The "Art" of Magic (A posted brainstorm)

[SlurpeeMoney]

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.

The differences would be mostly social. While a wizard may study for hours to create a utility in normal RPG magic, that same wizard would study and brainstorm and "sketch" magic until he or she had something that matched the general idea of what he or she wanted to accomplish with the spell. Artistic magic is not, inherently, useful. It is pretty. To a mage, creating a fireball with which to eradicate your enemies is a vulgar doodle on the parchment of reality, while a particularly clever twist of elemental control, creating flames that danced with winds and waves, would be a high accomplishment in one's life.

True mages would be rare, meaning to me that they would not be permitted as player characters. There are few with the talent to become incredible mages, and most of them are in the employ of kings or high lords or the like. Granted, many would-be wizards could be running around looking for work, not ashamed to Draw Your Portrait (blast creatures with fireballs) for a little gold or some food. These would be the equivalent to comic book artists, artists who work for a living and are constantly improving, though they will seldom, if ever, produce anything as lasting and powerful as Midnight Sky.

Any other ideas? I know there are some floating around in my brain, if only I could find them.

SlurpeeMoney
"Doodle!"

[madelf]

It seems to me the most difficult thing to address when you try to make a magic system that is not a science (that doesn't have some sort of fairly structured mechanism to define and control what magic is and what it does) is how to implement it.

I suppose if mages are NPCs only, then the GM can just invent any effect he wishes at the time. But even then, unless there is some sort of established pattern, or internal consistency, it's going to become clear very quickly that the magic is nothing more than a plot device. On the other hand, if you add a structure to define the magic and give it that internal consistency, then it might be argued that you've brought it back to the equivalent of science.

It doesn't seem like there's an easy answer to finding that perfect balance between art and science.

I'd also like to point out that having rules to guide the use of magic doesn't necessarily preclude the possibility of art and creativity. After all, even art has rules. Just make sure that the rules are "focusing instead on the creativity, skill and talent of the mage" and you will have "the type of magic that comes from the heart". It wouldn't need to be that radically different to have a different feel.

I think establishing a world or setting where the artistic feats and pretty magic could really be accepted as the more powerful act than blasting your enemy with a fireball would be the hardest part. It's a nice aesthetic, but how would you make it believable?



My own (attempted) solution to making magic different than science has been to develop a rule-set where magic is unpredictable. It differs from science in its randomness. In a scientific experiment, the exact same methods and materials will always produce the same results. Try to reliably reproduce a particular effect using magic and you'll likely be frustrated, exhausted, possibly injured, and may have damaged portions of your laboratory in the process. Randomness in introduced into the magic system at multiple stages to reflect the inherent unpredictability of something we only partially understand.

[M. J. Young]

The obvious problem is figuring out how to structure magic such that it is not fiat without making that structure rigid and technical.

I think we achieved that to a significant degree in Multiverser. It will support very technical magic, but it also supports a lot of other variants.

The core of the system is that magic is based entirely on the expectations of the user. What the user thinks will happen is what will happen, assuming his expectations are "strong enough". The "ritual" by which magic is performed, then, is all about focusing and strengthening those expectations--getting the mind of the user to believe that this is what is going to happen, and not something else or nothing at all.

That means that you can have magic which is studied in dusty old tomes and so learned and used, because in that case the expectation of that particular character is built on the fact that he got this from a book. On the other hand, we have lots of magic in play that amounts to a player character coming to a moment when he really needs to do something with magic, so he makes up a ritual which he expects will do what he wants, and does it. The mechanics fully support such player-defined magic skills without allowing them to devolve into player fiat. Most of the magic in our Multiverser games seems to be of that sort.

So it can be done; it just takes some thought, and a recognition that the mechanics that define how it's happening in the system are not known to the characters actually using the magic.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

Treating magic as an art, rather than a science, comes with a few unique considerations, I think.
...
Artistic magic is not, inherently, useful. It is pretty. To a mage, creating a fireball with which to eradicate your enemies is a vulgar doodle on the parchment of reality, while a particularly clever twist of elemental control, creating flames that danced with winds and waves, would be a high accomplishment in one's life.  

Well, I would recommend my article on "Breaking Out of Scientific Magic Systems" (on my http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/magic/">RPG magic pages).  

Art still can be used for particular purposes.  An artist who makes propaganda or advertisements is trying to influence people in particular ways.  A professional artist may be trying to make money.  I think that simply giving magic a higher failure chance (i.e. increased randomness) doesn't inherently make it less scientific.  For system, I would favor giving magic more hidden variables.  i.e. There is stuff going on behind the scenes which the player cannot see.  This can make magic mysterious (i.e. there is a mystery which can be tackled) rather than simply random.  You can also tie magic into emotions or other semi-intangibles (i.e. your magic works better when you are genuinely happy).

[simon_hibbs]

The connection between art and magic goes back a long way. It comes down to the role of symbolism and representation in both magic and art. While the 'laws' of names, similarity, etc are relatively modern the principles can be found in works on magical theory going back to the Renaisance at least, and historicaly many magicians have also been artists, while many prominent artists also dabbled in metaphysics and the magical or mythological.

