This is something my group has discussed from time to time, and it came up in another forum so I thought I'd broach the subject here.
I have most often heard the term munchkin used to describe a player who is always trying to min/max their character and is primarily interested in getting as many powerful magical items as possible. Note the difference between the munchkin and the Monty Haul campaign, where a DM gives out too much power too quickly or easily.
The negative concept of a munchkin, I believe, is an unrealistic expectation imposed by who knows when and who knows where. I think it exists to create a false divide between people who consider themselves to be "better" roleplayers than others (and a superiority complex in D&D is a pretty weak thing to have).
I posit that munchkins are, in fact, often better, more realistic roleplayers than those who deride them. Consider this: if you really were your character, and you made your living performing regularly life-threatening tasks, would you not want to have the best possible equipment for the job? If it meant the difference between living and dying, would you not opt for the least fair method of doing battle?
Imagine a soldier given a choice between a .38 revolver and an AK-47. The soldier will choose the rifle in probably all cases. Then, imagine that the choice is between the AK-47 and the same weapon, but one that would magically never jam or run out of ammunition. Clearly, any military in the world would leap at the chance to have such a radically superior firearm, and soldiers would do everything they could to acquire one.
Munchkins, players who try to min/max every last detail, are behaving more like their characters would in a real life situation. Even players who focus on non-combat aspects will max out their diplomacy and related skills for the same reason-- in real life, intelligent people do everything they can to be as effective as possible at whatever their task is.
Furthermore, players who don't want to play characters with average stats are probably being more realistic as well. Consider how many people in the world do truly exceptional things-- you can even include works of fiction as well. Can anyone honestly think of any examples of a typical, average sort of person consistently placing themselves in harm's way as a way of making a living? I'd be more than willing to bet that the average firefighter has some much better stat scores than the average person. I'd be equally willing to bet that a Navy SEAL has MUCH better scores than a +5 bonus overall-- and those are the types of people who become combat experts, not random accountants off the streets. Similarly, even for non-combat things, it takes MUCH more charisma and intelligence to be a masterful politician, musician, or even comedian than an average person possesses.
In any martial art, people with average abilities tend to end up as mediocre fighters-- just as people with average abilities tend toward mediocrity in ALL aspects of life. Having a character who has slightly better than average scores means that the highest they can hope to achieve is being slightly above mediocrity.
So it seems to me that players who accept that a real person will do everything they can to maximize their chances of survival, and who also accept that average or slightly above average people rarely accomplish more than slightly above average things, are the ones who truly are playing their characters correctly in their role.
I think it exists to create a false divide between people who consider themselves to be "better" roleplayers than others (and a superiority complex in D&D is a pretty weak thing to have).I posit that munchkins are, in fact, often better, more realistic roleplayers than those who deride them. Consider this: if you really were your character, and you made your living performing regularly life-threatening tasks, would you not want to have the best possible equipment for the job? If it meant the difference between living and dying, would you not opt for the least fair method of doing battle?
Imagine a soldier given a choice between a .38 revolver and an AK-47. The soldier will choose the rifle in probably all cases. Then, imagine that the choice is between the AK-47 and the same weapon, but one that would magically never jam or run out of ammunition. Clearly, any military in the world would leap at the chance to have such a radically superior firearm, and soldiers would do everything they could to acquire one.
I think it is all relative.
To me someone who tries to get all the magical gear he can get is just someone who wants everything there is to have. Like you said they are playing their strengths. No harm there. But me personally where is the challenge in the game when you have all that gear so that nothing can touch your character?Would the game not then become boring and very predictable. Ex. You walk into a dragons lair and kill the beast because of the + 1000(i am exagerating but just trying to get the point across)sword I am carrying and the magical armour that makes me invisible, etheral and immortal all at the same time. (again exaggerating).
Yes in reality we try to get every edge we can to get by especially when it comes to saving lives. Your example of firemen. They don't do it for the challenge or anything like that they don't lay it all on the line for the rush, or anything like that at all (although saving lives is fun) but they do it because they want to help people. Most times when you ask someone why they want to be something like that it is because they want to make a difference. And as for having superior "stats" scores than a regular joe. Well most firemen and police officers I have met are no different than me and I think I am pretty regular. Its just that they are in a job that puts them in irregular situations and that is where the diffence is. But I am getting off topic.
Munchkinism is all relative, as you said a superiority complex in D&D is not very good to have. However you mention what playing the character as what you would do in reality? Well D&D is not reality as we all know, it is all fantasy. As well getting back to the relative part, what you think is munchkinism is by none probably what I think as munchkinism, and saying that someone is a better roleplayer all depends, to me personally, on whether he is consistent with his character. Does he think that this is what my character would do or this is what he should do (i.e. a dyint paladin is offered help from an evil cleric does he accept it, no, should he, yes, because he is DYING!), to hell with character playing.
I Don't know if it makes much sense, but it is my 2 cents and a bit.
Later
I consider someone a munchkin if they never stop to smell the roses, so to speak. Every player wants the best stuff for their character, of course.
However, I believe where some of us draw the distinction between the better role-players and the munchkins is in the fact that the devoted power gamers spend inordinate amounts of time fretting about their powers and never take the time to role-play or interact with the DM's campaign world for the sake of role-playing. "Yeah,yeah, yeah, the castle on the hill is nice or whatever, where's the next monster?" They put a lot of pressure on the DM to present a never ending array of encounters so that they can squeeze the most XP/treasure out of every gaming moment. Many DM's give in.
I think you can be both--a munchkin and a role-player. Converting to 3.5 has given all my players a temporary major munchkin injection that is only now slowly fading away and some of their role-playing is starting to re-emerge.
I don't think a munchkin is a "lesser" D&D player, they're just not as fun to DM.
I posit that munchkins are, in fact, often better, more realistic roleplayers than those who deride them.
I disagree, and here's why:
Munchkin has to do with the mindset of a Player, not a Character. The Munchkins I've dealt with play their char exactly the same: whether it's a thief, fighter, mage, or cleric. You actually cannot tell from their role play (as opposed to roll play) or the equipment they gather what their class is, and they never waver from an alignment that allows them to act the way they as the Player want to.
Also, a munchkin cares more for what their char gets out of it then what the players (not characters) as a group get out of it. While that's perfect for an evil aligned char, a GOOD player with an evil aligned char still adds to the flavor of the game and the development of the story. A munchkin PLAYER can cause nothing but PLAYER division and frustration as the advancement of the game is constantly stymied, and the DM has to work harder to keep the munchkin from succeeding in this.
We have gamers in our group who can play evil aligned chars that are greedy, deceitful, untrustworthy, yet still manage to add to the story and plot without de-railing the game. That's not a munchkin, it's a great role player. It's the Player who cares more about his / her individual char than the enjoyment of the group of real people sitting around the table with him / her that constitutes a munchkin.
I prefer the term "Power Gamer", myself. When someone says "munchkin", I think of the Wizard of Oz and the midgets running around singing songs and squealing about the yellow brick road. Even the Munchkin game has squat little characters facing off against big nasty monsters. And I am in no way a midget... Hey! Maybe it comes from the perception that a "munchkin" is something of a mental midget when it comes to gaming! (pause for epiphany)
Anyway, I digress. I don't think it exists to cause a false divide, as that suggests some sort of conspiracy. What it amounts to is fundamental human reactions and emotions: intolerance, jealousy, oppression, and stigma for the sake of conformity.
