Whats a Munchkin?

[Tom Kalbfus]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That's a solution, but it constrains the range of possible play styles.

I run campaigns where the PCs often do things apart from the other PCs; in fact I've run campaigns where all the PCs came together only in the final episodes of the campaign. In some of those, the PCs have actually belonged to conflicting factions and taken action against each other. It would have been really awkward to keep having them sit in different rooms, while I went back and forth from one group to the other; I think it would have been so clunky as to be unworkable.

I actually was in a campaign where that was done, it worked out fine. I was visiting a friend in New Hampshire, and we were having a D&Dathon, he had a big house, and when the party was split up, so were the players, we watch movies or did something else when we weren't part of the action.

You have to understand that out of character knowledge also constrains your characters actions if you try a deliberately non-munchkin style of play. How do you know whether your character is acting on information he wouldn't have known but whose player knows or whether that character would have figured it out independently? If you already know that some other members of the party who are in a different section of the dungeon are in dire peril, but your character would not, do you go and try to rescue them? If the player knows what's happening he can either invent some excuse for his characters to wander into that room fully armed, or he can be automatically prohibited from moving in that direction. If he does not know what's going on, he can wander into that room by accident, or he might hear sounds of a combat taking place and move in to investigate. The best style of play is when the player only knows what the character knows. Asking that character not to act on out of character information after giving him that information is a poor style of play in my opinion, its so much better for the player to go to another room when his character is not involved in the action.

Originally Posted by whswhs

Fortunately, I have players who don't believe in acting on out-of-character knowledge—in fact, anyone who slips will be faced with outcries of "metagaming!" from the other players. So I just run everything in the open, with rare steps out of the room when it's dramatically useful to present a surprise to the players—"rare" meaning "less than once a session."

In that case the character's choices are restricted by out of game social pressure on the player. I'd rather not have knowledge that I can't act on, and so have freedom to act in what ever way I choose than to have someone say, I can't do that because my character wouldn't know.

Originally Posted by whswhs

This gives me access to a wider range of campaign styles than GMs who have to be careful about what players know. I find that useful enough so that I would drop a player who didn't accept the separation of player and character knowledge, rather than change my play style to defend against them.

Would you want to play "Open Card" Poker? Imagine a game of poker where everyones cards are on the table face up so everyone can see them, and then have social pressure on each player so they don't act on the knowledge of what the other player's cards are. This doesn't sound like much fun to me. The best games are when the players knowledge and the character's knowledge are the same, or the character might know more than the player, but instances where the player knows more than the character should be kept rare if the GM is doing a good job. The best way is to keep the players together whenever possible, and when not possible some players should leave the room. Since splitting the party up and the players slows down play, this ought to discourage the party from splitting up. One exception is when one of the characters gets killed and the player creates another character. The GM then works the new character into play. GURPS characters take a while to create, so you have the player create this character in another room while the rest continue role playing, then at some later point the GM introduces the new character into the situation with backstory on how he got here.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

The best style of play is when the player only knows what the character knows. Asking that character not to act on out of character information after giving him that information is a poor style of play in my opinion, its so much better for the player to go to another room when his character is not involved in the action.

Nah. That's just your opinion. If it works for you, great!

Still, please don't pretend that that way is objectively better. It isn't. It's a matter of taste, and of taste there is no disputing as they say.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Twyll

There is one, and only one God, my child. Watch your language :)))

Yeah, but he's an absentee landlord ;)

p.s. That was good movie, and I don't think a better actor could've played the devil.

[Milkywaiter]

Originally Posted by Stonebender

How do you guys define Munchkinism? Examples would be apreciated. munchkin and non munchkin

Munchkin is the player which, knowing the campaign takes place in 18th century victorian London, wants to play a ninja.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Milkywaiter

Munchkin is the player which, knowing the campaign takes place in 18th century victorian London, wants to play a ninja.

That could also be a Looney.

Brandon

[Der Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Milkywaiter

Munchkin is the player which, knowing the campaign takes place in 18th century victorian London, wants to play a ninja.

Sounds interesting
-unfamiliar with the culture and the customs
-cannot speak the language
-wears a funny black pyjama (everybody will think he is french by then... -Data ST:TNG)

sounds like a real challenge

[Milkywaiter]

You could even add a few extra twists, Der Wanderer:
- unfamiliar with the low TL of the age (you see, he comes from the future!)
- has to hide his biomechanical-ST20-laser-arm from sight of others

A cyborged ninja from the future? Now that´s a challenge.

[Der Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Milkywaiter

You could even add a few extra twists, Der Wanderer:
- unfamiliar with the low TL of the age (you see, he comes from the future!)
- has to hide his biomechanical-ST20-laser-arm from sight of others

A cyborged ninja from the future? Now that´s a challenge.

Of course what you suggest would make most comic heroes Munchkins... A super rich guy running around in a Bat costume at night... please...

[Turhan's Bey Company]

Originally Posted by Der Wanderer

sounds like a real challenge

I think you're missing the point here. What makes this definition and the nigh-identical one up-thread (mentioning Renaissance Florence rather than Victorian London) work is that the specifics of the setting kinda don't matter, nor specifically that it's a ninja. A munchin is the sort of person who would want to play a kewl, often ethnically badass, killer no matter what the setting is. He'd want to play a ninja in a Sherlock Holmes-themed campaign, in a political Renaissance campaign, in a mercantile campaign along the Silk Road, in the Uplift universe, or in a Jane Austen novel. Or he might want to play an Ultimate Fighting champion in all of them, or a shotgun-weilding renegade biker in all of them. The point is that he wants to wear a particular kind of badass outfit and kill lots of people with ease with a particular weapon or fighting style, no matter how absurd or impossible they might be in any given campaign, and can't and doesn't think beyond that.

[Der Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Turhan's Bey Company

I think you're missing the point here. What makes this definition and the nigh-identical one up-thread (mentioning Renaissance Florence rather than Victorian London) work is that the specifics of the setting kinda don't matter, nor specifically that it's a ninja. A munchin is the sort of person who would want to play a kewl, often ethnically badass, killer no matter what the setting is. He'd want to play a ninja in a Sherlock Holmes-themed campaign, in a political Renaissance campaign, in a mercantile campaign along the Silk Road, in the Uplift universe, or in a Jane Austen novel. Or he might want to play an Ultimate Fighting champion in all of them, or a shotgun-weilding renegade biker in all of them. The point is that he wants to wear a particular kind of badass outfit and kill lots of people with ease with a particular weapon or fighting style, no matter how absurd or impossible they might be in any given campaign, and can't and doesn't think beyond that.

And I say a clever GM might fit him in in any setting...
Think of Lestat de Lioncourt (Anne Rice)
He is a blood drinking monster, but depending on the novel it ranges from horror (queen of darkness) to mystery (tales of the body thief) to romance (I think pedominantly in Memnoch the devil)

Additionally just because anybody preferes to play a similar character all the time does not make him a munchkin (Its not the choice of character but the execution thereof that may be interpreted as munchkinism)

Though I agree the player needs to show some variation of his character depending on the setting. And someone who likes to slaughter should probabely not play in a Jane Austen "Adventure"