Munchkin, weenie, cheese
these all sound like insults but i have NO IDEA what they mean, and i know these are not purely the board lingo. A dm in a game i'm joining warned all the players he hates munchkins and my first thought was "Those doughnut holes from dunkin' doughnuts? How can anybody hate them?
what do these mean?
It means run -- the guy probably has no idea how math or game theory actually work and uses whatever means he has to dissuade you from leaving his railroad or kill his awesome cool NPC simply because you understand that a fighter shouldn't dump strength, and should use a weapon other than a rock.
/troll
Munchkin, weenie, cheese
these all sound like insults but i have NO IDEA what they mean, and i know these are not purely the board lingo. A dm in a game i'm joining warned all the players he hates munchkins and my first thought was "Those doughnut holes from dunkin' doughnuts? How can anybody hate them?
what do these mean?
It's someone who does lots of number crunching to try to exploit the rules as best they can, or someone who cares mostly about how numerically superior they are on their character sheet than roleplaying or tactics.
There's a whole game series called Munchkin humorously based on this concept and it's actually quite fun to play. :)
Basically your GM is just saying he has low tolerance for min-maxing (dumping lots of abilities to be super good at another) and power gaming (rules exploitation).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically it's someone who ignores all considerations other than the power of their character. they see the game as something to win rather than a collaborative experience.
Please note that having a powerful character does not make you a munchkin and deliberately choosing sub optimal choices to make you totally useless does not make you a great roleplayer either...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More importantly what he perceives as min/maxing and power gaming.
I grew up with min/maxing meaning to 'minimize weakness maximize strengths' as opposed to the dumping lots of abilities to be super good at another which was making an idiot savant.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Munchkin, weenie, cheese
these all sound like insults but i have NO IDEA what they mean, and i know these are not purely the board lingo. A dm in a game i'm joining warned all the players he hates munchkins and my first thought was "Those doughnut holes from dunkin' doughnuts? How can anybody hate them?
what do these mean?
Munchkin - This refers to someone whose only (or near-only) interest in the game is to be as powerful as possible in their chosen specialty. This person doesn't care about story, character/personality, etc. They just want to put out the best numbers. They'll use whatever rule combinations are necessary to achieve this result, even if doing so creates a character who has no reason to exist in any kind of believable setting.
However, most of the time that people on these boards call someone a munchkin, it's a misnomer. There are people who will call you a munchkin if your character is what others would just call "pretty strong", and I've even encountered some who will sling this derogatory term at you just for having both an 18 and an 8 in the same stat array.
Typically, when the term "munchkin" is being applied to a specific individual instead of being discussed as a concept, it's the result of a less-skilled player resorting to elitism to make themselves feel superior to the more-skilled player by accusing them of, basically, being a worse person.
Weenie - I haven't really heard this term much in the context of RPGs. I can only assume it means "small and weak", "hot dog", or... something else I probably shouldn't get explicit about on the boards.
Cheese - This is a term referring to a rules loophole or other method employed in character creation which, while (typically) legal, is probably not something intended to be possible and is used to achieve either a game-breakingly powerful result or reasonably-powerful but very strange result that shatters the sense of setting. Cheese is frequently employed by munchkins.
"Cheese" is as frequently a misapplied term as "munchkin". It is most often used to refer to a perfectly fair, legitimate and sometimes even specifically-intended-by-the-designers mechanic that just happens to violate someone's idea of what the game "should" be. There are two typical reasons for someone misidentifying something as "cheese": one is that a new player isn't used to how the game works and thinks that something he read about is/would be more powerful than it actually is in practice. For instance, an ability might seem too powerful because the player doesn't realize how incredibly situational it is. The other (and more common) reason to call something "cheese" is that a veteran gamer has certain traditional expectations of what "should" happen in a game, and when someone has the creativity to break the mold (sometimes even in a sub-optimal way), these players get up in arms and start flinging the "cheese" accusations.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, and I'm sure people will have their own version of these terms/jargon
Munchkin- Someone who wants to "win" the game at all costs, usually by deliberately cheating or deliberately misreading rules. Usually associated with younger or immature players.
Power Gamer (sometimes called Min/Maxer)- Someone who wants to "win" but doesn't go the extreme of cheating. Usually, but not always, also a rules lawyer who will try to find the most powerful combat options and will manipulate the letter of the rules to their advantage.
