Who are you calling a Munchkin?

[Utgardloki]

In another thread, Arkat wrote:

The legendary abilities in the RQ book itself would seem to lend itself better to making true legendary characters. Adding traits & flaws is unnecessary and just tries to mold the game into a White WolF game and adds munchkinism into a game otherwise free of it.

No game is free of munchkinism. You can be a munchkin in Paper-Rock-Scissors.

However, the reason I started another thread was to start a conversation on munchkinism. What is munchkinism? And how is this different from a character that happens to be really good at what he does? (Especially since for a PC, what he usually does is kill monsters with swords.)

In my opinion, there is a difference between a "munchkin" and a "power gamer". A power gamer is somebody who is willing to work within the system to create a character who is good at some type of mission. A munchkin is a guy who MUST have things his way, even if it is not supported by the rules. An example is one guy I used to play with who always wanted Gamma World weapons, no matter what setting he was playing in.

I don't see anything wrong with power gaming: of course characters are supposed to be powerful enough to take on the heroic quests put before them. What is a character who puts all his skill points in Macreme going to do, unless he is a really astounding power gamer able to use his legendary macreme abilities to defeat a horde of zombies.

Such a character is not much use with a sword.

Generally, I think labelling other players is usually counter productive. There are players who cause trouble for there GMs by constantly arguing with them. Whether they are munchkins "Why can't I just be a vampire and not have the costs associated with it?" or rules lawyers "A barmaid can not have an INT of 22!", players need to accept the rulings of their friendly neighborhood GM.

(Of course, there is nothing wrong with constructive criticism after the session -- "The last couple games have been disappointing because my merchant hasn't been able to use any of her skills" -- or even voting with your feet if your GM is not giving you a game that's fun to play. But during the game, I'd rather play than argue.)

If one party likes playing Runequest characters where nobody has a skill over 50, and another wants to run an adventure with legendary veterans with skills over 200%, and a third wants to have novice characters with extraordinary advantages, does it really matter?

There might be a risk, if a GM allows a "Martial Arts Adept" ability which skews the game very strongly towards martial artists. This is why I've decided not to allow triple-specializations: my concern is that being able to add three skills together would skew the game in a direction I don't want it skewed toward. But if a GM wants the game to go in that direction, triple-specializations may be a very good idea.

I guess the important thing is for the GM to be able to control things. If legendary abilities threaten to destroy the campaign, then a GM does not have to allow them. This should be indicated to the players before they have their hearts set on learning them, but it can be done. On the other hand, a GM could let the players roll 5D6 instead of 3D6 for abilities, if that's what he wants.

Any comments?

 

[iamtim]

Wow. Yer such a munchkin.

 

[mthomason]

Very good points I think.

I know as a GM one thing I like to do is to shy away from "heroic" characters, and have the players make characters that are fairly average for their role (obviously an "average" adventurer can still fight better than a merchant in town) and whose actions rather than skills define them as heroes.

I feel people winning against enormous odds is far more exciting than having a character who can outfight an entire army of [insert campaign monster here] on their own.

It's very much a style thing that is going to be as individual as hair colouring. As with so many other issues brought up on these boards there's no "right" and "wrong" way, just personal preferences. Some people still prefer to play "lets kill as many monsters and get as much treasure as we can", so I say good luck to them.

 

[Arkat]

Wanting the ability to further tailor your characters by getting 'points' for role-playing flaws is munchkinism at its best. So yes, sadly you sir are indeed a munchkin. RQ rules as they stand are quite balanced, save for perhaps the sheer amounts of cash that nobles get over other cultures. There are no 'feats' to min-max, no prestige classes to dip a level into, your character is what you make of it in the campaign world. Just as it should be!

Munchkins and Power Gamers are one in the same. For your personal edification I offer you this post from wikipedia:

Munchkin (role-playing games)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In table-top gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills," and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a negative label and frequently is used in reference to powergamers and to immature players in general.

