Anti-munchkins?

[Umbran]

Has anyone else here ever encountered people who make diliberately ineffective characters so as to not be labeled munchkins?

I have seen something similar, but the situation was far more complicated than just avoiding a label. It involved a player who would (for a number of complicated reasons) prefer to self-destuct a character concept than have it fail in play.

 

[Hypersmurf]

yep, i've seen it.

this other player in my group is playing an undead hunter and is using a whip.

But...

... undead...

... subdual...

... whip...

... but...

-Hyp.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

It's not as rare as you might think.
A lot of elitist 'Real Roleplayers' do this sort of thing.
To them, having a weak character means you are a better roleplayer.

Ick... While I term myself an "In-Depth", I'd say such characters are indeed poor role-playing. I mean, could I start a character as an Expert or even a Commoner? Yes, by all means, I could. But would I continue to gain levels as such even though my life has now taken a turn towards adventure and excitement?

Dear gawds, no. That would be to ignore the events that are shaping the character's life, and that's just bad RP no matter how you look at it.

Bad RP... Bad bad bad...

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I've got a player (and a good friend) who's doing something like that in the two campaigns I'm in with him. And it's not that he's trying to be useless (in one he's playing a cleric with high int and wis, lots of spells and skills, in the other he's playing a sniper/computer expert) just simply that he doesn't do much. And when he does do something, it always seems at a tangent to what's going on, an attempt to evade a deeper set of interactions, or is done with a great sigh and up front knowledge that it's worthless.

I'm beginning to get annoyed. We've allready had a couple talks about participation, and attitude, and each time he says that he'll try harder. And he is a good friend. But his playstyle is beginning to drag.

And sometimes, well, sometimes stupid things happen. For example, the party's facing off against opponents on the other end of a rope bridge, during which I've required everyone near the edge of the cliff or crossing the bridge to make multiple balance checks. Once combat is finished (during which one party member fell and two went after him, falling into the unknown), he moves his figure over to where their opponents were and declares that he's looking for loot. The fact that he was upset that I made him make a balance check (which he failed) really got on my nerves.

Basically, as a player who's been in 4 games with me, 3 of those with me as a DM, it's become obvious that he likes to play in a fashion that disrupts the game. Be it his first character who "didn't care for the rest of the group" and left them behind at least three times, his second character who was a pacifist in a fighting tournament, his third character who's reluctant to participate in a game where full teamwork is required to survive, or his fourth character who simply doesn't do anything to assist the group, he just doesn't try to go along with the flow of the game.

Now, got any clues on how the hell I can get across to him?

At this point, something specialized is happening to the characters based off of alignment and some of the decisions (showing their personal values and alligences) that the characters made. His character isn't going to be in on it. Think that will bring in a message?

 

[Agnostic Paladin]

Does playing a half-orc with a six intelligence and eight wisdom as too stupid to mention to his party members that he's just had the crap kicked out of him by dire wolves and subsequently getting his head knocked off by a brown bear because he wasn't healed count?

 

[Sollir Furryfoot]

They definately exist, one of the players in the Heroes of the World PBP game I'm in is one of them.

*sighs* who would create a spellcaster with 6 con and no hitpoint enhancing items (for a stat that barely helps them, much less!) is beyond me.

 

[Dark Eternal]

I am personally responsible for playing a number of characters like the kind you describe, but for a different reason than those suggested here.

My most noteworthy example was a wizard character with a Con of 5 - giving him a -3 hit point penalty. He began play at first level with 1 hp. I also deliberately limited his strength to the point where he could only do 1 point of damage with a dagger - which was the only melee weapon he carried. And, he didn't qualify for bonus spells - so he could only cast two first level spells a day. Finally, to top it off, he wore light armor, which helped protect that 1 hit point, but imposed a 10% arcane spell failure chance.

Why would I play such a character? Because I wanted a challenge. In normal play, the challenge of the game isn't to keep the character alive - it's to overcome the obstacles and complete the adventure. Staying alive will happen automatically if your character is even moderately intellegent and careful. This character was different - just surviving most encounters was a deadly challenge, and he had to use all his cunning just to be breathing when the fight was over. Every combat felt like a truly dangerous situation. It was - in a word - exhilerating.

I didn't play him like an idiot - to the contrary, once I had set him up with his limited starting abilities, I used everything he had to the limit and pushed the boundary to boot. I had to, just for him to live. That was the entire idea, and I enjoyed the challenge so much that I've looked for opportunities to play similar 'anti-munchkins' since that game. I don't always play one - but when I do, I get incredible fun out of it.

Edit: I forgot to mention it - out of the player characters in the party that I played that wizard? I was the only one to survive first level. The party fighter - min/maxed and quite well equipped - died, was replaced, died again, was replaced again, and - you guessed it! DIED!!! My one hit point wizard survived five sessions - at which point the game fell apart due to scheduling conflicts. *sigh*.....

 

[Bendris Noulg]

who would create a spellcaster with 6 con and no hitpoint enhancing items (for a stat that barely helps them, much less!) is beyond me.

You mean Raistlin?

Elric perhaps?

 

[Oni]

They definately exist, one of the players in the Heroes of the World PBP game I'm in is one of them.

*sighs* who would create a spellcaster with 6 con and no hitpoint enhancing items (for a stat that barely helps them, much less!) is beyond me.

Funny you should mention that, I have a wizard with 6 con right now in the Dusk PBP. You can see his stats and read about him here. How long will he live? Who knows, but I'm eager to try.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I've seen very much characters by people, who love making ineffective characters in name of "roleplaying".

In reality, however, they are more often disruptive to dm and insist on other players following their lead too. It's ok, if you want to play "adventures of ordenary slightly unusual people", but really bothersome, if you try to play heroic fantasy.

Another trend is to do characters, that no way are likely to ever go into adventure in the first place, at least not with people they are supposed to be travelling with (aka rest of the party).

Some things picked by these players are illogical even from point of characters, considering what kind of life these character are supposed to have lived.

And in game where dm likes making opponents challeging, delibrely bad picks for character's abilites forces dm to make enemies weaker, making encounter also appear somewhat less, than it's supposed to feel like.

This behavior is really hard to alter, since it is easier to tell 'no' to somebody abusing rules, or 'no' to someone min-maxing just for the heck of it, than to one of these 'elitist role-players'.

Of course, not everyone I've met makes ineffective characters on purpose. Sometimes they just didn't realize they would be ineffective, or dm failed to tell what type of game he/she intended to run.

Mmh, I can see making weak characters for challege, if games I have played had been more like "Ancient Domains of Mystery" or "Nethack", or whatever roguelike, especially if I'd already tested all the killer-combos of min-maxing.