The "Art" of Magic (A posted brainstorm)

[contracycle]

Firstly, Valamir I like that design too, good stuff there.

So if a game has an Art skill, or a PAint Portrait skill fo example you'd expect that as the characer's skill rating increases the artistic quality of his work will proportionately increase. Therefore in that game, art is a science? In fact this is true in the real world. Damian Hirst reliably produces criticaly acclaimed work that fetches high prices, therefore he's a scientist?

I think you're being a bit dogmatic here Simon.  Regardless of whether Hirst is an artist or a one-trick pony, if the system is encoded such that input A reliably produces output B (i.e., Hirsts character is indeed represented with a high Art skill) then the experience of play will be mechanistic and "scientific", even if the in-game rationale is artistic expression.  The player need never, and probably ewill never, engage with any artistic sentiment or expression to portray this character.

[simon_hibbs]

I think you're being a bit dogmatic here Simon.

I think categorising anything that's quantifiable as being 'scientific' is more than just dogmatic. Science is a process. Even a verified scientific theory is not itself science, but the result of science.

The player need never, and probably ewill never, engage with any artistic sentiment or expression to portray this character.

That's true, but if I roleplay a scientist with a high 'Science' skill and use it to solve problems or develop 'theories' in the game, I as a player aren't practicing any scientific discipline or process, any more than the player of Tim the Sorcerer is practicing magic.


Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

I'm not quite sure I understand the source of the arguement here. Art vs. Science. Magic as an art, spontaneous and coloured by human emotion, as opposed to magic being as a result of studious research, practise and focus on manipulating the magical energies to ones own ends?

Magic is a science because it is the study of the processes and structure of the cosmos, and how to apply that knowledge practicaly. Magic is artistic because it is a form of mediation between the inner (microcosmic) and outer (macrocosmic) world which goes to the hart of the _experience_ of being human. Art is abut our experience of life and the world, while science is about the world as an object of study. Magic is about both.


Digression:

Normaly I consider my personal experience of religion and science to be orthogonal. To me, religion is about my personal place in and relationship to the world and society in which I live. As such it does not impinge in any way on my acceptance of the scientific process and it's results any more than art does. This is not true of 'miraculous' religion (or indeed overt magic), which makes assertions about effects and objects in the material world which should be scientificaly verifiable.

I don't think you can seperate magic from religion as cleanly as you suggest, because in magic the personal experience or conciousness of the magician is an essential element in any magical working. Therefore magical theories are implicitly theories of man's place in the cosmos at a metaphysical level (religion), beyond man's existence as a material object (science).


Simon

[Callan S.]

I thought he ment the more predictable, this gets that nature that a game system can structure magic with, thus making it a science.

So if a game has an Art skill, or a PAint Portrait skill fo example you'd expect that as the characer's skill rating increases the artistic quality of his work will proportionately increase. Therefore in that game, art is a science? In fact this is true in the real world. Damian Hirst reliably produces criticaly acclaimed work that fetches high prices, therefore he's a scientist?

It's so simple - why didn't I see this before! {slaps forehead}


Simon Hibbs

Because your looking at it the wrong way? An 'art' skill is an incredibly abstracted element of a game. It says nothing about the art except you have rank/points in it...this could mean you can move hearts or just draw hands really really well, for example. Its so driftable as to what it represents as not to be relevant.

While art that is made, but then systematically evaluated by a rules system (so as to have a solid system effect), will reward the artist to skew his art toward what that system wants. The artist will start to become scientific in their method, because thats what the rules reward, because of the ways rules would evalutate it. The system rewards a behaviour that isn't art...and 'system does matter' is perhaps so simple one might miss it.

Edited extra: Scientific practice is pretty clear. You do hundreds or more tests with something, until you can prove a behaviour from it. Then you have scientific principle (well, this is how I'm describing it anyway). In an RPG system you essentially get the same scientific analysis is not just possible, but rewarded more often than not.

[simon_hibbs]

While art that is made, but then systematically evaluated by a rules system (so as to have a solid system effect), will reward the artist to skew his art toward what that system wants. The artist will start to become scientific in their method, because thats what the rules reward, because of the ways rules would evalutate it. The system rewards a behaviour that isn't art...and 'system does matter' is perhaps so simple one might miss it.

