| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My proposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
A munchkin tries to argue the letter of the rules, versus the spirit of the rules, normally to get an unfair or unintended advantage.
Example-
Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.
At no point does it say the new spell has to come from the sorcerer's spell list., however the intent is pretty clear.
-------------------------------------------------------------------Optimising is a broad term, and it includes min-maxing and powergaming. It is basically using the rules to make your concept come to life. In short everyone optimises to a certain extent.
Min-maxing is basically minimising your weaknesses and maximising your strengths, and I see it as a form of optimisation. A sorcerer as an example would try to build their fort saves up since that is a weak point for that class. A barbarian or fighter would try to boost their will save while still remaining a threat in combat. There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion. Dying is not fun.
Some see a min-maxer as someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area in order to make it dominant somewhere else. This overspecialisation in one area often causes problems for GM's who are unwilling are unable to go after the weakness. If the GM is good with the system and the table does not mind this is less of a problem. It however is just bad optimisation in my opinion, but that is for another thread altogether. I don't even think it deserves a name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Powergamer's try to get every advantage they can within the spirit of the rules. This is not inherently a bad thing. After all nobody likes to die, but when you are well above the group norm for what is acceptable it can become an issue. That does not man the “powergamer” is at fault. Many times it is a combination of a really good character, with characters that are not made so well, or just a “different” playstyle that magnifies the problem. Is powergaming bad? No. Can it cause problems when you are the only one at the table doing it and/or you are much better at it than everyone else? Yes.
PS:I am not seeing these are the current definitions. I am just trying to get a standard so everyone is not using a different definition of the same word.
PS:This might get moved to Gamer Talk, but I figured I would at least try.
edit:Spelling and clarity.
Haha you started the thread I was afraid to start! Thanks, I'm kinda new around here and wasn't sure if I would come across as trolling.
They moved it to Gamertalk pretty quickly. I will post the link in other threads.
Good topic! (and one I hope that can avoid the flaming that sometimes comes with it)
I'm pretty much in agreement with your definitions Wraithstrike.
I think I agree with these definitions. They sum up each fairly well in my opinion.
I don't think the problem is so much in the definitions as it is in the emotional baggage, stereotyping, and attempts to enforce OneWay-ism on others.
Example: "Let's all agree that a 'Southerner' is someone in the U.S. who is from south of the Mason-Dixon line, and a 'Yankee' is someone from north of that line."
Yankee: "That definition sounds fine. But why are all southerners toothless rednecks who can't spell their own names and marry their own sisters?"
Southerner: "Ah agree with your definitions, sir! So now let us kill all of these here dirty, yella-belly, carpet-baggin' yankees... Yee-HAW! The South will rise again!"
I agree, but when when the arguments it is alway nice to know that "wrought" means "wrought", and not some random definition a gamer assigned to it.
Bonus points if anyone remembers the thread of wrought. :)
A munchkin tries to argue the letter of the rules, versus the spirit of the rules, normally to get an unfair or unintended advantage.
Example-
At no point does it say the new spell has to come from the sorcerer's spell list., however the intent is pretty clear.Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.
...but the munckin will argue that because it doesn't say it has to be from the sorcerer's spell list, it can be from any spell list. Seen stuff like this argued <rolls eyes>
Optimising is a broad term, and it includes min-maxing and powergaming. It is basically using the rules to make your concept come to life. In short everyone optimises to a certain extent.
I always saw it as making characters stronger by taking the 'optimal' choices and never taking the 'non-optimal' options. Such as, chooing a two-handed weapon, high strength and Power Attack for a fighter rather than high dex and a rapier.
Min-maxing is basically minimising your weaknesses and maximising your strengths, and I see it as a form of optimisation. A sorcerer as an example would try to build their fort saves up since that is a weak point for that class. A barbarian or fighter would try to boost their will save while still remaining a threat in combat. There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion. Dying is not fun.
