Re: Alternative Psionics
 

I think that's the way I'm leaning. I think I'll give my group a few more games with the RAW before I start tweaking stuff. That'll give me time to make some NPCs for comparative purposes, as well.

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

This brings up a design theory question. Has it been said or does anyone know why the substantial difference between Psionics and Magic exist in GURPS. Most games I've played treat them essentially the same (when they exist together, that is).

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

It's in GURPS Thaumatology under syntactic magic.

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

The standard magic system, that appears in the Basic Set and GURPS Magic, is actually quite old - it dates back at least to GURPS 2e, if not earlier (I think it might actually have appeared in the very earliest GURPS products, but I'm not sure). Anyway, that age means it has some issues, stuff that I don't think would probably get put in if it was being designed with modern GURPS ideas. Notably, it allows for a lot of absolute abilities (Utter Dome/Wall spells, for example, are invulnerability, which 4e GURPS doesn't generally allow for cheap at all), and even the 4e version of Magic suffers from some conversion issues, where older terminology wasn't properly updated.

The Psionics system, on the other hand, is newer. The 3e system was introduced in that era, of course, so it's somewhat closer to modern-day GURPS. The 4e system, however, is deliberately designed to fit into current sensibilities - it takes full use of the enhancements and limitations that 4e made standard for advantages, for instance.

If you're asking "why have different systems at all", though, the answer is probably "because we can"? Expanding on that a bit, one of GURPS' strengths is that it's flexible enough to build different power systems and roughly balance them against each other. So, if you have two different sets of supernatural abilities that actually tend to work rather differently from one another, why not build them as two separate systems, to properly model their different behaviors? Building them on the same framework means you risk warping one or the other in order to fit into a model not designed for it, dissatisfying fans of the compromised set.

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

The roots of Gurps Magic date back to Fantasy 1e (then Magc 1e) and for Psionics it's Gurps Horror 1e (followed by its' own book). Both were Gurps 1e products.

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

How did it work in Wizard?

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

There wasn't any actual "psi" in Wizard. There weren't anything but Wizards and summoned creatures in Wizard. It was a microgame about Wizards. :)

There was a Telekinetic Fist spell and that sort of thing.

There may or may not have been a psionic "Talent" or two in the full Fantasy Trip. Those were effectively advantages.

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

I mean, how did magic work?

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

You bought a spell from a possible number of them equal to your IQ. Selection of spells was also limited to those of your IQ level. Better spells took higher IQs. You paid ST pts to cast spells and at least sometimes rolled against DX in the casting process (it's been a _long_ time).

There was no HT stat.

Re: Alternative Psionics
 

Fred's description is pretty good.

The Wizard system is recognizably the ancestor of the one in GURPS Magic, especially considering the differences and simplicities in the TFT system and its later evolution into GURPS. (What's this weird new HT stat? Who needs that?)

Spells cost a point each during character build, have a skill level based on IQ (all TFT "skills" matched your IQ/DX; "skill" wasn't a separate thing), roll 3d6 to successful cast, casting costs a variable amount of fatigue points depending on the spell, resting more rapidly restores fatigue than the once/day allocation of "mana points" or "spell slots" that was common back in the day.

Casting is oriented to combat time, taking just a turn or two for most effects, with the effect scale also being somewhat similar to the Melee weapon effects. (This is a marked contrast with, say, AD&D 1e, where spells tending to be encounter-winning trump cards with the strategy being when best to use your limited number during the dungeon, and with wizards often having nothing useful to do because a fight wasn't worth blowing a spell.) Wizard-versus-warrior could be an interesting fight over a few turns, rather than save-or-die, as you might expect from the arena-combat microgame origins.