Heya,

In this thread Tony wrote this:

My argument is that they address something that is hard to address in other ways. Which is why, in fact, games without them usually don't function well.

I don't think kewl powerz and adventure are necessary. But I think they are a reliable technique for addressing something that is necessary. If I could just figure out what it is then I could address it in a different way in Misery Bubblegum, which would (I suspect) help the game tremendously.

The something necessary addressed by kewl powerz is characterization. Being a <insert character type> obliviates the necessity of indentity. You can shoot lightning out of your butt? Good for you, that makes you a superhero. As you can see, the kewl powerz are just a justification for the identity, not the identity itself. Both D&D and WW games demonstrate this principle very clearly, although the kewl powerz tend to overshadow the original purpose. Look at D&D, for example: it's definite history that the original purpose of character classes and class powers was niche protection and tactical variety.

People like to pretend to have Kewl Powers so they can pretend to be powerful. Imagining you can shoot lightning out of your butt has a strong psychological appeal to those who feel powerless. This "power fantasy" drives a lot of sim-color gaming, the terrain explored being "what is it like to be powerful and cool?"

Kewl Powerz also have another very important function, gam-wise: they add complexity. The more complex a game is, the more different strategies and tactics you can explore. That's the reason I enjoy playing spell using characters in D&D so much: more Kewl Powerz, more options, more flexible tactics!

Troy,

Troy_Costisick wrote:
Euro posed "characterization", I posed "motivation", but what other functions do Kewl Powers serve in a game? Is there a difference in function between, Gamist, Simulationist, and Narrativist games?

Perhaps powers give the players a sense of greater authorial control over the story. Which would be why most of the examples of non-powers games are indie titles, coming from the foundation that stance and control of the story can be divvied up by design. Whereas in traditional games, the idea of GM-as-god has so much weight that character powers give the player a sense that they have a mechanically proteced method for exerting control over the SIS.

One of my favorite games is Universalis, in which each player has equal control of the game and the story. I don't think this is coincidence. Another great game is Capes, where, again, all participants have equal control. Thinking about it, this could also be the reason I enjoy Breaking the Ice so much. Quite clearly in this game, characters have no powers, yet authorial control is equally shared. Universalis could easily be played without any sort of powers, and Capes could be drifted so that the mechanics handled, say, politcal machinations or a love story without significant effort. And, I think, they'd be just as much fun.

Andrew Morris wrote: Perhaps powers give the players a sense of greater authorial control over the story. Which would be why most of the examples of non-powers games are indie titles, coming from the foundation that stance and control of the story can be divvied up by design. Whereas in traditional games, the idea of GM-as-god has so much weight that character powers give the player a sense that they have a mechanically proteced method for exerting control over the SIS.

Callan, that might be true, but wouldn't that also be the case with other Effectiveness traits? In a game about political scheming, one character might have the "Uncover Dirty Secrets" skill, which allows the group to achieve their goal. Differentiation might be accomplished by powers, but I think it could also be accomplished by other means.

Hi Andrew: I see what you mean. However those other means you end up using may themselves become 'kewl powers'. 'Uncover dirty secrets' sounds pretty kewl to me.

I think I said it wrong before: Rather than this providing niche protection, this is what niche protection is supposed to provide. It's not so much about being different and differentiation, but some toe hold on the SIS like with your 'GM is god' idea. Each player owns patches of SIS, different patches from anyone else. Then we see what happens when everyone collides.

Heya,

Okay, we can add escapism, complexity, and niche protection to the list. And to add to what Callan said, I agree niche protection has been the rationale for many games to have Kewl Powerz.

But the point is here to deconstruct Kewl Powerz so that we can find both alternatives and better ways to implement them. So, what would happen in a game full of Kewl Powerz (Dnd3e for instance) if a character was made lacking them. What might the play look like? What might the player do to compensate? Could the character survive?

Peace,

-Troy

That was a deconstruction. Kewl powers give keynote arguements. Imagine the fighter trying to say he sneaks up and steals something...imagine how much effort he's going to have to put into convincing you. Now imagine a rogue saying he sneaks up and steals something. He's not going to have to work as hard at convincing you.

That character who lacks cool powers? He's always going to be having a hard time. See, the fighter from above could, instead of just sneaking, hybridize his arguement...sniping some guards with his bow, then trying to sneak past the rest. This uses his characters kewl power to help him from sweating as much in trying to convince you of what he's doing.

