01-06-2006, 01:43 PM | #181 | |
Experimental Subject
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: saarbrücken, germany
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Quote:
So, by doing what you propose, you will not only not solve the problem. You will also fail to have fun and you will alienate your players. Is this a good idea? That's the whole reason most people abhor munchkins! They reduce the fun for all players.
__________________
Like a mail order mogwai...but nerdier - Nymdok understanding is a three-edged sword
|
|
01-06-2006, 02:38 PM | #182 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Quote:
|
|
01-06-2006, 02:57 PM | #183 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Quote:
|
|
01-06-2006, 03:09 PM | #184 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Quote:
Try this, we don't care if the Munchkins have fun, we don't want them to have fun, 'cause having a munchkin around messes up the fun for real roleplayers. A munchkin having fun is normal people having a lousy time. Munchkin GMs cannot play with roleplayers or normal people either. People come to GURPS who are attracted to it by it's realistic core and support for roleplaying, if they're munchkins, they'll hopefully drift away, this is a good thing.
__________________
Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. -RAH |
|
01-06-2006, 03:10 PM | #185 | |
Experimental Subject
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: saarbrücken, germany
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Quote:
More important, this will not satisfy the non-munchkins. These don't want to decide who wins/loses. They are not interested in this kind of game. So they will be bored for a whole evening. Therefore, killing the munchkins character will make no one happy. And we want to have fun, now, don't we? A deeper problem to your approach, however, is this: You propose to let the munchkin "lose". But this will not cure him of his munchkinism, even worse: now you're admitting - in fact, enforcing - that there actually is such a thing as winning/losing in a RPG. So the munchkin will expect more win/lose contests (which he hopes to win, of course, being a munchkin). This is not the message we want to get across, I hope. It's axiomatic that you can definitely not win a RPG, neither can you lose. Even death is but a temporary setback, since you can play on with a new character. This is what the munchkin understands not. You can only enjoy yourself, or fail to do so. Instead, you should demonstrate that there is more to a RPG than killing/dying winning/losing. There is suspense, drama, exploration and wonder. There is horror, excitement and joy. And while these can take the form of climactic (or pointless) battles, they do not have to take this form. * Success in a RPG is having fun, and having fun can be achieved in many different ways. Frex, in a game of Cthulhu, you will most certainly either die or become insane. From the munchkins point of view, this is lose-lose proposition. From the roleplayers point of view (if the roleplayer is interested in this sort of thing, of course), there is the possibility of much drama and suspense. How will you die? How will your eventual madness affect you? Will you die alone and friendless, or can find comfort even in the face of utter horror? How will you live until you meet your end? How will you meet your end? Again: it is of course possible to play nothing but dungeon crawls. If all players and the GM enjoy this, this perfectly fine (though, and here I agree with Ze, imho somewhat immature). But not only is there frequently a clash of assumptions, with some players wanting to roleplay and others wanting to munchkin. More important is that a RPG is capable of so much more. Imagine a RPG as a swiss knife: though it's possible to only ever use the undersized nail polisher, there are many more tools available, with wich you can do astonishing things! * as a multitude of other posters have pointed out.
__________________
Like a mail order mogwai...but nerdier - Nymdok understanding is a three-edged sword
|
|
01-06-2006, 03:19 PM | #186 | |||
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Overton, TX USA
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Chello!
