What is the function of Kewl Powerz

[TonyLB]

Is it social standing/esteem or is it... hrm... how to phrase this:  How much responsibility the character is justified in taking for the problems presented in the situation?

Like, suppose you're all part of a diplomatic caravan to the Mongols.  One of their warlords blocks your path:

[*]The diplomat feels justified (almost required!) to step up and try to negotiate.
[*]The fighter is justified in starting a fight, but probably not as justified in negotiating, because he doesn't have Leet-Diplomacy-Skillz.
[*]The cook will (most likely) enter into either a fight or diplomacy only as a matter of absolute last resort.  I'm imagining Samwise bopping goblins on the head in the Mines of Moria from the Fellowship movie, here.[/list:u]In all cases, it's not that the characters (or players) won't do things unsupported by their powers, but that they aren't looking to do these things.  There's going to be a fairly natural hesitation and drag... a "There's someone else to deal with this, right?" moment.

If those moments are happening constantly, what does it do to the tenor of a game?

[Vaxalon]

In a "fish out of water" game, those moments don't happen, because it's clear from the outset that NOONE has the easily applied attribute.  The first person to come up with a reasonable replacement plays it.

From Session 37 of Mike Holmes Shadow World Game
Holmes: An hour later, Okhfels sits before a pile of snail shells. "Yes, just string them on this gut line, and I'll summon the spirit to them."
Holmes: Alshor seems confident as he starts his string.
Okhfels assists.
Holmes: As Okhfels picks one of the shells up, he crushes it accidentally. They are quite delicate.
Okhfels: "I'm not the best person to be doing this, Alshor."
Okhfels: "I have no skill for such things."
Holmes: "We must each make our own. Or the spirits will not help the maker," says Alshor encouragingly.
Okhfels: "I see."
Okhfels looks darkly at the pile of shells.
Okhfels thinks of Isadora, and Elahra, who are counting on him... and his men, who look up to him...
Okhfels picks up another snail shell, gingerly... knowing that there are not many of them here...
Okhfels licks his lips as he considers how to go about this...
Okhfels has a flash of insight ...

Okhfels is a huge, beefy guy, being asked to do some VERY delicate work... something he has no skill in.  I had absolutely no attributes that applied... so I was going to be rolling a 1d20 against a default 8.  Bad news.  I wanted a better chance to succeed... I scanned through the sheet and found "Gentle Lover - 18".  Instead of using his fingers to hold the shells, he used his lips and tongue.  Mike allowed me to apply that attribute at -5, which made a 13 instead of 8.  Better than nothing.

Now in this case, it was a kind of solo play moment, but it could just as easily have been any number of characters.

[John Kim]

In all cases, it's not that the characters (or players) won't do things unsupported by their powers, but that they aren't looking to do these things.  There's going to be a fairly natural hesitation and drag... a "There's someone else to deal with this, right?" moment.

If those moments are happening constantly, what does it do to the tenor of a game?

This doesn't seem to be specific to "Kewl Powers" per se.  It seems to me that any differentiation of the characters will do this.  i.e. Having a "diplomatic" trait or keyword isn't really a kewl power, I would say.  But it produces differing capability and influences tendency to act, as you note above.

[timfire]

Is it social standing/esteem or is it... hrm... how to phrase this:  How much responsibility the character is justified in taking for the problems presented in the situation?

I was mainly discussing the original post, which was discussing kewl powerz in a Gamist context. Gamism is all about social esteem/standing. That's what differentiates it from other CA's.

Now, kewl powerz can have other functions (or multiple functions) within a given game. But I believe that alot of the time, the type of vast and never-ending accumulation of powerz is really a front for the... err, meta contest for social standing/esteem.

I hope that made sense.

[chadu]

[quote="John Kim]This doesn't seem to be specific to "Kewl Powers" per se.  It seems to me that any differentiation of the characters will do this.  i.e. Having a "diplomatic" trait or keyword isn't really a kewl power, I would say.  But it produces differing capability and influences tendency to act, as you note above.[/quote]

I'd reiterate my belief that "kewl powerz" are externalization of internal qualities. However, let me add something to the mix: this externalization of internal qualities adds enhanced scope to a character's actions.

The difference between kewl powerz and skills (except maybe the most extreme, almost or utterly beyond human, levels of ability) is that kewl powerz "widen" the way that the character can interact with her or her world.

They are dramatic, notable, and often extremely efficacious ways of the character -- and thus the player -- making his will manifest within the setting. Not only that, but in a way that someone or something will notice.

Now, whether this increase in scope is real or only perceived is another question. A post-apocalyptic "unpowered guy" may have more actual effect on his tribe than the chances of a four-color superhero in a typically four-color world has of affecting the status quo. But the perception of the differences in scope between the Road Warrior and Aquaman still seem quite large.

CU

[TonyLB]

Tim:  But Gamism is about the social standing of the players, isn't it?  Are you saying that the kewl powerz of a starting character reflect the social standing of a starting player, without any history?  Or... something else?

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, I don't know that powers are different than skills. They are just Effectiveness traits which allow the character to affect the SIS in some way, right?

So how are they qualitatively different than skills or tools? How is "Force Bolt" significantly different than "Energy Weapons" (as a skill) or a "Force Blaster" (as an item)?

[timfire]

Tim:  But Gamism is about the social standing of the players, isn't it?  Are you saying that the kewl powerz of a starting character reflect the social standing of a starting player, without any history?  Or... something else?

Well... I'm not sure that focusing on new characters is the best way to approach this topic. All processes must have a beginning. I'm more interested in how they function once the ball gets rolling.

But that said, I believe that chargen often does play into the the whole social standing/esteem thing. IME of playing DnD & DND heartbreakers, there was often a certain amount of pressure to pick "the right" starting abilities. Since starting abilities often influence later options, choosing certain abilities often will impress the other players -- or more often, choosing bad options causes you to lose social standing.

