What is the function of Kewl Powerz

[chadu]

Euro posed "characterization", I posed "motivation", but what other functions do Kewl Powers serve in a game?

No one's posted this yet: powers externalize the internal.  

They are metaphors for characterization and personality and perspective. They visibly display something about a character that would otherwise be left unseen.

Take Green Lantern, for example: the only limit to your imagination/power is your will and a few things (wood, yellow) you cannot change directly.

CU

[HMT]

... They are metaphors for characterization and personality and perspective. They visibly display something about a character that would otherwise be left unseen ...
CU

I agree wholeheartedly. Compare the powers of the Fantastic Four to their (original) personalities.

[Callan S.]

Sorry, I was offtrack there, Tony.

But I'm still not sure there about the word 'empower' when it comes to the other players. It's pushing them out of their comfort zone, which is giving them the chance to empower themselves, by granting them the chance to conquer this zone. It's a chance at self empowerment.

Driven by someone elses happyness, strangely. If one player does have kewl wilderness powerz, then they are quite happy to push for a wilderness situation (and wilderness encounters are enabled/the GM can run them), much to everyone elses 'detriment'.

Thinking on it now, kewl powers are a sort of two punch combo. Like moths to a flame, they draw players to them, hungry to use them. But then the players use them, and provide adversity for others. The hunger drives the adversity. That's why kewl powers need to be keeeewwwwl, because the kewlness directly drives that adversity. The kewler it is, the higher the adversity!

Someone tell me I'm way off, cause thinking of it this way blows my mind (and is killing my dreams of low powered campaigns).

[Andrew Morris]

I don't know if you're way off, but I don't agree. The lack of wilderness powers, for example, doesn't limit the GM. It just means the characters aren't as effective in a wilderness setting, so they'll have to be more creative.

[Callan S.]

Whether the GM is limited or not isn't the key point. A bunch of players who have no wilderness skills will be pushing to leave the wilderness pronto. In fact, although the GM may not seem limited, if the players aren't particularly happy being fish out of water, there's not much point in a GM presenting a wilderness adventure.

However, if one player does have kewl wilderness powers, he will be pushing to stay in the wildnerness. His push for it inadvertantly pushes everyone else out of their comfort zone.

[Vaxalon]

I really don't think that's true, Pronto.

I recall an adventure (Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes) where a bunch of James Bond style super-spies crashed in the middle of the Amazon jungle and had to somehow make their wacky spy equipment and skills work for them in an environment that they weren't designed for.

While the characters were distinctly uncomfortable, the players around the table had a grand time dealing with the situation.

[Andrew Morris]

I agree with Vaxalon. I've had plenty of fun play experiences where much of the enjoyment came from the "fish out of water" situation.

[TonyLB]

Yes, exceptions happen.  But overall, I'm with Callan in saying that the exceptions do not disprove the trend.  The pattern is that GMs target adventures to the powers on hand for one purpose and target gaps in power for another (IME, far less common but still fun) purpose.  And, therefore, the presence or absence of powers is a resource taken into account in the GM's planning.  

Are we agreed upon that?

[Andrew Morris]

Tony, I don't think it is a case of using exceptions to disprove the rule. Rather, I'm saying that of the times I've encountered this situation, it has been enjoyable more often than not. So, we obviously have different experiences on this front. I don't think placing characters in situations they are not optimized for significantly reduces options, it just removes the easy answer. And what's fun about taking the easy way out?

[TonyLB]

Okay, maybe this is a difference in our experiences, and I'm just conflating my own history with general principle.  

In the games where you've had this happen, was it a consistent thing (i.e. more sessions than not were dealing with areas where you had no applicable skills)?  Or were such "fish-out-of-water" scenarios a relative rarity?

[Vaxalon]

I think it's important to note, that these scenarios do not involve NO applicable skills/equipment/attributes/whatever.

They involve no OBVIOUSLY applicable skills.

For example, in the MS&PE game that I was in, one of the pieces of equipment we had was a laser cutter, designed to cut through glass silently.  Not much use in the jungle, is it?

We discovered a bee's nest, and while wild bees don't make a LOT of honey, they do make SOME... we got a good distance away, and using the scope from a sniper rifle, aimed the laser through the entrance of the beehive.  This didn't set the hive on fire, but it did create enough smoke to render the bees torpid until we could raid the hive for honey, thus garnering a few thousand much-needed calories for our trek.

That's part of the fun of that kind of adventure.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Okay, maybe this is a difference in our experiences, and I'm just conflating my own history with general principle.  

In the games where you've had this happen, was it a consistent thing (i.e. more sessions than not were dealing with areas where you had no applicable skills)?  Or were such "fish-out-of-water" scenarios a relative rarity?

-In my experience, they were a rarity, and I also concure that in general they are a rarity.  However, in the couple of cases I experienced the "fish out of water" campaign, they were quite enjoyable.  

-The important thing for this dicussion is that Kewl Powerz were not rendered useless in these campaigns, but instead were adapted to fit the situation.  Therefore the role of powers remained even though the use of them changed.  At least in my experience that's how it went down.  Was everyone else's the same?

Peace,

-Troy

[timfire]

I believe Kewl Powerz also provide motivation.  For instance, "Yeah, you can shoot 'lesser lightning' out your butt, however if you schore six more character points you can upgrade it to 'greater lightning' and really deal some damage."  Kewl Powerz, often in Gamists games IMO, spur players on to take risk, address gamble/crunch, and alter the SIS.  This way their characters advance and give them greater strategic options.

Sorry for coming late to the party, but I would like to return to this post for amoment. I would like to make a distinction here. The kewl powerz themselves in this example are not the real motivations per se. Rather, I think what's happening is that players are using the kewl powerz as a gauge for social standing/esteem whatever. In other words, it's not about the powers per se, but rather having earned the powerz proves that the player "has what it takes".

Gamism in particular is all about building social standing/esteem.

[Andrew Morris]

These situations were far less common than the reverse, Tony.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Sorry for coming late to the party, but I would like to return to this post for amoment. I would like to make a distinction here. The kewl powerz themselves in this example are not the real motivations per se. Rather, I think what's happening is that players are using the kewl powerz as a gauge for social standing/esteem whatever. In other words, it's not about the powers per se, but rather having earned the powerz proves that the player "has what it takes".

-This is exactly what I am looking for.  Nice post Tim.  So the Kewl Powerz are a linkage to Social Esteem in this case.  That might be helpful in coming up with other rules/mechanics that can replace them.  Whatever they are must lead to Social Esteem in a Gamist type game, yes?

Peace,

-Troy