Munchkin bashing [rant]

[Eternalknight]

Gee thanks Nemm.

It could've been fun to see how far I could push the guy before springing the punchline.

Anyway, I guess you've got a job to do...

Eternal Knight - I was just kidding cuz. My mum's Australian, as are my brothers and sisters and myself.

I just thought it would be cool to stir you a bit.

I guess my sense of humour needs a readjustment...

Hmmph. I was quite offended actually, but since you were just joking... well we Aussies have a sense of humour. Good one Snoweel, you got me!!! (Why are you in Stolkholm by the way???)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

You know, Eternal...

..what you´re asking is something like "Why can´t we all get along with each other without resorting to singling out one minority group and painting them as the black sheep of our specific hobby".

I can understand your sentiment, and I sometimes still think the same...but I fear this behaviour is somehow ingrained in the human mind. It happens everywhere. Within our hobby, we have the slight advantage that "munchkins" aren´t really there, as everybody has a slightly different definition of them..they´re the foggy power behind a failed game evening, they´re those that aren´t "like us"...only that everybody has a little munchkin hidden in his gamer´s soul.

 

[Zappo]

Well then, playing a character or part realistically within the setting is all that is nessessary for "roleplaying." Then by your own definition, there are no non-roleplayers. 0.

Wrong. Rollplayers (including the DM) don't think about whether their character is realistic or not, and if they do it is subordinate to its power (in whatever field they have chosen, which isn't always combat). Not giving importance to realism, and thus not deciding a believable background and personality, is enough to qualify them as non-roleplayers, in accordance to my definition in my first post.

Because there is no standard judgement of what is or isn't acceptable within a setting. The only judge of that is the Game Master, and as long as a players performance is accepted by the Game Master, then his or her roleplaying fits within the setting, and is there for realistic.

Correct... to a degree. The same judgement by the DM must apply to everyone involved, including other PCs and NPCs. Which is where my point is proven: you can't have happy rollplayers in a roleplayers campaign or vice-versa.

On the other hand, I'm still wondering what your point is.

 

[Dinkeldog]

That's exactly the reason why I told people to read Nemm's post:

Oh, so I'm supposed to do what you say just because you're a big bad moderator or something.



Looks like I blew the roll for Reading Retention. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[kkoie]

Wrong. Rollplayers (including the DM) don't think about whether their character is realistic or not, and if they do it is subordinate to its power (in whatever field they have chosen, which isn't always combat). Not giving importance to realism, and thus not deciding a believable background and personality, is enough to qualify them as non-roleplayers, in accordance to my definition in my first post.

How do you know they don't think about whether its realistic or not? That is a sweeping blanket statement, making the assumption you have been in their minds or have interviewed a number of self professed 'rollplayers'. Some players may take roleplaying more seriously than most, but does that automatically make the less serious ones rollplayers? And if it does, how do you know they don't give realism any consideration?

Correct... to a degree. The same judgement by the DM must apply to everyone involved, including other PCs and NPCs. Which is where my point is proven: you can't have happy rollplayers in a roleplayers campaign or vice-versa.

Maybe not in your campaign or in others, but I don't think it is as simple as 'rolls' and 'roles', more likely it is a differnce in styles and tastes. To attribute it to a difference in spelling is making it kindergarden simplicity, which I think is unrealistic.

On the other hand, I'm still wondering what your point is.

My point is, how can anyone blanketly call one person a Munchkin and another not, when they really are not able to accurately or realistically define what roleplaying is, when the definition of roleplaying is differn't for each and every individual?!

www.dictionary.com defines roleplaying as follows:

role-play (rlpl)
v. role-·played, role-·play·ing, role-·plays
v. tr.
To assume or represent in a drama; act out: “Participants are encouraged to pass on leads about jobs... and to role-play interview situations with each other” (Hatfield MA Valley Advocate).

v. intr.
To assume or act out a particular role: “When I hire people I role-play with them... to see how they take pressure” (Peter Schrag).

n.
Role-playing. role-play·ing (rlplng)
n.
Psychology. A therapeutic technique, designed to reduce conflict in social situations, in which participants act out particular behavioral roles in order to expand their awareness of differing points of view.
An instance or situation in which one deliberately acts out or assumes a particular character or role.

No where does it say anything about being realistic.

The topic of this thread is munchkin bashing. Well you can't bash someone and call them a munchkin because you think they are roleplaying unrealistically, because 1. one doesn't have to be realistic to roleplay, 2. realism is not integral to roleplaying, 3. in their minds, they might be roleplaying realistically, who are you to say otherwise?

K Koie

 

[Zappo]

Ok, kkoie, I don't know why you've decided that I'm a target.

First of all, I don't consider munchkin an offense, and for this reason I use it liberally. Since it seems to anger you, I'll use the somewhat neutral term "rollplayer".

