I was thinking about D&D and how the playing style seems to have changed over the years and I think I've had a bit of a revelation. When D&D started it was an attempt to use wargaming rules to simulate the sort of thing that went on in fantasy novels. Fantasy literature and film was the touchstone, the thing that people who played D&D referenced and were attempting to re-create, in a way. Thus we have old school players emphasizing storyline, heroics, role playing, etc.
Nowadays alot of younger players come to pen and paper RPGs after having already played MMORPGs. They get their group of friends together and plan their team of adventurers meticulously, approaching the game as though it is a military operation and they must all work together to kill the bad guys and grow stronger. Parties don't have a spread of different classes because it is interesting or because that's what happens in books; they have them because it is effective. As proof I would cite the many threads on this very forum that follow the pattern of "my party already has X, Y and Z, what class would be best (read: most advantageous in a battle) for me to be?"
I'm not saying either way is better or worse, it just seems to me that someone who has come to RPGs via literature is going to tend toward the RP style of play, and a group that has come to them via MMORPGs will probably play a typical munchkin game, more like a recreation of a crack commando mission where they work together as a well oiled team and there is very little non-metagame speak. The simple truth is that older players will tend to have come to D&D with visions of their favourite novels/movies in their head, and younger players with the idea that it's just another group combat oriented "RPG" they can play with their mates without using a computer. It makes sense that people play the game that their experiences have led them to expect.
Any thoughts on this? Maybe I'm just stating the obvious...
The simple truth is that older players will tend to have come to D&D with visions of their favourite novels/movies in their head, and younger players with the idea that it's just another group combat oriented "RPG" they can play with their mates without using a computer.
Well, there's a bit of truth to it, but it's hardly a universally applicable statement, let alone a simple truth.
I've read books, watched movies, and played MMOs. Fact is, the vast majority of those I played online with were anywhere from 14 to 30+ years older than me. Of those around my own age (19) who I've gamed with (and some that I haven't) every one of them of them have also been involved in "free form" roleplaying, be it in a "Play by Post" format on a message board or a quicker paced game in a chat forum. Heck, my younger sister (not quite 15, who has also played MMOs) recently joined an online writing community that I've been a member of for three years, and has been more active in general roleplaying threads than I have.
Now, MMOs could certainly be a contributing factor to "munchkinism", but based on my own experiences, the most dangerous habit you an pick up from MMOs and carry over into D&D is a basic understanding of tactics and a determination to not build characters who can't pull their own weight in an adventuring party. Well, the second most dangerous habit. The most dangerous habit that you could carry over would lead to your players sitting around the table before the first session saying "First Level Rogue looking for AOW group!"
Well, while MMORPGs might contribute to power gaming and munchkinisms.. I'd hardly say that MMORPGs are a root cause.
IMHO, powergaming and munchkinisms existed far before MMORPGs, and I'd cite myself as an example. I seem to remember letters about this in Dragon way back in the 80s as well.
Now, what may be more applicable in this case, is to say that more players are coming to DnD at a younger age BECAUSE of MMORPGs. I'd say based on my own experiences that while older players are hardly immune from being munchkins, it is more common in younger/rookie players.
|
The simple truth is that older players will tend to have come to D&D with visions of their favourite novels/movies in their head, and younger players with the idea that it's just another group combat oriented "RPG" they can play with their mates without using a computer.
And I certainly don't think age is anything to do with it either - my group are in their 40's, been playing for decades, and they are dedicated power-gamers.
If I might get on my hobby-horse, the munchkin is in the eye of the beholder. It's a patronising term used by those who assume superiority over others, and as such pernicious. Don't use it. And don't compound the matter my suggesting younger players (like Saern and the White Toymaker, very sensible players both) are somehow poorer players. It's the people using such terms who need the extra maturity.
|
The most dangerous habit that you could carry over would lead to your players sitting around the table before the first session saying "First Level Rogue looking for AOW group!"
Surely you mean rouge :)
The other problem might be they have no fear of death, and won't be able to adapt to the fact that in RPGs, and D&D in particular, death is not just something that happens and then the nice angel brings you back. Like it used to do in computer games, when I was a lad :)
|
|
The most dangerous habit that you could carry over would lead to your players sitting around the table before the first session saying "First Level Rogue looking for AOW group!"Surely you mean rouge :)
The other problem might be they have no fear of death, and won't be able to adapt to the fact that in RPGs, and D&D in particular, death is not just something that happens and then the nice angel brings you back. Like it used to do in computer games, when I was a lad :)
I saw that!
FH (walking the beat)
And I certainly don't think age is anything to do with it either - my group are in their 40's, been playing for decades, and they are dedicated power-gamers.
Same here, we're all in our 40's or late 30's and have been playing for many years, with one exception.
