Gungans give Mr. FIshy stomach cramps and bubbles, Munchkins are tasty and fill if of...um munchkiness.
"Eh that all?" Ports in bags of gold "Ya know I found out dead folks don't really need the gold"
Like none of you have made outlandish characters before ...
A munchkins is someone who meta-games to increase their character's power.
Ravingdork, was playing a sorcerer cripple whose life ambition was to use a dread necromatic ritual to escape his physical handicaps. As someone pointed out, his stats were in-line with a venerable commoner, but yall saw them and screamed DUMP STATS! rather than entertain the possibility that he was playing a non-standard character.
I smell a lot of self loathing in this thread.
edit - except for Mr Fishy, who just smells like himself.
|
Ok, I will bite on this.
I play with 2 good friends. They are both DM's just like me. We switch off DMing every campaign. the others in the group are my Friend Keil's two kids (ages 10 and 12) and my daughter (age 18).
I played a monk in the second darkness campaign that was, to say the very least, a bad ass. I kicked (literally) everything's face in with ease, unless I had a bad day with the dice, and that happened only once.
So, I was called muchkin, powergamer, etc...
I do plan my characters in advance, but that doesnt mean they dont veer from that path once the game starts. I was the front line fighter in our group, so my arcane baed monk was not a real option that I had originally presented to the group and the DM.
He turned out to be a wild man in melee with a defense first mindset, using the Crane Shen PrC up to 4th level. I can honestly say that it was amazing to see what I could do, but in no way would I have called myself a munchkin. I adapted to the party needs, giving up on a character concept that I have wanted to play for years so we could survive in the underdark.
What is powergaming about that? Why am I a munchkin? I dont get these terms and never will. They do offend me as I am an RP'er first and foremost, and look at character story arc development as my main goal in gaming, and not what awesome bad ass magic item I could find.
As a side note, I was denied the option to place enlarge/shrink person on my magical robes even though I had the funds to purchase such an enchantment @ 2/day.
I instead (totally dm driven) had my quarterstaff upgraded to +2 holy shattermantle / +2 holy (tripping enchantment). I was perfectly happy with my quarterstaff the way it was. I find it interesting that my dm saw plans within plans with that 2/day enlarg/shrink enchantment.
By the way, Treerazor destroyed that robe in the final battle. I decided that it wasnt worth the effort to make a new one. hehe.
Dont call me a munchkin, I am a roleplayer.
Everyone here thinks this thread is about abusing munchkins?
Bah!
I read the title and I thought "Great! Finally someone is posting about how all the munchkins are abusing us! Maybe we can get a solution!" Phooey! I see that this thread took a different turn. Maybe I'll go start my own thread about abusive munchkins...
I always though Munchkin was a qualitative for a person (i.e. the player), not its product (i.e.the character). I never get it when people say "you're a munchkin" based on the character, never considering how it was built/played. Is a 20th level character munchkin because its infinitely more powerful than a 1st level character?
I played a monk in the second darkness campaign that was, to say the very least, a bad ass. I kicked (literally) everything's face in with ease, unless I had a bad day with the dice, and that happened only once.
Here's my personal take on "powergamer" and "munchkin". For me, powergaming is just one of several aspects of roleplaying and it exists on a spectrum. Define any particular player's powergaming on a scale of 0 to 10. Players who build their characters strictly for story or concept purposes with little to no regard for how they perform mechanically would be a 0 to 1 on the powergamer scale.
To me, munchkin's hit the 10 on the powergamer scale. Maximum optimisation is the goal of a munchkin.
However, if there's a big disparity between members of a group, a player with significantly more of a powergaming slant could, for all intents and purposes, become a munchkin. Say most of a group is a 4 to 5 on the scale of powergaming (most of their build is based on concept with no analysis for optimization) but one player is running somewhere between an 8. He reads the optimization boards and has spent some time statting out various builds for his chosen character. He hasn't crossed the final threshold of scouring through sourcebook after sourcebook and hopping publishers to find that perfect combination of feats/stats/PrC's that let him twist the rules but he's close. This guy's character will overshadow all the others in the party, and while in some groups he might merely be on among equals, in his current group he's the giant and in the perception of the ohter players, a munchkin. And usually unhappiness ensues.
My guess is this is what happened to CuttinCurt. Also, I've never heard of the Crane Shen PrC, so I'm curious where it came from and also how much of your character build was taken from 3rd party sources...
However, if there's a big disparity between members of a group, a player with significantly more of a powergaming slant could, for all intents and purposes, become a munchkin...