Some see a min-maxer as someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area in order to make it dominant somewhere else. This overspecialisation in one area often causes problems for GM's who are unwilling are unable to go after the weakness. If the GM is good with the system and the table does not mind this is less of a problem. It however is just bad optimisation in my opinion, but that is for another thread altogether. I don't even think it deserves a name.
The latter is the definition of min-maxer I am more familiar with, while the former is just a form of optimisation. For example, the dwarf fighter with an intelligence of 7, charisma of 5 and strength and con of 18 is min-maxed IMHO; a fighter with 18 strength, 14 Con and the IQ and social skills to hold a conversation is not. What's often a pain is if the player of the former then roleplays that they are far more clever and more socially skilled than the stats would imply that the character actually is - and I have seen this a lot, where a fighter that is technically a moron barely able to talk starts laying out complex tactics and strategies...
Powergamer's try to get every advantage they can within the spirit of the rules. This is not inherently a bad thing. After all nobody likes to die, but when you are well above the group norm for what is acceptable it can become an issue. That does not man the “powergamer” is at fault. Many times it is a combination of a really good character, with characters that are not made so well, or just a “different” playstyle that magnifies the problem. Is powergaming bad? No. Can it cause problems when you are the only one at the table doing it and/or you are much better at it than everyone else? Yes.
This has always struck me as self-defeating. If everyone does it, then the DM has to up the ante and relatively speaking, everyone is at the same level as they started - save that their choices have been restricted to the powerful options. So nothing achieved. But if everyone doesn't do it, the power gamer stands out and it can cause a problem, so why do it? Sad fact is, many power gamers I have met do it because they want to have the most powerful character in the game.
I always thought min-maxer meant someone who pushed the limits, literally lowering their weaknesses to the minimums allowable by the system in order to achieve the absolute maximums in the areas they wished to specialise in.
I don't think the problem is so much in the definitions as it is in the emotional baggage, stereotyping, and attempts to enforce OneWay-ism on others.
Example: "Let's all agree that a 'Southerner' is someone in the U.S. who is from south of the Mason-Dixon line, and a 'Yankee' is someone from north of that line."
Yankee: "That definition sounds fine. But why are all southerners toothless rednecks who can't spell their own names and marry their own sisters?"
Southerner: "Ah agree with your definitions, sir! So now let us kill all of these here dirty, yella-belly, carpet-baggin' yankees... Yee-HAW! The South will rise again!"
Except I refute your definition of a Southerner. I'm a Marylander, so by your definition I'm a Southerner. But Yanks may call us Southerners-it's happened to my best friend-but Southerners call us Yanks, 'cause we fought on the side of the Union. Therefore, I must be contentious and deny your assertion :p
I would argue that usage of skill points could let someone move around a low ability score quite like how I have seen wizards investing points in Climb and Swim in order to not fall to his death and/or drown should the next obstacle not have readily available work-arounds.
Let's take a fighter with a Charisma of 7.
At the start he is going to be quite useless socially. Let's assume an Int of 14 or higher, for whatever the case. Give the fighter a few levels and we'll see that those 5 points each spent in Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive are starting to make him the equivalent conversationalist of someone with a Charisma of 16. Perhaps he should spend some points in Perform (Dance/Act) to help with that bad posture of his? Maybe Perform (Oratory) to make him able to give rousing speeches?
(Yes, I took quite som inspiration from Ashiel's old thread about "RPing your numbers")
But on the topic of "munchkin"-ing: Crane Style
Reading the RAW there is nothing that prevents you from using this style as pong as you keep at least one hand free from holding a weapon, you could even have a one-handed weapon in a single hand, be unarmed in the other, and use Crane Wing and Crane Riposte to block one attack per turn while striking back through the AoOs with your one-handed weapon.
RAI does not seem to fully contradict this usage considerig how so extremely many martial arts styles can suppliment some hand movements into fighting with weapons of different kinds. Especially amongst the Wushu style of martial arts like the Kung Fu some of the style feats are clearly based on.
Is this yet another example of "Munchkinning" or is it actually something that would fly with you guys?
A munchkin tries to argue the letter of the rules, versus the spirit of the rules, normally to get an unfair or unintended advantage.