Once you have something you can rely on in game, it provokes clever roleplay (like the sniping/sneak combo from above), because you can build ideas based on the 'fact' of your characters kewl power.

Perhaps cool powers are just the same as using some hard facts in an arguement. Once you have those hard facts, you will try to use them to underpin your arguement that an idea is true/would work in the game world. Without hard facts, what have you got to work with arguement wise?

Rambling a bit here.

That's what the kewl powerz do to empower the player of that character. Any thoughts on what they do to empower the other players (including the GM)?

Because in niche-heavy games, I've very commonly heard the complain from GMs that an imbalanced party makes it impossible for them to do their job. Which always struck me as odd and illuminating.

TonyLB wrote: That's what the kewl powerz do to empower the player of that character. Any thoughts on what they do to empower the other players (including the GM)?

Three-stage argument here. Bear with me!

Tragedy is when I stub my toe; comedy is when you fall into a sewer and die.

TonyLB wrote: That's what the kewl powerz do to empower the player of that character. Any thoughts on what they do to empower the other players (including the GM)?

Because in niche-heavy games, I've very commonly heard the complain from GMs that an imbalanced party makes it impossible for them to do their job. Which always struck me as odd and illuminating.

That's disempowering the other characters, but doesn't it empower the players to address the challenges that the kewl powerz provide? A player, for instance, doesn't usually have the power to address a challenge that doesn't exist.

GM-wise, for instance, a group with no wilderness skills means that the GM simply cannot present most wilderness adventures.

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

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

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

Heya,

TonyLB wrote: 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?

Troy_Costisick wrote: 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.

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

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".

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.

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?

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 ...

TonyLB wrote: 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?

TonyLB wrote: 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?

quot;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.

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?

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)?

TonyLB wrote: 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 wrote: 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)?

Andrew Morris wrote: So how are they qualitatively different than skills or tools?

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

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.

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

Andrew Morris wrote: 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.

Andrew Morris wrote: 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?

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."

chadu wrote: 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.

Andrew Morris wrote: 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, 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.

Simon Marks wrote: 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.

Heya,

I am very willing to buy that Abilities, Skills, Equipment, and even Cash can all fall under the "Kewl Powerz" heading. I strongly feel it is important to denote the difference between each subset, BUT here's the kicker. We may be closer to finding a substitute for Kewl Powerz within Kewl Powerz itself.

I, like Tim, often associate Kewl Powerz with things like Feats, Abilities, Background Options, or whatever else is not a skill and/or equipment. But if we're looking for substitues for those, can skills, equipment, and wealth substitute? This idea intrigues me. I'm not sure however, if I'm saying it right.

So, I guess what I'm kind of asking is something like can the Powers of Superman and the Gadgets of James Bond serve the same function in a game? Or rather, *do* they serve the same function?

If so, is that what we're really looking for when it comes to finding what else can function like Kewl Powerz? If not, what do both Powers and Gadgets grant both characters and players exactly?

Peace,

-Troy

I'll attempt a definition of "kewl powerz", skills and equipment in terms of how much it takes into account the character as being an important part of the process, rather in what it looks like in SIS.

Equipment, which is external can be easily lost, and only begs to bear a label saying: "Anyone can use me to get a kewl effectz!"
How can I get social esteem from using that except through the skill I have in using/creating it?
Why do soldiers in movies often customize their weapons? So as to personnalize them, and make them more like themselves.

Which brings me to skills, which are a bit in between equipment and "kewl powerz". They are inherent to the character, but require some external conditions to be met.
Someone good at shooting a gun needs a gun, or he won't be able to show it off.
(There's one problem with this: purely mental skills seem very close to "kewl powerz", but I'm not sure that Mathematics for example compete for the same effects).

I'll consider "kewl powerz" to be abilities inherent to the character (part of the character and his identity). As has been noted before, they can be used to reflect the character's personnality, and their evolution may be a metaphor to internal changes.
What it means for a character to have the power to fly for example, is that he will, on nearly all occasions (save kryptonite), be able to use his power. His character is reliable, more than his skills and certainly more than his equipment.
When considering such complex things as social esteem, not only success, but also the reliability of future success might be a factor for granting esteem.

Of course, in a setting in which "kewl powerz" are easily countered I wouldn't count them as anything but skills.