Optimizer- One step down form a Power Gamer. Winning isn't required but the focus on finding the "best" mechanical method to support an idea is still there. This is most contentious term as some people see it as pejorative while others (like me) see it as a part of the game.
Cheesy- Used to describe and unbalanced or "unfair" use of the rules. As in "that's cheesy". Synonymous with cheap, unfair. Usually this result from combining different spells, feats, or abilities in a way they likely weren't intended to be used to produce a game disrupting result. This is NOT outright cheating but considered highly impolite.
Wine & Cheese- Miss connected to Whine or to complain. It is a play on words. Whine & Cheap/Cheat in other words. A way to be derogatory to a player who is perceived as being a Power Gamer or Munchkin. Also associated with people who think of themselves "elite", but to others appear snobbish or self-absorbed.
I hope these help you understand what your... Game Master was talking about. Old hands sometimes forget that new players don't know the jargon yet. Frankly as an "old hand" I find those kinds of statements to be a sign of a bit more intractable GM. There are better ways to say the same things and create a less adversarial atmosphere at the outset.
It means run -- the guy probably has no idea how math or game theory actually work and uses whatever means he has to dissuade you from leaving his railroad or kill his awesome cool NPC simply because you understand that a fighter shouldn't dump strength, and should use a weapon other than a rock.
/troll
thanks for the advice
But i kinda need a definition, if not for that, to at least understand what some people mean on the board| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It means run -- the guy probably has no idea how math or game theory actually work and uses whatever means he has to dissuade you from leaving his railroad or kill his awesome cool NPC simply because you understand that a fighter shouldn't dump strength, and should use a weapon other than a rock.
/troll
thanks for the advice
But i kinda need a definition, if not for that, to at least understand what some people mean on the board
Yeah that's what the /troll was for.
Troll is also an internet term for a guy going out just to piss people off and taking swipes at anything he can -- generally if you pay attention to him he doesn't go away but if you ignore him he'll 'die out'.
I was being a bit... I don't know.. sarcastic in the post but at the same time I would be really wary of the GM -- those terms don't sit well with me. I let the players choose what power level they want the game on and adjust my GMing accordingly.
Cf. The Stormwind Fallacy:
http://mtgsalvation.com/928-at-the-gathering-the-stormwind-fallacy-teflon-r edux.html
|
|
Munchkin, weenie, cheese
these all sound like insults but i have NO IDEA what they mean, and i know these are not purely the board lingo. A dm in a game i'm joining warned all the players he hates munchkins and my first thought was "Those doughnut holes from dunkin' doughnuts? How can anybody hate them?
what do these mean?
Munchkin: munch·kin/ˈmənCHkin/
Noun:A child.
Weenie: wee·nie/ˈwēnē/
Noun:
A man's penis.
A weak, socially inept, or boringly studious person: "the tech weenies".
Cheese: \ˈchēz\
Noun:
An important person.
A food made from the pressed curds of milk.
This comic best explains my method of GMing
@#$ %^&* it man that's two for two posts in this thread you've made that I totally agree with.
Brilliant point with the XKCD comic. I'm much the same way.
Although it took a few years of DMing before I was opened to that as "fun". Back in 3.0 when my players tried to climb the walls of a "Minesweeper" style puzzle room rather then get shocked by stepping on the tiled floor. That's what finally made me realize on a conscious level one of the better methods of dealing with the crazy things players. It helped me later when they murderized a NPC who was supposed to be of the "reoccurring kind"... not once but twice. Unfortunately the game ended before I could bring her back for a 3rd round and really make my player scream in rage. I love evil benefactors with the Clone spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, no, most people in real life aren't munchkins..
For instance, I min-maxed my degree in comPuter science. While this does not have the high end capacities of the business (accounting) degree, it has one of the more consistent earning-to-slacktime ratios (ETS). I consistently argue with those attempting to build a "liberal art" major because it fits their concept better; they usually start to regret it in the mid-levels.
I also eat healthfully and exercise; increasing most of my attributes (good food even helps brain activity). Sadly many gamer compatriots do NOT take this opportunity, resulting in an immediate decrease in Str, Dex, Chr, and Con; and a long-term decrease in Int. Why anyone passes this is beyond me.
I maxed my Str and Int to maximize my prowess; and travel with a party member (my girlfriend) who compliments me with good Wis/Chr (she's a well-made support class).