Your definitions are reasonable, but the problem remains applying them in specific situations. For example, the 3.5 PHB restricts druids from wearing metal armor, but doesn't specifically restrict their companions from wearing metal barding. So if a druid player wants to dress his his pet in metal barding, does that make him a munchkin?
I'd say yes, without a doubt. It seems crystal clear to me that dressing the companion in metal violates the spirit of the druid's oath and the associated restrictions. But I had a discussion about this in these very forums, in which many people insisted that no, dressing a druid's pet in metal armor is just a fashion statement with an AC bonus. And I have no doubt that none of those gamers think of themselves as munchkins.
Also, I'll never be able to remember any set of definitions for these similar slang terms. Munchkin is a bad word unless I'm talking about the game of that title, but power-gamer-min-maxer-optimizer will always be synonyms in my mind. When I want to be precise, I use adjectives.
I would allow the crane wing thing.
I also think you can optimize a commoner to be good at a day job with something like skill focus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My proposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------
A munchkin tries to argue the letter of the rules, versus the spirit of the rules, normally to get an unfair or unintended advantage.Example-
At no point does it say the new spell has to come from the sorcerer's spell list., however the intent is pretty clear.Upon reaching 4th level, and at every even-numbered sorcerer level after that (6th, 8th, and so on), a sorcerer can choose to learn a new spell in place of one she already knows. In effect, the sorcerer loses the old spell in exchange for the new one. The new spell's level must be the same as that of the spell being exchanged. A sorcerer may swap only a single spell at any given level, and must choose whether or not to swap the spell at the same time that she gains new spells known for the level.
I would call this a rules-lawyer.
I would say a munchkin was more broad. A rules lawyer is a type of munchkin, but there are other types, like the guy who solves all the riddles with a Int of 6, or the build that requires you to change alignment 4 times.
I would define a munchkin as anyone who ignores all aspects of the game other than making his character more powerful, regardless of how successful he is at becoming more powerful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Optimising is a broad term, and it includes min-maxing and powergaming. It is basically using the rules to make your concept come to life. In short everyone optimises to a certain extent.Min-maxing is basically minimising your weaknesses and maximising your strengths, and I see it as a form of optimisation. A sorcerer as an example would try to build their fort saves up since that is a weak point for that class. A barbarian or fighter would try to boost their will save while still remaining a threat in combat. There is nothing wrong with this in my opinion. Dying is not fun.
Some see a min-maxer as someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area in order to make it dominant somewhere else. This overspecialisation in one area often causes problems for GM's who are unwilling are unable to go after the weakness. If the GM is good with the system and the table does not mind this is less of a problem. It however is just bad optimisation in my opinion, but that is for another thread...
I agree with your definition of min-maxing.
The crippling overspecialisation guy, if he is doing it because he thinks it is powerful, he is a bad min-maxer (because you have just maximized your strengths and your weaknesses.) Maybe a max-maxer?. If he is doing it because he thinks it would make an interesting character, he is just an ordinary player.
I would define a power gamer with a negative connotation. He is the guy who takes optimizing too far, to the point that he does not need his teammates to succeed. He thinks the point of Pathfinder is to "win" and will play competively instead of cooperatively with his group and GM. Note that the powergamer and the munchkin have a lot of overlap in my definition.
To be honest, the metal ban itself is silly. So a druid can wield metal weapons, but can't wear metal armor? How about brooches and amulets? Gozreh's awful particular.
Is it a safety precaution? Druids do use lightning spells a lot. Maybe it was just a practical move that got distorted over time into an important tradition.
Some see a min-maxer as someone is willing to accept making his character really weak in one area in order to make it dominant somewhere else. This overspecialisation in one area often causes problems for GM's who are unwilling are unable to go after the weakness. If the GM is good with the system and the table does not mind this is less of a problem. It however is just bad optimisation in my opinion, but that is for another thread...
I would call this Maxing, not mini-maxing. It is where the player wants to be overly good at his role (who doesn't) but at the same time more dependent on a team (or at least ends up that way).