This all very vague and not very thoroughly thought of, but somehow there's this double aspect of symbolism (I'm powerful! look at the lightning I'm shooting out of my backside!) and great reliability in the future (I will always be able to shoot, no matter the situation), which I think "kewl powerz" are very good at portraying, thus being a good start for gathering units of social esteem.

(emphasis added)

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

Simon Marks wrote: 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.

I think there are a lot of directions we can go, in looking at cool powers, like social esteem, internal expression of character, etc.

But looking at what they do to play, the provoke players to take the other players to places they would never have gone to normally.

For example: Think of a D&D party without a cleric. Can you easily imagine them getting themselves into situations where it's easy to get hurt but there might not be any gain? Can you more easily imagine them leaving the dungeon well before their HP have dropped much? Can you imagine them turtling like mad?

Now add a cleric, with his kewl healing powerz.

Can they still turtle? Can they still shy away from any serious exploration?

Well, yes and no. Because I, the clerics player, will be applying social pressure: "Oh come on! Let's just get in there and see what happens...I'll heal you if you get hurt, ya big babies!"

For a whole range of reasons, I can't stand to see my powers sit idle. And because of it, I'll push the direction of the game out of everyones comfort zones and toward something far more exciting. There are hundreds of reasons that I like and want to use powers, but the effect is the same each time: I agitate for exciting stuff to happen, that normally wouldn't.

PS: I notice that with the spies in the jungle example, the spies intent revolved around leaving the jungle/leaving the conflict. I'm talking about how cool powers draw players toward conflict, instead.

timfire wrote: I can learn the Skill, or purchase the Equipment... there may be no way to obtain it - in fact the only way to gain a power is often via a metagame" contains a certain assumption about how a particular system works. It would be easy enough to create to create a system (if one does not already exist) that explicitly grants players the ability to gain "powers."

timfire wrote: I'm also not understanding what you mean by "Powers are a manifestation of Player intent as opposed to Character intent." I'll assume for the moment that there is such a thing as "character intent," but could you elaborate on this idea?

Heya,

I'd like to discuss what the Kewl Powerz do in a Gamist game for a sec and then examine how that might apply to other CA's. In a Gamist game, several have posited that Kewl Powerz link directly to Social Esteem. They link a player to his reward. I can definately see that. If Gamism is all about stepping up to risks, gambles, and strategic challenges, then Kewl Powerz (whatever they might include) are the channels a player goes through to get his reward for good game play. They pave the road he travels and make it a smoother way to get to his destination.

If that is the case, what do Kewl Powerz in Sim and Nar games link? In what way to they pave the road for these kinds of players?

Peace,

-Troy

In Nar games, they can facilitate adressing the premise.
For example, in Sorcerer, all which has got to do with demons is directly linked to how much power one gets in exchange for humanity.
Even if demonology is not considered a Kewl Power, similar examples could certainly be found involving them.

In Sim games, they are part of exploring the SIS. I guess players will have a direct interest in the Powerz themselves.

That's all for now.

Troy,

I recently wrote a bit about this in my blog, and the relevant stuff I'll post here:

In a narrativist agenda, kewl powerz can help you explore premise and do all that nifty stuff. However, they can only do it if you know why the powers matter in terms of the story and use them in those terms. What, exactly, does "With great power comes great responsiblity" mean to you? The responsibility to defend your neighborhood? To campaign for gay marriage? To kill George Bush? To take over the world so that it will be run correctly? While you can address such premises without powers, it's much harder as the average person can't shake the world the way the Authority does.

From a gamist agenda the kewl powerz are about the ability to rock the world and step on up and do it big style. However, if you are going to go about it that way you have to have powers that are specific, precise, and not all equal under all circumstances. If everything comes out the same in the end, then there is no ability to push it farther than others can and really get your game on. This can lead to powers giving social respect and player empowerment, those that can use the system bravely and assertivly get to push their character to the limit. Because many powers are inherently linked to specilizations ("fireblasts are good for this, but invisibility is good for that") and tactical choices they can make a good basis for gamist play.

From a sim agenda, there are a lot of things that kewl powerz can be about. They can, as Chad Underkoffer has pointed out, externalize the internal (though that gets into the narrativist agenda to) and widen the scope of the ways in which a character can interact with their world. You cannot pick up a tank if you don't have superstrength, and if no one has superstrength then no one can pick up a tank. So if you want tank picking up to happen in your game, you gots ta have da powerz. If you want to build a world that looks like the X-Men, you can't do it without powers. If you want to have stories like your favorite fantasy/sci-fi/comic stories the powers are inherently important to what you like about the game.

