Who are you calling a Munchkin?

[Utgardloki]

If I were a munchkin, I wouldn't be wasting my time with Runequest. I bookshelves full of D20 manuals, and I've run a D20 World War II game. It was a blast. 8)

On the other hand, I could also run Call of Cthulhu. It's a good game, and it already has rules for the 20th Century. It's just that CoC didn't seem to offer support for the kinds of heroes who were more than ordinary.

Then MRQ came out, and it looks close to what I'm looking for. Maybe if I up the power level just a little bit, it will be cool.

Of course, upping the power level in a Runequest game is a double-edged sword. After all, in Runequest, you wouldn't want to get into a duel with M-16s at 20 paces. Whoever won the initiative would win. :shock:

Also, if you remember, I was the one who did not believe in "role-playing disadvantages" such as character flaws and quirks. In my opinion, you don't "take" the Cowardly disadvantage; you role-play a cowardly character. You might not even have it written on your character sheet. In my opinion, Hero Points in part represent good role-playing. So if your role-playing a cowardly character makes the game more interesting, you get an extra hero point. If your role-playing a cowardly character causes problems in the game and makes the game less fun, you lose a hero point.

The only mental disadvantages I'd allow are ones like phobia, which assess a distinct penalty in a situation that's likely to occur. And you don't get hero points for role-playing that; you get your points the one time when you take the disadvantage.

But I didn't start this thread to talk about the merits or demerits of disadvantages.

 

[atgxtg]

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?

No, it is like paying you a hiring bonus for being compentent.

Otherwise don't give out XP at all. The wwhole point behind GM assigned awards is that they are rewards. FOr example, in the MRQ book it states that 3 IP are the average award and that it can be modifed depending on if the character performed heroically or poorly.

How do you judge that if not by roleplaying? DO you just give exta IPs to the guy with the hot hand?


I don't see anything wrong with giveing someone something for developing a intersting character and playing it correctly. I also don't see a problem with giving someone something for having a trait that works to a character's disadvantage. Characters that accept a more dangerous mission get greater rewards, this is the same sort of thing.I run an played in lots of differernt RPGs with traits and flaws and munchinism was never a problem.

The whole reason for the points is that the flaws will cause trouble. If a peanlty gives a 20 pint bonus or some such, it is going to have a drawback that will haunt the character.

As far as rewards for using traits during play, it balance out too. I once ran a GURPS campaign where one of the players took his 5 points of "quirks" but never role-played them. He might have "gotten away" with 5 "free character" points, but every time he failed to role-play his quirks, he lost the extra point for role-playing. Over the course of six months we kept track and the player paid about 20 points in experience in the deal.

I just don't see how advantages/disadvantages can be a problem for an experienced GM to handle.

 

[Enpeze]

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.

I agree with your opinion. But I think its a little bit over the top to recommend changing the system just because someone wants to have an advantage subsystem during character creation.

IMO noone should change the system. And certainly not to White Wolf stuff. (shudder)

Runequest needs every player it can get. If Utgardloki and some other wants to introduce advantages in their games, why not? Personally I dont think its useful (because of the reasons I mentioned in another thread) and I would never use it. But its their game and if their players are happy with the change...

Heck they could even use a 2H penguin for attacking the ducks.

 

[zanshin]

I remember Munchkin being in use in 1982/83 so its been around a while.

I am lucky enough not to experience it in my games now, but from memory I would see Munchkinism as not power gaming/min-maxing , but a purely selfish attitude to the game and abuse of the rules to express ones ego in competition with others, rather than engaging in a team experience.

Come to think of it i have experienced it alot in the MMORPG World of Warcraft.

Flaws etc ? I certainly dont need it in my game, but if it helps others I dont see a problem

One thing i don't ever do now as a gm is give differential experience awards. It creates friction and detracts from the gaming experience. What I will do is respond to story interests expressed by players, and try to give all the players chances for the spotlight to shine on them. So good roleplaying is rewarded by chances to roleplay. Which is what its all about.

Plus phat lewt of course - gief me epixxx !11!1!

 

[Greg Smith]

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.

There are plenty of games other than White Wolf ones that give points for merits and flaws. In fact the idea goes back way before WW was even around.

I do think points for flaws is good thing. Even the best role-player with the most interesting character background might never chose to make his character phobic of snakes. Giving points for them encourages the players who would not normally do so to make their characters a little bit more intereseting.

In a perfect world, where every player is a great role-player and the rest of the party won't winge and whine when your character doesn't back them up 'Hey, I said I was a coward,' then pointing flaws would be unnecesary.

 

[atgxtg]

THe first games that I can think of that had flaws in some fashiopn was probably Chivalry & SOrcery, and Arduin. Both had "bogies" tables that player could roll on for specialties. Some rolls were good, others were not.

THe first games that had a point buy system for advatages and disavantages that Ican recall were Champions, and Superworld (the latter a RQ deriative). So andvatages/disadvatages actually originated in RQ.