I suppose Heroquest provides the kind fo system you're talking about, because it provides full system support for any ability you like. For example I could use a Paint Portrait ability to do just that, or I could use the ability to augment another ability. I might paint a very flattering protrait of a Senator in order to augment my Bribe Official ability to get what I want, or I might augment Paint Portrait with my Wealth by obtaining the very finest materials such as paints, brushes and canvas. None of this seems even vaguely scientific from the point of view of the character. It's merely modeling the kinds of activities artists engage in from a game perspective.


Simon Hibbs

[smokewolf]

Funny, I treat Science like Magick. Magick is the ability to compel change to occur in conformity with the WILL. In that definition, science becomes the way that allows for these changes to happen in a uniform and consistent manner. It also allows for those with very little grasp in science function in that world.

To me TV's are basically a magickal device. Everyone believes in the "science" behind TV, their belief WILLs TV to work.

[kenjib]

Would rules that rely on subjectivity help in capturing this by being antithetical to a scientific mindset?  As a quick example (and I'm sure not the best way to handle it), what if the chance of success is not related to the skill of the character nor the difficulty of the goal, but rather to the artfulness of the player's prose in describing the character's process, as judged by the other players?

EDIT:  Or in a fashion similar to shadows, success could also be determined in part by what other players want.

[Doctor Xero]

Treating magic as an art, rather than a science, comes with a few unique considerations, I think. Magic in role-playing has almost always been treated as, at least, an equal to science in that both have rules and borders, things that can and cannot be done according to the laws set in place by the Powers That Be. Taking away those external rules (in creating a system in which a character can manipulate reality should have internal rules; they are not omnipotent, merely able to cause shifts in the fabric of reality without overtly disturbing the greater pattern), and focusing instead on the creativity, skill and talent of the mage, we get a rather radically different form of magic, the type of magic that comes from the heart.

Well, I'm not sure about this, but it seems to me that we have two different possible dichotomies here :

quantifiable (math & science) vs. qualifiable (language & art)
or
how & what it is (science & scholarship) vs. why & what it means (art & religion)

Since most game mechanics work off stats and dice, most game mechanics work off quantifications of reality.  (A possible exception might be games such as octaNe, in which the quantificatory dice only determine who gets to qualify by way of narration the results of game actions.)  So magic would tend to be quantifiable in such systems, and therefore it would resemble science or science & scholarship.  This fits efforts to replicate the historical types of magical efforts which sired alchemy then chemistry and harvest rites then agriculture.

A game which wanted magic to operate through the qualifiable could not by definition rely upon statistical probabilities and formulae or hard-and-immutable game rules.  The problem for many gamers is that, without dice rolls or rulesbooks to fall back upon, the only determination of the success or failure of their magical efforts would be either group consensus or game master fiat.  Success would be determined not by player skill at juggling the odds and manipulating static formulae but by player oratory ability, artistry, and, yes, player charisma.   I think this is what White Wolf's Mage attempts to model when it places so much responsibility for magic success or failure upon game master adjudication and intuition.

In many ways this mimics nicely certain historical priestly "magics" and shamanic "magics" and the magical satyres of Celtic bards, with the game master or group consensus taking the place of the gods or other numinous entities -- including the way that player charisma at charming the game master or group mimics the priest's efforts at charming the gods.

If you take a look at  the European history of folklore, the frustration many players would have with this is not unlike one of the major reasons that the sort of magic which sired science replaced the sort of magic which resembles art.  It arose from the desire for individual control over the success or failure of the magical attempt without having to deal with the personalities of numinous entities and without having to deal with the fuzzy unquantifiability of meaning.  Quantification = Literalist Control.

Technicians replaced Artists.  Obedience to formulae replaced eloquence and insight.

I suspect that the how & what it is vs. why & what it means dichotomy is similar to the above in its effects in a game.

A game system can provide statistics and mechanics (syntax?) for how magic occurs and definitions of what its components might be.  However, only people can determine the meaning underlying something.  Success in such a system would be determined by player evocation of connections of meaning rather than obedience to cause-and-effect sequences and formulae.  In its reliance upon meaning, this fits efforts to replicate the historical types of magical efforts which worked off the Principle of Contagion and the Principle of Imitation.