Power gamers, /whatever/ their skill at roleplay, are generally more skilled than many, and perhaps most, at the art of Min/Max. They create character builds that take advantage of real and perceived loopholes to create a giant glaring sunspot of an edge against those difficulties that most concern them. For some, it's combat arena. For others, it's the social and information gathering arena. Whatever their focus, they seek not only to be the best, but nigh godlike in their ability. They want to dominate that arena in a way that speaks clearly of their ability and knowledge of the rules.
And then you have people who are NOT so skilled at Min/Max. They make character concepts that usually appeals to them in some way, but since they don't work the rules to their advantage, the character might be successful, but won't shine in any particular way. I don't know /why/ they don't. Perhaps they're just unassuming, or timid, or for whatever reason aren't wanting to be King of their Niche. Play starts, and inevitably you have folks who sit back and sort of blend with the wallpaper and others who stand out.
Then you end up with one of a couple situations (yes, I'm generalizing). The min/maxer makes things something of a cakewalk, and the others are left with little to do. Or, the DM compensates (or ends up compensating because of the prior sitch) to give the min/maxers a challenge and neglects the others. Either way, you end up with the non-min/maxers sitting by while someone else hogs the spotlight. The game just isn't fun for them. So jealousy sets in, they blame the powergamers because /they're/ the one the light is shining on, and the mudslinging begins.
In the end, I just think it amounts to innate human character to envy and tear down people who are - pardon the term - superior to themselves in some way. It doesn't matter that it just might be min/maxers knack, and that they might have some other knack. It allows the min/maxer (powergamer) to shine while they remain in the shadows of the gaming group.
I think this situation can be solved, though, if a gaming group is having a problem. Part of the solution lies with the powergamer; they have to consider their allies, and look for selfless opportunities to aid the group. At least look for in character reasons to help things along from a metagame perspective. Part of the solution lies with the DM; they have to compensate to challenge the powergamers in a way that doesn't leave the others out in the cold. And part of the solution lies with the others in the group; they need to realize that being a powergamer is a talent as much as it is an attitude, and look within themselves to find a way /they/ can shine too.
I think munchkins exist - I've seen them play. But I agree some of the other people posting that it more about how they play. The context determines som of that - if you role a character up you won't necessarily get great stats, some people don't have them, if a player has to have great stats to be interested in his character - well thats a sign he's a munchkin, if he picks a weapon like a spiked chain because it is unbalanced in combination with an assortment of feats from a variety of sources - thats a sign that they are a munchkin, if play is about getting stuff rather than advancing story thats a sign somene is a munchkin. If a player lets everyone else assume the risk while they hang back and don't support the party in the encounter. Granted this may be in character for certain character types - however the cases I am talking about it is not (paladins, rangers). Players that come to the table with characters with multiple 18s and think this makes them better players (and talk about how good their stats are), players that consistently "misread" the rules - so that they can acheive ther ends, always seem to have one hit point left, get the max on their hit point roles, are probably munchkins.
And in answer to the person who started the thread MOST heroes in literature are not perfect and many of the most popular have tragic flaws. The hobbits in LotR are a classic example, hobbits are a metaphor for all of us who are not the strongest, the fastest, the most aggressive, whatever - the victory in LotR is the victory of the common man to rise to the occassion in dire circumstances without exceptional ability. Elric was frail, weak, and an albino (in addition to a number of character flaws), well the list goes on - even the heroes of myth and folklore have their flaws. Having flaws and overcoming them (internal as opposed to external challenges), generally make for a more compelling story arc. This is true in my experience in gaming as well as literature. And is in fact why comic books are no longer populated by perfect heroes, but by characters flawed by bad habits, and dark secrets.
I want to add a couple of things:
First off, I want to be clear that I'm specifically talking about Min/Maxers or Powergamers, which is, in my experience, what folks most often refer to when they talk about "munchkins". Someone who only thinks of the game in selfish terms, bashes DMs over the head with rules, or are otherwise blatantly or aggressively disruptive are just bad players.
Second, while it's all well and good to say "this isn't reality, this is fantasy", one should bear in mind one simple fact. We are REAL people, and will react to fantasy situations using our very real experiences, emotions, and personalities. We will interact with other players using our very real social skills. We don't live in these fantasy lands, so players and DMs alike can only guess at how things are in them. So while I myself am fond of saying "Who said you can bring reality into my fantasy?!", I know well enough that as Real people, Reality is all we have as a basis for comparison.
Finally, I've seen just as much lack of depth from people who only have enough grasp of the rules to participate in rolling dice without having to ask too many questions. People who I would not, by any stretch of the word, call a Powergamer, munchkin, or anything of the sort. Yet they consistently play the same archetype, the same personalities, and sometimes complete carbon copies of their previous characters. They can be just as selfish when it comes to their player motivations as anyone else. But as long as they're not being disruptive, they aren't necessarily bad players, and as long as they're having fun without it being at the expense of everyone else, it doesn't matter.
First off, I want to be clear that I'm specifically talking about Min/Maxers or Powergamers, which is, in my experience, what folks most often refer to when they talk about "munchkins".
My experience differs from yours, then. "Powergamer" is not a pejorative, IME (being more akin to the term "power user" in computing), while "munchkin" most certainly is. There are many differences between the two, but in the spirit of good humor, I'll summarize them thusly:
I am a powergamer. You are a munchkin. ;)
Contributor
|
Interesting discussion...
The term munchkin has never been synonimous with power-gamer or min-maxer for me. I have always thought of a munchkin as a player who was young AND played in a selfish manner. I've usually found that what I thought of as munchkins were not good min-maxers, because they want the easy road to power and wealth. And usually, that's all.
I am a min-maxer. I'm also a good role-player. I get many types of enjoyment out of D&D, particularly the current edition.
I get to plan out my character very carefully to maximize my effectiveness in their particular role for the campaign. I love this kind of strategic thinking. It's like fine-tuning a CCG deck, and this part of the game I can do on my own time, out of game.
I can apply strategy to my character's actions in play to maximize their effectiveness. I enjoy doing this under any circumstance, but combat has the most opportunities, so I get more of this from a good fight. I enjoy fights that are challenging the most. The last game session we played was one huge fight. Three of us were down and bleeding at different times, but we won. If we had not used good strategy, we would have died. I find that very rewarding, because I made a difference.
I get to role-play my character. In fact, I see developing my character's background and personality as an important facet of my character-optimizing strategy. My characters have to be effective AND make sense AND be interesting. I'm currently playing a Talenta Halfling Artificer who fights with a club. He calls it a boomerang, but it only comes back if he infuses it with 'indisputable possesion' first.
I get to spend quality social time with my friends. Very important.
But here's what is the crucial must have in my game; I must feel that I have accomplished something. I used to have the attitude that it was all about the role-play. I played long sessions where I never rolled a die and loved it. But I've come to feel that if I didn't roll a die, I had no chance of failing, and if I couldn't fail, I haven't really accomplished anything. I also felt that if I never rolled a die and failed, I never had a chance, and my DM was arbitrary. So I like to roll dice. And I like to succeed, and get something done.
I also started to realize that some of those three hour sessions of deep role-playing had the net result that my character bought his groceries, but that's not really my point.
So here's where I really step over the line. I get really frustrated playing with non min-maxers. I think they are selfish, because their characters are usually useless or even a hinderance to the party. They choose to play them intentionally, so that they can get a deeper role-playing experience, at the cost of the rest of the party succeeding and accomplishing things. The recent Save my Game article about players who don't bother to learn the rules really struck a chord with me because of this.