Come to thinmk of it most of the RPGs I like have rules for such things. I was very fond of the way they handed traitsin Prince Valaint. It is actually worth the points-especially if the player dices to take the extreme "obsessive" version for double points.


There what they did was if a character had a trait and used it realticially and logically during the course of the adventure, he got an extra award at the end of the adventure. In MRQ terms this could be an extra IP roll or Hero Point given at the end of the adventure. A play could opt to downplay a trait, b ut then got no reward. For example, a "Rewckless" hero might not be so reckless as to attack a dragon. He woudln't get any bonus for acting reckless that session, but he'd probably be better off for it.

If someone took an obsession, they got double the awards, but did have to act obseesibvely about the behavior. SO some who was obsessively Reckless wouldn't back down from the dragon, and get double the reward-at the end of the adventure, assuming he was still around.

 

[Arkat]

The first one I can remember having them was Ars Magica. I don't remember C&S or Arduin ever having flaws but it's been a while since I've looked at those books or played it (own one, played both).

The whole point of traits/flaws is that your 'pre-paying' a player for role-playing they haven't done yet. The system works for some games that integrate it right into thier rules set (Champions) but asking for it as an add-on smacks of munchkinning to me. Allowing players to 'tweak' thier character by getting extra points for flaws or with 'feats' or 'prestige classes' is a damn slippery slope.

 

[Greg Smith]

The first one I can recall was James Bond 007 where players could take a flaw or two such as a phobia or weakness for the opposite sex (such as Bond himself had) for a handfull of points.

 

[Rurik]

The first one I can recall was James Bond 007 where players could take a flaw or two such as a phobia or weakness for the opposite sex (such as Bond himself had) for a handfull of points.

Did anyone who played Bond ever NOT take weakness for opposite sex?

 

[atgxtg]

Champion came out in 81, Superwordl in 82, and Bond in 83. From what I rewcall Champions was being sold in "ziplock" format at cons, so it is probably the first to use a pint per disadvantage method. Superworld came out shoertly after, but based on the similarities, I susepct that Steve Perrin probably had a copy of Chamipons and Chaosium wanted to do a RQ based Super game.

C&S and Ardiun had tables that you rolled on. With luck you could have all sorts of strange powers and abilities or go up in XP faster if you picked a certain class, etc. Basically if was something for nothing, EXCEPT that if you rolled bad you got something bad. Think of is as given each player a free roll on the Chaotic Feature/Curse of Thed charts. It was a bit different, but that will give you an idea.


As far as the Pre-payment idea goes-welll that is one way of doing it, and the way Champions and moany other games did it. I don't have a problme with that. We "Pre-pay" characters in all sorts of ways during character creation. We let them have free experience with weapons and other skills based on taking a background/profession that they have to roleplay. We even let people wield magical abilities "in advance" as long as they roleplay a shaman or wizard.

I don't see why letting someone get a few extra point in sword skill for taking the noble profession without playing it is any better than giving someone a few extra points of First aid or Medicine for playing a hemopheliac. Come to think of it-typing the bonus gained to the disadvantage might be a good idea.

Each disadvantage could have a list of skills to pick from to apply the bonus. So a character who is boastful might get a bonus to something like ifluence or orate.


The thing is, the ads/flaws thing was buillt into an early version of RQ/BRP, so there is a precendent.

For someone who doesn't like the "pre-piad" ide the reward for play method used by Prience Valiant and several other RPGs works good too. THat is you get the reward if you play the flaw. THe James BInd game did a pre-paid menhod, but your XP awards at the end of a session could varry up or down by 50% based upon how well you played your character. So if your character was a skirt chaser and you didn't hit on at least one pretty girl during the course of a typical Bond-style adventure, you'd loose far more in XP that you got during character creation.

I think the determining factor is how the advantages/flaws are implemented by a GM and players. If the concept is valid things work. If the "concept" is nothing more than an excuse to create a mega character, then the GM should step in an eithe rfix the matter right off, or simply use the 80 something points of disadvantages on "Superman's sheet and thow in some krytonite.

IN my local groups there are some flaws that no one will take because they know that in role-playing terms the flaws are practially suicidal. FOr instance, no one will take the White Wolf flae where everything someone says is taken in the worst possibly way. We pretty much determined that the flaw will destroy any character in play.

 

[Malakor]

as I recall (and I'm an old fart, I may be mistaken), early versions of Rolemaster had a similar table for rolling for 'goodies'. They've built this into later editons as point purchased advantages and such, but most of the early ones had some really nice feature, with a built in disadvantage attached to it. They were rather interesting.

 

[Utgardloki]

One thing is that I am here posting as a GM. Many of my ideas for advantages actually work to the disadvantage of the PCs, because they now have to use their hero points to purchase advantages to use certain skills such as CPR.

I've divided Martial Arts into four separate skills, so PCs who want to become accomplished martial artists have to build all four of them up. Also, Martial Arts skill does not automatically grant PCs a +1d6 to damage, but instead only raises their basic damage bonus based on how much skill they have. Until a PC gets very skilled with Martial Arts, this is less than the gain granted by the book.