Secondly, I have never bashed anyone! I don't think I've ever written that rollplaying campaigns are inferior to roleplaying campaigns! I've played and enjoyed campaigns where I allowed half-dragon minotaurs as PCs. The one and only thing I've been saying from the beginning is that hardcore rollplayers and roleplayers don't mix, and I've said that to attempt a partial answer to the original question "What's the reason for munchkin bashing?"

Now to what you said: I have stated what I consider rollplaying and roleplaying in my first post, and in the second I've precised that many players fall somewhere in the middle and can get along. I feel that you haven't bothered to read them.

What I've said is that to be a "real roleplayer" (notice the quotes) you must decide a believable background and personality for your character; you don't do so, you aren't a "real roleplayer", and that doesn't mean you are a rollplayer. As I said, many fall in-between.

What I've also said is that "real rollplayers" don't think about character realism, because otherwise they wouldn't be real rollplayers, according to the definition in my first post. Again, many people fall in-between.

Spare me the dictionary wars. I've already stated what I consider rollplaying and roleplaying. I consider neither of the two superior or inferior, so if you feel they are offensive it's your trouble. And by the way, any definition can only be a blanket statement.

 

[abri]

Ok, this might feel like a hair falling in the proverbial soup...
I happen to live near a gaming shop, which also serves as a kind of gamers club. This has given me the opportunity to play/dm in several groups...
And I have seen true Munchkins: campaigns where the dm allows free use of weird races (without ECL! First time I saw someone play a Half-dragon/half-fiend/were-bear at what was supposed to be L1...), where rules aren't really understood or applied, where a +5 vorpal scimetar is just your cooking knife...
But what worries me is that munchkin and powergamer are two terms that are becoming more and more used and in the wrong sense.
1) I see a lot of people who just won't learn the rules. They have no idea how to design a character and don't want any advice...
Of course their L5 fighter with no armor and a dex of 12 is not going to be efficient (just an example, trust me I've seen worse). Of course they will start complaining when another character totally outshines them... And the munchkin word is being spoken.

2) I also see a lot of character with no themes: just collection of feats and numbers. What does it have to do with the thread?
Simple: a background and a THEME is the first part of designing an efficient character that you can ROll AND ROLE.
You want to play an ogre? A werewolf? A half-fiend? As a dm I say no. You want to play Morken the mighty, an ogre who just love magic and has spent his life trying to learn magic? Or Garduk of the Falcons, ogre raised by a mercenary company, a trained and somewhat disciplined soldier? Ah maybe, show me how the background affected your choice of feats and stats...
Of course they are going to be more powerfull than a random collection of feats, but they can ROLE-play and ROLL-play, that's all I want.

 

[Desdichado]

kkoie:
No where does it say anything about being realistic.

The topic of this thread is munchkin bashing. Well you can't bash someone and call them a munchkin because you think they are roleplaying unrealistically, because 1. one doesn't have to be realistic to roleplay, 2. realism is not integral to roleplaying, 3. in their minds, they might be roleplaying realistically, who are you to say otherwise?

kkoie, you have really missed the boat here, IMO. The topic of this thread is not munchkin bashing, it is munchkin-basher-bashing, for one thing. To my knowledge, no one is really bashing munchkins here, and since nobody identifies themself as a munchkin, what harm is there in doing so anyway?

As long as the line between power-gamers and munchkins is clearly drawn, there's no reason for anyone to get upset. There's no point in throwing out corny dictionary definitions that obviously don't apply to the colloquial use of the words. That accomplishes absolutely nothing except to make you look like a bit of an ass for being so pedantic.

 

[kkoie]

As long as the line between power-gamers and munchkins is clearly drawn, there's no reason for anyone to get upset. There's no point in throwing out corny dictionary definitions that obviously don't apply to the colloquial use of the words. That accomplishes absolutely nothing except to make you look like a bit of an ass for being so pedantic.

There is no clear line between power-gamers and munchkins. When I use the term power gamer, everyone has a pretty good idea what I'm talking about. But when I say, 'Munchkin', about half a dozen interpretations spring to mind, including power gamers. So when someone defines a munchkin based off of roleplaying, and then continues by insisting that it is logical for "roleplaying" to be defined as portraying a character in a realistic manner, with a realistic background, I don't think there is anything ostentascious with me using the standard definition for roleplaying in my argument. Specially if we are going to start arguing about colloquialisms. If you want to go that route, then there is no clear cut definition for anything, which means any interpretation is game, which in turn means, that I have as much right to quote and spoute off a dictionarys definition as much as someone else has to say "my interpretation is ______." There for if you think I look like an ass, then I suggest you get your mind off of the anus area, and concentrate on something a little more sanitary.

K Koie

 

[Desdichado]

grrr... Lost my long reply thanks to the boards quirks about log-on IDs. I don't have the energy to try and recreate it. Rest assured, that I really put kkoie in his place!