So having established that I am a min-maxer, and probably a power-gamer, am I a munchkin? I don't think so, but you may disagree.
My final rant/point: I personally believe that people who focus on role-playing without min-maxing can equally be called munchkins as those who only min-max without role-palying. They are both detracting from the group experience for their own benefit.
I don't like the term munchkin because it has come to mean something derogatory. DnD players often have greatly varying levels of experience. Other players should not deride inexperienced players. Give them a chance to develop their roleplaying skills. I have played DnD for 20+ years. My first character used two potions at once; speed and cloud giant strength. Consulting the table in the original DMG (1st edition) I had to roll percentage to see the result. I am sure you can guess that it can up 00 and one would be permanent. It ended up being giant strength. After combat my character collapsed and was in a coma for one year as his body adapted to the magical change. My character has some successes but eventually I retired him. He had become too powerful and victories came too easily. He was dominating fights. I was glad when this table was not carried over into later editions.
One of our players has developed a bit of an obsession with gaining experience and getting magic items. He has had characters die through mistakes and bad luck. Now he seeks experience and magic to preserve his character. Also he equates experience and magic with respect from NPCs. Some other players and I have military training. We have a greater knowledge of tactics. This often leads to success, other players seek ways to give their characters a way to similarly succeed. My point of mentioning this is we should try to look into why someone is obsessive before labeling them a munchkin.
One example I saw recently was in Dragon #336,in Sage Advice. A player asked if a kensai with unarmed strike as his signature weapons could take Voe of Poverty. The Sage said although this would allowable within the rules. He would support any DM who felt this to be an unfair abuse of the spirit of the Vow of Poverty.
|
Contributor
|
I don't like the term munchkin because it has come to mean something derogatory. DnD players often have greatly varying levels of experience. Other players should not deride inexperienced players. Give them a chance to develop their roleplaying skills.
Just wanted to say that despite the impression my previous post may give, I agree whole-heartedly with this.
And in answer to the person who started the thread MOST heroes in literature are not perfect and many of the most popular have tragic flaws. The hobbits in LotR are a classic example, hobbits are a metaphor for all of us who are not the strongest, the fastest, the most aggressive, whatever - the victory in LotR is the victory of the common man to rise to the occassion in dire circumstances without exceptional ability. Elric was frail, weak, and an albino (in addition to a number of character flaws), well the list goes on - even the heroes of myth and folklore have their flaws. Having flaws and overcoming them (internal as opposed to external challenges), generally make for a more compelling story arc. This is true in my experience in gaming as well as literature. And is in fact why comic books are no longer...
Right, the hobbits. Not to embark upon a full-fledged assault on hobbits and the works in which they are found, I would rather gouge my eyes out with burning hot coals before playing the campaign that the hobbits undertake.
It would consist of a lot of hide and move silently checks, and you'd basically be traveling from point A to point B when you weren't running your ass off. That's insanely boring, and the major reason was that the hobbits all sucked.
Now, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, and Gandalf get to do some cool stuff. Epic battles with armies and all that, facing down a demon, making a last stand against overwhelming odds-- that's the stuff.
Look at your major D&D characters: Raistlin, Elminster, Tanis Half-Elven, Soth, Drizzt, and all of their buddies. Those guys pack some serious firepower to offset their flaws. Elminster's only flaw appears to be having so many levels in wizard that gaining experience is anti-climactic. Raistlin had a low constitution, which is a non-flaw for a wizard as long as he had the 18 Int score. Soth was flawed as a character, but was a mighty knight and became next to invincible after he became a death knight. Tanis and all those guys start off lower level, but as the books progress they become increasingly unstoppable, and not just because of their levels. And, of course, if you remember Drizzt in 2E, he was a monstrosity. He was an 18th level fighter, 15th level ranger DUAL CLASS who could do a x5 backstab FROM THE FRONT and had a percent chance per number he rolled above what he needed to hit to flat out kill an opponent outright.
D&D, despite what anyone might say, owes FAR more to Conan (and I don't mean the books) than to Gandalf or Merlyn-- neither of those wizards ever dropped a fireball, after all.
Even looking at literature, there is very little that would fit with a D&D campaign. The Arthurian legends are not at all action packed, nor even full of what I'd consider good role-playing experiences. D&D, like it or not, is not a game that promotes anything other than a limited story-- limited by the inability for the storyteller to assume an omniscient role, since the players must be in an objective perspective, and limited by the storyteller's inability to control or foresee all the actions a player might take. D&D has been, and always will be, about killing things and taking their stuff-- whether it's done in a more literal sense with a sword, or figuratively by vying for power and influence with a diplomacy roll. The DM presents an objective with challenging obstacles, and the players overcome those challenges to achieve the goals.
In real life, people talk about the exciting things that happen to them and ignore and forget the minutia-- obsessively playing out every shopkeeper encounter is entirely untrue to the way real people behave and describe their days. Good writing mimics this by not including wasted information that does not either add to characterization, imagery, or further the storyline somehow. No one wants to know about how King Arthur spilled some food on his shirt two weeks ago unless it contributes in some way to the tale at hand.
I will add the caveat, however, that if you are the type of player who wants to role-play out buying an apple for your horse and you have an indulgent DM and group, I am feel both awe of and pity for you.
I would rather gouge my eyes out with burning hot coals before playing the campaign that the hobbits undertake.
I was using it as an obvious illustration of my point as their adventure pretty much follows a campaign beinning to end - and many campaigns are based on the basic model they follow.
It would consist of a lot of hide and move silently checks, and you'd basically be traveling from point A to point B when you weren't running your ass off. That's insanely boring, and the major reason was that the hobbits all sucked.
That is basically what SF types are trained to do - your example not mine - of adventurers.
I can't speak to your examples of D&D fiction - I have tried a few books and found them almost unreadable, but maybe I am not the target audience.
As for your pity, thank you. Your kind thoughts are much appreciated. For your peace of mind, I don't haggle over every apple, but I do try to create a world and characters that have more to them than killing things and taking their stuff. Some people might not like the way I play or DM, my play might be too slow, too detail rich, and based too heavily on interaction (rather than combat) with NPCs.
I am okay with that, for the most part people I play with seem to enjoy my company and the way I handle my character - though I am by no means a perfect player, or DM.
In response to the original question however - yes their are munchkins, it has to do with a style of play, doesn't mean its bad - its like anything else that has various styles - its cool for some people - not as interesting for others.
When I was younger - I preferred more combat heavy sessions and the "kill everything I am a world class badass" type of play. As I matured what I wanted from the game changed as well, I became more interested in complex collaborative storytelling, and the spending time with the people around the table. With these new interest my emphasis on game balance and the challenge of working though scenarios with planning and creativity rather than raw power began to have more appeal. I don't think this change in perspective makes me a poor roleplayer.
First off, Kyr you kind of sound like Jeff Foxworthy. A nice take on Munchkinism.
I also have to say that Min/Maxing is usually the way most of us go in the games I have played as well.
We have characters and outside of the game we figure out where we want them to go and what we would like to see them do, all in accordance with their class and their histories. We do not consider ourselves munchkins. We all have fun, and genuinely care for what goes on in the game and how we can most contribute to the party. That usually involves making our characters the best class they are. Be it someone who has to do alot of hide and move silently checks or someone who has to blow the every living crap out of something with a fireball. But the key is that we all help each other out and don't focus too much on ourselves. I think that is what differentiates us from munchkins. But then again if we find that someone in our group is becoming too selfinvolved and always just talking about themselves we tend to straighten them out right away.