Just look at the 2nd edition supplementary rule books TSR put out for each class such as "The Complete Barbarian Handbook"...to me the REAL start of "munchkinism" was 1st edition AD&D "Unearthed Arcana" which I think came out in 1985 or 1984....I think you can be a great role-player and still be a "power gamer" -- they're not mutually exclusive.
I saw that!FH (walking the beat)
:-D
That stuff cracks me up!
Anyway I've been a gamer of tabletop and computer games for 20+ years (had a VIC-20 when I was 13!) and I have always "power gamed" (and by most people's definition that means I'm a "munchkin" as well). Does this mean I've missed the point of RPGs? Does my loathing of the World of Darkness game system/setting mean I'm the inferior role player? Does liking to play Neverwinter Nights with 40th level characters detract from the RP aspects of table top games? I can't say i see the connection really.
The other problem might be they have no fear of death, and won't be able to adapt to the fact that in RPGs, and D&D in particular, death is not just something that happens and then the nice angel brings you back. Like it used to do in computer games, when I was a lad :)
Yeah, that definitely would be problematic. "What do you mean I lose a level! He just spent 500 platinum to cast Raise Dead! What kind of game are you running?" That'd be about equivalent, I guess, to the gamer who was inspired to play by his favorite fantasy novels and can't handle his inability to flip to the end and make sure that he'll get a good ending before he invests himself in the adventure. ;) (Though, I've contemplated the possibilities of playing an awakened fine sized animated object with the racial ability to grant my allies a +1 circumstance bonus on disguise checks. I could be a Rouge-Rogue!)
Anyway I've been a gamer of tabletop and computer games for 20+ years (had a VIC-20 when I was 13!) and I have always "power gamed" (and by most people's definition that means I'm a "munchkin" as well). Does this mean I've missed the point of RPGs? Does my loathing of the World of Darkness game system/setting mean I'm the inferior role player? Does liking to play Neverwinter Nights with 40th level characters detract from the RP aspects of table top games? I can't say i see the connection really.
(Rant) And that's the thing, really, that leads to at least two thirds of my "started, but then aborted in disgust" posts that never see the light of day. It seems to be a pretty common assumption that "powergaming" (building powerful characters) and "roleplaying" (getting in character and displaying imagination) are mutually exclusive when, in my opinion, they're completely unrelated. I forget where I saw it, but in some article somewhere a guy said that in his mind the ideal gamer was equal parts "Immersive Roleplayer" and "Powergamer", and I've stuck with that as a guideline. Bob the Fighter with a Greatsword is pretty boring, but Frederick von Guthbert McSomethingorOther the Seventeenth and a Half isn't going to live long enough to be interesting if he doesn't have the mechanics to back him up.
Certainly, there are a number of crappy roleplayers whose primary interest is in seeing what kind of big numbers they can throw around -- I've gamed with several. There are also people who are incredibly good roleplayers but can't grasp (or be bothered to grasp) the methodology behind making an attack roll -- for quite a while, I refused to venture into D&D because I found the rules inhibiting and intimidating, and the dice unnecessary. The only reason I've been able to think up explaining why the former group gets a lot of outspoken hatred while the latter doesn't is that you can have one person running two character sheets a lot more easily than you can have the same person speaking lines for two characters.
I don't see any reason, though, that building (or even playing) a powerful character -- even an excessively powerful one -- would preclude roleplaying it well and being fun to play with. For that matter, what's "excessively powerful" is almost purely a judgement call and will vary widely from one game to another. Playing Krog the Invulnerable alongside Garret the Apple-Picker and Maria the Barmaid would generally indicate a lack of tact and consideration, but that's a matter of etiquette, and not one of creativity, imagination, or talent. Ironically, we don't see many complaints about the guy who insists on playing Ned the Janitor alongside Melvin the Great and Sylvia the Radiant. (/Rant)
... Gah. Holy crud, that was a lot longer than I expected. Apologies for thread-jacking.
I do believe in munchkins as a problem, which is when you get someone who is a power gamer and disrupts the group. It does happen, and it has a name. Is it a munchkin if it doesn't cause problems? Even though I might be tempted to say so, in truth, it isn't.
Power gaming isn't bad at all- I love deep immersion role play, but, as posted before, if my character doesn't have the crunch to back him up, the fluff don't matter. And I want to be able to do something in combat and draw respect and admiration from my fellow gamers for my character's abilities, the same as I give to them.
Do I believe that MMOs are a major source of the munchkin mentality in D&D? No. I love to play WoW and plan on spending a large amount of my summer glued in front of the computer screen doing just that. There are a lot of idiots in MMOs. By far, it seems the majority are either pre-pubescent, spoiled, hyperactive brats, or people who act like that well into their 40s (which is a lot worse).
