Me. Myself and a Munchkin.

[drizzit]

it is combining character creation with metagaming in mind that can hurt a game.

depending on the player, it can hurt a game. but with the right type of munchkin it can actually add to the game, especially as far as interesting encounters go (particuarly with spellcasters)

mat

 

[Weeble]

depending on the player, it can hurt a game. but with the right type of munchkin it can actually add to the game, especially as far as interesting encounters go (particuarly with spellcasters)

mat

I disagree. Metagaming of any kind is wrong and completely against the reason anyone plays D&D.

 

[Sollir Furryfoot]

Np Drizzit, and here's a quote written by me

"Do not meddle in the affairs of Munchkins, for you have low initiative and die in one hit."

 

[reapersaurus]

The Sultans of Smack, of course, epitomize munchkinism.

I completely disagree.

Munchkins CHEAT.
They try to slide incorrect rulings and interpretations past the DM and get special "broken" PrC's and even base classes, races, feats, and spells approved.

Powergamers try to maximize effectiveness within the rules.

Now, that wasn't so hard now, was it?

 

[Humanophile]

I'm still gonna go with my definition...

Munchkinism is not so much directly about stats, power, or even metagaming. Rather, it's all about a style of play wherein the one player's idea of "fun" and ego gratification is considered important to the exclusion of anyone else's. Especially if that fun comes from stepping all over everyone else's toes (the type who either fudges to have all applicable skills at high levels, or otherwise outright cheats in order to have high skills in everything), or even who seems to get their jollies off of abusing other PC's and NPC's.

 

[LostSoul]

I agree with reapersaurus: Munchkins cheat in order to be "better".

It's like creating a character with two 18s and four 12s under 25 point buy.

 

[LostSoul]

I disagree. Metagaming of any kind is wrong and completely against the reason anyone plays D&D.

That's funny; I always thought that early forms of D&D (1e) were meant to be metagamed. At least in parts.

I mean, you don't see Tomb of Horrors calling for Int checks all over the place to determine if characters can figure out a trap.

Then again, maybe my definition of metagaming (which is: playing the game as if it is a game, not as though you are running a character) is different or flawed.

 

[Weeble]

That's funny; I always thought that early forms of D&D (1e) were meant to be metagamed. At least in parts.

Metagaming is using player knowledge that a character wouldn't have for the benefit of that character.

*A mild case of this would be a character drinking a potion of bull's strength and casting Arcane Armor while traveling in the woods just because the player sees the DM roll a bunch of d20s thinking "he must be rolling Move Silently checks or Spot checks."

*From mild to moderate would be one player having a character out of sight and sound of the rest of the party, then something bad happening to this character, followed by another player saying "Bozo rushes to the aid of Dork!", at which point the DM would say "stop metagaming!"

*And from moderate to horrid (and the one I love the most as a DM) is when a player goes out and buys or downloads the adventure after the first session and before completion, then mysteriously, and with ponderous acting, seems to know the answers to the key parts of the adventure.