We actually had that happen. The guy just wouldn't stop talking about his character and how he was going to do that and how he was so great and how he was. IT was really pissing the DM off too, also he was playing very stupidly. Making very stupid mistakes and he had been playing longer than most of us, he just wasn't intelligent. Eventually one of us took him aside and told him he was pissing off the DM and making the campaign sag. We also told him how he could be better at the game, by not being so damn selfish and self involved. But he just went right back to it and so we warned him one more time and he just wouldn't take the hint. So his character got killed and then we just never invited him back. I mean the guy is a great guy outside of the game but while he played he was a complete "Munchkin".
So yeah as someone else said a munchkins are just very selfish and campaign killers.
later
First off, Kyr you kind of sound like Jeff Foxworthy. A nice take on Munchkinism.
Girl in the office says I sound like Tim Allen - I'm stacking up to be a pretty funny guy. I'll be sure to tell my wife.
Do Munchkins exhist? Yes. If you don't believe that munchkins exhist, you either play with a mature well rounded gaming group, or YOU are a Munchkin.
Is munchkin a deragotory word? Yes! It's supose to be! it is used to describe bad behavior of the PLAYER! Not the character.
Here are a few examples, M'kay.
If you have ever had a Mage lead a charge wielding a sword, you are a munchkin.
If you have ever threatened a Deity, you are a Munchkin.
If your fighter has ever considered hiring a caddy because they carry around a golf bag full of weapons, you are a munchkin.
If you've ever tried to convince the DM that it is perfectly reasonable to allow your character to create a Swiss Army Sword as a magical item, you are a munckin.
If you are playing a cleric that can slay a dragon single handly with spells, but bleed to death from a scroll cut because you didn't bother to take any healing magic at all! you are a munchkin.
If you have more than two of the same magical items (Not including potions) because you are affraid that the first two might run out of charges, you are a munchkin.
If Your character knows everything that you know, even if they weren't there at the time, you are a munchkin.
If you character addresses a NPC like they know them, because your other characters have met that person, you are a munchkin.
If your fellow players can't remember any specifics about your characters based on gender, species, attitude, class, or skills, you are a munchkin.
Being a munchkin means that you the player care nothing for the story. you are the first to loot, the first to fight the first even if the encounter requiers stelth, you are the first to argue with the Dm over your characters death, and you will fudge a die roll if you think no one is looking. Not all power gamers are munchkins, but all munchkins are power gamers.
Here is a helpful guide to help you determin what type of gamer you are:
Real Man, Real Roleplayer, Loonie, MUNCHKIN:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
The Real Man
The tough macho type who walks up to the attacking dragon and orders
it to leave before he gets hurt.
The Real Roleplayer
The intelligent cunning guy who tricks the constable into letting you
all out of prison.
The Loonie
The guy who will do anything for a cheap laugh, including casting a
fireball at ground zero.
The Munchkin
Need we say more?
=== Player Relationships ===
REAL MEN:
*Real Men* think they're brothers in arms.
*Real Roleplayers* hide behind them.
*Loonies* harass them with stupid suggestions.
*Munchkins* say ``I'm a Real Man, too!''
REAL ROLEPLAYERS:
*Real Men* protect them, on the off chance they may come up with
something useful.
*Real Roleplayers* sigh with relief to know they're not alone,
and then get their characters involved in love affairs
and death feuds.
*Loonies* harass them with stupid suggestions.
*Munchkins* say ``I'm a Real Roleplayer, too!''
LOONIES:
*Real Men* ignore them.
*Real Roleplayers* sometimes harass them back by taking a
stupid suggestion and making it work.
*Loonies* declare a pie fight at 20 paces . . . and cheat.
*Munchkins* try to imitate the jokes, and fall flat.
MUNCHKINS:
*Real Men* attack them on sight.
*Real Roleplayers* trick them into being cannon fodder.
*Loonies* make reasonable-sounding suggestions that will get
the Munchkin killed in an amusing way.
*Munchkins* query, ``What's a Munchkin?''
=== Over-all ===
Favorite FRPG:
*Real Men* play original Dungeons & Dragons
*Real Roleplayers* play RuneQuest III
*Loonies* play Toon
*Munchkins* play anything by TSR
Favorite SFRPG:
*Real Men* play Star Trek: The Roleplaying Game
*Real Roleplayers* play Space Opera
*Loonies* play Teenagers From Outer Space
*Munchkins* play anything by TSR
Favorite Post-Holocaust RPG:
*Real Men* play Twilight 2000
*Real Roleplayers* play The Morrow Project
*Loonies* play Paranoia
*Munchkins* play anything by TSR
Favorite 1920's RPG:
*Real Men* play Gangbusters
*Real Roleplayers* play Call of Cthulhu
*Loonies* play a variant Spawn of Fashan
*Munchkins* play anything by TSR
Favorite SHRPG:
*Real Men* play Champions
*Real Roleplayers* play Superworld
*Loonies* play an extremely variant Spawn of Fashan
*Munchkins* play anything by TSR
Favorite modern day/spy RPG:
*Real Men* play James Bond, 007
*Real Roleplayers* play Justice, Inc.
*Loonies* play an unrecognizable variant Spawn of Fashan
*Munchkins* play anything by TSR
Favorite King Arthurian RPG:
*Real Men* play Chivalry and Sorcery
*Real Roleplayers* play Pendragon
*Loonies* play an extremely unrecognizable variant of Spawn of Fashan
*Munchkins* play anything by TSR
Favorite Silly RPG:
*Real Men* play Macho Women With Guns.
*Real Roleplayers* play Toon/TFOS
*Loonies* play them all, often simultaneously
*Munchkins* don't like silly RPG's.
Favorite Attack Style:
*Real Men* Shout their war cry, and wade into battle.
*Real Roleplayers* parry, counterattack and protect comrade's backs.
*Loonies* throw their sword at opponant, then attack with scabbard
and lunchbox.
*Munchkins* leap in with secret 'twisted lotus' ninja decapitation strike.
Favorite Way to Die:
*Real Men* in battle, with boots on, going down swinging.
*Real Roleplayers* on deathbead, after lengthy dramatic farewell speech.
*Loonies* laughing while jumping into a portable hole, and carrying a
bag of holding.
*Munchkins* Die? You're kidding, right?