But min-maxing is all about minimizing one factor to maximize another. How else does one define it? :P
But min-maxing is all about minimizing one factor to maximize another. How else does one define it? :P
Minimizing your weaknesses and maximizing your strengths.
As the OP stated:
Min-maxing is basically minimising your weaknesses and maximising your strengths, and I see it as a form of optimisation. A sorcerer as an example would try to build their fort saves up since that is a weak point for that class. A barbarian or fighter would try to boost their will save while still remaining a threat in combat.
I believe that this is the point of the thread, to try to get people to a consensus on definitions.
That's what I said. Minimizing your weaknesses overall minimizes one factor, creating a big weakness. Example: Creating a wizard with low Str and Con but high Int minimizes one factor (melee) to maximize another (magic). I'll try to be more exact from now on.
That's what I said. Minimizing your weaknesses overall minimizes one factor, creating a big weakness. Example: Creating a wizard with low Str and Con but high Int minimizes one factor (melee) to maximize another (magic). I'll try to be more exact from now on.
No no, I was saying the opposite. If you have a weakness, like will saves for fighters , then you minimize the impact of that weakness, by dipping cleric or investing in a +save magic item.
So you MAXIMIZE your weaknesses.
Or something.
>.> <.<
I've always thought of a min-maxer as wraith's second definition: big strength, but also a big weakness.
Minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strength sounds more like ideal optimization to me, but to those who define min-maxer that way: the 'max' has to come from SOMEWHERE, doesn't it? I mean, the cost of specialization is to be weaker in every other non-specialized area. How would a min-weakness max-strength character cover for the implicit cost of maximizing their strength?
I would call this a rules-lawyer.
A rules-lawyer is anyone who likes to argue/debate/correct rules, which is not inherently a bad thing. It is when you do it with bad intentions that you are a munchkin.
As an example if the GM does not take his attack of opportunity against me, and I call him out despite him "forgetting" on purpose, that would make me a rules lawyer, but not a munchkin.
So we want to say that min-maxing is increasing your strength, but also your weakness such as a caster with low con, but high intelligence?
We will get to the other definitions later.
Remember the goal here is not to argue what you commonly use, but to come to a consensus.
I would say the simplest example of min maxing is a dump stat.
I would say the simplest example of min maxing is a dump stat.
You can dump a stat for optimisation though. Many people also look at the extreme to which you dump a stat. That is a playstyle issue with regard to how much of a dump is too much of a dump.
Before we too far into that though, do you look as min-maxing as minimizing weakness and maximizing strengths as O described in the opening post or maximizing strengths at the cost of making yourself weaker in another area.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about this
Min Maxer: wants to be awesome at one thing and will sacrifice greatly in at least one area to max out his specialty.
Optimizer: wants to make good choices so he can contribute well in the role he's designed to perform. Considers things like shoring up weaknesses that Min Maxer may overlook.
Powergamer: wants to be as effective as possible even by choosing options that are difficult to justify in terms of character concept. Adheres to RAW as well as RAI but in a way that takes maximum advantage of synergies and combinations no matter how much suspension of disbelief is required to imagine the character existing in the setting.
Munchkin: like the Powergamer, but delights in bypassing RAI, and has a play style that attempts to eclipse others at the table without regard for their fun.
I like those also.
I'd agree with Grimmy's definitions.
But on the topic of "munchkin"-ing: Crane Style
Reading the RAW there is nothing that prevents you from using this style as long as you keep at least one hand free from holding a weapon, you could even have a one-handed weapon in a single hand, be unarmed in the other, and use Crane Wing and Crane Riposte to block one attack per turn while striking back through the AoOs with your one-handed weapon.
RAI does not seem to fully contradict this usage considerig how so extremely many martial arts styles can suppliment some hand movements into fighting with weapons of different kinds. Especially amongst the Wushu style of martial arts like the Kung Fu some of the style feats are clearly based on.
Is this yet another example of "Munchkinning" or is it actually something that would fly with...
