Munchkins vs. Powergamers?

[Psion]

To me a munchkin is a powergamer who uses their power for evil.

A good powergamer will pay attention to the setting continuity, will identify things they know are overpowered to the GM before taking them, and will help other players optimize their character and make for a competent party.

A munchkin ignores setting logic or consistency, cares not if they hog the spotlight, tries to sneak in obviously abusive combos and the GM (and refuses to acknowledge there is anything wrong with them.) A munchkin typically couldn't care less if there are other players at the table.

 

[pawsplay]

OK, this stems from a discussion I had earlier with one of my players about the definitions of munchkin and powergamer. He assumed that they were the same thing, and I've certainly seen many EnWorld posts that act as if they are synonyms. However, I think that they are subtly different. Here's what I always thought was the definition (but DON'T assume this is "right"...that's the whole point of this thread)

See, to me, they are un-subtlety completely different, albeit compatible. Powergamers play tactically. Munchkins play selfishly and without regard for others, specifically in a showboating, self-entitled way. Even DMing can be described as muchkin style, particularly when it combines an unpredictable, dangerous mixture of monty haulism and killer DM tendencies, intended to flaunt the godlike power of the DM.

 

[hopeless]

Munchkin & Power Gamers

Now looking back I can recognise a phase where I was munchkin, you know the bit where characters had all ability scores at 18, but back then I didn't have groups to play with and when i did they either didn't last long because respective parents fell out and I was banend from going round or it was a rare game say Middle Earth when it was first out long before the Jackson movie trilogy.

I only really learned to get out of that phase after a club was opened where gamers went to play various games and they even designed their own campaign world which then led to their own system which changed drastically in each edition like one player ran a priest of the god of thieves and was remarkably succesful until they changed the rules to remove a particular powerful spell he had access to.

Me i ran a Paladin of that god and chose to make him a sellsword rather than an out and out thief and didn't select lockpicking as it wasn't in my view what my character was about. Then they changed the system so I couldn't remain a paladin of the god of thieves and then my character became his twin brother who was a paladin of the god of well I've forgotten.
The only two magical items that character ever possessed turned out to be a ring that shielded him from spiritual damage but the dm didn't bother to mention this after my character was almost slain from that kind of damage (before the changeover ruined it).
The other was found by another player whose character was killed so I openly stated I was holding onto it until i could pass it on to his heirs not that the dm ever bothered to let me know who they were but it was later claimed by the paladin of another faith after i shot a villain holding a cleric of my faith hostage only to be told the critical hit from the crossbow had absolutely no effect and the villain promptly did critical damage to his hostage even though there was no way I could have known this as up to this point I had never played with someone who ran it this way.

Sorry for going on so long, I actually know someone who is a munchkin and probably will always be so which is why i consider 4e's developers to be promoting it to the same.

That same player when playing in my games I don't penalise him I just make sure he doesn't cheat whether due to a lack of understanding of the game but I don't subject him to pointless acts of spite as my former dm did and he admitted it afterwards even though when he played a paladin character he persuaded the dm to let him roll up his money under 1st edition rules so he could start with a suit of full plate and a masterwork greatsword...

I suspect thats your munckin and powergamer example for you, however the closest I ever got to optimising came when my cleric was aged 60 years using 2nd edition rules in a 3.0 game and then I only chose to multiclass as I had been curious about sorcerors... needless to say I won't bore you any further but it became evident that my dm doesn't like creative impulses from players he feels threatened by and aren't on his list of preferred players...

Didn't help I annoyed him when I pointed out his mistakes but then the others didn't bck me up unless it effected them too, but thats another story entirely...

 

[John Morrow]

Every type of role-player has a bad form. The munchkin is the bad form of power gamer. The player who wrecks games because "That's what my character would do!" is the bad form of in-character player. The players who yell at other players for making sub-optimal decisions are the bad form of the combat-oriented player. And so on. One of the reasons why game style discussions often get so heated is that people insist that the bad form is characteristic of the form. But what all of the bad forms have in common is a disregard for the fun of the other people at the table or even a purposeful desire to ruin their fun. And that problem can be added to any style, making it bad role-playing.

 

[blargney the second]

My dad called me Munchkin. Life imitates nicknames.
-blarg

 

[pawsplay]

Every type of role-player has a bad form. The munchkin is the bad form of power gamer.

The munchkin is the bad form of the idealistic heroic gamer, I think. Power is just a tool to a munchkin. I say that because being a munchkin is fundamentally a matter of immaturity. Munchkins don't simply optimize, they maximize... they bend rules... cheat... then try to talk their way out of anything that still doesn't go their way. A munchkin could be a rotten power gamer, rules lawyer, even "role player" ("But I'm like Superman... that would never happen to Superman, would it?")

Munchkin is just a shorthand for an assortment of egoistic habits you'll hope someone will grow out of.

The bad form of power gamer is probably what I would call a twink, combat monster, or game breaker, depending on what aspect in which they are excessive.

 

[Teflon Billy]

I think Powergamer is simply what Munchkins like to call themselves.

It has the word Power in it and sounds much more cool and decisive than a term derived from "Singing Midget from Over the Rainbow" used to mean number-crunching-at-all-costs jerk.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Every type of role-player has a bad form. The munchkin is the bad form of power gamer. The player who wrecks games because "That's what my character would do!" is the bad form of in-character player. The players who yell at other players for making sub-optimal decisions are the bad form of the combat-oriented player. And so on.

One of the reasons why game style discussions often get so heated is that people insist that the bad form is characteristic of the form. But what all of the bad forms have in common is a disregard for the fun of the other people at the table or even a purposeful desire to ruin their fun. And that problem can be added to any style, making it bad role-playing.

I'll buy that.

 

[pawsplay]

I think Powergamer is simply what Munchkins like to call themselves.

It has the word Power in it and sounds much more cool and decisive than a term derived from "Singing Midget from Over the Rainbow" used to mean number-crunching-at-all-costs jerk.

Is a hot rodder a better-engine-performance-at-all-costs jerk?

 

[hopeless]

Okay then...

Every type of role-player has a bad form. The munchkin is the bad form of power gamer. The player who wrecks games because "That's what my character would do!" is the bad form of in-character player. The players who yell at other players for making sub-optimal decisions are the bad form of the combat-oriented player. And so on. One of the reasons why game style discussions often get so heated is that people insist that the bad form is characteristic of the form. But what all of the bad forms have in common is a disregard for the fun of the other people at the table or even a purposeful desire to ruin their fun. And that problem can be added to any style, making it bad role-playing.

Would that include questioning when a new player elects to run a 9th level sorceror and you ask why he chose the Maximise feat?
They did comment on that when I asked him, then again being the only other player ever to willingly run a sorceror albeit a multiclass version originally out of curiosity but then looked at developing it since i was at the time the only player who chose item creation feats and actually used them...
Maybe I am a powergamer?
That character was the best rolled character I ever had, no 18's mind you but 3 natural 16's and 1 natural 17 isn't bad, when I told them that the dm promptly accused me of cheating but I assumed he was joking...
Maybe I really am reading too much into this...