This guy's character will overshadow all the others in the party, and while in some groups he might merely be on among equals, in his current group he's the giant and in the perception of the ohter players, a munchkin. And usually unhappiness ensues.
So you see Munchkin as subjective. Thus, there is no way to noty be one because you can't stop others perceptions.
My guess is this is what happened to CuttinCurt. Also, I've never heard of the Crane Shen PrC, so I'm curious where it came from and also how much of your character build was taken from 3rd party sources...
Yeah, Crane Shen sounds 3rd party. But Monks are rarely overpowered unless everyone else is badly built in 3.5 or 3.0.
|
|
...in no way would I have called myself a munchkin. I adapted to the party needs, giving up on a character concept that I have wanted to play for years so we could survive in the underdark.
I'd agree with you there, for that reason alone.
You had a career in mind, but then events caused you to go a different path. You chose to protect the rest of the group by filling a gap in their party roles, and that's how an organic PC develops.Too many players come up with some build, that assumes far too much about the events of the coming campaign, and expect the DM to jump through hoops to make it happen.
If your career plan involves 'at level X I will find the Unknown Lost Temple of Blarg, and be trained by the sole surviving hermit in the ways of Blargitsu', or 'at level Y I will be bitten by a vampire/wereflumph', then you've forgotten the purpose of RPGs, which is to start at Year Zero, and see where the road takes you.
Time to bow out; let everyone else play the actual game while you sit in the corner masturbating over your Mary-Sue fan-fic.
To me, munchkin's hit the 10 on the powergamer scale. Maximum optimisation is the goal of a munchkin.
There's a funny character in the 'Goblins' webcomic named MinMax. He basically traded away his ability to wink, deliberately rhyme, and various other things for additional feats/powers.
This for me, defines munchkinism. Taking disadvantages that really don't rear their ugly head for additional power - trying to 'play the system' without regard to character concept, rules as intended, good taste, etcetera. It's actually harder to do in D&D than a lot of other games out there (though once you start allowing anti-feats, look out). I guess the munchkin credo would be "Powergaming ain't ENOUGH!"
I think munchkin is a relative term. Its all about the group and how they play. My group is all optimizers. We consider mechanical implications when we make choices for our characters. We certainly roleplay, and i'd say more then 50% of a game session is non-combat most of the time. But each character is expected to contribute mechanically to the party, whether its in or out of combat. We all at least take a look through various sourcebooks for feats, classes, weapons, spells etc that would work well with our character. And we make our character based on those options. What we think of as a munchkin is very different from what some other groups might.
If someone used grease to set up the rogues sneak attack all we'd do is say, 'well why wouldn't you?' And because we are all on the same level of optimization, there really arent any problems.
Two players generally get called munchkins, those that honestly dont understand balance, and why they can't have certain things, and those that know why a rule is in place, and try to circumvent it to game the system.
I don't think both types should be bunched into one category.
I don't know what to call the 1st one.
To me the 2nd player is a munchkin.
Sure. 1 GP bounty per Gungan.
take off and nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
Two players generally get called munchkins, those that honestly dont understand balance, and why they can't have certain things, and those that know why a rule is in place, and try to circumvent it to game the system.
I don't think both types should be bunched into one category.
I don't know what to call the 1st one.
To me the 2nd player is a munchkin.
I agree that the people that try to 'game' the system are the ones that deserve the munchkin title. The problem is it ends up in the subjective world of RAI. Did the creators intend for grease to set up sneak attacks? Hard to say really. We are pretty sure now, but if it was a new thing, its not always certain.
Rule Number One: There's a -huge- difference between your character being -effective- and being a power gamer/munchkin.
Like none of you have made outlandish characters before ...
A munchkins is someone who meta-games to increase their character's power.
Ravingdork, was playing a sorcerer cripple whose life ambition was to use a dread necromatic ritual to escape his physical handicaps. As someone pointed out, his stats were in-line with a venerable commoner, but yall saw them and screamed DUMP STATS! rather than entertain the possibility that he was playing a non-standard character.
I smell a lot of self loathing in this thread.
edit - except for Mr Fishy, who just smells like himself.
yea and the crippled old hag near the end of her days to net some extra charisma points and a strength of 2 would be burned a munchkin in my campaign, doesn't mean he was munchkiniking in the campaign they were playing, if you play in a campaign and deliberately break the game yea then you are, but I am guessing it was ok in that game. For me it was plain meta-gaming taken a step too far, it wasn't the worst case of munchkinism I have ever seen anyway, there actually was some thought for roleplaying in there, I forgot what but it was there..
