Desdichado
Hero
Point buy? A fantasy convention? At what point did the term fantasy convention suddenly lose all meaning?
What traditional fantasy conventions are you tired of?
- Thread starter Desdichado
- Start date
Desdichado
Hero
"Psionics", which is not a real word, is a convention of science-lite Science Fiction. X-Men do not use psionics, and are also not fantasy. At least not in the sense we mean when we talk about traditional fantasy conventions.Sir Elton said:
I really didn't think it was that complicated, but since I'm getting so many off-topic replies -- fantasy is your typical swords and knights and dragons and magic type of story. A convention is something that would happen in such a story. Overused means that it's been done too many times.
Fantasy is not the X-Men. Fantasy is not necessarily D&D, although D&D does utilize most of the "traditional" fantasy conventions. And fantasy conventions most certainly are not metagame rules issues. Nor are they whatever extremely rare thing about gaming, D&D or fantasy that you don't like. If it's rare, it can hardly be a traditional fantasy convention, can it? That's completely off-topic.
Last edited:
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
Incenjucar said:
There can be more than one Past Golden Age, too. I figure the world can have fallen two, three times easily.
Brad
The Hard to Suss Out Origins of "Psionics"
The word was coined around 1938 by one John Campbell. A magazine editor (Astounding) and then friend of Professor Rhine, founder of the Rhine Institute. The professor would later lay claim to having invented the term, but by then he and Campbell had long been on the outs.
Properly used psionics refers to electronically added psychic abilities. It's a play on electronics, then a new technology just starting to impact daily life. It was John Campbell's goal to get a psionics technology and industry going, so people would have tools to use to boost their innate psychic abilities.
Later, after his split with L. Ron Hubbard over the direction the latter was taking with Dianetics, Campbell started pushing psychic phenomenon in Astounding (later renamed Analog in the early 60s). People soon started using psionics in connection with those tales. After Campbell had used the term in some editorials, and it had appeared in articles about psionic equipment. Most especially the Dean Drive
Soon enough psionics became the preferred term for psychic phenomenon in science fiction stories.
BTW, about the time of his death (an aneurysm) Campbell was pretty much giving up on psychic phenomenon. After twenty years of support he was seeing no results for all the research. He was also coming to realize that psychic abilities had no effect on society at all. Something you'd expect if they were as utile and ubiquitous as proponents think.
So there you have the origins of 'psionics'.
(BTW, John Campbell also edited a fantasy magazine. Unknown run just a couple of years, and was a casualty of the paper shortage of World War II.)
Joshua Dyal said:
The word was coined around 1938 by one John Campbell. A magazine editor (Astounding) and then friend of Professor Rhine, founder of the Rhine Institute. The professor would later lay claim to having invented the term, but by then he and Campbell had long been on the outs.
Properly used psionics refers to electronically added psychic abilities. It's a play on electronics, then a new technology just starting to impact daily life. It was John Campbell's goal to get a psionics technology and industry going, so people would have tools to use to boost their innate psychic abilities.
Later, after his split with L. Ron Hubbard over the direction the latter was taking with Dianetics, Campbell started pushing psychic phenomenon in Astounding (later renamed Analog in the early 60s). People soon started using psionics in connection with those tales. After Campbell had used the term in some editorials, and it had appeared in articles about psionic equipment. Most especially the Dean Drive
Soon enough psionics became the preferred term for psychic phenomenon in science fiction stories.
BTW, about the time of his death (an aneurysm) Campbell was pretty much giving up on psychic phenomenon. After twenty years of support he was seeing no results for all the research. He was also coming to realize that psychic abilities had no effect on society at all. Something you'd expect if they were as utile and ubiquitous as proponents think.
So there you have the origins of 'psionics'.
(BTW, John Campbell also edited a fantasy magazine. Unknown run just a couple of years, and was a casualty of the paper shortage of World War II.)
Sigdel
First Post
Well, every one seems to be tossing in their two-cents. So heres mine adressing some of the topics brought up on this thread.
Hobbits: I hate hobbits. No I really, really, REALLY hate hobbits. Back in 2nd ed I never touched halflings because they looked like hobbits. Every time I see a hobbit, I want to kick it. I can't explain it. 3.5 Halflings are cool. Kender are funny, but hard to play as PC's. Hobbits reminde me of those little kids that ran around my neiborhood bare footed and dirty! Put on some fricken shoes.
Magic arcane and divine: Their is a distinction for a reason! Why have a wizard heal people? I mean, if all magic is lumped in to one pile why have wizards? Having a cleric launch fireballs while clad in full plate is just not right. Clerics get their magic from the gods, not the energy around them like arcane users do. that brings me to...
The Gods: Pollytheisms are very good for fantasy. They fit right in with all the themes. If you have a fantasy world with only one God, whats the point of being a cleric? If the one God covers all sides of the board, whats stopping the good and evil clerics of the same god from fighting? How do you justify serving a god who is giving you the power to fight his own evil clerics? And vise versa? I say this god needs to seek some counsiling, get on some potent drugs and MAKE UP HIS FRIGGEN MIND!
Women PC's: I seem to remember an old 2ed item that had stat adustments for female versions of all the core races. Does anyone know what this was?
I guess the whole point is, you can only cange so much of D&D before it stops being D&D. If you don't like the magic system or the non-human races and get rid of them, your not really playing D&D. Your not really playing much fantasy either. You might as well call it D20 medievil.