I'd fly with it. If you look at the pre-reqs of Crane Style, by the time you get Crane Riposte (assuming you are not a monk) you have blown five feats and have to fight with one hand free to deflect one attack per round and gain one AoO from it. It's a good investment but it is not game-breaking, especially given the multiple attacks you are going to come under from some foes you will face by the time you get the final feat.
@ Min-Max: A min-maxer tries to maximise one thing. If something else has to suffer, so be it, but the min-maxer always tries to 'suffer' in an unimportant stat. (Or what he perceives to be unimportant.) As Grimmy says, dump statting is the classic example of min-maxing. A fighter puts his lowest rolls in Int and Cha, and puts his best in Str. A wizard puts his lowest in Str and Cha, and his highest in Int. Everyone min-maxes to one degree or other, and it's not mutually exclusive with personality- and history-building.
To be honest, the metal ban itself is silly. So a druid can wield metal weapons, but can't wear metal armor? How about brooches and amulets? Gozreh's awful particular.
Is it a safety precaution? Druids do use lightning spells a lot. Maybe it was just a practical move that got distorted over time into an important tradition.
It's totally silly, and I'm glad 4e dropped it. Druids and druid-y classes are set up so that leather and hide armor are the obvious choices, but one could learn to wear metal armor if he so chose. Don't know how PF handles it.
I've been using "cheese" to mean the following for a while now:
Cheese: Ignoring the intent of the rules when it is advantageous to follow the written word, rather than the intent.
Which falls in with your proposed Munchkin definition.
Although, this seems partially an attempt to whitewash the terms, which I would suggest people attempt to avoid.
But min-maxing is all about minimizing one factor to maximize another. How else does one define it? :P
the mini in mini-maxing as noted above is where they are their weaknesses. In this case they are doing the exact opposite, they are totally trashing it.
Hehe, we used to have a similar column in our gaming-club's newspaper back at university (about 15 years ago). Each week, the column tackled a new game system, finding what the munchking would do/select as a class or concept compared to the powergamer etc...
Archetypes were slightly different:
Munckin wanted to exploit the system's weaknesses and loopholes to its advantages (including weaknesses and soft spots of other players) in order to "win the game".
Powergamer wanted to play the most macho, powerful "save the damsel in distress" gritty character to live out its own epic fantasies.
Loonie wanted to play in almost ridicule ways, always picking strange and delirious concepts (Kenders and Malkavians being stereotypical choices)
Roleplayer wanted to make a Shakespearean play out of every game. Mechanics were only an afterthought compare to the story-potential of the character concept.
fun times...
[edit] back to OP
I really think that still today, the desire of "winning the game" with every exploitation possible is quintessential to the Munchkin stereotype.
Min-maxing and optimising are similar insofar as emphasis is put on strengths to the detriments of weaknesses that aren't likely to matter much for that character. The main difference is that "pure min-maxing" doesn't care much for a character concept, it cares only for efficiency. Optimising makes the best for the initial character concept, which does not have to be an "optimal" choice of concept in the first place.
I've seen many definitions of powergaming over time, but I still prefer those about the way people play and their preference in style as opposed to how they make their characters and their relationship to the rules. You could thus have an optimizing powergamer, the same way you could have a optimising roleplayer or a roleplaying powergamer for that matter....
The idea of being powerful is obviously central to the powergamer, but power is relative. The feeling of defeating a dragon (as opposed to a handful of goblins) is just as exhilarating regardless of the amount of "pluses" on your sword of bad-assery. Coveting that sword of bad-assery is definitely a powergamer trait however, regardless of what it is (as long as it's bad-ass enough, as opposed to the "knife of sneakiness" or the "bow of shooting from very very far away").
I don't like "min-max" as a term because of the ambiguity.
I'd submit that "hyper-specialists" (for the people who accept outrageous weaknesses in order to pump a specific strength) vs. "bet-hedgers" (for the people who minimize the impacts of their weaknesses) would be clearer terms.