Heya,

Brand_Robins wrote:

In a narrativist agenda, kewl powerz can help you explore premise and do all that nifty stuff. However, they can only do it if you know why the powers matter in terms of the story and use them in those terms. What, exactly, does "With great power comes great responsiblity" mean to you? The responsibility to defend your neighborhood? To campaign for gay marriage? To kill George Bush? To take over the world so that it will be run correctly? While you can address such premises without powers, it's much harder as the average person can't shake the world the way the Authority does.

Again, kewl powerz provoke the player (the nar player in this case) to go out and seek conflict/premise.

I mean, what stops you in real life going out and choosing between good and evil? You've got bills to pay...you need to have food in the fridge, you need a whole bunch of boring crap done.

Kewl powerz will take the narrativists mind to somewhere a little more interesting than that. When you can shoot lightening out of your butt, is the first thing you think about is doing the dishes? No? Good!

Kewl powerz provide a focus for premise address, which wouldn't happen with any clarity if your thinking about how your PC has a zillion domestic chores to get through.

Troy_Costisick wrote: -Okay, but are you saying that Narrativist games are all addressing "shake the world" premises?

So, what do Kewl Powerz porvide in narrativist games that has so many of them including them?

Sorry for jumping in late here...

Simon wrote: The difference is that (in theory) *anyone* could have a skill, *anyone* could have the equipment - but only "The Gifted" have "Kewl Powerz"

Heya,

xenopulse wrote: Sorry for jumping in late here...

Simon wrote: The difference is that (in theory) *anyone* could have a skill, *anyone* could have the equipment - but only "The Gifted" have "Kewl Powerz"

I think this point needs to be emphasized, given the topic of this thread.

What makes kewl powerz kewl is that they are extraordinary. Great stories are always about people doing extraordinary things. That doesn't have to mean they're supernatural--they do things and say things that we usually would not in similar situations. Maybe looking back we wish we did, but we didn't. A good exploration of the "extraordinary" aspect of protagonists along with the need for the protagonist to be empowered to address the conflicts of the story can be found in Donald Maass' Writing the Breakout Novel.

This issue of extraordinary circumstances is one that resonates with me. Take Inigo Montoya, for instance: Is his kewl power that he's a great fencer? Or is his kewl power "You killed my father"... the circumstances of his story that justify his extraordinary actions? Which is more important to the story? I tend toward the latter, because he is not diminished as a fascinating character by dismally losing the only sword-fight in the first two thirds of the movie.

EDIT: But maybe I'm trying to make "kewl powerz" mean too much, attributing it like that.

TonyLB wrote: EDIT: But maybe I'm trying to make "kewl powerz" mean too much, attributing it like that.

Heya,

TonyLB wrote: This issue of extraordinary circumstances is one that resonates with me. Take Inigo Montoya, for instance: Is his kewl power that he's a great fencer? Or is his kewl power "You killed my father"... the circumstances of his story that justify his extraordinary actions? Which is more important to the story? I tend toward the latter, because he is not diminished as a fascinating character by dismally losing the only sword-fight in the first two thirds of the movie.

EDIT: But maybe I'm trying to make "kewl powerz" mean too much, attributing it like that.

Hey Tony,

I'd be inclined to think "You killed my father" is a kewl power (just like SA in TROS) except its too focused. When you can, for example, jump in front of a train and stop it with your bare hands, it leads to all sorts of situation that involve such a feat. If you can only stop a train when it's to do with your dead father, this revolves just around your PC. This rather than take the whole group somewhere that's out of their comfort zone.

Well, "You killed my father" could easily take the whole group out of their comfort zone. But I think that rather than focus on being out of their zone, the group will focus on the relationship between the PC and his dead father, and what he does in the name of that.

Troy wrote: Would you be more comfortable with saying something like, equpiment grants Kewl Powerz or skills grant kewll powerz. With things like abilities and feats being Kewl Powerz in and of themselves? Or are you describing something different? Like super powers?

xenopulse wrote: And kewl equipment can also do extraordinary things, but, as someone already said, it's more something external to the character.

Heya,

Xenopulse Wrote:

I think powers, skills and equipment all can be extraordinary. Powers tend to be those that are more unique.

