What are "kewl powerz?"

[Andrew Morris]

Since the discussion over in the What is the function of Kewl Powerz thread seems to be devolving into a discussion of exactly what "kewl powerz" means, I decided to create this thread, devoted to that particular topic, so we can keep the issues separate.

What does the term mean to you? Also, would defining the terms actually offer anything useful, either for game design or discussion?

It seems to me that the term has no real meaning, or rather, that it means different things to different people. Further, I can't see how nailing down exactly what the terms mean would provide any sort of benefit, but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.

[Mike Holmes]

It seems to me that the term has no real meaning, or rather, that it means different things to different people. Further, I can't see how nailing down exactly what the terms mean would provide any sort of benefit, but I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks.

Well it's a derogatory term for the most part. Indicated by using the Leet-ese phrasology in an attempt to point out the implicit irony. All derogatory terms are shifting targets, because nobody wants to claim the term for what they are or do. So, like you say, it's going to be problematic until it's put into a non-judgemental context.

See the threads on the term Railroading. But in that case, we also pointed out the maleability of the term depending on preference. So too should it be with this phrase.

So I'd propose:

Kewl Powerz - extraordinary character effectiveness that the observer sees as available in the game to add to character attractiveness in a cheap (prurient?) way.

Mike

[xenopulse]

Mike pretty much nailed it for me. I pointed out the "extraordinary" aspect in that other thread. The "cheap" aspect comes from the ease with which a power can make someone extraordinary, which might lead to people overlooking all the other ways in which a character can be extraordinary.

[TonyLB]

I'll claim a definition as something I use and that I think I even approve of (but can't quite come to grips with):  "Kewl Powerz:  Abilities beyond the normal human range (whether explicitly or implicitly via genre, e.g. "action-hero-bullet-dance")"

In all seriousness, I can think of very, very few games that don't include this.  And that's strange to me.

[M. J. Young]

"Kewl Powerz:  Abilities beyond the normal human range (whether explicitly or implicitly via genre, e.g. "action-hero-bullet-dance")"

I'm not entirely sure this fits. I see the motivation behind it, but seriously, isn't it a requirement of kewl powers that they not only distinguish the character from reality but also from other fictional characters in the same setting? We could say that being invulnerable to bullets is a kewl power, but if you're a vampire and so is everyone else and the campaign is entirely about the political machinations of a vampire society, doesn't such invulnerability cease to be a kewl power (who is going to shoot you anyway?)?

I'm inclined to think that one thing kewl powerz must do is make the character special within the setting. In that sense, being the only parrot who understands and uses human speech becomes a kewl power, because even though all the people can talk, speech makes you a very special parrot. At that point it becomes kind of odd to consider whether flying is a kewl power or not--after all, all parrots can fly, but only you can talk; on the other hand, most of those who can talk can't fly, so maybe that's your power. (That is, are you really a parrot with the kewl power that you can talk, or are you really a person with the kewl powerz that you are able to fly and perch in trees and get through rather small openings and such?)

Either way, being the only parrot who can really talk is being made special by a kewl power, in my estimation.

Of course, it's clearly something of perception here; I can understand if others don't see it that way.

--M. J. Young

[TonyLB]

Good point.  Maybe substitute "Normal range of encountered characters" where "Normal human range" was.

I mean, a mouse that can lift an entire cracker box is a buff mouse in a mouse-only game... even though he's substantially shy of exceeding normal human range.

[Mike Holmes]

My point was that if you wanted a term that wasn't derrogatory you would say something like "Exceptional or Unusual Effectiveness." If we discussed it using phraseology like that, I think you'd get a more coherent discussion. With "Kewl Powerz" as your term everyone gets to throw their biases for where they've seen and used the term previously. Which will be a lot in relation to powergaming and lasersharking. Whereas something like the massive point totals of a GURPs Black Ops character probably doesn't fit these categories (while making very exceptional characters).

Mike

[TonyLB]

That makes sense... whatever term you end up discussing, you'll have a fruitful discussion about that term.

A concern, though:  I am interested, in part, in why the bad elements are so carefully preserved and transmitted from game-design to game-design, throughout our culture.

Why are powergaming and lasersharking so thoroughly supported in game after game?  If they're just outright foolishness, worthy of nothing but dismissal, why haven't they been dismissed?

I have a theory that they are linked to something important and useful that we haven't identified yet.  I worry that pushing toward terms that deliberately avoid connection with these denigrated elements will prevent me from ever exploring that theory.  Make sense?

[Larry L.]

I think "kewl powers" is somehow linked to the whole geek-boy wish-fulfillment culture. It's derrogatory in the sense that it implies a certain adolescent appeal. The criteria involve a) fantastic ("kick-ass") ability, whether supernatural or just at the very extreme end of human ability, and b) superficiality -- they don't serve a "legitimate" (by the standards of the traditional humanities?) exploration of character.