They don't somehow infect D&D with their mentality as many don't play. They don't have the attention spans for it, can't use their imaginations to turn their numbers into characters, or have never heard of it and just play video games to play video games. In any of the aforementioned situations or combination thereof, MMOs do us a service by drawing off those who might actually pollute the gaming community (as most people view it) by giving them an alternative where they fit in perfectly and everyone is happy.
...
(/rant) Except me, when my warlock is trying to persuade a paladin to embrace the shadow in a deep RP conversation, and a dwarf runs upo and starts running in circles going "nananananananana RP busters!" in what he must have thought was a cool attempt at a Batman theme-music impression, and then everyone else in Goldshire, which is a TON of people for NO APPARENT REASON (really! Why do they all stand around there, there is no reason for it! The town has nothing! But they hang around and drive my latency over 1000ms!) decides to get in on the fun, until I ask why they all came to a clearly labelled RP server and don't RP, and suggested the cause must be illiteracy, at which point they all leave, even though it was a pretty weak jab! How's that for insecurity?! THAT is a munchkin!
Ahhh, thank god for the "ignore" list. :) (/rant over)
What's MMO stand for?
Munchkinism and power-gaming came along well before EQ was a thought in somebody's noggin. It has more to do with a person's...well, personality (or lack of it) than anything else, I think. I'm sure video games, in all their various incarnations, have had quite the impact with their "bigger better faster badder" mentality, but it's not exactly new.
Joining the pile-up: power gaming is exactly as good or bad as your group chooses. Power gaming is bad if only one player is doing it-- and continues in such a way as to steal the spotlight/ thwart the other player's fun.
On the other hand, not-power-gaming in a group who mutually agrees that the fun of D&D is in the challenges-- the part of the game that so much of the game text is focussed on-- is also wrong. If everyone's playing the game to the limit, but you nerf yourself-- you're not playing the same game as everyone else. There is wriggle room...
Really, if you enjoy what you're doing, and everyone else does too, then you're in good shape. As everyone above chimed in-- roleplaying is quite divorced from powergaming; you can have both, you can have neither. (Though if you get neither, I don't know why you're wasting your time on it...)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I always thought it was a combination of the mercury in immunizations and the flouride in water that caused munchkinism.
I mean sure, MMORPGs give off dangerous levels of gamma radiation that make it easier for the government to pick up the brainwaves emitted by your fillings, but I don't think the radiation causes munchkinism.
Joining the pile-up: power gaming is exactly as good or bad as your group chooses. Power gaming is bad if only one player is doing it-- and continues in such a way as to steal the spotlight/ thwart the other player's fun.
On the other hand, not-power-gaming in a group who mutually agrees that the fun of D&D is in the challenges-- the part of the game that so much of the game text is focussed on-- is also wrong. If everyone's playing the game to the limit, but you nerf yourself-- you're not playing the same game as everyone else. There is wriggle room...
Really, if you enjoy what you're doing, and everyone else does too, then you're in good shape. As everyone above chimed in-- roleplaying is quite divorced from powergaming; you can have both, you can have neither. (Though if you get neither, I don't know why you're wasting your time on it...)
Very well said. I, as a dedicated power gamer, help out my fellow players as much as I can (but only when asked - it would seem rude in the extreme to butt in on someone else's character design). For example at the character building session of the game I just joined one of my fellow players was having the hardest time coming up with 2 good feats. He was playing a Warmage and seemed stuck in the "need big attack rolls" of the fighter/rogues he usually plays. I gave him a few suggestions based on what he was telling me were his biggest concerns with the character. This prompted other players to ask my advice on other aspects of their characters (one fellow even went on to use almost the exact build I recommended!).
Power gamers should always use their powerz for good, not being a d**k. ;-)
I wouldn't say that MMORPGs are the root cause of munchkinism - we've had rabid immature powergamers since before we had D&D. Rather, MMORPGs just really appeal to munchkins, who get all of the character building, powerlevelling and broken magic item combinations without having to bother with story progression, character acting, DM interference or upsetting the other players.
I wouldn't say that MMORPGs are the root cause of munchkinism - we've had rabid immature powergamers since before we had D&D. Rather, MMORPGs just really appeal to munchkins, who get all of the character building, powerlevelling and broken magic item combinations without having to bother with story progression, character acting, DM interference or upsetting the other players.
Of course, MMOs appeal to older people who don't have a consistant group, people who want to be able to roleplay at the drop of a hat, players whose prefered style doesn't match their groups, people who are visual rather than auditory...
Anyway, done with defending MMOs. They're fun for many people-- fun enough that people will spend monthly $ on them. Tabletop RPGS are also fun... they're my preference for instance. Many people enjoy both, each for its own strengths.