I'd be inclined to think "You killed my father" is a kewl power (just like SA in TROS) except its too focused. When you can, for example, jump in front of a train and stop it with your bare hands, it leads to all sorts of situation that involve such a feat. If you can only stop a train when it's to do with your dead father, this revolves just around your PC. This rather than take the whole group somewhere that's out of their comfort zone.

"Function" or "story grab" aren't inherently the same as powers in the minds of most people

While others have made good points about what powers can do in different CAs, and now we're discussing exactly what constitutes powers, I think it might be more valuable to try and figure out what it is that can only be added to the game through cool powers.

What makes Kewl Powerz different from "plot devices" is who gets to trigger them. In most cases, KP are triggered by players, while PD come into play at those times the GM feels like it.
When one is trying to overcome a challenge, Kewl Powerz are more reliable.

If KP are metaphoric extensions of the character that let them participate in conflict, then there are only two things that I see that can only be added to the game through KP:
- scale (shooting lightning out of your butt will allow you to face godzilla, whereas ordinary archery does not).
- feel (it feels cooler to have KP than just have a plain old skill).

Artanis wrote: What makes Kewl Powerz different from "plot devices" is who gets to trigger them. In most cases, KP are triggered by players, while PD come into play at those times the GM feels like it.
When one is trying to overcome a challenge, Kewl Powerz are more reliable.

Artanis wrote: - scale (shooting lightning out of your butt will allow you to face godzilla, whereas ordinary archery does not).

- feel (it feels cooler to have KP than just have a plain old skill).

I think I'm going to pass on the good rule of reading the whole thread before posting to it. If somebody's already said this, feel free to PM me with bitching. I blame the way RPG theory threads fill up fast with all kinds of purposeless back and forth.

You folks are obviously pretty confused about the whole kewl powerz thing. What ever gave you the notion evidenced in the last couple of pages that kewl powerz are an in-setting thing? Because it's not. There's exactly one thing that differentiates between a "kewl power" and another kind of player resource: being a discrete and qualitative resource.

Consider: in D&D, nobody would say that Strength stat, whatever the value, is a "kewl power". At least nobody outside this weird thread. However, "Great Strength" might well be a kewl power in another system that makes having great strength a matter of qualitative break with the rest of the game. My example is Vampire, which has that vampire power of... whatever it's name is, I forget. The one that increases your strength. That's a kewl power, and it is that because you get to buy it and say that you have it, while other guys do not have it. And it allows you to do stuff they can't. Which is simply not true in D&D, although both a +2 in D&D and a dot in this vampire power whose name I forget in Vampire are representations of great strength.

Now, the above description of a kewl power means that there is no kewl powerz in HQ, for example, while there most certainly is in D&D in the form of feats. More weirdly, having a camera could well be a kewl power in the right game, so what's up with that? The reason for the apparent disconnect is that kewl powerz are not just about discrete powers, they're about value systems also: the term is only used in connection to power fantasy and character-simulation games, where it's very important to have something discrete. I already gave a reason for this in the other thread: kewl powerz are a tool of character identity for these kinds of games. The camera is only a kewl power if the character identity is really about being a Cameraman, the best there is at what he does. Which is possible, but that'd be a pretty weird setting.

So in that sense talking about kewl powerz is just like talking about railroading or bangs; it's special terminology that applies only to a particular kind of game, and disappears in others. Capes, for example, as far as I know, doesn't have kewl powerz. Same for many other indie games. Notably, Sorcerer has them. And this has nothing to do with power level or whether those powers can be taken away or whatever, and everything to do with whether character identity is defined in terms of having powers or not. Exalted is purely about kewl powerz, while Sorcerer only has one important kewl power, that of summoning demons.

--

To be clear, you can think what you want. I just think that all this talk about relationships as cool powers or whatever is pretty useless for any real purpose. Using relationships or feelings or property as game currency is nothing new, but that hardly makes it a kewl power. If your game has a character class of "Rich boy", on the other hand, and other characters cannot get rich, then money can indeed be a kewl power. Certain applications of Cyberpunk fall into this category, when the suits get to use their connections and cash in ways that justify their coolness.

That's that, folks.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: There's exactly one thing that differentiates between a "kewl power" and another kind of player resource: being a discrete and qualitative resource.

Consider: in D&D, nobody would say that Strength stat, whatever the value, is a "kewl power".