I hesitate to mention Amber again since recently I seem to have been harping on about it a lot, but the magical art of Trump Artistry in Amber is the most direct use of art I've seen in a fictional magical practice.


Simon Hibbs

[Valamir]

Going into the way way back machine, I once had drawn up some notes for a campaign setting where the wizards were all artists.  Whatever they painted or sculpted would come to pass.

The catch was that "magic" (that quasi sentient 'force') had to be able to recognize the subject you were painting...and magic can't read.  So paint some generic soldier being blasted into smithereens, and somewhere in the world a soldier would be blasted into smithereens.  Want to blast the specific soldier who's guarding your imprisoned friend and you'd better paint it in such away that 'magic' could unambigously recognize that particular soldier by appearance or context.

The ripple effects I'd postulated were pretty interesting.

Journeymen artists who'd travel abroad making detailed landscapes and portraits of specific places and people that wizards could purchase to use as a model to enable them to cast spells against people and places they'd never seen.

The use of summoning circles and stone circles that were each unique in specific and obvious ways so that a wizard could always be sure of the location his effect would manifest by including the circles in the painting.

Places where all art and decoration have been banned as a defense against magic.  All buildings are identical featureless cubes, all clothes are identical feature less robes, all hair is shaved, etc.  The idea being to make the kingdom. its cities and its inhabitants so generic that wizards have trouble identifying a specific target for their spells.

Other kingdoms controlled by wizards where every citizen in a key position is forced to sit for a portrait and sculpted bust which is kept on file in the wizard's gallery, so that all of the most powerful people can be easily targeted with nasty spells simply by modifying their existing portrait.

Wizard duels by fast sketch artists, the end result of which resembles the pages of a comic book, or "flip page" art.  


I had even fast forwarded the time line to the rise of runic sorcerers.  Wizards eventually learned that "magic" would always interpret certain images the same way (closest man, tallest tree, etc.) and these images would be incorporated as a sort of short hand.  This lead to the development of hieroglyph and pictogram magic writings where the key issue was making sure "magic" unambiguously understood the wizard's intent.  Finally the Rune Sorcerers and Glyph Mages would gain ascendency as their work took far less time and effort to complete than an actual painting.


I don't remember what system I came up with (this was back in my D&D1e days so who knows), but if I were to try and do it today, my first avenue of exploration would be an Otherkind kind of system where each die rolled corresponded to a different aspect of the spell, most importantly being how accurately rendered it needs to be to have "magic" recognize the target.

[madelf]

 I think that simply giving magic a higher failure chance (i.e. increased randomness) doesn't inherently make it less scientific.  For system, I would favor giving magic more hidden variables.  i.e. There is stuff going on behind the scenes which the player cannot see.  This can make magic mysterious (i.e. there is a mystery which can be tackled) rather than simply random.  You can also tie magic into emotions or other semi-intangibles (i.e. your magic works better when you are genuinely happy).

It's worth noting that increased randomness is not necessarily synonomous with a higher failure chance. It may just mean that things don't always work out quite as you had hoped, which might or might not mean failure. Such as system can also have a mechanic whereby increased skill grants more control over the use of magic, making it more reliable. It can also reflect the potential of a poorly skilled mage setting forces in motion that are beyond his control.
Don't underestimate a system that introduces increased randomness by simply assuming it means a higher failure rate. It can be used to introduce other concepts as well.

For an interesting take on the idea of introducing elaborate patterns to magic, it might be worth trying to see if you can find a copy of the book "Fantasy Wargaming" by Bruce Galloway. It's been a while since I read it, but as I recall the magic system included factors such as faith, charisma, physical surroundings, astrology, etc. Magic was influenced by everything. It looked like a rather cumbersome system (I never actually played it), but it certainly was different than your average magic system. If it could be streamlined, it might make a neat system.

[Valamir]

For an interesting take on the idea of introducing elaborate patterns to magic, it might be worth trying to see if you can find a copy of the book "Fantasy Wargaming" by Bruce Galloway. It's been a while since I read it, but as I recall the magic system included factors such as faith, charisma, physical surroundings, astrology, etc. Magic was influenced by everything. It looked like a rather cumbersome system (I never actually played it),

Only cumbersome in presentation actually.  Having a list of modifiers in a paragraph format is not a good layout decision.  I consider that book to be on the short list of mandatory reads that all game designers should be familiar with.  There are a number of very very interesting design choices there...all the more so when one considers the date of publication.

The central engine of that magic system was a table of correspondancies that linked wood, gems, numbers, elements, times of day, times of year, moon phases, astrological signs, animal/body parts, and a few other things I'm forgetting together.

Spells would be influenced by one of these elements, and then all of the other corresponding elements would feed into them.

For instance, you could just cast a fire spell.  Or you could look at the table of correspondencies and realize you'd get a huge bonus if you cast the fire spell on the summer soltice using a wand made of yew and bound with 7 rings of brass studded with 7 rubies at noon while drinking a potion made of bulls blood and rose petals (or whatever the real correspondencies actually work out to).

