-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Artistic Ability
- Thread starter the Jester
- Start date
the Jester
Legend
Well, I'm working in 4e right now, but I'd like an easily adapted mechanic for when we switch to 5e. Really, the more edition-independent it is, the better.
Dungeoneer
First Post
The best art is that which says something meaningful about ourselves so... Insight check.
Grandpa
First Post
The scenario sounds fun. I'd ask the players what they want to paint, and make three checks (Int/Wis/Cha) to determine the result:
[sblock=Spoiler![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
Creation
Int for detail or novelty.
Wis for emotion and purpose.
Cha for accessibility.
Examples
Int (low): "crude," "simple," "crafted with so little care," "a child could do it," "tired," "common," etc.
Int (high): "intricate," "made to look easy," "absorbing details," "never before seen," "invented a new technique," etc.
Wis (low): "no heart," "aimless," "nothing to say," "a faint voice," etc.
Wis (high): "stirring," "courageous," "never before have I wished for tears to shed..."
Cha (low): "only a few viewers would understand," "presented in such an obtuse way," "a mother would avert her children's eyes," etc.
Cha (high): "conveyed so precisely," "easy to grasp," "art for the masses," etc.
(Int-, Wis+, Cha+): simple colors and strokes belie a clear and poignant heart.
(Int-, Wis+, Cha-): a beautiful message lost in a distracting mess of chicken scratch.
(Int+, Wis-, Cha+): a simple message for simple masses saved by utterly transcendent craft.
(Int+, Wis+, Cha-): magnificent skill and meaning defeated by offensive content.
An intellectual critic might prioritize craft (Int), an empath might prioritize emotion (Wis), and an outcast might prioritize art that defies "common" sensibilities (Cha).[/sblock]
[sblock=Spoiler
CreationInt for detail or novelty.
Wis for emotion and purpose.
Cha for accessibility.
Examples
Int (low): "crude," "simple," "crafted with so little care," "a child could do it," "tired," "common," etc.
Int (high): "intricate," "made to look easy," "absorbing details," "never before seen," "invented a new technique," etc.
Wis (low): "no heart," "aimless," "nothing to say," "a faint voice," etc.
Wis (high): "stirring," "courageous," "never before have I wished for tears to shed..."
Cha (low): "only a few viewers would understand," "presented in such an obtuse way," "a mother would avert her children's eyes," etc.
Cha (high): "conveyed so precisely," "easy to grasp," "art for the masses," etc.
(Int-, Wis+, Cha+): simple colors and strokes belie a clear and poignant heart.
(Int-, Wis+, Cha-): a beautiful message lost in a distracting mess of chicken scratch.
(Int+, Wis-, Cha+): a simple message for simple masses saved by utterly transcendent craft.
(Int+, Wis+, Cha-): magnificent skill and meaning defeated by offensive content.
An intellectual critic might prioritize craft (Int), an empath might prioritize emotion (Wis), and an outcast might prioritize art that defies "common" sensibilities (Cha).[/sblock]
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
Is the judgment of art biased?
The answer is almost certainly yes. People like the sort of art that affirms what they want to believe - even if it is only something like, "I'm a better person than other people because I like this sort of art; I have taste."
It's difficult to objectively judge the merit of art. Even if in a fantasy setting you can objectively tell beautiful from ugly, it is up to the viewer to decide whether painting beauty has more merit than painting ugly. Art is a form of communication and it usually says something. Whether we like it or not, we usually end up judging the content of the art on the basis of its message as much or more than we do on the basis of the skill of its execution. Indeed, one might argue that for the last 100 years or so the art world has pretty much decided to ignore skill of execution in favor of content of the message... but can't go there here.
My point being is that it matters who is judging the art. A chaotic neutral is probably not going to be convinced of the merit of lawful neutral art - to trite, to rigid, to unimaginative, to realistic, and a lawful neutral will be equally unimpressed by the works of a chaotic neutral - to surrealistic, to meaningless, and insufficient discipline and skill of craftsmanship. It's going to matter as much what the person wants to paint and how they want to paint it, as it is how well they can realize their ambitions.
The answer is almost certainly yes. People like the sort of art that affirms what they want to believe - even if it is only something like, "I'm a better person than other people because I like this sort of art; I have taste."
