Where does making an effective character end and munchkinism begin?

[MarauderX]

Ever hear of this happening? I kinda like a combo in between the two.
Starting a campaign at 10th level:

role-player - "As a circus outcast I followed the acrobat template and put all my skill points into balance, tumble and jump. I multiclassed into bard to get prestidigitation and took some ranks into performance: flute to more accurately convey the lonesome tale of a forlorn love lost ages ago due to the changing winds of fate." (includes 12 page story line stapled to char sheet.)

munchkin - "yeah, i took a level in cleric in order to get cure l. wounds and bulls strength when my barbarian rages, and will take rogue up to 3rd level to get the uncanny dodge."

 

[diaglo]

wasn't this a hypothetical question?

or did you mean this was happening to you in game.

 

[Fenes 2]

For me, munchkin begins where a person wants to have the most powerful character in the party (however he or she defines most powerful) and does not care if this goal hampers the other players' and the DM's fun and enjoyment of the game.

Yes, that means that for me, "munchkinism" is relative, not absolute. The guy making a wizard/red wizard/shadow adept/arch mage combo is not a munchkin if his co-players have similar characters and everyone enjoys that kind of game. The guy making a tweaked-out melee cleric with only PHB feats and spells is a munchkin if the other party members don't want to play that way and have less optimized characters by choice.

 

[Garmorn]

Here is my definition of Munchkinism:

A: When the character is disruptive to the party by being so powerful that they overshadow the rest of the party and refuse to tone down or try do work with the party or when they are so weak that they might as well not be there and refuse to improve or expand their character.

B: When the player tries to play the wrong type of character for the campaign with out regards to the enjoyment of the rest of the group. To example are a combat monster with no back ground in a mostly story type campaign or a all story and no combat abilities in a combat oriented game.

C: When the play is constantly creating out or in game problems when ever they are not in the spot light or when they must have the most goodies/secrets et. then the rest of the group.

 

[MerakSpielman]

No, no, it's hypothetical.

Just usually, in this kind of discussion, people give extremes. I was hoping to narrow it down a bit.

I think the common factor so far seems to be intent. If the player does something only to get a numerical advantage, regardless of whether it makes sense for the character's history/personality.

So does the intent make the munchkin, as opposed to the actual kicka$$idness of the character?

 

[Terwox]

spotlight hogs.

Munchkins are when people hog the spotlight when it stops the other players from having fun.

This includes the tweaked out melee cleric of whatever-god-grants-war-and-celerity-and-only-lets-me-buff-myself, and the 12-page backstory bard that won't ever let anyone else talk without interrupting with a comment that puts the spotlight back on themselves.

both of those characters could be fun for a group to play in. but when the group isn't haven't fun, and only the person playing those characters is, it's munchkin.

stat munchkin or drama munchkin. either way.

oh, and also, having in-game justification for stats isn't too big a deal, i'd say. it can be just hiding stat munchkining behind a strung together backstory. but yeah, when people skip it, it's generally munchkin time.

well, says me!

edit: so I wouldn't say it is the intent that makes the munchkin -- it is whether or not their actions stop the other player's fun. The drama munchkin may intend to make the game a richer roleplaying experience for all, and unintentionally hog the spotlight and make a group that prefers combat bored.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Originally posted by Garmorn
B: When the player tries to play the wrong type of character for the campaign with out regards to the enjoyment of the rest of the group. To example are a combat monster with no back ground in a mostly story type campaign or a all story and no combat abilities in a combat oriented game.

Actually, I wouldn't consider the "all story, no useful abilites" type character to be a munchkin. The term I see used to describe these type of players are "Drama Queens".

 

[Henry]

It's kind of like the difference between nude art and pornography.

For me, it begins with rulebreaking, or at the least loophole-finding. It's not outrageous to make a barbarian with power attack, cleave, mobility, and spring attack; it is outrageous to have an Alaghi Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge, who uses feats published in little known sourcebooks to give one choice of class a +1 BAB, and a prestige class that grants an extra partial action whenever the character casts a spell.

 

[Malcolm]

"Seriously, though, it's only a problem if the players or DM aren't having fun. If everyone is "exploiting the rules equally" then the DM's job is to try to match the character's abilies with the challenges s/he devises." - Eric Noah.

If more people would heed these kind, dead man's words, our world would be a kindger, gentler place, full of happy gamers frolicking in joy! What? He's not dead yet??... sorry.
Seriously, EN sums it up pretty well here. I just wanted to throw in a lil frivolity.

 

[Trogdor]

Where I draw the line on "munchkinism" is when major choices of a character make absolutly no sense compared to how the character has been played.

When a character who has been played as a dark selfish fighter, but one day has an alignment change and a level of Holy Liberator, thats muchkinism to me. Even better is the player's response to why that class was taken: "I just wanted Detect Evil"