Now, the above description of a kewl power means that there is no kewl powerz in HQ, for example, while there most certainly is in D&D in the form of feats.

So in that sense talking about kewl powerz is just like talking about railroading or bangs; it's special terminology that applies only to a particular kind of game, and disappears in others.

Capes, for example, as far as I know, doesn't have kewl powerz.

I just think that all this talk about relationships as cool powers or whatever is pretty useless for any real purpose.

Hi Troy,

Ah, but what if the "You killed my father..." was an ability that boosted your skills/stats/attributes when and only when you were about to resolve the character's issues with his/her dead father? Sort of like a Destiny mechanic. Is that a Kewl Power or instead a Plot Device? I am very interested in your answer to that.

Heya,

Eero Wrote:

I already gave a reason for this in the other thread: kewl powerz are a tool of character identity for these kinds of games.

At that point the other players could be focused on surviving in the wilderness and coping without skills there. But are they really going to focus on that stuff, when everyone could watch the melodrama of how you finally cope with your dead dad?

Troy_Costisick wrote:
If this is true, then is not "You killed my father..." another tool of character identity just in another kind of game? I mean if Heat Vision defines Fire-eyes the Superhero's character identity, then is that all that dissimilar to the "You killed my father..." power that defines Inigo? I'm really interested in pursuing this train of thought because if it is indeed powers that define identity, then we may have a useful definition for them.

Brand_Robins wrote: So in a game like Dogs in the Vineyard or Heroquest relationships and personality traits function as cool powers. That can make sense in some ways, especially if in HQ you have a really high personality trait that lets you alter the course of the world through use of personality. Mr. Furious vs the Lunars!

(...) It let him practically come back from the dead, which is beyond the normal scope of what a really big personality trait lets people do.

Is there a difference in power/not power between a magic missile and an 18 Str? Or a 12 Str? A 40 Str?

If "ability to effect the game when the player wants to" is a power, then everything that characters do on a normal basis is a power.

I think there needs to be some kind of "that normal human beings could not do, or could not do reliably" or else we're just using "power" to mean "any character based ability."

(...)games like With Great Power

Eero wrote: What ever gave you the notion evidenced in the last couple of pages that kewl powerz are an in-setting thing? Because it's not.

Notably, Sorcerer has them [kewl powerz]. And this has nothing to do with power level or whether those powers can be taken away or whatever, and everything to do with whether character identity is defined in terms of having powers or not.

Artanis wrote:

Eero wrote: What ever gave you the notion evidenced in the last couple of pages that kewl powerz are an in-setting thing? Because it's not.

Well, to some extent it is, although your criteria seems to be more powerful.
The thing you're talking about in Vampire whose name I also forget is setting based. It's a discipline and as such is linked to your clan. It's powered with blood points, which you get by drinking blood. A pretty in-setting thing to me.
Kewl Powerz need this link to in-setting, or they're not that cool. Or else you'll have to show me how they definetly don't need to be, because it's not a straightforward thing to see.
I do agree that the opposite is not always true.

Notably, Sorcerer has them [kewl powerz]. And this has nothing to do with power level or whether those powers can be taken away or whatever, and everything to do with whether character identity is defined in terms of having powers or not.

And how has that nothing to do with power level? Isn't Sorcerer all about "how far will you go for power?" and giving you the opportunity to get that power?
I agree that reliability on a power is perhaps not so good an argument though.

Ok, I buy your two arguments. Thanks for explaining!

Troy_Costisick wrote:
Noon Wrote:

At that point the other players could be focused on surviving in the wilderness and coping without skills there. But are they really going to focus on that stuff, when everyone could watch the melodrama of how you finally cope with your dead dad?

Are you talking simultaniously? Then no. But if all the characters were walking through the Dread Swamp, then the guy with Wilderness Survival would be of keen interest to them. Wouldn't you agree?

Heya,

Eero Wrote:

So, understand that powers defining identity are a function of a certain kind of game, not a general dictum. A game can handle powers in ways that do not make them a character identity thing. And games can handle character identity in ways that do not depend on powerz. Only when you support the kewl powerz with system you really get the phenomenon.

A. Going through the dread swamp has nothing to do with the PC's dad and the power wont activate. Since effectively no one has wilderness powers, they all push for the game not to include going through the dread swamp to begin with.

or

B. Going through the dread swamp does have something to do with the dead PC's dad and coping with that, so it will activate. Everyone will go through the dread swamp, but they are distracted by the PC coping with this issue.