Usual Residence:
*Real Men* wherever he hangs up his two-hander
*Real Roleplayers* Elsinor
*Loonies* Toontown
*Munchkins* Valhalla (after kicking out previous occupants)
Favorite Gaming Magazine:
*Real Men* read The General
*Real Roleplayers* read White Wolf
*Loonies* read the last few pages of Dragon
*Munchkins* read anything by TSR
=== Fantasy ===
Favorite Dungeon Activity
*Real Men* fight Dragons as old as the world itself
*Real Roleplayers* bluff the Ogres
*Loonies* tell dirty jokes to Green Slime
*Munchkins* do whatever gives the most experience/rip each other off
Favorite Melee Weapon:
*Real Men* use Pole Axes
*Real Roleplayers* use Rapiers and Main-Gauches
*Loonies* use Stage Knives
*Munchkins* use whatever gives the most plusses
Favorite Thrown Weapon:
*Real Men* throw Spears
*Real Roleplayers* throw Bolas
*Loonies* throw their friends' magic items
*Munchkins* throw whatever gives the most plusses
Favorite Missile Weapon:
*Real Men* shoot Composite Bows
*Real Roleplayers* shoot Crossbows
*Loonies* shoot Catapults loaded with offal
*Munchkins* shoot whatever gives the most plusses
Favorite Improvised Weapon in Barroom Brawl:
*Real Men* use bare hands/tables
*Real Roleplayers* use chairs, chair legs or pokers
*Loonies* use plastic Pepsi bottles or toothpaste
*Munchkins* use, you guessed it, whatever gives the most plusses
Favorite Improvised Thrown Weapons:
*Real Men* throw Munchkins
*Real Roleplayers* throw beer mugs, pool balls and rocks
*Loonies* throw Nerf frisbees
*Munchkins* throw whatever gives the most plusses
Favorite RQ3 Spirit Spell:
*Real Men* cast Bladesharp 10 on their swords
*Real Roleplayers* cast Demoralize on their foes
*Loonies* cast Befuddle on their friends
*Munchkins* cast Fireball
Favorite RQ3 Sorcery Spell:
*Real Men* cast Dominate Human on others
*Real Roleplayers* cast Damage Resistance on their familiars/themselves
*Loonies* cast Dominate Human on themselves
*Munchkins* cast Meteor Swarm
Favorite RQ3 Divine Spell:
*Real Men* cast Berserker on themselves
*Real Roleplayers* cast Heal Body
*Loonies* cast Face Chaos on the Crimson Bat
*Munchkins* cast Timestop
Favorite Alignment:
*Real Men* are Lawful Good
*Real Roleplayers* don't use alignment
*Loonies* are Amoral Silly
*Munchkins* are whatever gives the most plusses
Favorite Religious-type Character:
*Real Men* play Paladins
*Real Roleplayers* play Clerics
*Loonies* play street preachers
*Munchkins* play Demigods
Favorite Non-Human PC:
*Real Men* play Dwarfs
*Real Roleplayers* play Morokanths
*Loonies* play a Dwarf-Elf halfbreed
*Munchkins* play Asmodeus
Favorite Undead to Summon:
*Real Men* summon Ghosts
*Real Roleplayers* summon Wraiths
*Loonies* send in an AD&D troll wearing a sheet
*Munchkins* summon Cerberus
Favorite Way of Extracting Information from the Goblins:
*Real Men* torture them
*Real Roleplayers* cast Legend Lore/Telepathy/Mind Read
*Loonies* tell puns to them
*Munchkins* peek behind the GM's shield
Favorite Way of Dealing with a Dragon:
*Real Men* Slay it. Preferably alone and with bare hands.
(Is this a trick question?)
*Real Roleplayers* Con it out of all its treasure, leaving the dragon
(and the GM) thinking it got the better deal.
*Loonies* Summon the Sta-Puft marshmallow man.
*Munchkins* Kill it, make armor out of the hide, and then resurrect
it as a familiar.
Favorite Demon/Devil:
*Real Men* like Asmodeus
*Real Roleplayers* like Cacodemon
*Loonies* like Spiro Agnew
*Munchkins* like Satan's grandfather
Favorite God:
*Real Men* worship Humakt/Orlanth
*Real Roleplayers* worship Issaries/Lhankor Mhy
*Loonies* worship Hare Krishna
*Munchkins* worship whoever gives the most plusses
Favorite Shield:
*Real Men* wield two-handed weapons
*Real Roleplayers* use a Kite Shield
*Loonies* use a panty shield
*Munchkins* use a Shield of Automatic Parry
Favorite Mount:
Real Men* ride heavy war horses
*Real Roleplayers* ride palfreys
*Loonies* ride sheep
*Munchkins* ride heavy war tyrannosauri
Favorite NPC:
*Real Men* like Tarl Cabot
*Real Roleplayers* like Medea
*Loonies* like Doctor Who
*Munchkins* like Darth Vader/Teela Brown
Favorite Animal to use as a Familiar:
*Real Men* have Black Cats
*Real Roleplayers* have Owls
*Loonies* have Slugs
*Munchkins* have Ancient Red Dragons
Favorite Kind of Elf:
*Real Men* like the Finis' elves
*Real Roleplayers* like Tolkien's elves
*Loonies* like Santa's elves
*Munchkins* like Storm Giants with pointed ears
Favorite Kind of Dwarf
*Real Men* like Tolkien's Dwarfs
*Real Roleplayers* like Glorantha's Dwarfs
*Loonies* like the Seven Dwarfs
*Munchkins* like Earth Elementals with beards
Favorite Food to take on Expeditions:
*Real Men* bring along iron rations
*Real Roleplayers* cast create food and drink
*Loonies* bring along aluminum rations
*Munchkins* no longer need food to live
Favorite Fantasy Author:
*Real Men* read J.R.R. Tolkien ``Lord of the Rings''
*Real Roleplayers* read Robert Asprin's ``Thieves' World'' series
*Loonies* read Robert Asprin's ``Myth'' series
*Munchkins* read E. Gary Gygax
When they encounter a sleeping dragon:
*Real Men* wake it up and THEN attack it.
*Real Roleplayers* sneak away quietly.
*Loonies* tie its shoelaces together.
*Munchkins* kill it instantly and then carry off all its treasure in one
backpack
Favorite Town Activity:
*Real Men* drink ale in the tavern and start bar fights.
*Real Roleplayers* drink wine in the tavern and talk to everyone.
*Loonies* order watermelon daquiris and start food fights.
*Munchkins* say ``What's a town?''
Favorite World/Setting:
*Real Men* play in Sanctuary
*Real Roleplayers* play in Glorantha
*Loonies* play in Southern California
*Munchkins* play wherever has the most magic items
=== AD&D ===
Favorite Spell
*Real Men* cast Fireball
*Real Roleplayers* cast Find the Path
*Loonies* cast Otto's Irresistible Nose-Picking
*Munchkins* cast Smite Ruler and Transfer Loyalty of Populace
Favorite Psionic Ability:
*Real Men* use Body Weaponry
*Real Roleplayers* use Shape Alteration
*Loonies* use Sea Anemone Hypnosis
*Munchkins* use Assume Godhood
Favorite Specialist Mage:
*Real Men* If they have to play a mage, they'll be an Invoker w/ lots
of fireballs
*Real Roleplayers* play Enchanters
*Loonies* play Illusionists with ventriloquism, audible glamer, and
spectral force; Conjurers specializing in create banana peel spell;
or transmuters specializing in polymorph self into a random object
*Munchkins*: a multi-classed abjurer/conjurer/diviner/enchanter
/illusionist/invoker/necromancer/transmuter
Favorite Miscellaneous Magic Item:
*Real Men* love Adamantine Claws
*Real Roleplayers* love Repulsor Rays
*Loonies* love +3 Kleenex
*Munchkins* love Uru's Hammer
Favorite Potion:
*Real Men* drink potions of Superheroism
*Real Roleplayers* drink potions of Animal/Plant Control
*Loonies* drink potions of Jell-O
*Munchkins* drink potions of Deity Control
Favorite Ring:
*Real Men* wear rings of Elemental Control
*Real Roleplayers* wear rings of Free Action
*Loonies* wear rings of Smurf Control
*Munchkins* wear the One Ring
Favorite Stick (Rod/Staff/Wand):
*Real Men* wield staves of Striking
*Real Roleplayers* wield wands of Healing
*Loonies* wield shower curtain rods
*Munchkins* wield the Wand of Orcus
Favorite Armor:
*Real Men* wear Plate Mail
*Real Roleplayers* wear Elven Chain Mail
*Loonies* wear Horse Barding
*Munchkins* wear powered armor
Favorite Helm:
*Real Men* wear a Helm of Brilliance
*Real Roleplayers* wear a Helm of Telepathy
*Loonies* wear a Helm of Blindness (``Works great against medusas'')
*Munchkins* wear a Helm of 360-degree Vision with Force Field
Favorite Glove/Gauntlet:
*Real Men* fight bare-handed
*Real Roleplayers* wear Gloves of Dexterity
*Loonies* wear THE Glove of Michael Jackson Charisma
*Munchkins* wear Gauntlets of Infinite Ring-Wearing
Favorite Footwear:
*Real Men* wear Seven League Boots
*Real Roleplayers* wear Boots of Stealth
*Loonies* wear bunny slippers
*Munchkins* wear Boots of Infinite Speed
Favorite Type of Dice:
*Real Men* like 20-siders
*Real Roleplayers* use three 6-siders
*Loonies* use 34-sided for everything
*Munchkins* have them all, and like to roll as many as possible
Wow!