Munchkinism and power-gaming came along well before EQ was a thought in somebody's noggin. It has more to do with a person's...well, personality (or lack of it) than anything else, I think. I'm sure video games, in all their various incarnations, have had quite the impact with their "bigger better faster badder" mentality, but it's not exactly new.
I agree, it's been going on for decades...but I see "munchkinism" and "power gaming" as two seperate states of mind
a power gamer wants the character with the high ability scores, the big weapons, best armor and the best set of feats and PRs to make him the "BEST", the other type of power gamer I have experienced is the player that wants the in-game power (fame, wealth, prestige, rulership, respect, etc.) that adventuring would bring him/her...e.g. demanding an audience with the king or having all the townswomen swoon when you rid into town...a power gamer usually role-plays their character too
a "munchkin" gamer wants the "COOLEST" character, the one that practically improbable to exist and is totally unusual from about every other being in the game...the LG half-dragons/half/demon/vampiric drow fighter/wizard/bard/psion...a munchkin gamer (in my experience) normally doesn't roleplay their character (I don't know how many thri-kreen fighter dart specialists characters I’ve seen role-played with human personalities and idioms)
A power gamer group will be usually a consist of "average" races (PH core races) but with the best, most kick-a** feats, armor, weapons and spells that make them the best at what they do and as close to undefeatable as possible
A munchkin group will consist of the drow ninja, half-dragon warlock, warforged barbarian, half-ogre fighter and any other illogical race/class combo that will make them "cool"
a good DM can run a fine game session with power gamers, he/she just needs "power foes" to counter the players but a group of munchkins, they will just get tired of the novelty of their character and the (relatively) slow pace of dice-and-paper RPGs and go back to MMO-RPGs or other video games
My 3 cents
Kalin
|
I had one of my normal really long winded posts here before a poweroutage managed to wipe it clean shortly before I was going to hit the submit button.
Suffice to say however I wanted to say that I thought TheWhiteToymaker made some really great points in her response. Youth doesn't necessarily equate to a powergamer, though I think that some of the traits that we associate with youth(impatience, ect) can be attributed to that perception.
Even without the influence of MMOs though the idea of a 'Munchkin' character has been as prevalent in fantasy culture as the idea of the character who is an average Joe who just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. Part of what makes a fantasy epic fantasy is that it is beyond belief. Our characters are supposed to be able to do things that we can only dream of, whether that shows itself in the form of some sort of magical power or superhuman skill.
I think that if anything is to actually blame for this sort of trend in gaming it is the refinement of the rules. This isn't a bad thing in any case, but who remembers the days of 'roll 3d6 in order and leave them where they fall'? Or the handful of skills(both weapon and nonweapon) you might get away with in AD&D. With the D20 system has come the idea of things like 'point buy' characters and a dizzying selection of feats. Having these options gives players the ability to design their characters to be part of the team or to match whatever concept they have floating in their head, but it also means that they can make them very two dimensionally.
All that isn't bad though, it is just different in many ways. I think that is where the battles between the vintage gamers and the newcomer gamers comes in. Once upon a time a 5th level fighter was a 5th level fighter just as an elf was an elf. What really seperated them from one another was the players ability to recount the tails of what brought them to that point, of the villians slain and the damsels saved.
Now with the new rules one 5th level fighter can be very different from another. This often leads to players making mention of their feat trees or prestige classes when they speak about what their character is capable of. This doesn't mean that they haven't had the same sort of experiences, the epic battles or intense role playing moments.
I, myself, tend to be in the weaker character camp, simply because I enjoy playing out the development of the character who isn't that much different then the norm but has to grow to fill the shoes of a true adventurer. Thats the sort of character I like to role-play, but I know well that isn't the only sort or role-play. I've mentioned it before on another thread, a character in a game I ran at one point who was a total combat monster. A half-orc barbarian min-maxed as far as you can imagine. I was a bit disapointed when the player made that choice, but when we got into the game he ended up being one of the most memorable characters, doing things like going to the orphanage in town and putting on shadowpuppets for the kids(he would put his hand up like a turkey and show the dangers of the 'gobbly bird'). He wasn't bright, and he wasn't balanced, but he was a real character.
This ended up being even more long winded then my original post I think, but I suppose what I was trying to get at is that while there are powergamers, and some who will try and offbalance the game by using flaws in the system, there also are characters too and the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Its ok to have high stats sometimes, they are heroes after all.
|
|
Just look at the 2nd edition supplementary rule books TSR put out for each class such as "The Complete Barbarian Handbook"...to me the REAL start of "munchkinism" was 1st edition AD&D "Unearthed Arcana" which I think came out in 1985 or 1984....I think you can be a great role-player and still be a "power gamer" -- they're not mutually exclusive.
