[Controversy] So what's a munchkin to you?

[Hedgemage]

One thing that must be said about Munchkins is that they think of everything in terms of damage. Damage they can do, and damage that they can take/avoid taking.

It is this narrow focus that is my biggest problem. It shatters attempts at making the game 'believable' as a character is simply boiled down to numbers with a name.

If this same person can give these numbers a personality, then they have transcended the confines of munchkinism, but this seldom happens. I've seen too many backgrounds where the 'personality' is dark and tormented, especially since his family was slaughtered by (insert monster race here, usually its orcs). Lame backgrounds where the PC always has noble blood and an ancestral sword. The worst munchkins are the ones who think that because their background tells of the two holy avenger swords that their father used that they have a right to the same at 1st level. The worst munchkins try to use their character's backstory as an excuse to give their little stack of numbers one more bonus.

 

[evileeyore]

What is a Munchkin?

What is a Munchkin?

You all have it wrong. I am a Munchkin.

Munchkinism is about cheating, although I have done that. Cheating isn't about being a Munchkin, its being a Cheater.

Munchkinism isn't about Metagaming, although I have done that. Metagaming is just a politically correct term for Cheating.

Munchkinism isn't about Rules Lawyering, although I have done that. Rules Lawyering is all about jamming the rules down other peoples throats and not your own.

Munchkinism isn't about Power Gaming, although I have done that. Power Gaming is trying to max yourself pretty exclusively, in GURPS we call that Johnny-One-Skill.

Munchkinism is about trying to max out your character for every situation. It is being the best at everything, failing that a Munchkin is second best.

All that said I am a Munchkin. It is a hard road I walk, trying to stay on the straight and narrow, not falling to the old ways. Trying to leave limits and gaps in my characters defenses, restraining his attack strength. I think I'm doing better.

Now as to the meat of the post. Being a Munchkin I don't mind people calling me that. However I no longer fall to the other deadly rpg sins, and take umbrage to being lumped in with them.

Thank you and have a nice day.

 

[Forrester]

Re: None of the above

What munchkin usually means on the internet:
Someone who plays a game or a playstyle I don't like, whether or not my detractions have any relation to real life.

What I mean when a say munchkin:

A player who creates characters ultra-optimized for survival situations at the expense of role-playing considerations, party balance or harmony, and exploiting loopholes or deliberately misinterpereting rules to do so.

Holy crap, Psion, I couldn't have put it better myself. I think we actually agree on something.

Isn't one third of the earth supposed to be consumed in fire right about now?

 

[abri]

Honnestly, I too am fed up with the term munchkin: it is only only used to critisize people that don't play like you!
I don't care about the power of a character, I only care about how his abilities makes sense and goes with his background.
Well actually I do care about the power of a Pc: I'm fed up with people playing character that have no chance for survival (because the player don't want to REALLY learn the rules) and who complain about other efficient character.

Party with character of different level of ability is perfectly ok: tactic and intelligence of the player beat firepower anyday. Smart roleplaying and clever uses of abilities gives you more Xp than "I see: I hack" IMC.

Ok, I calm down and go read "Lady's Despina virtue" to relax

 

[Terwox]

Well, the main thing I think of when I say munchkin is somebody who dominates the game in their favor. To me, the most munchkiny is whichever ruins the fun for other players the most -- and to me, that's the rules lawyer. Usually.

Having a powergamer outclass all the other players, when the other players don't really want vastly different power levels between players, that's munchkiny. If all the players are making powerful characters, well, it can be great fun to play/DM powerful character games.

Cheating... I've played in a few games where people cheated because they thought unfair things were happening. I don't like it at all, but, honestly, it doesn't ruin the fun for other players as much. It's still quite annoying, but it seems to ruin the fun for others less than other ills. So, the least of evils, to me.

Metagaming is dumb. I've never really seen much of this, as usually if someone unduly metagames, people just look at them funny.

But rules lawyers... yikes. I've spent a few hours too many listening to whining about some dumb rule. Thankfully, this mainly just depends on the dm and the players, and I haven't seen it in quite some time.

However... another thing that somewhat says munchkin to me is drama twinks. Now, there's nothing wrong with making a cool character and really getting into it -- this even isn't that bad if the character is the limelight of most of the story -- as long as all the other players are fine with it. And, a lot of times, that just isn't the case. This seems to be more of the case in white wolf, and I hear it's worse in larps.

But, to me, munchkins are players who have fun with the game, at the expense of the fun of other players. It doesn't have to be intentional. Twinks are players who make characters out to be "more better" -- whether in the limelight by combat, or roleplay, and they must be better to the extent that it causes a gap within the group. This also doesn't have to be intentional, and whether the players mean to or not, I've had it help split a group because of limelight hogging. (And, of course, other differences, as a minor difference like that would not have still proved irreconciable.)

And, best of all, my terminology gets used, because no one else I know frequents message boards, which means people pick up my jargon, and there's no confusing terms.

 

[Kichwas]

My definition of munchkin is something like this:

Anyone who improperly uses the setup, genre, or rules of the game to advantage their character / position in game and takes out of game pride in the power they achieve in game from doing this.

That can encompass anyone of the categories listed. However there are also people in most of those categories who would not fall into my definition.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Drama Twinks

I think I've found the anti-munchkin, everyone! The DRAMA TWINK!

Gawds, that's a great term. Guys so unbalanced and insecure they need to make other people feel less than them for liking a bit of hack-and-slash, or for being a bit less into the story. People who think that things like Epic Levels are 'munchkin' simply by virtue of power. Dudes who not only think the story is *everything,* but who also feel that this is inherently superior to any other position.