Essentially, the concept was that everything is related to everything and so you could draw upon all sorts of influences.

I consider it the best magic system for an RPG ever designed (although in desperate need of polishing).

[Callan S.]

I would think that your basic problem with making magic an art is that you'll need it to engage your mechanical system at some point, the mechanics of which would make it scientific.

Of course, before it gets converted (at its intial creation), it could still start as art. But without any system constraints on it (because such would make it a science), your reliant on magic being personality based. Whichever personality creates that art is going to be defining the personality of magic, at least for that effect.

Not to mention that the scientific conversion (so it'll engage your system) has a rear mechanising effect, as art is instead designed more scientifically to get the best benefit out of the system once it comes to conversion. Anything else punishes them everytime they make an honest piece of art.

[simon_hibbs]

I would think that your basic problem with making magic an art is that you'll need it to engage your mechanical system at some point, the mechanics of which would make it scientific.

I must say I find this very bizzare - the notion that having game mechanics for things make them 'scientific'. Surely analysis and system modeling are tools that science shares with many other disciplines, and are not exclusive to the scientific domain. Art can certainly be appreciated through a process of analysis, while mathematical and geometric theory have made considerable contributions to art.


Simon Hibbs

[Callan S.]

scientific = if you do this then you get that.

System mechanics work on the same principle.

Treating magic as an art, rather than a science

That's what the original poster said, but if he ment somthing else by science, some other quality being injected into magic, then I guess I'm way off. I thought he ment the more predictable, this gets that nature that a game system can structure magic with, thus making it a science.

[SlurpeeMoney]

Actually, I just finished reading an interesting bit of theory related to magic in fiction while doing some research on Traditional Fantasy for a game I'm considering writing up (see Yet Another Fantasy Game). The easiest way to tell the difference between High Fantasy (swords and elves and dwarves and mythical semi-medieval castles and all) and Traditional Fantasy (as defined by the fact that there is no objective "real world" with which to compare the psychological world of the story), is the Utility Theory of Magic. If magic is seen as a force, manipulated and formed by the mind of the mage, it is a High Fantasy. If it's more intrinsic in the psychology of the situation, it is Traditional Fantasy.

So how can we get away from the Utility Theory of Magic in gaming? Just thought it was more prevailent here than in my other thread.

SlurpeeMoney
"The Utility Theory of Slurpees"

[ejh]

Just to obfuscate things --

The usage of "art" (or its Romance or Latin equivalents) to mean something specially creative and inspired isn't that old.  It was originally a term somewhat similar to our term "technology," involving skilled technique put to practical ends.  Hence, the art of war, the art of love, the Artful Dodger, and so on.  The "art magical" (ars magica) was the technique, skill, or technology of magic.

Conversely, "science" originally denoted knowledge and theory in general, not empirical, reductionist, materialist, Enlightenment science.  Theology was Queen of the Sciences.  You still see some of this in the German equivalent, "Wissenschaft."

So "art vs science" has come to mean something completely different than it once did.  It once just meant practice vs theory, technique vs knowledge.  Now it's come to mean visionary, subjective, and imaginative vs reductionist, empirical, and materialist.

I guess my point if I have one is that the very dichotomy that's assumed here is itself culturally conditioned, and would be unfamiliar even a few centuries ago in Europe.  "Art" as we know it, in opposition to "Science" as we know it, are themselves products of our modern world, so an interesting approach might be trying to get past that whole dichotomy.

I think that's something Ars Magica attempted, at least at some points, and had some small degree of success in.

[simon_hibbs]

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

[Gully Foyle]

Going into the way way back machine, I once had drawn up some notes for a campaign setting where the wizards were all artists.  Whatever they painted or sculpted would come to pass.

--Snippage.--

I like, valamir, I like very much. I really like. Mind if I ste-- er,  I mean borrow this idea for use as an alternative form of magic in a campaign of mine I'm gonna run?

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? Hmm, Wizard vs. Sorcerer (at least under the DnD rules, which I am basing my experiencies on, considering the fact that I haven't had that much exposure to other systems). I see those two archtypes as already representing magic as art as opposed to magic as a science,  though the presentation of the Sorcerer to completely fit the view of his magic being based on his emotion, personality, etc. requires some work.

It is in the presentation of the magical system, and the imagination of the G/DM and players of said system, which to me, makes all the difference in their perception of how magic works in their own games. Unless one is going for a completely unfettered system, wherein one makes the outcomes based entirely on the agreement of the G/DM's and the players, then your magic system must have some kind of system behind it, even if you manage to pare it down to just one dice roll. With that aside, then, the perception and potential use of magic of an artform lies heavily on the side of the many different imaginative ways that players and G/DM can think of using it, and the ways and means that they depict their characters using it.

I think many of you have strayed from the original meaning of the original post (which I intertpreted to mean magic as an artform within a sysytem/setting of choice, or magic being totally an artform within the system/setting of choice).

I hope my above post makes sense. I got a liitle sidetracked in my writing it, and I think the point that I wanted to make got lost. Hopefully you all can garner some sense from it.