Hehe, here's a functional definition:
Optimizer: Somebody who makes characters that are more optimized than the average in our party
Min-Maxer: Somebody who does it that we feel mildly negatively towards
Powergamer: As above, but we really dislike them
Munchkin: Not only do we dislike them, we consider them the 'OTHER'tm
This sounds about right.
I might as well throw in the definitions for these terms as I see them.
Optimizer:
Uses system mastery to make a powerful character. Optimizes as many relevant strengths as he can (ex. maxing out social skills for a intrigue campaign). If combat is not the primary focus of optimization, it is still secondary, the optimizer can still contribute meaningfully. Sometimes (but certainly not always!) the optimizer will start with an suboptimal concept, and make the best of it.
For example, a small race martial character. You start with -2 Str, small weapons, and often times 20ft speed. The optimizer will say "That's an average of -2 damage per hit. I can still build this to be an effective fighter/barbarian/whatever." (-1 from strength, -1 from weapon size. The -1 hit from strength penalty is canceled by the size bonus to hit). He might have some way to turn the weakness into a strength, such as a feat made for the small race's fighters.
Min-Maxer:
The Min-Maxer also uses system mastery to make a powerful character, but he wants to reach peak efficiency. This means your race gets stat bonuses to the primary ability, and either has useful racial bonuses to the area of optimization, or a bonus to the secondary ability as well.
Powergamer:
Uses system mastery to make a powerful character. For the game.
Munchkin:
Here we go, this is the term I associate with getting in the way of fun/cheating. The Munchkin may or may not have system mastery. Whether or not he does, he is willing to stoop to some or all of the following (and other stuff unlisted): Using misprints as RAW, making tenuous interpretations, making stuff up.
The Munchkin might try to bring Pun-Pun to the table, which is meant as a theoretical build to show off system mastery, not for actual use. Of course, the problem can be that different people draw the line for theoretical builds/for-play builds in different places, but if you don't draw it at Pun-Pun, you don't have a game.
Summary: I don't think there is a huge difference between a powergamer/optimizer/min-maxer. These are people that have achieved system mastery and like to use it. I don't consider them to be derogatory terms, and count myself as any of them (though I think "powergamer" or "optimizer" sound better than "min-maxer"). I think that these people also have a duty to help other players optimize their characters (if the other players want help improving their character's crunch and don't have the system mastery yet).
Of course, everyone has their own interpretation. Hopefully mine is helpful in representing some portion of the population. The people that don't like being treated as cheaters when they avoid anything that could have a different interpretation or RAI without consulting the DM first.
I agree, but when when the arguments it is alway nice to know that "wrought" means "wrought", and not some random definition a gamer assigned to it.
Bonus points if anyone remembers the thread of wrought. :)
Ugh. Refridgerator.
I might as well throw in the definitions for these terms as I see them.
Optimizer:
Uses system mastery to make a powerful character. Optimizes as many relevant strengths as he can (ex. maxing out social skills for a intrigue campaign). If combat is not the primary focus of optimization, it is still secondary, the optimizer can still contribute meaningfully. Sometimes (but certainly not always!) the optimizer will start with an suboptimal concept, and make the best of it.For example, a small race martial character. You start with -2 Str, small weapons, and often times 20ft speed. The optimizer will say "That's an average of -2 damage per hit. I can still build this to be an effective fighter/barbarian/whatever." (-1 from strength, -1 from weapon size. The -1 hit from strength penalty is canceled by the size bonus to hit). He might have some way to turn the weakness into a strength, such as a feat made for the small race's fighters.
Min-Maxer:
The Min-Maxer also uses system mastery to make a powerful character, but he wants to reach peak efficiency. This means your race gets stat bonuses to the primary ability, and either has useful racial bonuses to the area of optimization, or a bonus to the secondary ability as well.Powergamer:
Uses system mastery to make a powerful character. For the game.Munchkin:
Here we go, this is the term I associate with getting in the way of fun/cheating. The Munchkin may or may not have system mastery. Whether or not he does, he is willing to stoop to some or all of the following (and other stuff unlisted): Using misprints as RAW, making tenuous interpretations, making stuff up.The Munchkin might try to bring Pun-Pun to the table, which is meant as a theoretical build to show off system mastery, not for actual use. Of course, the problem can be that different people draw the line for theoretical builds/for-play builds in different places, but if you don't draw it at Pun-Pun, you don't have a game.