A player becoming a lich and then devising all kinds of munchkin plots to make your phylactery impossible to destroy by any normal means besides a DM being a bigger munchkin, so you can call eachother a munchkin is munchkinism in my humble opinion pretty much regardless of what kind of campaign you play.
As a Dm I would enjoy the oppurtunity to be a munchkin and repeatedly destroy and loot the munchkin's players corpse, munchkins of the powergamer type typically hate that (in no way meaning to say ALL powergamers are munchkins), before resorting to totally munchkin munchkinism to end his munchkin character.
I suppose being a munchkin can be fun afterall.. ^_^
Two players generally get called munchkins, those that honestly dont understand balance, and why they can't have certain things, and those that know why a rule is in place, and try to circumvent it to game the system.
I don't think both types should be bunched into one category.
I don't know what to call the 1st one.
To me the 2nd player is a munchkin.
1st one = idiot or even retard in some cases (person lacking common sense)
2nd = munchkincalling the 1st a munchkin is a way to be a polite way of saying retard, calling munchkin is a bit less offensive I suppose.
Some people don't understand the difference between optimizing and munchkinism. As far as my understand goes optimizing is fine to a degree.
To little and you are a detriment to the game. Too much and you are a detriment to the game.
The moment the character becomes so Uber that it eliminates every weakness then the player is a munchkin (often using every option available).
Why? Because they are being an a-hole to the GM. That player is making the GM's job more difficult and if all the other players are more 'standard' then the player is making the GM's job exponentially more difficult.
If you can't trust your GM to not continually exploit some of your characters weaknesses and flaws then you really shouldn't allow that person to GM.
Some people don't understand the difference between optimizing and munchkinism. As far as my understand goes optimizing is fine to a degree.
To little and you are a detriment to the game. Too much and you are a detriment to the game.The moment the character becomes so Uber that it eliminates every weakness then the player is a munchkin (often using every option available).
Why? Because they are being an a-hole to the GM. That player is making the GM's job more difficult and if all the other players are more 'standard' then the player is making the GM's job exponentially more difficult.If you can't trust your GM to not continually exploit some of your characters weaknesses and flaws then you really shouldn't allow that person to GM.
Let me ask you... if most of the party is semi-effective and your character is very effective (I'm not saying no weaknesses, mind you... like let's say he deals a lot more damage than anyone in the party, and such damage is -needed-...), does that make you a power gamer?
"Munchkin" is a just a perjorative that really means, "You play the game in a way inferior to mine; that makes me better than you."
I would have thought it was
"Munchkin": playing the game in a way that makes the game less fun for others; primarily based around power and often featuring legal but questionable characters.
"Munchkin" is a just a perjorative that really means, "You play the game in a way inferior to mine; that makes me better than you."
I would have thought it was
"Munchkin": playing the game in a way that makes the game less fun for others; primarily based around power and often featuring legal but questionable characters.Yeah, that contradicts what I've always considered to be Munchkin.
Munchkin": Being a deliberate douchebag at the table, bending rules without GM permission/involvement, making life hell for the other players by character obnoxiousness, and being a general jackass.
You can have a Munchkin who doesn't know the first thing about making powerful characters by the rules you know.
That isn't a Munchkin then.
See, this is the problem: you are combining terms.The term you are looking for is Jerk. Not munchkin, but jerk.
A Munchkin can't be bad at making a character: it is a contradiction.
Let me ask you... if most of the party is semi-effective and your character is very effective (I'm not saying no weaknesses, mind you... like let's say he deals a lot more damage than anyone in the party, and such damage is -needed-...), does that make you a power gamer?
Since your asking me... no that alone would not make you a power gamer.
"Munchkin" is a just a perjorative that really means, "You play the game in a way inferior to mine; that makes me better than you."
I would have thought it was
"Munchkin": playing the game in a way that makes the game less fun for others; primarily based around power and often featuring legal but questionable characters.Yeah, that contradicts what I've always considered to be Munchkin.
Munchkin": Being a deliberate douchebag at the table, bending rules without GM permission/involvement, making life hell for the other players by character obnoxiousness, and being a general jackass.
You can have a Munchkin who doesn't know the first thing about making powerful characters by the rules you know.
That isn't a Munchkin then.
See, this is the problem: you are combining terms.
The term you are looking for is Jerk. Not munchkin, but jerk.A Munchkin can't be bad at making a character: it is a contradiction.
Sure they can. They can try to make the best character so they can always have the spotlight but due to the mechanics being bad or them just having terrible tactics they always fail.
