Uber, Gonzo, and Munchkin.
What do these terms mean?
I think I understand uber and gonzo, but does munchkin mean essentially the same thing as uber.
Thanks.
Uber, Gonzo, and Munchkin.
What do these terms mean?
I think I understand uber and gonzo, but does munchkin mean essentially the same thing as uber.
Thanks.
Uber ... originally came from German, and means super. So to be uber is to be awesome.
Gonzo ... the definition for this is "bizarre: conspicuously or grossly unconventional or unusual" ... and I'm wondering if it came originally from the Jim Hensen muppet, the Great Gonzo on the Muppet Show. He was the epitome of grossly unconventional and bizarre :)
Munchkin ... Munchkins were originally the little people in The Wizard of Oz, by L. Frank Baum. But for gaming we have this definition: "In gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner." Learn something new every day :)
Hope that helps :)
Uber, Gonzo, and Munchkin.
What do these terms mean?
I think I understand uber and gonzo, but does munchkin mean essentially the same thing as uber.
Thanks.
As far as gaming goes, "uber" is usually used to refer to something which is much more powerful than other things it is grouped with. For example, a lot of people would argue that Ray of Enfeeblement is an uberspell in that it's far more powerful and desirable than the other 1st level core spells (I'm not saying that it is or isn't -- just using it as an example). Basically something that is uber is a little too good for its price/level/etc.
"Munchkin" usually goes beyond where uber stops. As the judges have used it, a munchkin wondrous item is something which is not only powerful, but also game-breaking. It's so powerful, that not only does it make the choice of a similar item pointless, but it unbalances the game by making it pointless to be a certain class, race, etc. Eg. "Why even bother having a rogue in the party? The Widget of Awesomeness gives me Sneak Attack and Trapfinding for free!"
Gonzo is (in my opinion) the hardest to define. Like a lot of things, you may not be able to explain it, but you know it when you see it. Gonzo items are weird and unusual, have a lot of descriptive flavour, and are entirely original in their description and appearance. That said, a lot of items can have one or more of these characteristics and not be "gonzo." This one's tricky.
CR
Uber, Gonzo, and Munchkin.
What do these terms mean?
I think I understand uber and gonzo, but does munchkin mean essentially the same thing as uber.
Thanks.
A munchkin is someone who Optimises a character to the exclusion of narrative and roleplay concerns. It includes thinks such as inappropreate mini-maxing, not reflecting your characters growth through class and feat selection, rather making these choices entirely based on combat efficiancy.
The best munchkins of course also can spin out wonderful backstories explaining the outre-but-efficient choices they have made for their characters.
I know a couple, it is quite obvious they are shameless minmaxers but they manage to be entertaining enough in it so that nobody has a problem with that.
You know before actually reading this, with the title of this thread, I thought that this was about me. :P
The best munchkins of course also can spin out wonderful backstories explaining the outre-but-efficient choices they have made for their characters.
I know a couple, it is quite obvious they are shameless minmaxers but they manage to be entertaining enough in it so that nobody has a problem with that.
I would challange that. To me atleast the term munchkin implies a laziness to me. If you go to the effort to dress your abuse of the system up with backstory, then you are an Optimiser rather than a munchkin.
A munchkin is someone who Optimises a character to the exclusion of narrative and roleplay concerns. It includes thinks such as inappropreate mini-maxing, not reflecting your characters growth through class and feat selection, rather making these choices entirely based on combat efficiancy.
Obviously there's no set definition for these terms, and all of us have their own mental definitions based on our own experiences, but to me, this would fit my definition of "Powergamer tendencies." I usually refer to "tendencies" as I find that everyone has a bit of the Powergamer, or the Actor, or the Jester in them -- it's a question of how much.
I find the distinction between Powergamer tendencies and Munchkin tendencies to be tricky, but I've always seen it as a Powergamer is about optimization within the rules, whereas the Munchkin is more than happy to ignore the rules that would keep him/her from having the "best" (read: most powerful) character around.
Another distinction is that, whether a good thing or not, the Powergamer is all too happy to advise other players on how to create more powerful and more mechanically efficient characters. The Munchkin, in contrast, sees the other characters and the other players as competitors, and is only happy when his or her character is superior to all others. For a Munchkin, it's about them and their character to the exclusion of all others
The bottom line for me is that the Powergamer can be frustrating, but can be an invaluable member of the gaming group if their energy and skills can be directed properly. As long as you give them opportunities to show off the sheer power of his character, they'll be happy, and a happy gamer with Powergamer tendencies is actually a great person to walk a new player through the mechanical aspects of character creation. After all, they tend to have an instinctive grasp of what makes a character effective in mechanical aspects of the game, and love to share that knowledge.
Players with Munchkin tendencies are far more frustrating -- I've found that you can work with them, but much of your effort will be put towards suppressing these tendencies, rather than redirecting them.
Just my $0.02, of course,
CR
Have you ever seen any two of those in the same room together?In the dictionary, under Gonzo, there are three pictures. A muppet who may or may not be a turkey buzzard, Hunter S. Thompson and Clinton Boomer.
Come to think of it ... no.
|
The best munchkins of course also can spin out wonderful backstories explaining the outre-but-efficient choices they have made for their characters.
I know a couple, it is quite obvious they are shameless minmaxers but they manage to be entertaining enough in it so that nobody has a problem with that.
