What are "kewl powerz?"

[Larry L.]

So if you're getting ready to game, sussing out the social contract and such, and somebody expresses, "No 'kewl powers,' I hate that."... Does that actually mean anything without further discussion?

The consensus of this thread seems to indicate "no."

[Andrew Morris]

I'm still not sure that there is any real benefit to hammering out a definition and agreeing on it. What would it add? Is it better to simply avoid the term and use more specific language that conveys exactly what we mean?

Mike Holmes points out the potential benefit of turning "kewl powerz" from a negative term to a neutral one. Is that it?

[Mike Holmes]

Well, given context, I think that many players will be able to figure out what a particular player means. But, yeah, it's pretty ambiguous otherwise, I think.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

Missed Andrew's post.

I think that it's probably best at this point to avoid the term for discussion's sake, yes. Like avoiding "munchkin." Which has all manner of connotations in different use.

Mike

[Remko]

Basically, Kewl Powerz is a language usage which inheres perspective differences. Everybody has another opinion about which 'powerz' are 'kewl'. The only thing possible to discuss without resorting to subjective arguments is IMHO the usage of the mechanics of 'Kewl Powerz' in roleplaying games.

So, I agree fully that Kewl Powerz cannot be defined. It is different for every person.

Wow, another thought. Perhaps we could define them, but only for a type of setting. Examples could be 'high' fantasy as opposed to 'low' fantasy. One could define kewl powrs within one of those categories, because of the same reference. Still, we would have to use descriptive terms, which imply subjective arguments. But, at least we have a more or less same reference.

[Jason Lee]

I actually don't find the term unclear at all.  The usage of such phraseology is pretty easy to define.  I wouldn't find the phrase "stupid game design" unclear either.  Sure, we may not know exactly what the speaker means by "stupid", or why they think so, but the point is clear.  It's not a thoughtful critique.  It's just a value judgment.  That's all labeling something "Kewl Powerz" is meant to convey.  It's just like "munchkin", as Mike pointed out.

[TonyLB]

Okay, so is there a non-judgmental phrase that gets across the same issues of character definition, escapism, power-fantasy, plot opportunity, niche establishment and the like that have been discussed on the various "kewl powerz" threads?  Or do we need to break it apart into separate elements (in a way that it is seldom broken down in systems or actual play) before we can talk about it in a positive light?

[Larry L.]

character definition, escapism, power-fantasy, plot opportunity, niche establishment

Tony, if you have a proposal to break the term down, that would be kewl.

The above phrases might be a good starting point. Clearly, there are a number of different reasons that "kewl powers" appeal. I'd add something to support a gamist agenda, too.

[TonyLB]

Actually, my "proposal" if anything is that breaking it down would lose exactly what I'm most interested in finding out.  But I don't see an individual term that gets at the same bundle of synergy without the negative connotations.

[Ria]

I think it's fresh and says something about the game world. I certainly find nothing offensive or wrong with it, and I think it would definitely appeal to a younger RPG generation, as well as to people who like that kind of fun or light seeming thing. It may not appeal to older generations who may be used to a different kind of, maybe more serious, approach. But if Kewl Powerz is in keeping with the tone of the rest of the game, there may not be a better title.

[Jason Lee]

Okay, so is there a non-judgmental phrase that gets across the same issues of character definition, escapism, power-fantasy, plot opportunity, niche establishment and the like that have been discussed on the various "kewl powerz" threads?  Or do we need to break it apart into separate elements (in a way that it is seldom broken down in systems or actual play) before we can talk about it in a positive light?

How about powers? That's what "kewl powerz" is slandering, so why not just use the unslandered term?

If you are looking for more detail, the list above seems typical of the 4-color superhero comic book genre.  That's a mouthful, so I suspect simply calling them "super powers" would capture the genre well enough for most people.

[Mike Holmes]

We already have a term, and I've already used it. Effectiveness refers to non-resource abilities assigned to the character. So call them exceptional or unusual effectiveness or whatever description fits. In some games this means effectiveness that makes the character stand out from the in-game crowd. In others everybody has these in-game, and what makes them exceptional is that they simply don't exist in the real world. Whatever the case, they are effectiveness that are intended to make the characters attractive to play by making them more than human.