|
Well, there's a lot of stuff here so far and, to be honest, I didn't exactly read or follow it all, so I apologize if this doesn't apply or repeats a previous post.
I saw mentioned somewhere in this thread that we'd all powergame if it was real life, and I don't think that's true. I mean, even if we do great things, we've all got flaws.
My third ever character was a little druid girl named Menina. She'd lived most of her life with a pack of wolves, growing up with a wolf cub that she considered her brother (I know, it's really pathetic, but it entertained me at the time). As part of her background, the forest that she lived in was burned down, killing all of her "family" except the wolf-cub, now mostly grown, and herself.
During the game, our GM had us, while walking through a forest, notice smoke in a portion of the forest. We eventually came to the portion of forest where the smoke had been and found that it had all been burnt to the ground. Since it was the end of the day, the party chose to rest in the burnt forest for the night. In an effort to really get into my character, and knowing the emotional effect this would have on her, Menina stayed up all night. I suffered the negative effects for it during our combats the following day, but it's what my character would have done.
I had a bard once who's goal it was to make a name for himself, become famous as it were. Which is all great, except he was afraid of getting hurt. He focused entirely on buffing the party and, whenever possible, stayed as far away from combat as possible. In fact, he'd sometimes run away.
A friend created a character who'd been in an accident and had his leg partially fused with black crystal (along with other parts of his body). In an effort to effectively portray this character, he dropped his Dex to 7, and put his next lowest roll in Strength. So, he has a horrible AC (which he enhances whenever he can), and isn't the best at hitting things, but it worked for his character.
I know these characters aren't the most effective, but I think they're so much more fun to play than ones where the focus is on being the best of the best of the best at what I do, though I know that's fun for some. I don't think powergaming (even when it doesn't abuse the rules) is a necessity to have fun, or even to survive a game. I think it causes a lot of problems to mix powergamers with the type of player that focuses on really playing his character instead of playing his class. The powergamers tend to get upset at the "role-players" for messing up the game, and the "role-players" get upset at the powergamers for not caring about character psychology, or for causing the GM to create harder encounters that the rest of the players may not be well-equipped to handle.
As a whole, I don't think either extreme is a problem, unless you try to mix them together in one game.
Yeah, the whole powergaming concept is somewhat new to me, as far as "handling" it as a DM--so I tend to be a bit heavyhanded and overreact sometimes. When we all played AD&D, the "power level" of the game was much lower than 3.5 and I feel that some of my players are now "power gamers" because they (probably justifiably) feel more threatened by the tougher monsters...I mean, you never ran into anything in 1st/2nd edition that had 418 hit points.
You mean you never ran into Odin after he cast Aid on himself?
LOL! Nope....never got that far....Heimdall turned the PC's away at the Rainbow Bridge....of course they were only 14th level after 12 years of gaming.
Here is a helpful guide to help you determin what type of gamer you are:
Real Man, Real Roleplayer, Loonie, MUNCHKIN:
YOU have A LOT of time on your hands or you think quick on your feet. I applaude your work!
I would have to agree with alot of it.
Here is a helpful guide to help you determin what type of gamer you are:
Real Man, Real Roleplayer, Loonie, MUNCHKIN:
YOU have A LOT of time on your hands or you think quick on your feet. I applaude your work!
I would have to agree with alot of it.
Actually it was something I found on line years ago that I still had on my computer. I wish I could take credit for it.
I saw mentioned somewhere in this thread that we'd all powergame if it was real life, and I don't think that's true. I mean, even if we do great things, we've all got flaws.
My third ever character was a little druid girl named Menina. She'd lived most of her life....
Flaws are one thing-- what I meant was that pretending that a character is a real person, name one wizard that wouldn't want, say, a staff of power.
One of my best characters ever in 2E was a bard that thought he was a vampire. He was flat out insane, but with the right spell selection he was able to mimic most of the abilities given to a vampire at the time-- the roleplaying possibilities were tremendously fun, especially since he had to hide his "undead" status from the group. However, he still wanted +5 weaponry as that became appropriate for his level, because, well, getting killed is a bad idea.
All in all, it seems to me that other people's experiences with the term "munchkin" are gratefully very different from my own. My groups have never gone through the "dragon familiar" stage of things, even as kids. If I had to retitle this, I suppose it would be "Roleplaying well can include powergaming." My point is ultimately that someone who is a spiked-chain abuser isn't doing something wrong; they are just playing a believable combat-oriented character who wants the best tool for the job. Similarly, a cleric with an 11 Wisdom may not be cut out for life as an adventurer, and I don't think it's unreasonable for a player to expect that his character be able to cast 9th level spells by the time his character reaches the appropriate level.
I've never played with a munchkin that was more than the DM allowed them to be.
ASEO out
|
I've never played with a munchkin that was more than the DM allowed them to be.
ASEO out
See, here I am, reading this whole thing, trying to put my thoughts to words, and yet again, in his infinite intelligence (that's the bonus) Aseo has said it already.
But I will say this: Dealing with a munchkin can be easy. If he thinks he can do everything, up the CR by 2. When he's attempted to soak all the traps and is staring at the big ole dragon, then the rest of the group shines, and sees him on the ground.
That was my solution at least. But I've only had one, and he left since he told the rest of the group that they'd die without him... 20 sessions later, the campaign ended with rave reviews.
Actually it was something I found on line years ago that I still had on my computer. I wish I could take credit for it.
Yup, I've seen it before and even seen a panel discussion with representatives of these four groups in one con...
The muchkin representation told about one episode of his character, how he was crossing a chasm and while there were perfectly serviceable bridge he chose to climb down to the bottom of chasm and climb up again on the other side, to get more exp from successful skill use...
I would say that is something no normal person would ever do, no matter how powerful minmaxed Navy Seal he would be.
I do think that powergaming doesn't exclude good roleplaying but somewhere there is a limit when character personality is dropped in favor of bigger combat bonuses.
There most likely are in real life some emotionless mercenaries who spend all their waking hours practising fighting or such and who have absolutely no life outside the missions but I'd still say not all or even most are like that.
Just look at me: instead of doing something wholesome I am hanging in the Net talking about some stupid make-believe game...
The problem with the Munchkins is the disruption of the game, if you're playing with a lot of powergamer an epic level game and that's the way all the players want it, that's fine.