If these guys don't actually ruin the game, then they're not really munchkins. At least not how I originally understood the word.
I first heard the term used in a gaming context back in the early eighties. A munchkin was a player that ruined the game with his immature behavior. A guy that still played like a kid. Yeah, usually this manifested itself as excessive power gaming, cheating and petulant disruption when frustrated.
I've met plenty of power gamers that weren't munchkins, but in over thirty years of gaming I've yet to meet a optimizer/minmaxer that didn't stink up a game when he came to the table. I realize the benefits that the optimization discipline can bring and I've talked to a few optimizers online that seemed like ok guys, but in actually face to face gaming... always poisonous.
Sam
I'm fairly certain that 'gonzo' is a sub set and style of shooting porn as well.
Mmmmm ... porn.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4
|
In the dictionary, under Gonzo, there are three pictures. A muppet who may or may not be a turkey buzzard, Hunter S. Thompson and Clinton Boomer.
That is the most flattering thing anyone has ever said about me, and if the Paizo boards enabled signatures, I'd add it right now. Thank you!
NOTE: I'm actually a little choked up right now!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4
|
I'm fairly certain that 'gonzo' is a sub set and style of shooting porn as well.Mmmmm ... porn.
That is 100% correct - the term "gonzo" has been appropriated & re-defined by about every subset of creative people out there: gonzo journalism is just where it started.
Of course, the term has over 21 MILLION hits on Google. Compare that with The Beatles - who have a paltry 19,700,000 - and you can see how much of an impact Dr. Thompson had on our culture.
BTW, Lakesidefantasy, I dig your avatar - that's the very first image I ever got to send in an art-order for! Go Uskwood!
The best munchkins of course also can spin out wonderful backstories explaining the outre-but-efficient choices they have made for their characters.
I know a couple, it is quite obvious they are shameless minmaxers but they manage to be entertaining enough in it so that nobody has a problem with that.
I would challange that. To me atleast the term munchkin implies a laziness to me. If you go to the effort to dress your abuse of the system up with backstory, then you are an Optimiser rather than a munchkin.
Yeah, I guess minmaxer would be a better, more neutral term, while munchkin would refer just to those gamebreakers...
To me powergamer does not necessarily mean minmaxer, I know some who usually prefer their games with power, but don't necessarily do that much optimization...
Since third edition minmaxing has become so prevalent we just call it optimizing. At one point, an optimizer was a bad thing (a munchkin), now we accept there will always be one character at the table stronger than Hercules and with just enough Charisma to not be an ‘object’.
Thanks everybody. I'm awaiting Clark's critique of my wonderous item and I suspect some (if not all) of these terms to come up.
You know before actually reading this, with the title of this thread, I thought that this was about me. :PCareful. You're building my expectations for your villain concept. :P
(Interesting. Your name displays as Carl Flaherty in this thread, but the forum attributes your quote to Lord Fyre, which is presumably your user name.)
Yes, Lord Fyre is my "Real" name. Yours does the same thing, Mr. Morton. :)
|
|
Since third edition minmaxing has become so prevalent we just call it optimizing. At one point, an optimizer was a bad thing (a munchkin), now we accept there will always be one character at the table stronger than Hercules and with just enough Charisma to not be an ‘object’.
We certainly don't have to accept that.
I haven't had a bad game even once since becoming more selective in who I game with. It's really not that hard to come to the table with a good attitude, the goal of having fun and the willingness to help everyone else have fun.
Why have these problems become more common since the introduction of 3e? I don't believe it's completely due to the ruleset.
Sam
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
Yes, Lord Fyre is my "Real" name. Yours does the same thing, Mr. Morton. :)You know before actually reading this, with the title of this thread, I thought that this was about me. :PCareful. You're building my expectations for your villain concept. :P
(Interesting. Your name displays as Carl Flaherty in this thread, but the forum attributes your quote to Lord Fyre, which is presumably your user name.)
Ah, Carl, you think of your Paizo name as your 'real name' and the name your parents gave you as your 'other name'. A man after my own heart.
-- Tarren Dei
Why have these problems become more common since the introduction of 3e? I don't believe it's completely due to the ruleset.
Sam
I believe that since 3e is a strategy game more than any previous edition (I do not want to debate the role-play vs. roll-play argument but…let’s face it) many players, as well as GMs, get into a board game mindset rather than a storytelling one. This is most obvious during combat, and third edition is more combat-oriented than any previous edition because of the attempts to balance the system resulted in a more concrete rule set. It became so much more clearly defined, x number of ranks in this, lets you do that, moving this way creates an AoO, but this feat counters that. Most players have a ‘build’ for different types of characters in their mind (2-weapon finesse fighter, 2-handed strength fighter, rogue, cleric, etc.) that they are loath to deviate from in the slightest.
I have seen players decide their feats, to level 20, at character creation.Once your character begins to represent a ‘game piece’ instead of a person in a story, you want the most efficient or powerful game piece possible, not necessarily the most interesting or logical.
Additionally the other great balance, that existed in previous versions but was never the standard, Point Buy for abilities. I understand the logic for all the players to feel they are on an even playing field but it does not really achieve that. Characters with a single prime ability (wizard, I’m looking at you) have an advantage over those with two or more abilities that they cannot ‘tank’.
Additionally, I too have become more selective with who is in our gaming group.