Some of these things have been pointed out, some have not. I think the aspect of how giving the characters power can help streamline (= "forget the uninteresting bits") and focus the game is possibly the most important, and I'm a bit surprised that it hasn't been discussed to death already. (Or maybe it has, and I just didn't notice, I admit I didn't read all the messages that carefully.)

So, giving the characters kewl powerz:

a) helps to free the game from the trivialities of mundane life (escapism)

With powerful characters it becomes a lot easier to just ignore things that are irrelevant to the story, but would otherwise realistically need to be noted. I haven't played Amber myself, but I understand that in that game this is quite often the case.

For example, having a lot of money means having a lot of power in a modern society. With money you can have the characters travel anywhere they want, dress any way they like, eat and drink what ever they like and have what ever reasonably mundane equipment you want them to have, and still keep realism intact.

b) helps to free the game from matters that are irrelevant to the story

If Superman wants to go to North Korea, he can just fly there. No need to talk about border patrols or the price and availibility of plane tickets.

The Bride can just walk into a yakuza club to have her revenge, no need to make a plan.

If a player wants his millionaire character to enter through a window on a Harley Davidson, you don't need to ask "where are you going to get the Hog?" There is no point (or need) to get into the details.

c) creates new narrative possibilities

Things that were previously impossible now enter the realm of possibilities. What if you could live for a thousand years? What if you could possess anyone you like?

d) can help in focusing on certain themes

For example empaths and telepaths easily end in heated discussions about privacy and things like "my right to feel miserable" or "your friends right to know". Necromancy can bring focus on death, the dead and for example the meaning and existance of a soul. Immortality puts life and history in a new perspective. If you could just kill the people you think are bad, would you really?


So my contribution to why most RPG's give the characters kewl powerz is that it's a really easy and obvious way of giving powerful tools for storytelling. (Or in other words, stories with powerful characters tend to be more entertaining, which is the end result of the previous idea.)

Unfortunately this tool is usually poorly used (and thought out), both in the games we buy and the games we play. I think White Wolf was propably among the first to really understand that the powers the characters have a big effect on the themes, and the easiest way of creating games with certain themes was focusing on a certain type of supernatural characters with appropriate powers. They too could've done much better in this I think, but still. It was a good idea, and it did/does work to some extent.

This also pretty nicely helps explain why indie games tend to have less of cool powers. They have, use and give other means to focus and streamline the stories/games.

(Btw: after a second reading I do notice that what I'm talking about here is not best described with "kewl powerz". Replace with "unusual amount of power" or "superpowers", if that helps.)

Troy_Costisick wrote:

So, understand that powers defining identity are a function of a certain kind of game, not a general dictum. A game can handle powers in ways that do not make them a character identity thing. And games can handle character identity in ways that do not depend on powerz. Only when you support the kewl powerz with system you really get the phenomenon.

Okay, I think I'm following you. Could you list a few games that handle character identity without anything you would label as a Kewl Power? I think this will be very helpful in aiding me with using this concept in both discussion and in design.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: The main thing to understand is that kewl powerz, although prevalent in rpgs, are a matter of inability to think outside the box. There's only one theme evidenced by kewl powerz, and that by itself is kind of sad. All the WW games, for example, are ostensibly about this or that lofty theme, but they all come down to identity-through-power. Pretty limited.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: The main thing to understand is that kewl powerz, although prevalent in rpgs, are a matter of inability to think outside the box. There's only one theme evidenced by kewl powerz, and that by itself is kind of sad. All the WW games, for example, are ostensibly about this or that lofty theme, but they all come down to identity-through-power. Pretty limited.

Artanis wrote:

Eero Tuovinen wrote: The main thing to understand is that kewl powerz, although prevalent in rpgs, are a matter of inability to think outside the box. There's only one theme evidenced by kewl powerz, and that by itself is kind of sad. All the WW games, for example, are ostensibly about this or that lofty theme, but they all come down to identity-through-power. Pretty limited.

Would you please care to develop this point?
Do you think kewl powerz could serve other themes? How could one avoid the trap of focusing exclusively on "identity-through-power"?
What's your take on using kewl powerz for matters of scale (the way Itse described it just a few posts up for example)?