Let's just say that when "Gods, Demigods, and Heroes" (1976) included stats for Gods (and Demigods, and ...), we took that as an opportunity to rack up some scalps. The only difference between the 16-year-olds of today and the 16-year-olds of thirty years ago is that the modern version have a database of exploits to tap. We had to hack the systems by our ownselves (... uphill both ways, in a blizzard, barefoot).
I fondly recall using stacked Haste spells, a log, a catapult, and a DB Fireball to make siege explosives. (If the log burns exponentially faster, all that energy needs to go somewhere, don't you know.)
Holy crap, I am truly surprised by the vehemence of many of these replies. I've just picked this one at random as representative of the others.
What happened? Did everyone miss the bit where I said this?And I certainly don't think age is anything to do with it either - my group are in their 40's, been playing for decades, and they are dedicated power-gamers.
If I might get on my hobby-horse, the munchkin is in the eye of the beholder. It's a patronising term used by those who assume superiority over others, and as such pernicious. Don't use it. And don't compound the matter my suggesting younger players (like Saern and the White Toymaker, very sensible players both) are somehow poorer players. It's the people using such terms who need the extra maturity.
I'm not saying either way is better or worse
I was not aware "munchkin" was such a deadly insult. I genuinely thought it was a neutral description of a style of play. Sorry for any misunderstanding. Maybe it's a worse term in the US than it is here in Australia...
*deep breath* I think ALL styles of play are equally valid, I DO NOT think munchkins are worse players than role play fanatics or killing the game or something equally based on point of view, and I certainly DO NOT think younger players are worse than older players. Where did everyone infer all this from in my post?
All I was pointing out was that someone whose main experience of RPGs before they come to D&D is an MMORPG (a team oriented combat based game where the style of play dictates min-maxing and careful planning of upgrades) is more likely to play D&D this way too, simnply because of their experiences. Likewise someone who has never played an RPG but has read alot of books and seen alot of movies is (probably) going to try to recreate the feel of the media they have absorbed. I never said that ALL powergamers are young and have played World of warcraft before they started D&D, or that all role players are refugees from the 1970's.
I don't care one tiny atom how people play. Play the way that generates the most fun for you. Geez.
Don't take it personal; this debate, along with the Eberron vs. Greyhawk vs. Forgotten Realms discussion is one that recurs quite often and I think some of the responses weren't aimed at you directly.
|
|
I was not aware "munchkin" was such a deadly insult. I genuinely thought it was a neutral description of a style of play.
Maybe you do use the term as a neutral description of a particular style of play - but you would probably be unusual. If you read the posts, anyone using the term is quite clearly expressing a negative view of "munchkinism" - basically, childish novelty freaks who don't understand the "purity" of true roleplaying. A few even say things like "They won't last long at my gaming table". And if being a munchkin is perfectly Ok, why bother to mention it in your original post, and then suggest it arises (partly) from kids playing MMORPGs?
I certainly don't mind people enjoying a diverse range of playing styles - in fact I don't really care what people do providing they are having fun. The reason I don't like the term is because I think it shows the hobby in a bad light - it makes us seem like a bunch of unwelcoming, elitist sh!t-heads, frankly. I also think it's pretty rude to apply loaded labels to people as well.
I appreciate you are possibly a bit surprised by the response. But as someone who likes to power-game, I pretty cheesed off with the lazy assumptions that are attached to the munchkin term, and so do a few others. Partly, this is the tired old "role-players v power-gamers" argument that is as old as the game is, and as such I'm almost annoyed to be drawn into it. But the smug arrogance that some users of the term "munchkin" seem to think is perfectly OK rankles me deeply. Expect this sort of response whenever this sort of thread emerges. Apologies, but it really bugs me.
PS - I'm a pom, not American.
|
|
I do believe in munchkins as a problem, which is when you get someone who is a power gamer and disrupts the group. It does happen, and it has a name. Is it a munchkin if it doesn't cause problems? Even though I might be tempted to say so, in truth, it isn't.
With respect, I must disagree. I don't think the lone power-gamer would be especially disruptive. If everything is within the rules, I fail to see how there can be a significant disruptive effect from a particular character (as opposed to the player).
In any case, it is up to the DM to cater to the tastes of his group - everyone will differ to some extent about what they want out if it. It boils down to a large extent to skillful DM'ing. I find it funny how very few posters here, mostly DMs, tend to mention that maybe they fall down in this respect and blame "munchkin" players instead.
In my experience, when you get disruption, it is normally a facet on out-of-game factors - personal stresses and animosities, emotional problems and so on. These are really hard to deal with within the game, and this is when things can get nasty. Selfish, aggressive and overbearing behaviour can manifest itself in players creating specific characters with these traits - but that isn't the same as power-gaming, which I would consider the emphasis of the tactical elements of the game over the role-playing ones. And I wouldn't even really call it "munchkinism" by any definition. These are real problems in the real world expressing themselves in the game, not childish novelty seeking.