But on a side note, to a certain degree kewl powerz are just color. That was a point I was trying to make. The powerz themselves aren't as important as social esteem the player gains.

[timfire]

Okay, I don't know that powers are different than skills. They are just Effectiveness traits which allow the character to affect the SIS in some way, right?

So how are they qualitatively different than skills or tools? How is "Force Bolt" significantly different than "Energy Weapons" (as a skill) or a "Force Blaster" (as an item)?

Often there is no difference, at least in the typical DnD-type heartbreaker. The powerz just serve as color.

[chadu]

So how are they qualitatively different than skills or tools?

They are "cooler" (or "kewlr," if you prefer).

How is "Force Bolt" significantly different than "Energy Weapons" (as a skill) or a "Force Blaster" (as an item)?

I'd say that because "Force Bolt" is usually seen as part of the character: an "Energy Weapon" or "Force Blaster Gun" that cannot be taken away without measures that are typically out of the norm.

Compare "Flying" to "Pilot Biplane" or "Owns a Biplane." They all do the same thing, but they're different.

Bringing it down to more mundane levels, consider the difference between a character who is naturally (inborn) charismatic to one who is not naturally charismatic, but has learned to be friendly, engaging, and diplomatic. Now, with all the information you have right here, you can see that these are two rather different characters.

To one, being charming comes easily and works across, say, cultural and species boundaries, while the other had to work at it himself, for a particular end .

Furthermore, the latter character obviously either sees value in knowing how to be friendly, etc., or had that assessment of value forced upon him, in order to specifically learn the ability. We don't know if the former character sees value in being charming.


CU

[Andrew Morris]

Chad, when you say "they're cooler," I hear "I like them better." That's a difference in your opinion, not in the function.

As to the "Flying - Pilot Biplane - Owns a Biplane" example, I'd say those aren't similar enough for comparison. It's tough to grab a good example out of the air, but one thing to consider is that powers could potentially be taken away, and skills/items might not. Depending on the setting, there could be an "anti-power" spray or field or something like that. Again, depending on the setting, skills or items might be impossible to remove from the character.

Let's look at it in a more abstract form. If Power A, Skill B, and Item C all accomplish effects X, Y, and Z, how are they functionally different?

Maybe the problem is that we really haven't defined "powers" yet.

[chadu]

Chad, when you say "they're cooler," I hear "I like them better." That's a difference in your opinion, not in the function.

I do not disagree. Indeed, that may very well be my point. It's opinion. Why are there cool powers? Because people want to play with them, and people want to write about them. That's the reason they're in games.

My question is "what is the reason for wanting them?" Is it escapism? Enhancement of scope? Some sort of metaphor? Protection of qualities?

As to the "Flying - Pilot Biplane - Owns a Biplane" example, I'd say those aren't similar enough for comparison. It's tough to grab a good example out of the air, but one thing to consider is that powers could potentially be taken away, and skills/items might not. Depending on the setting, there could be an "anti-power" spray or field or something like that. Again, depending on the setting, skills or items might be impossible to remove from the character.

While this is true, I would argue strongly that in the majority of the source material for games -- books, comics, movies, cartoons -- powers are less-often neutralized than skills are rendered unusable or equipment is taken away.

Consider Star Wars: the Force is never blocked, but Han's piloting is useless (until the tractor beam is disabled), as are their cool blasters (in the garbage compactor) and targeting computers (in the Trench Run).

Let's look at it in a more abstract form. If Power A, Skill B, and Item C all accomplish effects X, Y, and Z, how are they functionally different?

I think you just created a non sequitur. "If A, B, and C can do the same functions, how are they functionally different?" Well, they ain't.

I think what you're getting at is "how are they qualitatively different?" (If not, please let me know.)

And I stand by my earlier point: "powers" are seen as part of the nature of a character in ways that simple skills or equipment are not.

I can fly. <--- internal, relies on only character

vs.

I know how to fly a plane. <--- also internal, but relies on something external to the character

vs.

I have a plane to fly. <--- external

Now, the interesting question is when you talk about the middle group, in terms of charisma/manners or mathematical genius/calculus; the external portion is minimized.

CU


[/i]

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, it seems we're arguing two different things. I'm coming from the perspective of "how are powers, skills, and items functionally different in altering the SIS" while you are coming from the perspective of the "player's preferences."

And I stand by my earlier point: "powers" are seen as part of the nature of a character in ways that simple skills or equipment are not.

I'm half with you on this. I think powers and skills are part of the character's identity, while equipment is more likely to be seen as external.

But let's look at this. "Emotional Control" as a power, "Manipulate Emotions" as a skill, and "Hypnotic Projecter" as an item might all let you change someone's emotions. Make the Hypnotic Projector a cybernetic device hidden in your character's molars, and there's really no difference other than the "feel."

[Simon Marks]

But let's look at this. "Emotional Control" as a power, "Manipulate Emotions" as a skill, and "Hypnotic Projecter" as an item might all let you change someone's emotions. Make the Hypnotic Projector a cybernetic device hidden in your character's molars, and there's really no difference other than the "feel."

Not quite.

In almost all situations I can learn the Skill, or purchase the Equipment.

The power is unique in that, as part of the SIS, there may be no way to obtain it - in fact the only way to gain a power is often via a metagame.

Powers are a manifestation of Player intent as opposed to Character intent - if you see what I mean.

[Andrew Morris]

Simon, that's something that can easily vary by setting. Who says you can't obtain a particular power? Likewise, instructors in a skill may be difficult/impossible to find, and items may be rare/impossible to obtain in game play.

I don't see powers as any more of a manifestation of the player than anything else that allows them to manipulate the SIS.