The term was applied originally to young gamers by older players, presumably because the connotation of being short and ridiculous (like the Munchkins in the book and film The Wizard of Oz) made it an apt label for the childish gamers it was applied to. However, before long it came to refer to anyone who engaged in a juvenile gaming style no matter their height, age or experience. Suggestions that the term appeared first on BBS and Internet forums in the late 1980s as "muchkin," to describe someone who wanted his character to have as much of everything as possible, and that it subsequently gained an additional N via misreadings and mistypings [1], can be discounted, since the term was already in use and needing no explanation on usenet groups by 1984.

Munchkins are infamous for various degrees of cheating, willfully misinterpreting rules that work against them while loudly proclaiming ones that work in their favor. As a matter of course they selectively obey the letter of rules while perverting the spirit blatantly. The worst munchkins will cheat shamelessly, ignoring inconvenient numerical modifiers and fouling dice throws till they get the result they want. During character creation, munchkins engage in vicous min/maxing, leading to exceptionally unrealistic or unusual characters who make no sense except in terms of raw power.

Munchkins are often accused of roll-playing, a pun on 'role' that notes how munchkins are often more concerned with the numbers and die rolls than with the roles that they play.

A more neutral use of the term is in reference to novice players, who, not knowing yet how to roleplay, typically obsess about the statistical "power" of their characters rather than developing their characters' personalities.

A game master who constantly awards players magical or "broken" (overly powerful) items without proper backstory or justification can also be called a munchkin master. Many on-line roleplaying games, such as Diablo II, Final Fantasy XI, and World of Warcraft, foster this sort of roleplaying due to the limitations of MMORPGs in terms of personality. The stimulus created by improving one's equipment and stats can take the place of the emotion that is sometimes attained in "real life" roleplaying.

 

[Rurik]

I am pretty sure all of the Lollipop Kids are Munchkins.

I have long suspected a link between Oompa-Loompa's and Munchkins too.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Dear All,

Of course I couldn't comment...

 

[simonh]

I agree with the poster that munchkinism in terms of just developing an effective character in itself isn't necesserily a bad thing. Doing that from a mechanical point of view doesn't necesserily have any real impact on how well you play your character as a person.

One thing that differentiates RQ from D&D in terms of munchkinism is the very evident, plapable mortality of RQ characters. Even the best armour, the best weapons and the best defensive magic never makes you invulnerable. There is always some level of risk, and in fact often less specialised characeters with a wide array of oddball abilities can prove to be more fun, and effective as characters. It looks like MRQ is keeping with that tradition.

Simon Hibbs

 

[atgxtg]

Munchins is just the Dunkin Donuts brand name for holes. :roll: :wink:

 

[Greg Smith]

Wanting the ability to further tailor your characters by getting 'points' for role-playing flaws is munchkinism at its best.

Wanting a game to provide incentives to create less-than-perfect characters, isn't munchkinism, IMHO. However a player abusing the selection of those flaws is.

Also one of the advantages of having those flaws in the rules, means that they have rules. If I wanted to play a character with claustrophobia, does the GM require me to roll on entering a cavern, when the cavern narrows or when the cavern collapses? What skill do I need to roll? How high? Of course a good GM could wing it, but having the rules provided keep them consistent (so there's no 'but last week I was trapped in a narrow sewer and only had to roll 10, now we are in a gigantic cavern and I have to roll 25!?').

 

[atgxtg]

Wanting the ability to further tailor your characters by getting 'points' for role-playing flaws is munchkinism at its best.

Wanting a game to provide incentives to create less-than-perfect characters, isn't munchkinism, IMHO. However a player abusing the selection of those flaws is.

Quite true. THe term was orginally coined to refer to those players who abadoned all else in a quest for more "plusses" and goodies. The problem wasn't that the players wanted "plusses" or goodies, it was the excess.

Just becuase someone does something fora game benefit isn't munckinism. No more so that when someone sneaks up behind a guard for a bonus to hit and a surprise round. And what about those players who expect to improve their characters with experience (be it points, rolls levels, whatever)? Are they munchkins?