However, once again, magic which operates according to meaning not mechanics will have to rely upon players and game masters, changeable and unpredictable and suspectible to charm and to eloquence as they might be -- and not rely upon controllable and predictable dice and game rules which work for both eloquent artist and leaden-tongued games technician equally well.

For a fascinating example of this, note the differences in folklore and fantasy fiction between those wizards who sing or poetically narrate reality shifts into being and those sorcerers who rely upon arcane formulae and rites for their magical powers.

Doctor Xero

[Praetor Judis]

I used to have a magic system that only the most creative of my players managed successfully.  A player would pick an idiom, or metaphor if you will, for their character, which they would then have to use to describe the effect their wills would have on the environment if the spell were successfull.  Creative explanations and approaches garnered bonuses to the effectiveness of the spell, as did appropriateness to the situation (i.e. taking environment and witnesses belief structures).

I've moved away from it now, because over the years only a handful of my players excelled at this, and because I'm in the process of translating my game into the digital domain.  It's very difficult to teach a computer game the esthetic sensitivities to deal with a free form magic system.  *nirg*

[Doctor Xero]

I used to have a magic system that only the most creative of my players managed successfully.  A player would pick an idiom, or metaphor if you will, for their character, which they would then have to use to describe the effect their wills would have on the environment if the spell were successfull.  Creative explanations and approaches garnered bonuses to the effectiveness of the spell, as did appropriateness to the situation (i.e. taking environment and witnesses belief structures).

I've moved away from it now, because over the years only a handful of my players excelled at this, and because I'm in the process of translating my game into the digital domain.  It's very difficult to teach a computer game the esthetic sensitivities to deal with a free form magic system.  *nirg*

Forgive the brief reaction, but : wow!

I shall try something like that myself!

Doctor Xero

[simon_hibbs]

A game which wanted magic to operate through the qualifiable could not by definition rely upon statistical probabilities and formulae or hard-and-immutable game rules.  The problem for many gamers is that, without dice rolls or rulesbooks to fall back upon, the only determination of the success or failure of their magical efforts would be either group consensus or game master fiat.  Success would be determined not by player skill at juggling the odds and manipulating static formulae but by player oratory ability, artistry, and, yes, player charisma.  

You're still talkign about producing quantifiable results in the game world though, so I don't rtealy see your point. If the results are going to be quantified anyway, why do you need a system based on qualification (whatever that might mean).

You also seem to be conflating character and player activities. Just because the character is creating art, that ahs nothing to do with whether it's appropriate for the player to roll dice or look up charts. The player and character aren't doing the same thing. one is creating art, the other is playign a roleplayign game. Why this should be a problem in art based magic, but isn't in physical combat eludes me.

Simon Hibbs


I think

[Gully Foyle]

However, once again, magic which operates according to meaning not mechanics will have to rely upon players and game masters, changeable and unpredictable and suspectible to charm and to eloquence as they might be -- and not rely upon controllable and predictable dice and game rules which work for both eloquent artist and leaden-tongued games technician equally well.


Doctor Xero

That was exactly my point. A magic system that operates totally free of mechanics will have to be, by definition, left up to the players and G/DM's concensus as to the outcomes of the various magical actions that said system sets out as available to them. This would lead to it being (based on your point of view) lopsided to those who are better able to articulating their intentions to the G/DM, or rewarding the better roleplayer.

[Doctor Xero]

This would lead to it being (based on your point of view) lopsided to those who are better able to articulating their intentions to the G/DM, or rewarding the better roleplayer.

True.  But on the other hand, no one complains about most game systems being lopsided to those who are better at juggling mathematical formulae and memorizing gaming tomes!

I've always been better at expressing myself than at manipulating figures, so I've always done better at those games in which the game master gave me bonuses based on roleplaying and on impromptu speeches or magical rhymes.  In games which focus on luck with dice rolls and accountantcy skills, I've done well enough during the roleplay segments, but as soon as combat begins my character is shoved to the back so that he doesn't accidentally kill a comrade when his player rolls yet another critical fumble or fails to remember a crucial footnote on the 43rd page of the specialist combat manual.  (I once rolled six critical fumbles in a row, using different dice -- let me game master or roleplay, but keep me away from those dice! < grin >)

Doctor Xero

[Damballa]

It's interesting to consider what happens when you blend the character archetype of the Artist into that of the Wizard/Magician.