Well, I was going to catch up before replying, but this post is so inaccurate, I have to reply now. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tony
__________________
Anthony N. Emmel Scholar & Catholic Gentleman Q: GM, are you using the d20 rules system? A: No. GURPS is fun. D20 games are not fun. The GM says so. Playing d20/3.5 makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|||
01-06-2006, 03:20 PM | #187 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Quote:
I have difficulties with Traveller for instance: 1) You give the PCs a scout ship worth Mcr47 so they can travel around. a.) PCs then sell the starship and retire for life on the proceeds. 2) You lend the PCs a starship for a specific mission. a) the PCs steal said starship, sell it on the black market, take the proceeds to a far away planet and retire for life 3) A company hires the PCs to be its crew. a) The PCs steal the starship, sell it on the black market, take the proceeds to a far away planet and retire for life. If there is a Mutchkin in Traveller, then all he has to do is steal a small starship, sell it, and he's set for life, his goal of becoming a millionare is attained, since he is a power gamer anyway. Traveller is one of those games that throws some very expensive equipment around. The PCs need that equipment to complete many adventures, but still, its kind of hard to keep the balance. Much easier with stargates and o starships. World War II games can be fun with a bunch of greedy players. Then there is the other type. The PCs go to a tavern to find out what adventures are going on and they learn about this dungeon. "What about this dungeon?" "Its full of monsters and treasure." "So?" And the players just tap their fingers on the table. "Why should we go their?" "Because there are monsters and treasure there." "Do the monsters bother anybody?" "No, they stay in their dungeon." "So why should we go there?" Sometimes greedy PCs are easier to motivate, all they need to know is that there is a dungeon full of dangerous traps, monsters and treasure, and in they go. The roleplayers though need a reason to go, maybe they aren't greedy and they don't want to rule the world. But sometimes GMing the greedy ones is so much easier, as they tend to generate their own adventures to advance their characters. The GM doesn't have to send those people out on a "mission" he only has to provide them with an opportunity and off they go. I've had greedy PCs try to raise armies, invade their neighbors and basically try to build a big empire. Contrast that with the PCs who always say, what's the next mission chief. Certian types of campaigns don't work with greedy players, such as time travel, others work quite well however. |
|
01-06-2006, 03:43 PM | #188 | |
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Overton, TX USA
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Chello!
Quote:
And the other players seem to have liked the character. High power-level? Yes. Munchkin, no. Tony
__________________
Anthony N. Emmel Scholar & Catholic Gentleman Q: GM, are you using the d20 rules system? A: No. GURPS is fun. D20 games are not fun. The GM says so. Playing d20/3.5 makes Baby Jesus cry. |
|
01-06-2006, 03:45 PM | #189 | ||
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location:
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Quote:
Boils down to CCGs, losing time (not money) over the legal battle, some loss of staff, internet rumors, and the Gulf War Factbook all around the same time. LKW: Quote:
|
||
01-06-2006, 03:45 PM | #190 |
Join Date: Oct 2005
|
Re: Whats a Munchkin?
Without bogging myself down in the minuta of the discussion, I do want to add a couple of things:
Despite my earlier Rifts bashing, I am fully aware that a good group of players and a good GM take take any game, no matter how poorly designed, and make it work for them. It just seems to be my experience -and others, if I'm not mistaken- that Rifts seems to encourage a "How much Mega-Damage can I do a turn" attitude among players. I do recognize the idea of playing RPG's to win. In fact, I do it myself. Many of my characters have long term goals, including some that are outside the current story arc or meta-plot. Most tend to work to attain those goals. Is this munchkiny? Perhaps, but it is also fairly realistic for characters to have goals and plans. For instance, my current MtA character wants to overthrow the U.S. government, reclaim Cerbrus from the alien infestation, and wouldn't mind becoming a power among the remaining shards of the Euthanatos tradition. He'd also like to prove himself to his mother, and achieve some sort of relationship with his on-again-off-again flame (another PC). While he'll work with the cabal to accomplish the cabal's goals, he's also working towards his own goals. I can only assert that because I'm willing to work within the story, rather than trying to break the story and wrap it around the character that this is not pure munchkinism. I tend to think that a typical munchkin sees character power as an end to itself, and is willing to try to break the game to get it. Perhaps another distsinction is that I recognize that many of these goals have to be accomplished in game... to do them, Gutenberg has to make deals with the Fae, find and gather the Euthanatos adepts and prove himself a leader, avoid being granted 'the good death' by a sometimes unstable Euthanatos mentor, and on and on and on. A munchkin might assume that just by killing monsters and grabbing treasure, the character goes up levels, and therefore gets to become more powerful. If I want to to be the head of a chantry, I've got to build that in game... a munchkin might say "I'm ninth level now... the book says I get a chantry. Where is it?" without ever having worked to make that happen in game. +++|<=== Lord Carnifex --- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|