My life is balanced and varied. There are certain those who have done better, but they are few and far between; and had more generous GMs who gave them more starting resources.
So with many people NOT taking advantage of these stats, those of us who do are considered "Munchkins".
Long live munchkins!
Cf. The Stormwind Fallacy:
http://mtgsalvation.com/928-at-the-gathering-the-stormwind-fallacy-teflon-r edux.html
That link won't work as-posted due to the way the Paizo forums parse long strings of unbroken text. Here's the correction:
http://mtgsalvation.com/928-at-the-gathering-the-stormwind-fallacy-teflon-r edux.html
(Poignant link btw, good thinking.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I have seen from the posts here - the problem is not in defining the munchkin. It seems to be clearly defined as someone who goes “too far” to maximize the effectiveness of their character. The debate arises out of trying to define what is “too far”.
Base line: I want my fighter to disarm. I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail.
Optimizer: I want to make a character that disarms I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail, and pick up a level of druid with the growth domain for a free enlarge person, heirloom weapon flail, and select a large race with a strength bonus.
Munchkin: I disarm the monk. How many hit points of damage does he loose for loosing his arm?
The key difference is that while the optimizer is firmly within the rules, the munchkin lives in the dark, murky corners of sophistry, contradictions, interpretations, and deliberate misunderstandings.
Base line: I want my fighter to disarm. I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail.
Optimizer: I want to make a character that disarms I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail, and pick up a level of druid with the growth domain for a free enlarge person, heirloom weapon flail, and select a large race with a strength bonus.
Munchkin: I disarm the monk. How many hit points of damage does he loose for loosing his arm?
The key difference is that while the optimizer is firmly within the rules, the munchkin lives in the dark, murky corners of sophistry, contradictions, interpretations, and deliberate misunderstandings.
I like your examples. But in your opinion - is the optimizer example "cheese"?
I like your examples. But in your opinion - is the optimizer example "cheese"?Base line: I want my fighter to disarm. I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail.
Optimizer: I want to make a character that disarms I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail, and pick up a level of druid with the growth domain for a free enlarge person, heirloom weapon flail, and select a large race with a strength bonus.
Munchkin: I disarm the monk. How many hit points of damage does he loose for loosing his arm?
The key difference is that while the optimizer is firmly within the rules, the munchkin lives in the dark, murky corners of sophistry, contradictions, interpretations, and deliberate misunderstandings.
Cheese is relative. In this case I would say no. Since enlarge person is a full round action I would also count it as a negative. That is one round you could be doing something else and it is a full round to have your spell disrupted and with only a low caster level it won't be all that hard.
Enlarge (Su): As a swift action you can enlarge yourself for 1 round, as if you were the target of the enlarge person spell. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
I think cheese is kind of subjective, but picking up a class with like cleric or druid which is supposed to have deeper role playing implications for the bennies is close
Cheese is relative. In this case I would say no. Since enlarge person is a full round action I would also count it as a negative. That is one round you could be doing something else and it is a full round to have your spell disrupted and with only a low caster level it won't be all that hard.
You are right cheese is relative. Still if I were GM it would bother me. I would not stop the player from doing it, but inside I would be frowning.
I'd be thinking - Really? A level of druid to get a free enlarge person?
I'd be thinking - A large race, really? Was that originally your concept, or did it change so you could trip better?
I think you should come up with a concept first, then optimize within that concept. Too often I see the concept change to suit the optimzation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What makes something a munchkin is much like what makes something porn, you may not be able to totally quantify it, but you know it when you see it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think you should come up with a concept first, then optimize within that concept. Too often I see the concept change to suit the optimzation.
Just to point something out here: I think you've fallen victim to a common but subtle (and often overlooked) fallacy. There are a couple of parts to it.
First, a good concept can just as easily be produced by a mechanical goal as by a more abstract goal. For instance, someone might decide they want a fighter who trips people, and then ask "so what sort of character would specialize in trip maneuvers?" and develop a concept around that.* The perspective you put forth precludes that possibility entirely.
Second, you imply that to change a concept is a bad thing. But isn't it rather restrictive to say that the concept must be completely finalized before you make any mechanical choices? If someone creates their characters holistically, then both the concept and the "cruch" will be developed simultaneously. A new idea for a concept detail might inspire an optimization choice, which in turn might push toward an additional optimization choice that ends up altering a concept detail. This produces a sort of internal back-and-forth which eventually produces a character with both conceptual and mechanical depth, in harmony with one another. Your stated perspective labels this as a bad thing.