I agree partially with you Aubrey (and I agree with Sebastion - your answers on this "problem" in D&D have been some of the more insightful). The only thing I can add is that munchkinism can arise in part from the DMs own actions. One DM I knew pandered to his groups munchkin qualities to the detriment of the campaign. At least 2 others DMs I know created a munchkin problem by giving out way too many powerful and gamechanging magic items to one or two players, which inadvertantly led to player munchkinism. I guess what I'm trying to say is that DMs can be their own worst enemy when it comes to this facet of the D&D experience, and need to be careful when dealing with players who exhibit munchkin traits.
On the issue of munchkinism versus other problems that are outside the game, munchkinism can lead to these more important problems coming to the fore. For instance, two players personal animosities coming to the surface when a character belonging to one of them displays munchkin behaviour, or a person with a self-inflated sense of importance and far too much testosterone for his own good develops a munchkin character. That can be a recipe for disaster.
And if being a munchkin is perfectly Ok, why bother to mention it in your original post, and then suggest it arises (partly) from kids playing MMORPGs.
I'm sorry, but I still don't see where the negative judgement you think I've made comes in -unless you think powergaming and/or traditional RPG's being influenced by MMORPG play styles is inherently bad, which I'm sure you don't, and neither do I. Not all observations have a value judgement attached to them. I could say that increased internet use during office hours leads to a different style of work from the traditional. That doesn't mean I'm saying anything's wrong with either the older or newer style, I'm just observing a change out of interest. I am interested in games and I was making a dispassionate observation.
The reason I don't like the term is because I think it shows the hobby in a bad light - it makes us seem like a bunch of unwelcoming, elitist sh!t-heads, frankly. I also think it's pretty rude to apply loaded labels to people as well.
Fair enough. I definitely think I have misunderstood the word "munchkin." In fact, I have never heard anyone use it in Australia and I only used it because I have read it in Dragon and on forums. Obviously I have misconstrued the connotations of the term. Would it have made a difference if I had said "powergaming" instead of "munchkinism?"
Partly, this is the tired old "role-players v power-gamers" argument that is as old as the game is, and as such I'm almost annoyed to be drawn into it. But the smug arrogance that some users of the term "munchkin" seem to think is perfectly OK rankles me deeply. Expect this sort of response whenever this sort of thread emerges. Apologies, but it really bugs me.
Oh OK. There has definitely been a misunderstanding then. This discussion is not supposed to be about "powergaming versus roleplaying." I don't care about that and as I said I don't think either way is better. I just wanted to make an attempt to understand why people play the way they do, and I thought (not unreasonably I think) that their experiences probably have something to do with it. Hopefully we could then get some understanding and mutual respect between powergamers and role players (not that they are, as has been pointed out, mutually exclusive terms) and get away from the tired old debate :)
Unfortunately all I seem to have done is fail to get my point across and then re-awaken the very discussion I was trying to render obsolete!
|
|
I always thought it was a combination of the mercury in immunizations and the flouride in water that caused munchkinism.
I mean sure, MMORPGs give off dangerous levels of gamma radiation that make it easier for the government to pick up the brainwaves emitted by your fillings, but I don't think the radiation causes munchkinism.
Actually, I am a nuclear medicine technologist, and I inject people with radioactive fluorine-18 fdg every day. I guess I'm in a lot of trouble.
Oh, and I do a few brain scans...
I'm sorry, but I still don't see where the negative judgement you think I've made comes in -unless you think powergaming and/or traditional RPG's being influenced by MMORPG play styles is inherently bad, which I'm sure you don't, and neither do I.
And if being a munchkin is perfectly Ok, why bother to mention it in your original post, and then suggest it arises (partly) from kids playing MMORPGs.
Since he (erroneously) equates "munchkins" to "power-gamers" in the very first sentence of his initial reply, I'm pretty sure he does.
|
|
Unfortunately all I seem to have done is fail to get my point across and then re-awaken the very discussion I was trying to render obsolete!
Ah, the irony. Point taken. The politics of munchkinism are treacherous indeed.
Actually I think you are right - I've not really heard the term used by non-Americans.
|
|
Aubrey, I agree with you on most of your points about this and as I said in my previous post I don't think that having powerful characters is a bad thing in any way.
However I do have to disagree on the point that having a single powerful character(or even just ability)could not disrupt gameplay. A single powerful ability tends to quickly become a hinderance to the feel game, simply because if you don't wish your more boss-like enemies to be just casually tossed aside then they all have to somehow have an immunity, or at least a resistance, to this power. You either end up with a character who can simply smite down the foes easily, removing challenge from the game, or you have to design the enemies so that they are near-unstobbable for him which is going to leave him bored.