 

[Greg Smith]

And what about those players who expect to improve their characters with experience (be it points, rolls levels, whatever)? Are they munchkins?

Yes. Bring back original Traveller - a game with no experience and that was so deadly you died in character creation. No munchkins there (until they released Mercenary, High Guard etc...)

 

[frobisher]

And what about those players who expect to improve their characters with experience (be it points, rolls levels, whatever)? Are they munchkins?

Yes. Bring back original Traveller - a game with no experience and that was so deadly you died in character creation. No munchkins there (until they released Mercenary, High Guard etc...)

Waddya mean no munchkins - original Traveller was the first game in which I encountered rampant munchkinism. Only it's about the toys, not the rules...

 

[atgxtg]

Waddya mean no munchkins - original Traveller was the first game in which I encountered rampant munchkinism. Only it's about the toys, not the rules...

They had toys? Why doesn't anyone tell me these things!?!

 

[Greg Smith]

Of course. The battle dress/laser rifle standard. :roll:

 

[atgxtg]

Of course. The battle dress/laser rifle standard. :roll:

Wahh, I want one. :'(

Now if I wuz a minchkin I'd want twelve.

 

[Greg Smith]

Traveller Munchkin: Can I wear reflec over battle dress?

 

[Slightly Norse John]

Worse than that.
"Can I fire an FGMP-15 in each hand?"
This was actually from a New Era campaign, in the arms locker of a crashed Mercenary Cruiser. Embarrasingly, there's nothing in the rules to prevent it, the recoil compensators work well enough...
No game is immune to munchkins. Some do their best to suppress the stat- chasing, some throw them a party.
Traveller positively demanded PCs on the shady side of the law. Cyberpunk likewise. When the game world is centred around sneaky, devious, backstabbing, advantage- chasing characters, it seems to bring out the same traits in the players.
And no, you can't get reflec over BD- but you can have a reflec coating applied.

 

[Arkat]

Wanting a game to provide incentives to create less-than-perfect characters, isn't munchkinism, IMHO. However a player abusing the selection of those flaws is.

Also one of the advantages of having those flaws in the rules, means that they have rules. If I wanted to play a character with claustrophobia, does the GM require me to roll on entering a cavern, when the cavern narrows or when the cavern collapses? What skill do I need to roll? How high? Of course a good GM could wing it, but having the rules provided keep them consistent (so there's no 'but last week I was trapped in a narrow sewer and only had to roll 10, now we are in a gigantic cavern and I have to roll 25!?').

True to a point. However wanting 'extra points' for your character for role-playing your character true to your concept rather than just rp-ing it for the enjoyment of it and amusement of your fellow gamers is munchkinning. The RQ rules as they are now seem to be nice and neat in preventing the type of power-gaming that is rampant in D20. Sure there are legendary abilities but you have to WORK to get those and not just have them doled out at regular intervals.

If you want traits & flaws go play a White Wolf game, for me I don't want to see RQ turn into something like that.

 

[atgxtg]

True to a point. However wanting 'extra points' for your character for role-playing your character true to your concept rather than just rp-ing it for the enjoyment of it and amusement of your fellow gamers is munchkinning.

I disagree. Role-playing ture to your concept is generally the best reason for extra points. Remeber XP awards are supposed to be for roleplaying. ROleplaying your concept correctly is worth an award-if a GM is giving out XP, or IP rolls. THat why games that give XP awards adjust them for good role-playing. THat means playing your concept.

Now if the concept is scewed up, say someone who never had any life, and just spent every minute of every day (and all his points) into sword, that might be munkinism.

 

[Arkat]

Recieving extra points during character gen for rp-ing your character properly is like paying you a bonus each week just to do your job normally. You shouldn't need incentive to create an imaginative and enjoyable character. You are at the gaming table to have fun so why should a GM have to bribe you to enjoy yourself?