It's difficult to objectively judge the merit of art. Even if in a fantasy setting you can objectively tell beautiful from ugly, it is up to the viewer to decide whether painting beauty has more merit than painting ugly. Art is a form of communication and it usually says something. Whether we like it or not, we usually end up judging the content of the art on the basis of its message as much or more than we do on the basis of the skill of its execution. Indeed, one might argue that for the last 100 years or so the art world has pretty much decided to ignore skill of execution in favor of content of the message... but can't go there here.
My point being is that it matters who is judging the art. A chaotic neutral is probably not going to be convinced of the merit of lawful neutral art - to trite, to rigid, to unimaginative, to realistic, and a lawful neutral will be equally unimpressed by the works of a chaotic neutral - to surrealistic, to meaningless, and insufficient discipline and skill of craftsmanship. It's going to matter as much what the person wants to paint and how they want to paint it, as it is how well they can realize their ambitions.
howandwhy99
Adventurer
None of the above. Art is no longer defined, so it wouldn't be a roll. I suppose you could make an ability score called Art, but then ability scores are not applicable to checks. Art isn't really a skill "mechanic" either, which are usually meaningless, non-referential descriptors, but as an undefined act we could make art meaningless too. But then I fear it would simply be like replacing all skills with one called Skill (or Art in this case).
But none of that really gets to what art is and incorporating it into games. I think art in game play terms can be understood as masterful performance. In this way including art in your game means doing everything you can not to deny it with the absencing of labelled abstraction, but instead enabling with game mechanics and space a design for players to engage in an artistic performance.
But none of that really gets to what art is and incorporating it into games. I think art in game play terms can be understood as masterful performance. In this way including art in your game means doing everything you can not to deny it with the absencing of labelled abstraction, but instead enabling with game mechanics and space a design for players to engage in an artistic performance.
delericho
Legend
The scenario sounds fun. I'd ask the players what they want to paint, and make three checks (Int/Wis/Cha) to determine the result:
[sblock=Spoiler
Int for detail or novelty.
Wis for emotion and purpose.
Cha for accessibility.
Examples
Int (low): "crude," "simple," "crafted with so little care," "a child could do it," "tired," "common," etc.
Int (high): "intricate," "made to look easy," "absorbing details," "never before seen," "invented a new technique," etc.
Wis (low): "no heart," "aimless," "nothing to say," "a faint voice," etc.
Wis (high): "stirring," "courageous," "never before have I wished for tears to shed..."
Cha (low): "only a few viewers would understand," "presented in such an obtuse way," "a mother would avert her children's eyes," etc.
Cha (high): "conveyed so precisely," "easy to grasp," "art for the masses," etc.
(Int-, Wis+, Cha+): simple colors and strokes belie a clear and poignant heart.
(Int-, Wis+, Cha-): a beautiful message lost in a distracting mess of chicken scratch.
(Int+, Wis-, Cha+): a simple message for simple masses saved by utterly transcendent craft.
(Int+, Wis+, Cha-): magnificent skill and meaning defeated by offensive content.
An intellectual critic might prioritize craft (Int), an empath might prioritize emotion (Wis), and an outcast might prioritize art that defies "common" sensibilities (Cha).[/sblock]
That's pretty much what I was going to suggest, probably using the best value as the overall result and using the other two for flavour.
I would also:
[sblock]Allow the players to interact with the 'spirit of the room' to try to determine its tastes by looking at previous offerings, using divination magics, or whatever. If the players did something meaningful here, then I would allow them to reroll any one check of their choice, though they'd have to take the revised total even if lower.
However, that is of course neither quite 4e nor quite 5e...[/sblock]
Herobizkit
Adventurer
If you're using 4e, this kind of scenario calls for a Skill Challenge.
The room is a harsh critic, and so demands 6 successes before 4 failures. Let the players come up with ways to use their skills to add to the masterpiece.
The room is a harsh critic, and so demands 6 successes before 4 failures. Let the players come up with ways to use their skills to add to the masterpiece.
the Jester
Legend
My players stay out:
[sblock]I'm a huge fan of skill challenges, but I really prefer this room be a quick "one and done" sort of check. Minor stakes, no xp (or very few); I don't even anticipate the pcs realizing they're being judged until the first one of them leaves the room, and my 'best guess' is that it will play out with the pcs searching the room and thereby discovering the "touch screen" effect, and just leaving a bunch of handprints and smears.[/sblock]
Similar Threads
- Locked
- Poll
