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.

Andrew Morris wrote: 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 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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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.

TonyLB wrote: 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?

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

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.

Mike Holmes wrote: 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

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?

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?"

Just wanted to chime in agreement with Mike.

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

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."

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

TonyLB wrote: character definition, escapism, power-fantasy, plot opportunity, niche establishment

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.

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.

TonyLB wrote: 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?

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

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

M. J. Young wrote: 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".

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

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.

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?

ffilz wrote:

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.

I think M.J. is also right.

Kewl Powerz would be a fun name for a game though.

Something with flashy blasts and folks being knocked-back multiple city blocks after a punch. With a light, quick system... and lots of color.

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes that means we can, "own" the term "Kewl Powerz" if we want,

Bob McNamee wrote: Kewl Powerz  would be a fun name for a game though.

Something with flashy blasts and folks being knocked-back multiple city blocks after a punch. With a light, quick system... and lots of color.