problem player. I don't like being punished for something I didn't do. If you have that type of player, that's great. I've had players who willingly nerf themselves or nerf spells that they realize is too powerful as written. By the same token, I've had players gripe and moan to me if I nerf or ban an uber spell that they wanted to get their hands on. As a DM, a player in category 1 is more likely to get a DM to accomodate a player then say a player in the latter category. Which is exactly as it should be. Players who cooperate get more leeway, and players who are a problem get fewer choices. The difference here is that instead of banning psionics because you assume all of your players are in category two, you put the blame on the problem player for being a problem. I have had problem players myself, but I don't allow them to ruin the game for everyone else. I grow a spine and say "Hey, you don't like it that Bob can use psionics and you can't? Well then stop being a problem player and learn to make my job easier. Until then, it's Core only for you, and I'll be looking over your character before every session." This I disagree with just from a sense of it creates an imbalance in a campaign. Picture a campaign world with no Wizards/Sorcerors/Clerics/Druids. A player gets to play a Wiz/Sor/Clr/Dru with no restrictions. Against enemies that don't have access to those types of powers, its going the group is going to steamroll over the encounters. D&D is already chocked full of encounters like this, in fact I would say they are in the vast majority. How often do you see every group of monsters a party faces including a wizard, cleric, figher, and rogue type? Giants regularly don't have access to wizard type stuff, are they pushovers? Dragons don't get access to clerical/druid stuff, are they pushovers? Demons/Devils get nothing but spell-like abilities (most of which have direct psionic analogs), are they pushovers for a full fledged caster? Given that most monsters have abilities that protect them from casters, there is no imbalance if the monsters don't have a full fledged caster abilities. Their other abilties, usually things players don't get much access too(DR/ER/SR), make up for the difference, and apply equally well to psionics. I understand where this idea comes from, but please, sit down and think about it. Can you give me any specific examples of where a monster not having access to some type of magic puts it in the 'steamroller' category? To give you a starting point, can you give me an example of why a dragon not having access to cleric/druid spells makes it a 'steamroller' encounter? After you think about that one, can you give me an example of why a dragon not having access to psionic powers makes it a 'steamroller' encounter? Oh, and as Nephlite pointed out, a wizard PC in a no-wizard game world would be so totally hosed. This doesn't hold for a Sorc/Psion though, because they spontaneously learn spells/powers. And given that SR=PR, transparency, etc, the psion is at no particular advantage if he's the only psion around. He's just a funky sorcerer with possibly some customized spells. Yes, I follow the philosophy of whatever the PCs are capable of, the bad guys are equally capable of. Of course without "knowing" the rules for psionics, this is impossible for a DM to run properly. I totally agree with that philosophy, and subscribe to it myself. My NPCs regularly have psionic classes. Since ToB has come out, I've liberally sprinkled warblade and swordsage levels onto my monsters. Man, my players were freaking out when a Kobold started using manuvers. However, how does this philosophy translate into 'whatever the monsters aren't capable of, the players are banned from using'? And again, wouldn't it be easier to learn the psionics rules by allowing a responsible player to play test them for you?
CrimsonDeath 09-04-07, 04:41 PM	Oh, and as Nephlite pointed out, a wizard PC in a no-wizard game world would be so totally hosed. Not if he has sufficient downtime to "research" new spells (which, incidentally, can be preexisting spells that he can't find scrolls for).
TikiMan 09-04-07, 06:21 PM	Not if he has sufficient downtime to "research" new spells (which, incidentally, can be preexisting spells that he can't find scrolls for). Even ignoring the time spent on research, there's also the money that has to be spent and the possibility, even if it's a pre-existing spell, that your research will fail (the PHB is fuzzy on if researching an existing spell costs time/money, but given that you're the only wizard in the world, 'pre-existing' may not be applicable). In games with enemy wizards that you kill, you can take enemy spellbooks and copy loads of spells for free. For these reasons wizards are pretty much the only class that has problems depending upon their status in a world. All other classes have a spontaneous system for learning spells, and magical defenses apply to every class pretty much equally.