In Occult and Art history there are some interesting crossovers: Kandinski, the Surrealists, Dada, Picasso, Austin Osman Spare, Joseph Beuys and so forth.

Kenneth Grant, in his 'Typhonian' series of books, constantly refers to Fine Art being the ultimate form of Magick.  This is backed up by Kukai, the 9th century patriarch of Esoteric Buddhism and inventor of the first proto-Kanji Japanese script, who wrote that 'Art was a legitimate and efficacious path to Enlightenment'.  Carl Jung implied (in various works) that Alchemy and Art are nearly identical psychic processes – the basic struggled being the raising of base matter up into a form of divinity.

Dylan Horrocks (creator of "Hicksville") in this essay about Sequential Art & World Building-  http://www.hicksville.co.nz/PerfectPlanet.htm
- quotes from James Kochalka (in his "The Horrible Truth About Comics") on a great definition of experiencing Art -  "The process of focusing ourselves into a work of art condenses our experience into a super concentrated ultra vivid reality. When we encounter a great work of art the physical world fades away as we step into this new reality.  We are alive in a living world".

Whatever the game mechanics are for becoming a 'magick-user' within a RPG, they do tend to reflect certain aesthetic choices on behalf of the players – the kind of spells developed, the magic school training, the effect of certain magic cast upon the game world etc.  It wouldn't be too far a leap to replace brushes for wands, canvases for grimoires, marble for spell ingredients and change the variants of magic (i.e. necromancy, pyromancy, demonology) within that game for certain Art movements (Impressionism, Futurism, Cubism), with experience reflecting the Artist developing his/her craft.  The exact same mental or psychic effort (magic points/willpower/unconscious force) is expended in developing the Art work/casting a spell.

Artists/Wizards - Mysterious individuals dealing with mysterious processes that effect the world on completion.  If that effect is subtle (psychological/synchronistic) or overt (fireballs/telekinesis) is up to the rubric of the game world.  One could speculate that in a consumer-driven world such as ours, the Artist/Wizard's success is measured by the societal respect/reputation/financial value placed on that completed work; but in gaming world that spell's success could be equally judged on whether it actually effects the immediate physical environment surrounding it.  

How this is could be worked into the game mechanics all depends on the connections and balances between the action of the magic mechanic (dice or other) and the uncoupling of 'Artistic' skills from mental/civic/social/reflex ghetto and then placing the whole Art/Magic process into the harnessing of the character's imaginative possibilities (and rewarding it during play).  In other words, the closer the player gets to making art through roleplaying (not just good dramatic acting, but any form of innovation & unexpected brilliance), the more the players/GMs feel a 'super concentrated ultra vivid reality' coming from their fellow player, the greater the effect on the game-world.  An authentic 'larger-than-lifeness' has to be achieved by the player.  

It is a shame that GMs don't get a similar cultural response (or financial return) other than 'that was a great game mate', for doing that kind of art-magick week in, week out....

[Anonyma]

I think that making a magic system more "artistic" rather than "scientific" can be done by simply allowing a character to have more creative influence with their magical powers. Dungeons and Dragons style magic simply gives you a list of spells you can cast. You have next to no creative input. When I've played wizards in DnD, I never felt like a magician, or a willworker in any sense, I felt more like a toolbox. The game hands you a larger number of options and powers, and you use them within the context of the game. You can't improvise, stretch yourself, or specify spells to the situation. You get X amount of Fireballs, and you treat your spells like ammuntion, to be used and obtained again.

Games like Mage give you free reign with the magic system. Systematically, the game Mage provides you with the limitations of your magic, not with the effects. In doing so, they let you roll with the punches, cater magic to the situation, and always, always be creative.  and when the mechanics prioritize creativity in spellcasting, it turns wizardry into an artistic endeavor, allowing a player to feel like they just used magic, instead of wasting a fireball.