From: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Subject: Re: What is the best Psionics system?
Reply-To: jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:20:14 GMT

tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:
>John J Cassidy writes:
>>	Anyway, you can make a package of rules, and add it to the Hero 
>>system.  It doesn't resist it. Besides nothing keeps them from looking in `
>>Space Opera rulebook, and learning what THOSE powers can do, anyway.
>
>That's rules you add in.  I'm not saying that you can modify Hero to 
>suit.  You can do anything.  However, in answering the question that
>originally started this thread, I assumed a basic level of play. 

	I have no problem whatsoever with the statement that 'Hero does 
not have an adequate psionics system'. Your original statement, however, 
was that 'the Hero psionics system is poor because it is insufficiently 
mysterious'. This is incorrect IMO because Hero *does not have* a psionics 
system, as both I and John Cassidy stated rather categorically. 

tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Tim Dunn) writes:
>John H Kim writes:
>>	What exactly are you looking for, then? No written rule system
>>is going to give your players a feeling of mystery about psionic powers. 
>
>Hmmm, I'd wager that were I to substitute the words "magic" for "psionic"
>in the previous exchanges and someone will point out WW's Ars Magica.  I
>suppose by this statement, I'm inclined to belive that should the use a
>"on the fly, building block" system for psionics, that might better show
>how I feel about it.

	I think it is precisely the existance of structure and logic to 
the Ars Magica system that makes it more interesting than the simple 
'pick-a-spell-from-a-list' systems. I also liked the spell system from 
Chivalry and Sorcery a great deal. Sure it was complicated and had several 
contradictions, but it also had far more points of interest and authenticity 
than others. 
	What makes for a 'mysterious' feel to a psi or magic system is 
not a lack of definition. Rather, the system must make sense enough that 
you have a 'feel' for the internal logic to it, while allowing room for 
'holes' to be filled in, etc. 
	As long as a system has internal logic and depth, then it is up to 
the GM to modify parts or add parts which are unknown to the players. Nothing 
in the rules can be a mystery. 
	Some rules could *demand* that the GM fill in holes in the rules, 
while others have to be modified rather than added to. For beginning GM's, 
the former might tend more towards mystery - but I am more inclined to think 
that it will lead to lack of consistency, which is mysterious but badly so. 
(Player: "But I was able to sense another contact in someone's mind *last 
session*."  GM: "Oh. Uh, well, you can't do it this time because, um...you 
don't know why.") Nothing is more disappointing than reading a mystery only 
to find that the solution doesn't make sense. 
	For advanced GM's, I don't think that there is that much of a 
difference between modifying systems and adding to them. 

	The complexity of the system is a matter of preference. There are 
some players who get lost in more complex rules systems, while there are 
some who are simply frustrated by simplistic ones. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim                    | Alice: "But if I weren't real, I wouldn't be
jhk6@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | able to cry."  Tweedledum: "I hope you don't 
Columbia University         | imagine those are *real* tears."