John Kim wrote:
I don't agree with this. Identity-through-power is a device, not a theme. As a non-roleplaying example, the film X2 made great use of powers as identifiers, but the thematic subject of the film wasn't identity through power. Thematically, it was about different sorts of human identity, especially gender identity. I see the same thing in superpowered RPGs. Players create their characters with powers, and those powers inevitably symbolize human things which the players are interested in the real world.

Eero Tuovinen wrote:

John Kim wrote: I see the same thing in superpowered RPGs. Players create their characters with powers, and those powers inevitably symbolize human things which the players are interested in the real world.

This is what I understand by kewl powerz. A game with them needs to have a wide variety of different, flashy and setting-embedded powerz, because character identity is constructed from mastering these special powerz. Not having a particular kind of power is the same as not supporting a particular character.

This is completely different from merely having a game include super powers or other cool stuff. It's a matter of setting and mechanics supporting power-identity, and can be considered pretty much a theme, when you see how players act to define their characters through their powerz.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: We're playing Vampire. I get this idea for a Caribbean character, say, who's a vampire voodoo priest. Now, it's a really cool character concept, I think. However, I have this problem: to fulfill my character concept, I need my character to have this power to, say, contact the loa of the dead or something. This is because my character won't be cool without that power. My concept won't be supported if my character doesn't have this thing others can't do. He needs the special power that says that he's a voodoo priest. If he were a voodoo priest with just Celerity and that strength thing with the name I still can't remember, then he'd just be another run-of-the-mill vampire. He wouldn't be cool or special at all. Which is of course weird, when you remember that he's a vampire.

Eero Tuovinen wrote: I'll start with Heroquest, because it's been mentioned several times in the thread. In it, the players are assumed to derive character identity from the setting: either you support or oppose the cultural paradigm of each of your keywords, and that is you. The keyword in this manner becomes the defining framework for the details of who your character is.

Heya,

Here's what I've come to conclude so far. Feel free to lambast, counter, and/or agree with as you see fit. I am very interested in all feedback :) I think I can break down all that we've talked about so far when it comes to Kewl Powers and mechanics of that ilk. Here's what I've got:

Function: This is anything a character can do. It's rather broad, but that's the point. Everything below pretty much falls into that catagory.

Ability: This is a generally static special function of a character. Some have said it is a unique feature, but I would prefer rare. IE, it would be "rare" for a character to have laser eyes. However several characters may actually have laser eyes. Unique would me only one character potentially could. Abilities tend to only be upgraded by other abilities, not by various currencies (like exp). Examples of abilities include feats, super-powers, or Background Options.

Skill: This is a function of a character that is common (as opposed to rare) and can be upgraded by currency (eg. Exp, Character Points, etc.). Usually, these are tied to a Stat or Atribute. Examples include Pick-pocket, encryption, navigation, sword swinging and so on.

Attribute: This is a static value for a character, and may not be a function at all. Things that fall under attribute are Stats, Saves, Personality Mechanics, age, and so on. Having a high stat is not a Kewl Power. Examples are Strength, Dexterity, Resistance to Poison, Brooding personality, and so on.

Equipment: These are objects the character can use. Whether magic or non-magical, they are not in and of themselves a Kewl Power. However, one may have to have a certain Ability, Skill, or Attribute in order to use them. And, they may grant a Kewl Power to a character. However it seems to be general concensus, the object itself is not a kewl power. Examples might be rayguns, magic wands, lock pick kit, computer, etc.

Kewl Power: This is a near synonym with Ability, however it must also meet a few other criteria. First, it must help give the character identity, ie make the character have idividual significance separate from all other PCs and NPCs. Second, it must be a vehicle for the player's creativity. In other words, it must help the player use the character and engage the player's imagination. Third, it must directly aid in engaging the CA of the group. Otherwise it is useless. Kewl Powers are often unique, but can be rare. They are never common.

So, what do you guys think. Am I close to nailing what we've talked about?

Peace,

-Troy

Just a little note...

Typical heroic fantasy (Conan/Star Wars) seems to be about man versus idea. For example, the hero battles evil directly as personified by a wizard. Thus, the wizard can transform into a snake not because the wizard is snake like, but because snakes are evil. The magic used by the wizard is simply an extension of what the wizard symbolizes in the story.

That's just looking at it from one rather specific genre. The purpose of powers can be considered a genre convention, because their role would vary with genre. Metaphor, externalization of character motivation, and character identity I think are all nice ways of looking at it, but I don't think you'll get any deeper without first identifying the genre you're talking about.