If you play a medium powered game, by the rules, and someone want to be the only hero at the table, stealing all the light, doing everything, and so on...there is a problem.
Each player comes to the table with his real life story, his way of seeing the world and not everyone can be a great actor, some come to fight monsters others to speak with them and as a DM you have to make them coexist.
In France, for D&D, a Munchkin is called a GrosBill (BigBill),the name came from a player in the late 70's early 80's who was named Bruno and was a bit fat, he had the habit to cheat and to try to grab every magical item even when NOT playing in the adventure!!!!
He came after the sessions telling that one of his character was in the city and if you had too much magical item he could buy them....
He was very cool even at the table but you had to always look at him and his rolls....
A legend.
There was, of course, the ultimate munchkin character -- Conan. He was fun to read about... once.
Munchkin players always have to have a character as close to Conan (or Elminister, or whoever) as possible, every time they play. The game is always about being the best, or always winning.
Munchkin-play is fine if everyone is having fun, but I find it to be uninteresting. Consider literature (or TV, or movies, any genre); it's the flaws and foibles that define individuals -- uber-characters are rarely compelling, and the more we understand their weaknesses (or just how normal they are), the more we identify with them. Usually :)
Two cents -- enjoy :P
Jack
PS -- all personal opinion; many will not (and probably shouldn't) share my sensibilities.
I would like to mention that during 2nd edition I think a bad precedent with individuals like Elminster and Drizzt who existed outside the rules. I do wish to say that the NPCs included in the Complete Books have been outstanding. So everyone knows, I am not a FR basher. I salute the great stories and effort put in to make FR the most detailed setting ever.
Third edition has done a great job of adding balance. There are some things I have found unbalancing. There are prestige classes that are over the top so I am going to post a thread concerning these.
I would like to mention that during 2nd edition I think a bad precedent with individuals like Elminster and Drizzt who existed outside the rules...
I second that. For me, I saw it most vividly in d20 Star Wars -- everyone, including Yoda and Vader, were constructed according to the existing rules. Not to bash FR, but the milieu permanently relegates characters to being second-rate heroes. It makes great novels, but it's not what heroic fantasy roleplaying is supposed to be about (IMHO).
Though to get back on-topic, I think the 3.0/3.5 rules have certainly empowered the munchkins. Truth be told, that's OK -- if you (and your group) want to play Conan, Elminister, Elric, or whoever, the rules will allow it. Certainly a character of Conan's stature was impossible in 1/e and 2/e.
Later :)
Jack
I would like to mention that during 2nd edition I think a bad precedent with individuals like Elminster and Drizzt who existed outside the rules.
While it's true that Elminster and Drizzt are uber-munchkin characters and that they set a horrible precedent, munchkins existed long before 2e.
Certainly a character of Conan's stature was impossible in 1/e and 2/e.
That's not even remotely true.
|
|
Clearly you aren't playing the Age of Worms adventure path... :)
Okay, I'll rephrase that. I think that it's not necessary in a lot of games. Though I do agree that some games, especially prewritten ones, are a lot harder to survive without powergaming. I think one of the reasons some people seem to abuse the game is because, at one point in time, they had to. So, they keep doing it even after that ridiculously hard game that started it. Of course, there are others who just do it for fun. *shrug*
While it's true that Elminster and Drizzt are uber-munchkin characters and that they set a horrible precedent, munchkins existed long before 2e.
Yeah, but it's encouraged such play, especially given FR's close association with D&D.
Certainly a character of Conan's stature was impossible in 1/e and 2/e.
That's not even remotely true.
Admittedly, my opinion. But IMO a 20th level fighter with all 18's (or 18/00) couldn't kick butt like Conan. Give him the feats of a 20th level fighter and ability bumps every few levels, then he most certainly can.
Regards,
Jack
Following the FR has powerful NPCs and thus the low level PCs must be worthless logic, does that mean that, for example, the Teen Titans and the Outsiders at DC never amounted to anything because the Justice League was so much more powerful? Or that because the Justice League is so powerful that they can stop EVERY threat that ever occurs in the DC universe?
So because Elminster is busy keeping the Maulagrym, extra planar threats, and alien creatures from invading the Realms, then it doesn't matter that a group of adventurers saves a village in Mistledale from orcs?
I just get frustrated with all of this. If you don't like the setting, fine, but brining up high level NPCs doesn't have anything to do with the discussion here. NPCs are under the control of the DM, munchkins, as I understand it, are the characters run by players trying to make their characters powerfully broken. Neither Elminster nor Drizzt have EVER been anyone's character in a game. Arguing with their statistics is tantamount to complaining that gods are too powerful. Not that they are intended to be gods, but that they are intended to serve a purpose in the campaign world, not to be run as characters.
The discussion about FR NPCs was to suggest (I think validly) that FR is a campaign world that is more fundamentally epic in scope than many. Low-level characters aren't the soul of the campaign, and never will be -- that is going to influence the kind of characters that many will want to play.
Coincidentally, D&D saw more and more options open for players, many of them arguably power-gaming options. It's easy for me to believe that FR being the de facto default world for D&D (at the time) had some hand in this.
I don't intend it as a criticism, nor do I imply that it is a bad thing -- it's just how I see it. Sorry for any offense. All of this is, of course, just my 2 cents :)
Regards,
Jack
I would posit that 2nd edition had a lot of powergaming friendly settings and options. You are correct about the 2nd edition "The FR has everything in D&D in it" mentality pushing things toward the epic, but it doesn't bother me becuase to me it just means that there are challenges across the level ranges.
However, 2nd edition also saw the Dark Sun campaign setting, which upped ability score limits to 20 and had your characters starting at 3rd level. Eventually the rules also showed you how a character could become a Dragon King or an Evangion, which were originally epic level NPC threats that now you could become.
2nd Edition was also when Birthright came into play, which allowed PCs to eventually rule countries and cast spells that could affect entire battlefields and the like.
I think that the 3rd edition structure helps to give rise to munchkinism on a larger scale. That does not mean that its bad, but that DMs have to use some logic when dealing with their players. When Vlad the Clueless manages to find some magic item that raises his intelligence to 12 and then wants to take a level of wizard so he can then take the Exploding Sword Adept PrC, the DM has to step in and say, logically, whatever the rules say, just because your int is now 12 doesn't mean you have EVER had any kind of magical training.
I guess to echo earlier thoughts on the thread, no munchkin ever got played that wasn't at least tacitly approved by a DM.
Let's get away from the FR characters, that was only one example. Let's look at the epic level handbook. Besides needing to be updated for 3.5, it has many sections that cry out "play a 50th or 100th level character." Where would they fit in a game world? While the spell seeds were great ideas, the spell examples with DCs in the 100-419 range made me cring. If you print it they will use it.
There should have been more epic spell like Rick "Duicarthan" Miller's Invoked Devastation over on Canonfire. It required (12) 20+ level spell caster each using an epic spell slot and an artifact.
I would rather have seen the book cover epic characters getting up to 21-30th level then being contacted by lesser gods or demi-gods. They could develop toward quasi-dieties with appropriate missions from these gods. Eventually if they were special characters and only if they were special, so as to not water down their achievements, turn to demigodhood and retirement. I would have liked to see situations where they would need to protect themselves from the aforementioned gods who would feel these upstarts were trying to steal their portfolios. I say I would prefer this as opposed to having two types of dragons as well as advanced dragons who could whip up on both Tiamat and Bahamut. I do not have any PCs close to epic level, maybe someday.