yrogerg 09-04-07, 10:16 PM	I've already addressed most of this, so I'm going to go off on a tangent. I'm probably one of the few people that think the sorcerors only need a minor tweaking. I actually like the straight sorceror PC as is and recognize the benefits of spontaneous casting can be quite handy compared to the vancian memorization system for a Wizard. But that's my opinion and I understand quite a few people dislike sorcerors or feel sorcerors are extremely underpowered compared to Wizards. Spontaneous spellcasting is *handy*, yes. A mixture of spontaneous and non-spontaneous casting, like ability of clerics to spontaneously swap spells is *very* handy, as it allows all of their spell slots to do double duty. But, based solely on the differences between Wizards and Sorcerers, let's look at how handy WotC must think spontaneous arcane spellcasting, in itself is: Spontaneous arcame spellcasting is worth: A cut spell progression 5 feats Worthless metamagic (at least by core. Now, they can spend an extra feat to be able to use Quicken!) Swapping 1/day spell change-out for 1/level, dramatically cutting away any flexability spellcasting might otherwise allow. CHA-based spellcasting, which synergizes poorly with their other abilities (that is to say, their skill list -their only other class ability- with its whopping one CHA-based skill) And relatedly, the same limited number of skill points, despite non-Int-based casting, which amounts to de facto fewer skill points. This means that a Sorcer has to choose between having acceptable save DCs, and having a passible Spellcraft and Concentration skill. They have the same number of must-have skills as Wizards, but far fewer skill points to buy them with. Any one of those, I might agree that spontaneous spellcasting is handy enough to be worth. but all 6? You've seriously got to be kidding. As written, the Sorcerer is to the spellcasting classes what the Monk is to the warrior classes: A cut-progression "flavor" class that has to make up for its MAD with resources that are more expensive for it than the other classes.
Iabes_Q_c_a_Mahorella 09-04-07, 10:45 PM	I just never got around to buying XPH. Actualy, I tried to read some of it, and stopped at "Soulknife," said "OMG, Soul Reaver!" and flipped to the "powers" section. where I stopped reading because I'm too lazy as a player to memorize ANOTHER spell system. As a DM; if you want to play [insert XPH rule here], so long as you can explain it, with references, then I'm good. No, you wont get much psionic treasure, but hell, my wizards have half the same stuff as my fighters, and if you realy want something, pick it out in the book, tell me how much it costs, and go buy it! done. Psionic monsters? I can run a campagin without one mage, assuming I use at least basic magic items [+1 sword, armor, and a random teleport ability for fun], and psionics is just another form of magic. I could make a world without rouges, and i'd still be fine with a lock or a trap occasionaly. Also, as for carying books, I have pretty much every WotC book on my laptop as a PDF file. the last game I played, there were 8 players and one copy of the PHB 3.0 held togther with duct tape. You can play without books. Or dice if you have a calculator or MS Excell.
Nephlite 09-04-07, 11:57 PM	I could make a world without rouges, and i'd still be fine with a lock or a trap occasionaly. Well, Knock and Psionic, Knock emulate a successful open lock check. Traps are harder (to find: you can just dispel magic or sunder them). Also, as for carying books, I have pretty much every WotC book on my laptop as a PDF file. the last game I played, there were 8 players and one copy of the PHB 3.0 held togther with duct tape. You can play without books. Or dice if you have a calculator or MS Excell. Wow, duct tape? Been through alot I see.
Jaid 09-05-07, 01:03 AM	They have the same number of must-have skills as Wizards, but far fewer skill points to buy them with. that's not true at all... wizards get all those knowledge skills (useful for IDing monsters, and also useful for getting into all sorts of prestige classes). sorcerors don't. knowledge is power, and sorcerors get very limited knowledge :P
CrimsonDeath 09-05-07, 03:27 AM	that's not true at all... wizards get all those knowledge skills (useful for IDing monsters, and also useful for getting into all sorts of prestige classes). sorcerors don't. knowledge is power, and sorcerors get very limited knowledge :P Knowledge skills are merely nice. The must-have skill is Concentration.
yrogerg 09-05-07, 07:46 AM	that's not true at all... wizards get all those knowledge skills (useful for IDing monsters, and also useful for getting into all sorts of prestige classes). sorcerors don't. knowledge is power, and sorcerors get very limited knowledge :P The must-have skills for spellcasters as a whole are Concentration and Spellcraft, with Knowledge: Arcana being a nice extra, but hardly necessary. Both Wizards and Sorcerers have those. The problem that I'm mentioning is that Sorcerers and Wizards both have 2 skill points +INT mod/level, meaning that a Wizard has no problem having full ranks in both and then hitting several other skills (high Int mod), but the Sorcerer is either going to end up with MAD, or be deficient in one or both of these skills, especially if they want to do anything else with their Other Class Ability (which, again, means their skill list).