I think that's a fine base to start discussion from. Powers doesn't quite work because that might describe some abilities that normal people have ("powers of perception" for instance), and also doesn't neccessarily cover mundane abilities taken to extremes. Is a high strength a "power"? When? The delimiting point here is precisely where the ability becomes notably exceptional in some way.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

Perhaps this aspect of the question isn't really on topic, but I never thought of the phrase kewl powerz to be derogatory, and I didn't get the impression that those I knew who used it thought so either. First, they had been using the spelling kewl in a quite clearly positive manner for quite some time before connecting it to powerz. Second, they used the z for plurals in all words that had the voiced sibilance rather than the voiceless. Third, they were primarily gamist, and embraced such powers as aspects of a game that enabled you to make more effective and interesting characters from a gamist perspective. Being one who can thoroughly enjoy that sort of play when it's offered, I found no problem with kewl powerz as a descriptor for special abilities.

It may be, then, that it is thought derogatory by some because people who do not enjoy gamist play of that stripe lump this together with other aspects of gamism and sneer at it as "that immature gamist stuff".

If that is the case, then it's likely that whatever term you wind up using will quickly gain the same connotations to the same people. Those who like kewl powerz will like lollipop abilities; those who look down their noses at kewl powerz will have the same attitude toward lollipop abilities.

As to why so many games include these, how about this: they open possibilities. James Bond's stories are supposed to be at least reasonably credible. We've seen in them a villain whose metal teeth could chew through just about anything, and another who could throw his razor-edged hat like a deadly frisbee that cut through stone. There are things in those stories that are "impossible", but they make the stories more fun. By including such "impossible" powers in the game system support you enable players and referees to create adventures that are fun precisely because someone can do something completely out of the ordinary, and that complicates the situation immensely.

You could create a spy game in which things that really couldn't be real weren't real, but it would be less fun than a James Bond type spy game, because there is a great deal of fun in those things that maybe you're not entirely persuaded could really happen but feel like they could.

--M. J. Young

[Jason Lee]

It may be, then, that it is thought derogatory by some because people who do not enjoy gamist play of that stripe lump this together with other aspects of gamism and sneer at it as "that immature gamist stuff".

It's not the abilities that kewl powerz refers to that makes it derogatory, but the use of language itself.  The use of these specific types of misspellings is (in recent years) a reference to adolescent computer crackers.  I guess these days it's probably just associated with immaturity itself, as the refusal to spell things correctly instead of "encrypted" is as ubiquitous as the computer.  Spelling cool as kewl is turning the word cool up to 11.  Thus, phraseology such as kewl powerz is sarcasm.  It may not be derogatory in the same sense as a racial slur, but it's still ridicule.  Perhaps there are different generational or sub-cultural takes on such phraseology, but as far as I'm aware mockery of leet speak is the correct modern usage.  Even if there are different sub-cultural definitions such phraseology is, at the very best, an in-joke among the computer savvy from whom it originated.

[Mike Holmes]

Jason's right.

It's like the use of the phrase Politically Incorrect. For, oh, about a year or so back in the late 80's or early 90's, this was a positive phrase used by the Left to mean something that caused political damage by alienating somebody. As such, it's quite a useful term in theory. But what happened, is that the backlash against the putative idea that this is supposed to be emblematic of, that people should worry about absolutely everything that might offend somebody else, made the term a catchphrase for irrational oversensitivity.

And now you'd get laughed off the podium if you tried to use this phrase in a political debate, say.

So, yeah, the l33t-speaker gamists who first used it meant it as a positive thing. But the backlash was pretty instant, and the vast majority of use, like Political Correctness now, is derogatory.

The question is, do we have a duty or incentive to revive the positive meaning of the phrase, or should we let it die, and move on to something not so loaded? Just like dropping using Story, I think this term should pass from attempts to use it in debate. Especially since we can replace it rather easily, I think. Is this an injustice of some sort? In this case I don't see an imperative to correct the problem.

Mike