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with games featuring kewl powers, because they're certainly entertaining, like a brainless action thriller. Perhaps the bulk of "gamers" really just come to kick ass and chew bubblegum. But I think the use of the term is a flag saying, "This isn't one of those games. This is something different."

The "sometimes you just want a hamburger" metaphor comes to mind... if one recognizes something as somehow inferior, yet is still able to enjoy that thing for what it is, is this still a derrogatory opinion?

I hope it's not something as simple as a dichotomy between "kewl powers" and "artsy-fartsy," or "us" versus "those plebes," which would be a pretty easy mode of thinking to get dragged into. If that's all the term can convey, then it's pretty useless.


I don't actually agree that uniqueness/standing out defines kewl powers. Settings like SLA Industries and Dark Sun, where everyone has kewl powers, come to mind.

[Mike Holmes]

A concern, though:  I am interested, in part, in why the bad elements are so carefully preserved and transmitted from game-design to game-design, throughout our culture.

Why are powergaming and lasersharking so thoroughly supported in game after game?  If they're just outright foolishness, worthy of nothing but dismissal, why haven't they been dismissed?

Well, that's what I've kinda been trying to get at subtly. They're not bad. Rather, certain applications are bad, but there's nothing wrong, IMO, with escapism and such that these things seek after. Even cheap thrills are a specialty of mine.

What I'm saying is that we need to look at them without the assumption that they're bad, just as we did here with gamism, and then I think we'll start to appreciate them for what they are. Instead of lambasting them for not being what we want them to be.

Mike

[indie guy]

extraordinary character effectiveness that the observer sees as available in the game to add to character attractiveness in a cheap (prurient?) way.

Agreed.

I'm inclined to think that one thing kewl powerz must do is make the character special within the setting. In that sense, being the only parrot who understands and uses human speech becomes a kewl power, because even though all the people can talk, speech makes you a very special parrot.

I could agree with this example too. Which helps add more perspective with this question: how is the talking parrot effecting the game system? And in keeping in mind that kewl powers are a derogatory term, here is my attempt at a definition based on game system type.

Gamist: Unstoppable demonitator breaker. Example: A laser that cannot be stopped by any armor, or dodged or defended in anyway. Or a talking parrot with the power of Mau-dib from Dune :)

Narritive: Story killer. Example: The parrot spilled the beans, and the characters have lost all motivation to continue.

Simulationist: World-Ender, or drastic anomoly, or railroader. Example: (This ones kind of tough) Parrots can't talk in the game world, and seeing it happen causes  inhabitants to die of a nervous breakdown for no explainable reason.

-Paul

[Marco]

Well, that's what I've kinda been trying to get at subtly. They're not bad. Rather, certain applications are bad, but there's nothing wrong, IMO, with escapism and such that these things seek after. Even cheap thrills are a specialty of mine.

Mike

Mike is bang on. Kewl Powerz are so named (IME) because the speaker has contempt for what's seen as a lollypop necessiary to get players to engage in a game that would be somehow more sophisticated without them.

The D&D Magic User's spells aren't "kewl powerz" in most contexts. We can say this is because they are common in the genre, but I think it's more because the assumed nature of the D&D game is pretty much about being a heroic adventurer to begin with.

Being a scheming political player is the sort of thing "traditional D&D players" "aren't sophisticated enough to get into" (in quotes because I'm speaking for the guy who is using the kewl powerz term, not my self--and if you're nodding then, congratulations, you are that guy). So they need the "kewl powerz" cookie to get them to play it.

The idea being that while the proposed content of the game may be deeper, the players attracted by the kewl will probably get a lot of their enjoyment where "they always do:" power-tripping.

I think it's a derogatory term and Mike nails the problems with its usage.

-Marco

[TonyLB]

You know, as terrible as it is, I like the word "lollypop" that Marco uses.

Which I know totally isn't the point of his post, but... well, I go to the barbers and they have these jars of lollipops.  And, because I'm with a four year old, they say "Hey, would you like a lollipop for your son?"  And I say "Yes... and I'd like one for me too, actually!"

Because lollipops are cool!  And if somebody sneeringly says "Well, if you'll play this game the way I want I'll give you a lollipop" (or its symbolic equivalent) I'm going to say "A lollipop!  COOL!  Where's my lollipop!" even if I would have played the "sophisticated" game without the fun bribe.

Can we call them 'lollipop abilities'?  Pleeeeeease?

[Larry L.]

Tony, this term can only catch on if somebody builds a glowing application of such into his new design.

So, if "kewl powers" is negatively biased, isn't "lollipop" positively biased? Or maybe someone can argue that lollipops are "empty calories?"

[Jason Lee]

Just wanted to chime in agreement with Mike.  

Referring to something as kewl, -----z, XXXtreme, 1337, etc means you think it's childish.