Another thing to consider is that some of my ideas only are for NPCs. For example, the Immortal thread was intended to get a handle on how to stat out NPCs who are immortal and therefore have had centuries to build up their skills. That thread did spark some ideas about running a campaign with immortal PCs, but I probably won't be doing that for game balance reasons.

On the other hand, if the PCs are going to be dealing with a 6,000 year old vampire, he probably will be tough. :twisted:

I am in part motivated by experiences as a player in games, where there are times I wished my CoC character could do this or I appreciated being able to do that with a D&D character. But again, that's about trying to make my own game as fun as it can be, because other players probably have similar thoughts.

So I guess the moral of the story is that I'm not a munchkin, I'm a krunchkin. I krunch in order to create a game that is fun and challenging.

 

[atgxtg]

I'd just be careful about overdoing it. SInce the learning rate is fixed (3 IP per adventure), the more you break up skills the lest people know.

Having been certified for CPR, I'd just put it in the First Aid skill-there really ins't much to it.

 

[Utgardloki]

I was confused about how the Improvement Rolls worked. I thought PCs somehow got a variable number depending on how well they did.

I liked the old way of automatically getting an improvement roll for a skill that you successfully used for the adventure. I think in RQ-U, I'll only have automatic skill rolls after a PC has succeeded three times in a skill on three different days, and limit improvement rolls to once a game week on one skill. Automatic improvement rolls also don't automatically increase the skill by 1 point if the character rolls under the current skill.

I'll also give each PC one Improvement Roll for each Hero Point that he earns. These Improvement Rolls can be used to raise any skills desired (still limited to one roll on a skill per week) and automatically raise the skill by 1 point if the player rolls under the skill, or by 1d6 points if the player rolls over the skill. I just like d6s better than d4s.

(Players can roll for as many skills in one game week as required, although maybe I should limit it to half the PC's INT just for some sort of realism factor. If a PC has a really good game week, he just has to spend more than a week reflecting over his experiences.)

 

[atgxtg]

I prefer the experience checks to IP rolls too. It seems= alot of people like to hand out points. Some people complain about "skill check hunting" but according the to RQ rules about frivolous checks I don't see "cjheck hunting" being viable. As far as changing weapong in combat to get extra checks, I have had one guy try that in RQ, and he died when his 30% greatsword skill didn't replace his 80% axe attack and shield parry.

 

[gamesmeister]

I prefer the experience checks to IP rolls too. It seems= alot of people like to hand out points. Some people complain about "skill check hunting" but according the to RQ rules about frivolous checks I don't see "cjheck hunting" being viable. As far as changing weapong in combat to get extra checks, I have had one guy try that in RQ, and he died when his 30% greatsword skill didn't replace his 80% axe attack and shield parry.

I'll also be using experience checks ala RQ2. I don't understand the reason for Mongoose's move to IP points, as it seems to me it's more likely to make characters very one dimensional - in my view it's one of the few things they got really wrong in MRQ.

As for frivolous checks, who's the GM here??? If some bozo tried to switch to using a greatsword in the middle of battle just to get an experience check, even if he survived I'd almost certainly rule that he didn't have enough opportunity to learn from the experience - other than to not do it again. If on the other hand his axe breaks, or he has a good roleplaying reason to do so, that's fair enough.

Exp checks are the norm when you successfully perform a skill in a stressful situation, but they're not guaranteed and the GM's word is still final. If you stop roleplaying and start performing pointless actions just to get a check, no GM worth his salt will let you get away with it. I know I wont! :!:

Gerry

 

[Arkat]

I'll also be using experience checks ala RQ2. I don't understand the reason for Mongoose's move to IP points, as it seems to me it's more likely to make characters very one dimensional - in my view it's one of the few things they got really wrong in MRQ.

As for frivolous checks, who's the GM here??? If some bozo tried to switch to using a greatsword in the middle of battle just to get an experience check, even if he survived I'd almost certainly rule that he didn't have enough opportunity to learn from the experience - other than to not do it again. If on the other hand his axe breaks, or he has a good roleplaying reason to do so, that's fair enough.

Exp checks are the norm when you successfully perform a skill in a stressful situation, but they're not guaranteed and the GM's word is still final. If you stop roleplaying and start performing pointless actions just to get a check, no GM worth his salt will let you get away with it. I know I wont!

Check hunting can and is still done in character. Of course there's always the problem of someone fudging thier rolls once they get to resolve thier checks. I've seen that a few too many times so the new system is worth a try for me.

 

[atgxtg]

Check hunting can and is still done in character. Of course there's always the problem of someone fudging thier rolls once they get to resolve thier checks. I've seen that a few too many times so the new system is worth a try for me.

I never had a problem with check hunting though. It is sually pretty obvious. I don't mind the weapon swtiching in combat, as that tends to work itself out to a voilent conclusion. A player is taking a risk by prolonging the combat.

Still, for those who want IP's here they are.