Additionally, it's important to remember that you have to have mechanics finalized in order to actually play the game, whereas the concept can gain its finishing touches during gameplay. Thus, especially for people with tight schedules, creating characters "mechanics-first" can be the only practical choice.
This is not meant to pick on you specifically - I just thought the wording of your sentiment was conducive to a good explanation of the erroneous black-and-white thinking that is the cause of much of the division between even the more "moderate" versions of the "roleplay versus rollplay" camps.
Enlarge (Su): As a swift action you can enlarge yourself for 1 round, as if you were the target of the enlarge person spell. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
I think cheese is kind of subjective, but picking up a class with like cleric or druid which is supposed to have deeper role playing implications for the bennies is close
I did not know about that. Well it only last for one round so it isn't to bad, and most fighter's don't have a high wisdom, and if he pushes wisdom he is taking away from something else, but I still think that ability is cool.
Munchkin:
A- An immature player. Someone who whines whenever they don't get whatever they want.
B- A close relative of the power gamer. One who ignores fluff, RAI, or RAW when building a character in order to make it extra powerful.
C- Someone who cheats at the game to win. Typically lying about dice rolls, not properly recording damage, changing stats, spells, or feats secretly. Especially one who doesn't track ammo, charges, or food.
PS - It is often mis-used as an insult aimed at anyone who made a powerful character or is seen by the insulter as TOO successful.
Optimizer: I want to make a character that disarms I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail, and pick up a level of druid with the growth domain for a free enlarge person, heirloom weapon flail, and select a large race with a strength bonus.
But in your opinion - is the optimizer example "cheese"?
I’d vote cheese. The large race puts it over the top for me. Get rid of that, and I’d reconsider depending on the rest of the build – especially the ability scores.
This is not meant to pick on you specifically - I just thought the wording of your sentiment was conducive to a good explanation of the erroneous black-and-white thinking that is the cause of much of the division between even the more "moderate" versions of the "roleplay versus rollplay" camps.
...
Well Jiggy, if I were your GM I would have "frowned inside" when you came to me with your "mechanics first" idea. But I would have been proven wrong when you turned that character into something much more than a tripping machine. Sounds like you are a pleasure to GM for.
However in my gaming group, the player who does this kind of thing the most rarely surprises me with the depth of his roleplaying skill, or his effective use of mechanics.
To quote him - "I don't like to leave any plusses on the table". And what this has turned out to mean for him, is that he will take a mechanically good idea, and push it as fas as it can possibly be pushed, until the good idea has become an abomination.
I am sorry if this has colored my judgment of the "mechanics first" philosophy.
Another aspect of munchkin/cheesy that I didn’t see mentioned that goes for those clever enough to do it within the rules, optimization of a concept creates glaring, usually crippling, weaknesses. Some people just don’t want to deal with it.
BigNorseWolf’s disarmer for example, large size is cheesy not only because it is so good for disarming, but because it is such a hassle for everyone in the party. Working together is one thing but if your build necessitates everyone else and even the adventure design to work around to avoid breaking the game, it is too cheesy for my tastes.
Well Jiggy, if I were your GM I would have "frowned inside" when you came to me with your "mechanics first" idea. But I would have been proven wrong when you turned that character into something much more than a tripping machine. Sounds like you are a pleasure to GM for.However in my gaming group, the player who does this kind of thing the most rarely surprises me with the depth of his roleplaying skill, or his effective use of mechanics.
To quote him - "I don't like to leave any plusses on the table". And what this has turned out to mean for him, is that he will take a mechanically good idea, and push it as fas as it can possibly be pushed, until the good idea has become an abomination.
I am sorry if this has colored my judgment of the "mechanics first" philosophy.
And this is what I label a power gamer not an optimizer. Like Jiggy i start with mechanics first for often then not. My most recent character is going to Whip Master fighter. Like Jiggy this then leads me to the question of what kinds of people would end up going down this path. Given the setting in a major farming kingdom this brings up an animal handler or general farm boy. He favors flails for now in the early levels because they are very peasant like, and related to tools he's already familiar with. There is more to along the "good farmboy" archetype, but I'll stay short. In support of Jiggy and others like us, don't let an a!%#%&& player bias you to a method of character development that works for many of us.