Hobbits: I hate hobbits. No I really, really, REALLY hate hobbits. Back in 2nd ed I never touched halflings because they looked like hobbits. Every time I see a hobbit, I want to kick it. I can't explain it. 3.5 Halflings are cool. Kender are funny, but hard to play as PC's. Hobbits reminde me of those little kids that ran around my neiborhood bare footed and dirty! Put on some fricken shoes.
Magic arcane and divine: Their is a distinction for a reason! Why have a wizard heal people? I mean, if all magic is lumped in to one pile why have wizards? Having a cleric launch fireballs while clad in full plate is just not right. Clerics get their magic from the gods, not the energy around them like arcane users do. that brings me to...
The Gods: Pollytheisms are very good for fantasy. They fit right in with all the themes. If you have a fantasy world with only one God, whats the point of being a cleric? If the one God covers all sides of the board, whats stopping the good and evil clerics of the same god from fighting? How do you justify serving a god who is giving you the power to fight his own evil clerics? And vise versa? I say this god needs to seek some counsiling, get on some potent drugs and MAKE UP HIS FRIGGEN MIND!
Women PC's: I seem to remember an old 2ed item that had stat adustments for female versions of all the core races. Does anyone know what this was?
I guess the whole point is, you can only cange so much of D&D before it stops being D&D. If you don't like the magic system or the non-human races and get rid of them, your not really playing D&D. Your not really playing much fantasy either. You might as well call it D20 medievil.
Incenjucar
Legend
1) Aye, a golden age occurs fairly regularly in our world, so why not in fantasy? Empires rise, fall in to decadence, and are destroyed repeatedly throughout history, in the real world. We explore 'dungeons' and 'catacombs' all the time, and not just from one era.
2) X-Men is full of psionics, and they use the term. I mean, cripes, the soul knife concept almost certainly comes from Psylocke. And, since magic does occur in X-Men, it's technically 'sci-fantasy', with all that entails.
3) Fantasy is NOT limited to classic (LotR-style) fantasy. Fantasy basically means "with supernatural".
2) X-Men is full of psionics, and they use the term. I mean, cripes, the soul knife concept almost certainly comes from Psylocke. And, since magic does occur in X-Men, it's technically 'sci-fantasy', with all that entails.
3) Fantasy is NOT limited to classic (LotR-style) fantasy. Fantasy basically means "with supernatural".
Merlion
First Post
How is it anymore "right" to have them clad in full plate casting Flame Strikes, Cure Light Wounds and Blade Barrier?
There is a disinction between Wizards and Clerics for a reason (because they are different classes with different abilities) but the disinction between "Arcane" and "Divine" has little to no reason. The only mechanical effect it has is that "Divine" spells are for some reason not subject to spell failure while wearing armor, and have different casting stats.
This could be...and in 1st edition was...much more easily handled by having the disinctions be purely between the classes.
Maybe because in most fantasy wizard-type characters can heal people? Maybe because someone who can transform themselves or another into a different creature should logical be able to repair physical damage to the body?
Right. And Druids usualy get their magic directly from nature. And wizards study. And Sorcerers are born with it.
To me that seems enough. I dont see why all this "Arcane/Divine" nonsense is there...all it causes is confusion.
Removing "Arcane/Divine" doesnt mean "lumping all magic into one pile" for one thing. There will still be differences in what spells classes cast, and where they come from. But each caster will be itself, and not also have to be fit into some monolythic designation.
Also again in much fantasy there are wizard/mage types who are they best at magic..who's shtic is that they have a broader deeper range of access to magic than most.
Look at the Magister in Arcana Unearthed. Theres no "Arcane/Divine" in that game. And Magisters can heal (better than anyone save the greenbond in fact...and they to me represent the idea of the Wizard better than the standard D&D does right now, because they are barred from several types of magic.
No, polytheism doesnt fit all themes. Now if what you mean is that in a polytheistic system its easier to create gods who are apropriate for various different professions and adventuring classes then yes thats true.
But Polytheism...especially D&D style with numerous people running around with "divinely" granted spells and powers discludes a great many themes. Anything having to do with faith for one.
Theres also many that it doesnt exclude but that it makes easier for D&D to avoid, like fightning within a religion.
Well, I find the idea of the Cleric class ridcules anyway, but to answer your question the point is exactly the same.
Roleplaying?
This is exactly the sort of interesting themes that polytheism makes unlikely.
But really, I think most of the things that you mention are problems with the Cleric class and the inherent problems of having a religion or religions that include a whole class of priests who are granted extreme levels of magical power.
The whole thing is in my opnion silly, and rather uncommon in most fantasy (and the similiar things you do find bear only a passing resemblence to how it is in D&D).
Thats purely your opnion. D&D has always been a mutable game that people change to suit their tastes...its encouraged in the very books themselves in fact.
Also, most here arent talking about removing non human races or magic entirely, they are talking about changing those things in various ways.
Now yea I might say that if you entirely remove the idea of classes and armor class and hit points entirely then it might not be D&D anymore (not that it matters) but removing elves or using spell points instead of Vancian magic doesnt mean your "not playing D&D anymore."
Hardly. Unless you remove all remotely magical, supernatural or otherwise fantastic aspects from it and stick purely to history, its still fantasy.
Desdichado
Hero
Well, technically, even that's too limited a definition of fantasy, but if we're going to open the field wide open, we very quickly aren't going to have a useful discussion. That's exactly the reason I said "traditional fantasy conventions." I mean, it'd be kinda pointless for me to talk about how I'm sick of the convention that fantasy has to include a bus full of cheerleaders, or bored housewives hitting on the pool guy.Incenjucar said:
Although, now that I think of it, I think those fantasies still have some life left in them...
Similar Threads