A single overly powerful character multiplies this problem greatly because if the rest of the group isn't up to par with them then they can hijack the adventure, becoming the center of attention in every fight, and feeling left out whenever the game moves away from their point of expertise.
Powergamers as a group work very well together and can balance each other nicely, but a single powergamer in an otherwise light group can be really offbalancing.
I do believe in munchkins as a problem, which is when you get someone who is a power gamer and disrupts the group. It does happen, and it has a name. Is it a munchkin if it doesn't cause problems? Even though I might be tempted to say so, in truth, it isn't.With respect, I must disagree. I don't think the lone power-gamer would be especially disruptive. If everything is within the rules, I fail to see how there can be a significant disruptive effect from a particular character (as opposed to the player).
In any case, it is up to the DM to cater to the tastes of his group - everyone will differ to some extent about what they want out if it. It boils down to a large extent to skillful DM'ing. I find it funny how very few posters here, mostly DMs, tend to mention that maybe they fall down in this respect and blame "munchkin" players instead.
In my experience, when you get disruption, it is normally a facet on out-of-game factors - personal stresses and animosities, emotional problems and so on. These are really hard to deal with within the game, and this is when things can get nasty. Selfish, aggressive and overbearing behaviour can manifest itself in players creating specific characters with these traits - but that isn't the same as power-gaming, which I would consider the emphasis of the tactical elements of the game over the role-playing ones. And I wouldn't even really call it "munchkinism" by any definition. These are real problems in the real world expressing themselves in the game, not childish novelty seeking.
I understand. Again, I am perfectly ok with powergamers- I can easily enjoy powergaming and DM mainly for powergamers. I think that the new rules system really accents this point of play and it's fun and good.
And a lone powergamer shouldn't unbalance the party.
A munchkin, as I see it, is when you get a person/subgroup within the play group that is causing problems for others by bein immature and not role playing at all. Further, and this is an important part, a munchkin only exists when the transgression lies with the metagaming powergamers. If someone else in the group is doing something that antagonizes the powergamers and thus causes problems, be this other person DM or player, then the powergamers are not munchkins. However, if the disruption originates with them, then they are. This is typically indicative of immaturity, which is also associated with the word "munchkin" as I know it. Tarlane actually summed up my views pretty well in the previous post. Thanks!
As I said in another post, some of it comes from a subconsciously percieved insult to the DM when he prepares his world and adventure so meticulously and then sees it ignored/trashed/threatened (in his mind), so he reacts in a hostile fashion. I'd just like to point out that this is wrong to do. Talk to your players, don't attack them (unless talking fails, and then just find another group if you are able).
This does exist, and it's simply a matter of convenience to use a term to describe it so that others understand the situation easily. Munchkin serves that role.
I meant to post earlier that I thought it was actually unfair that the opposite problem, of role playing too much, to the point that you cause a problem for other players, doesn't have a name similar to munchkins. This problem also does exist, like munchkins, and should be as discouraged as the other. And again, the term only applies with a negative connotation when the weight of the transgression/onus of change is on the munchkin/over role player (for lack of a better term).
On another note, munchkin can in fact be used in a neutral sense. Someone who engages in metagaming and powergaming together can be called a munchkin as a simple term for what he is doing. I view it as a spectrum, with munchkins (in this sense, a neutral term) on one end, and super-role-players on the other (someone really needs to come up with a name for that, too).
Where does the term "munchkin" come from, anyway. Not what it means or when it was first used, but why "munchkin"? What do small people from Oz have to do with powergaming?
I would also like to say that one of the reasons I believe in munchkins so much is because that type of mentality is extremely common in MMOs such as World of Warcraft. As I stated before, I was actually trying to roleplay a discussion in the game, only to have someone run up and try to amuse himself by ridiculing me for acting in character (done by repeatedly saying, "Nanananananananananana RP Busters!"). That is a munchkin.
Finally, I would just like to say that, while I do believe they exist, I am extremely sympathetic to you, Aubrey. I enjoy the fact that you speak up against what is, in fact, and elitist prejudice. I attempt to make sure that I don't use it in that way, although often it slips out.
Play the way that generates the most fun for you. Geez.
Can I get a "But it's really just about having fun"?
As ever,
ACE
I certainly don't mind people enjoying a diverse range of playing styles - in fact I don't really care what people do providing they are having fun.
Hum...Can i get another "But it's really just about having fun"?
As ever,
ACE
With respect, I must disagree. I don't think the lone power-gamer would be especially disruptive. If everything is within the rules, I fail to see how there can be a significant disruptive effect from a particular character (as opposed to the player).In any case, it is up to the DM to cater to the tastes of his group - everyone will differ to some extent about what they want out if it. It boils down to a large extent to skillful DM'ing. I find it funny how very few posters here, mostly DMs, tend to mention that maybe they fall down in this respect and blame "munchkin" players instead.