Am I a munchkin or not?
I had a character die in Aow and I had to make a new one. I decided I wanted to play another rouge but I ended up rolling an eighteen and I thought it would be cool to play an immensly strong "combat" centric rouge (this as opposed to the freakishly agile dual shortsword weilders I normally play) I wanted a two handed weapon but I thought a feat was two big a price, so I decided to take a level of ranger since the BAB was nice tracking was nice the saves were nice. Then I took Undead as my favored enemy because they are immune to criticals (my sneak attack) and very common monsters to fight.
During the process I created a backround for the character that I think made sense. Originally he was the typical rapier weilding rouge in a party headed to the Aow starting toen ( I can't believe I forgot the name) despite his best friend Gurdenen (a halbard wielding dwarf) constanly harassing him that a Man his size should use a "man's" weapon. The party and their supplies were torn to peices by the undead surrounding the town and , in reverence to his friend he picked up his halbered and "It" (now called Gurdenen) became his weapon of choice. Lost for months in the surrounding woods he whent into survival mode. Thus his ranger level. He stalked around making progress only at night, and in Gurdenen's name tearing any undead he found to shreads with his fallen comerades weapon. Thus his favored enemy.
I always want my charaters to be cool concepts and powerful as well. Because a cool concept stops being cool (for me) when it can't accomplish all the great things that It's coolness suggests.
I won't get my feelings hurt so don't worry about holding back what you really think, but as I originally asked am I a munchkin?
Follow the yellow brick road...
You're a munchkin if you think you are...
Otherwise, you might be an Oompa Loompa.
ummI'm not shure if that is dirceted at me but if it is could you please elaborate?
My games are mostly action and decision making. No one really ever "gets into character" as it were. I suppose we're munchkins.
We joke about it at the table. I narrate for ten or fifteen minutes to bring everyone up to speed and provide the latest news, etc. Someone says, "Role-playing, check," and we move on.
Being that the group is epic (PL 28), they act as the spearpoint for an organization of benevolent adventurers, blah blah blah. They are like a spec ops group who basically seek and destroy. Not only do they have favorable ability scores, they are outfitted with the finest magical items (staff of the magi, +6 weapons, etc.). They're chasing an epic half-fiend master vampire sorcerer through a series of portals leading from Faerun to the Barrens of Doom and Despair, and the Astral Plane. Any down time is spent training and rearming. There's very little role-playing involved.
There's conflict. One PC has an infant son (a half-celestial son). One wields spellfire, and must constantly be on guard for those who would seek it (which just provides more action). They are hated across the multiverse for their actions (namely the destruction of Vlaakith, githyanki lich-queen). It's not ALL dice rolling, but it's mostly dice rolling. Any alternate conflicts are background filler that I create and just toss on top of the action.
We did take a "break" for nine months of game time, a time when each PC took his own road to find peace, etc. That was some great "narration." ;-) The group came back together wiser and stronger. We really have only three or four more games before we retire the campaign entirely. It's to the point where they don't really have to fear death unless they do something REALLY stupid, like embrace a prismatic wall. That might not even do it in some cases. ;-)
I don't think powergaming (even when it doesn't abuse the rules) is a necessity to have fun, or even to survive a game.Clearly you aren't playing the Age of Worms adventure path... :)
Dude, we're playing AoW converted to 2ED, and we haven't had any problems. It's not that bad.
Hmm...Munchkins definetly exist...i'll try and elaborate from what i've personally witnessed at my gaming table.
Munchkins VS Min/Maxers
Munchkins are totally selfish tryhing to hoard and keep the best magical items for themselves and want to ALWAYS be in the spotlight (even to the point of trying to do what other classes excel at). They want to be the BEST at EVERYTHING and will stop at nothing to achieve it, no matter the cost.
Min/Maxers distribute the items in the party where they can be of most use. They try and get the most bang for the buck so to speak. Whether it be speed and mobility for tactical advatages or just dishing out the most damage...they tend to understand the role each PC has in the party and even push the characters they preceive are not pulling their weight. (irksome for the DM but less selfish in terms of others don't want to play with them anymore).
IMHO Munchkinism (if that's a word lol) isn't only about style of play..its mannerisms, attitude, and just plain manners and consideration for others. It is way more derogatory than mim/maxer (who play a certain way but are not antisocial).
At our table we get all kinds, but if were a popularity contest we'd pick a min/maxer over a munchkin in any day that ends in "y".
Do Munchkins exhist? Yes. If you don't believe that munchkins exhist, you either play with a mature well rounded gaming group, or YOU are a Munchkin.
Is munchkin a deragotory word? Yes! It's supose to be! it is used to describe bad behavior of the PLAYER! Not the character.
Here are a few examples, M'kay...
Hear, hear!
Okay, I'll rephrase that. I think that it's not necessary in a lot of games. Though I do agree that some games, especially prewritten ones, are a lot harder to survive without powergaming. I think one of the reasons some people seem to abuse the game is because, at one point in time, they had to. So, they keep doing it even after that ridiculously hard game that started it. Of course, there are others who just do it for fun. *shrug*
I've certianly noticed this when a player has a character killed. The next one is usually really tough and there is a lot of taking feats etc. to make the player more powerful. That said this is usually not the route to true Munchkinism. In 3.5 being a Munchkin takes some planning - if you take every feat etc, to make your character most survivable right now you'll find down the road that some of the feates etc. don't stack well over the long term. Improved Inititive for example is a great feat for a fighter short term and early in his or her career - but since it is not usually part of a power combo's its a wasted feat from a munchkins perspective.
I am taking a guess that players will agree that most munchkins come from the ranks of young and/or inexperienced players. There is usually an evolution to the depth of characters over time.
That being said looking down your nose at someone who falls into your munchkin category does not strike me as very mature. Players range on all points of the DnD spectrum. If someone is too far away from your group as a whole don't play with them.
No matter how good one may think he is, there is someone better out there. Would it be acceptable for an athlete to refer to a less skilled player as a scrub. Or a top ranked chess player to refer to your game as pathetic. As far as wargames are concerned most players play within the rules of the game. I would like to know how many have actual faced a real combat situation. Could the games we play be consider weak simulations?
Stop complaining and find solutions!
Well I think munchkins exist, and yes it is a perjorative. That said, I only have a problem with munchkins and munchkinism if they are palying in a game I am involved with. Not because it is the WRONG way to play, but because I don't play that way so at least one of us is going to end up frustrated. One of the things I have learned from these boards is that there are LOTS of different ways to play the game, varying levels of homebrew, people who really get into worlds as written, high magic low magic, different backdrops, etc. In my opinion people can and should play in way that allows them to have the best time they can with their friends. The problem is when the styles of play around the table don't mesh, not that someone is wrong, just that the styles of play don't work well together. No one is BETTER than anyone else, but IMO the "munchkin" style of play is the most disruptive for non-munchkins.
I am the first to admit (because I do it) that going on about clothes, elvish dance, variations of non existant languages can slow a gaming session down. But to me imagining detail, creating dialogue, are more interesting than a 30 strength.
The call was for solutions. Our group hit on what I thought was a pretty good one. Our table sessions were generally pretty action oriented, but between sessions there was a lot of roleplay stuff via email - people read or deleted it as they saw fit. This tactic evolved over time, but worked really well to help everyone get what they wanted out of the game.
Maybe that method could help a few others.