Summary: I don't think there is a huge...
The differences are intent-based.
Optimizer wants to build as awesome character as he can, that still works in a group.Min-maxer does the same, but cares more about their own experince, but can still work well in a group.
A munchkin wants to break the rules to satisfy his own need to win, at the expense of everyone else at the table.
Although, this seems partially an attempt to whitewash the terms, which I would suggest people attempt to avoid.
Whitewash? If that means make it sound nicer than what it is, I don't see how. I basically call munchkins cheaters because that is how I view people who try to go with the letter of the rules, when they know it is not the spirit of the rules.
If that is not what you meant then I am confused.
Hehe, here's a functional definition:
Optimizer: Somebody who makes characters that are more optimized than the average in our party
Min-Maxer: Somebody who does it that we feel mildly negatively towards
Powergamer: As above, but we really dislike them
Munchkin: Not only do we dislike them, we consider them the 'OTHER'tmIt's a lot like the difference between a person who makes prudent preparations, a stockpiler, and a 'hoarder'...to wit
WE make prudent preparations
YOU accumulate a stockpile
THEY hoard.
For Optimizer we would have to define the "average" party. That is a discussion I don't even want to get into. I think Grimmy's definition better, actually for all of them.
So we basically agree the munchkins are cheaters. That is one word down I think. :)
Perhaps by your definitions, Kryzbyn :P
The point of the topic is that everyone has their own interpretations of these words. I use them as more or less synonyms (except Munchkin).
Although, this seems partially an attempt to whitewash the terms, which I would suggest people attempt to avoid.
It's definitely not an attempt to whitewash the terms. Me and Wraith wanted this thread to help with people talking past each other in other threads. If we have a common definition we won't see so much miscommunication.
I think you can optimize, and still be within the average of the party. I prefer powergamer for that definition. That leaves room for people who try to make good builds, but don't try to "steal the show", so to speak, since a word with no negative connotation is needed.
Powergamer: wants to be as effective as possible even by choosing options that are difficult to justify in terms of character concept. Adheres to RAW as well as RAI but in a way that takes maximum advantage of synergies and combinations no matter how much suspension of disbelief is required to imagine the character existing in the setting.
That is a way to describe someone who might intentionally or even accidental steal the show because they are trying to make super character all the time.
It is also more definitive than "As above, but we really dislike them ".
Personally if a player tries to go beyond the accepted group power level then the player is just being inconsiderate in most situations. That "munchkin" is more likely to do something like that.
Perhaps by your definitions, Kryzbyn :P
The point of the topic is that everyone has their own interpretations of these words. I use them as more or less synonyms (except Munchkin).
So what you're saying is..
"They all look the same to me.." :P
Wraithstrike:
Perhaps there is another term you should have in your definitions: Cheater. I think it is one we can all agree on at least. :D
- Gauss
How about this
Min Maxer: wants to be awesome at one thing and will sacrifice greatly in at least one area to max out his specialty.
Optimizer: wants to make good choices so he can contribute well in the role he's designed to perform. Considers things like shoring up weaknesses that Min Maxer may overlook.
Powergamer: wants to be as effective as possible even by choosing options that are difficult to justify in terms of character concept. Adheres to RAW as well as RAI but in a way that takes maximum advantage of synergies and combinations no matter how much suspension of disbelief is required to imagine the character existing in the setting.
Munchkin: like the Powergamer, but delights in bypassing RAI, and has a play style that attempts to eclipse others at the table without regard for their fun.
It seems these are pretty much accepted. If anyone has good reason to not use these please explain why. I would prefer another word to replace optimizer, and have optimizer as a broad term with the other ones being more specific, but I can't think of one. Then again if everyone is always building their character to be at least competent at what they want it to do it might not need a special word.