I hate these guys. Moreso than metagamers. I can always tell them: "think of a reason that I'd buy, or I won't allow it." These guys, heck, I can't tell a story involving a lot of action or combat without them telling me how stupid it is because they didn't spend any time in town using social skills.

I think they are worse than the munchkins, personally. DOWN WITH DRAMA TWINKS! W00T!

 

[The Crimster]

A munchkin is anyone who takes the Sensitive feat in d20 Call of Cthulhu and Profession: Painter!!

Take THAT, Anab!

 

[BMF]

Personally, I think it is a stupid word and I've never used it. Nor will I. I think it is something people with low self-esteems use to belittle other people.

I like all styles of play. Currently, our group is deep in a dungeon, fighting for their lives. We have to be tight on all the saving throws, AC, attack bonuses, and "depth."Otherwise, you're dead. And no one likes that.

Other times, I like to do complete role-playing, where not a single attack roll is made all session.

If gaming was the same all the time, I'd get sick of it. After a few weeks in the dungeon, I'm ready for some role-playing in the town. After a few days in a town, I'm ready to get back to the dungeon and bash some skulls.

I guess most gamers would agree with that.

So it is rude and hypocritical to call someone a pejorative word just because they happen to be into bashing skulls. Furthermore, everyone enjoys a good fight now and then. And they like to WIN that fight. So we all "power game" to a certain degree. In fact, you almost HAVE to "power game" in 3e just to survive (RttToEE, anyone?)

As for rules-lawyers, I have been one for 18 years. It is good to know the rules, and I enjoy playing with people who know the rules. It is anoying to play with people who don't know the rules and decide to "make it up" as the situation arises.

Cheaters, however, are a different breed. Call them what you will, I prefer to show them the door.

A player who creates characters ultra-optimized for survival situations at the expense of role-playing considerations, party balance or harmony, and exploiting loopholes or deliberately misinterpereting rules to do so.

Like I said above, in 3e, you almost HAVE to powergame just to survive. I think it is the "exploiting loopholes " that leads to the most widespread use of that word on these (and other) boards. There is wide disagreement among us about what is a loophole and what isn't. So when people see someone "exploiting a loophole" they yell "Munchkin."

I always think that the people who worry too much about "loopholes" are sissy DMs who can't handle a powerful character in their games.

You know what sort of a campaign I'm planning right now?? One where ALL the loopholes can be "exploited." I'm talking about the use activated weapons of true strike. Cloaks of shielding. Belt buckles of CLW. and anything else my players can make with that $%&^-up table in the DMG.

I want to see just what this "balance" and "Loophole" business everyone cries about all the time is about. Does that make me a "Munchkin?"

Who gives a Fu*k. I want to see what happens when you do that. How "broken" is the system??? I don't know. But I'm going to find out.

And I think it will be fun.

But, to get back on topic, I'll take a second to point out a few things that always get pointed out when we talk about this,
1. The game evolved from table-top war games. we all know this. At it's core, DnD is a tactical war game. If you don't fight in your DnD game, you're playing it wrong, and have no business calling the poeple who play it right a demeaning word. If you DO fight in your games, and you ENJOY LOSING, then you have every right to berate those of us who like to WIN the big fight at the end.
2. Gary is a "Munchkin." (read "gamer who prefers combat over role-playing")
3. The term seems related to the rise of WW and their "role-playing" game.
4. No one really knows what it means or who started it or why.
5. It is rude, hypocritical, and stupid to call someone a "munchkin."

 

[Vaxalon]

The best definition of Munchkin was left out.

Honnestly, I too am fed up with the term munchkin: it is only only used to critisize people that don't play like you!

How do you respond to the following:

Well, the main thing I think of when I say munchkin is somebody who dominates the game in their favor. To me, the most munchkiny is whichever ruins the fun for other players the most ...

My definition of munchkin is something like this:

Anyone who improperly uses the setup, genre, or rules of the game to advantage their character / position in game and takes out of game pride in the power they achieve in game from doing this.

Abri, are you saying that a play style that focuses on dominating the game, to the detriment of the fun of the other players at the table, is a valid playstyle that shouldn't be deprecated?

I can't agree with that. Roleplaying games are cooperative games, and the players should work together to have fun. If a player is using powergaming, metagaming, cheating, or even roleplaying to monopolize the game, that's wrong.

Wrong. Yes, a moral judgement. I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees with it.

I'll go so far as to say that under most circumstances, a player of ANY game or sport should not play in such a way as to ruin the fun for the other players. Now in a competitive game, winning and losing are part of the fun, and there's no need to throw a game in order to preserve the fun for a sore loser.

I remember a game of Starfleet Battles I played at a con once. One of the players was a real jerk. He checked every damage roll, every hit location, to ensure that the damage that was called out was accurate to the tables. Basically, he was assuming that everyone around the table was cheating. He never smiled, and took offense easily.

When our Federation fleet met the Gorn fleet that his ship was part of, we went for his ship first. We obliterated him in something like two turns. When his ship was destroyed, his teammates said to him, "Your ship is destroyed. You can leave the table now." He was a munchkin. Did he cheat? No. Did he powergame? Not really, because the setup didn't allow it. He rules-lawyered, but that's part of SFB because the rules are so complex, it happens all the time.

What he *did* do is play in a way that was intended to take control of the game to the maximum extent that he was able.

IMO he was a munchkin.