PS: We really do need to come up with a universal agreement for these terms.
|
My idea of a munchkin:
A player who puts no thought whatsoever into a character concept when selecting stats/feats/skills. (ie.-they read an opitimization guide and mirror which stats it says to have, spells to have, feats to take, etc.)
AND/OR
They use the most liberal (or blatantly wrong) interpretation of the rules to justify their position/interpretation. Often times, through actual or feigned ignorance will "misread" feats in such a way that are substantially more beneficial to their character.
AND/OR
They meta-game every encounter--they know virtually every monster entry and what weaknesses they have and, despite the fact that their character wouldn't know any of that information, uses it to gain a mechanical advantage.
|
You all need to stop trying to label problem players as munchkins. It obscures the actual problems you have with the individual and deflects your efforts away from solving the real issue.
The word has been so overused that it adds nothing to a discussion anymore. If you have a player making inappropriate characters, tell him that instead of labeling him a munchkin. If he argues rules midgame to get an advantage, tell him that instead of calling him a ruleslawyer.
All this name calling is detrimental to actually solving the social conflict going on. RD brought this issue to the boards for advice on how to handle the tension in his group, not to be belittled for the way he made his character.
|
|
You all need to stop trying to label problem players as munchkins. It obscures the actual problems you have with the individual and deflects your efforts away from solving the real issue.
The word has been so overused that it adds nothing to a discussion anymore. If you have a player making inappropriate characters, tell him that instead of labeling him a munchkin. If he argues rules midgame to get an advantage, tell him that instead of calling him a ruleslawyer.
All this name calling us detrimental to actually solving the social conflict going on. RD brought this issue to the boards for advice on how to handle the tension in his group, not to be belittled for the way he made his character.
The problem with that is that the terms exist and aren't going anywhere. They are what they are, and it's better to define them than try and ignore them (IMHO).
Just wait until my mindcontrol satellites are operational...Or it is better to stop using the word.Like that's going to happen.Good luck, buddy!
You only think that will work because the preliminary testing was to make people wear tinfoil hats.
|
|
You only think that will work because the preliminary testing was to make people wear tinfoil hats.Just wait until my mindcontrol satellites are operational...Or it is better to stop using the word.Like that's going to happen.Good luck, buddy!
That's not what my neighbor's dog told me...if that thing lied to me...
Any driver who's faster then me is a maniac, and any driver who's slower then me is an idiot.
Likewise, from what I've seen, for a lot of people, anyone stronger then their character is a "powergamer," while anyone weaker is...well, most people who bandy the word "powergamer" around tend to be the weakest ones in the group.
As for munchkin? A munchkin is "Thing I dislike." Nothing more.
Any driver who's faster then me is a maniac, and any driver who's slower then me is an idiot.
Likewise, from what I've seen, for a lot of people, anyone stronger then their character is a "powergamer," while anyone weaker is...well, most people who bandy the word "powergamer" around tend to be the weakest ones in the group.
As for munchkin? A munchkin is "Thing I dislike." Nothing more.
So is evil. Evil is just something you find distasteful. Therefore, by the transitive munchkin property, all munchkins are evil.
|
|
I would define Munchkin as follows:
One who deliberately misreads, misinterprets, stretches or otherwise modifies the intended or accepted meaning of a rule for the purposes of gaining an advantage when playing the game to which those rules apply. Especially when done without regard to how it will impact the fun of said game for others involved, or when this act is hidden from view of the other players.
See also: Cheating.
A player who does the above but isn't deliberate, willingly corrects said mistake and takes steps to prevent further mistakes (such as asking for clarification ahead of time) is not a munchkin.
My definition of powergamer:
One who reads through all accepted rulesets in an attempt to use the rules for a mechanical edge. Often asks questions about how obscure rules work, even if they don't necessarily relate to their character. Also often reads unaccepted rulesets and proposes that they become accepted. If the rules are deliberately used improperly by this person, they are likely a Munchkin.
Would someone who argues that a single casting of Invisibility should be able to turn a seven headed undead Hydra, the wagon it's wearing as a backpack, and the 6 PC in the wagon invisible be considered a munchkin?
Yes, that one counts jake
Sure. 1 GP bounty per Gungan.take off and nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
They made a Suncrusher in SW cannon just to destroy that entire race. I'm thinking of driving it over to someones house later. Anyone got any suggestions?
Yes, that one counts jake
Just checking.
They made a Suncrusher in SW cannon just to destroy that entire race. I'm thinking of driving it over to someones house later. Anyone got any suggestions?Sure. 1 GP bounty per Gungan.take off and nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure.
The nearest PS3 fanboy to your location would be a good start.