Aubrey got it right here...words like munchkin, powergamer, role player, etc. are all nouns used to describe an individual (He/she is a munchkin) or a group of individuals with like attributes (They are ALL munchkins). Thus, the relitive meaning of words that describe a Player or a group with similar attributes need not be ascribed to a community game experience - this is up to the GM to moderate. If an entire group of players are all munchkins, odds are that there won't be a rub within the group. If there's a mixed bag of gaming styles, then one of the roles of the GM is to mesh all those styles together. To paraphrase Aubrey, Munchkinism only exists in a community setting as far as a GM will allow it to exist.
As ever,
ACE
|
|
I would also like to say that one of the reasons I believe in munchkins so much is because that type of mentality is extremely common in MMOs such as World of Warcraft. As I stated before, I was actually trying to roleplay a discussion in the game, only to have someone run up and try to amuse himself by ridiculing me for acting in character (done by repeatedly saying, "Nanananananananananana RP Busters!"). That is a munchkin.
The term I would use for such a person would actually be "complete dickhead". But munchkin will do - it is perfectly acceptable, in my view, to insult people like that. :-)
On MMORPGs (or WoW, anyway, which is what I play) there is certainly a great deal of unnecessary rudeness. I guess it anonymous, so the more infantile can get away with it.
|
|
Aubrey, I agree with you on most of your points about this and as I said in my previous post I don't think that having powerful characters is a bad thing in any way.
However I do have to disagree on the point that having a single powerful character(or even just ability)could not disrupt gameplay. A single powerful ability tends to quickly become a hinderance to the feel game, simply because if you don't wish your more boss-like enemies to be just casually tossed aside then they all have to somehow have an immunity, or at least a resistance, to this power. You either end up with a character who can simply smite down the foes easily, removing challenge from the game, or you have to design the enemies so that they are near-unstobbable for him which is going to leave him bored.
A single overly powerful character multiplies this problem greatly because if the rest of the group isn't up to par with them then they can hijack the adventure, becoming the center of attention in every fight, and feeling left out whenever the game moves away from their point of expertise.
Powergamers as a group work very well together and can balance each other nicely, but a single powergamer in an otherwise light group can be really offbalancing.
Hmm, perhaps.....
The way I see it is like this. One would hope, with a well designed RPG, that most RULES balance issues should be more or less dealt with. The basic three books of 3.5E probably are like this, though the subsequent supplements are less well play-tested and may not be. But basically, if something is allowed in the rules, I would be loath to tell a player he can't do it because it might prove difficult to me as a DM or might make the other characters look a bit puny. If his dice rolls aren't fixed and his character build is legal within the rules, that's fair, because the other players can take advantage of this if they want - that's choice, ultimately.
If it making things hard for me as DM, it is not a problem, it's a challenge. I think part of the art of DM'ing is to address exactly these sorts of situations where the players are challenged but, ultimately, you are being still fair to them (i.e. no victimisation). There are threads galore on this topic so I won't say anymore, except to say that the "You can't do that because it disrupts my plotlines" is not a good place for a DM to be. It is hard being a DM, and these things can be tricky, but that is where you need to rely on inspiration and experience, and it's a constant learning curve.
If it is overshadowing the other players, I am more torn. But if some players are feeling overshadowed by the power-gamer, then again it may be because the DM is not skewing the adventures in the right direction for the players. If the PC rogue (rouge?) has maxed out Diplomacy (as opposed to, say, Tumble) and feels his "flavour" choices are not being rewarded, maybe the DM hasn't scheduled enough sections where diplomacy is more important than combat mobility. Ultimately, there should be no skill slots left idle - if one character has Profession (Farmer), maybe an adventure where a skill check on this is important ("Whoa there, merchant, this is lowland rice you are selling there. The only places this is grown are controlled by the Scarlet Horde! How did you get it?!") is feasible. Likewise with class abilities, feats and so on. It rewards the players for non-combat applications, which adds and encourages character flavour.
If some players are still unhappy, consultation with the group may be necessary. But, to be honest, if you create a low-powered character out of choice, it isn't really your place to grumble if a better character is, well, better. If you are jealous of the prowess of the power-gamer, become one, since you obviously really want the abilities that come with it.
My view, anyway.
I've had a little personal revelation :)
Power-gamers, munchkins, MMORPGs -- there's nothing wrong with any of these.
What's there is something wrong with are players that try to dominate the game to the detriment of other players. We're talking about a social activity -- thus we all share some responsibility for the enjoyment of other people at the table (or on the server).
I think I'm going to stop calling them munchkins, and start calling a spade a spade -- they're a**#oles.
Regards all :)
Jack