Whats a Munchkin?

[Andrew Hackard]

Moderator hat on: I deleted probably a dozen posts from this thread and edited two or three more. All of them were either flaming a specific poster or replies to those flames. I don't think I need to name names. Cut it out right the hell now thank you bye.

Moderator hat off: This is a GREAT thread and I really wish I had time to reply to every message that deserves a reply, but I'm taking time away from work that has to be done by tomorrow morning as it is. So here's my summary reply:

"Kill the monster and get XP for it" is a perfectly valid game model if everyone buys into it, and it's entirely possible to roleplay within that framework. One of my favorite campaigns was a D&D game with lots of hack 'n' slash ... and just as much character interaction, usually comic. We were definitely power-gaming, but I think only one or two of us crossed the line into munchkinry.

(An aside: another campaign which included some of the same players, but not me, was a high-concept Spelljammer game: what if a 'jammer went to 1991 Earth and picked up a kid who had all the Spelljammer books? The amusing conceit of taking OOC knowledge and suddenly dumping it all into the campaign produced a game that was enormously fun for all concerned. I kibitzed a few sessions, and one of them produced my favorite in-character quote of all time: "Aw, hell, TSR must have released another supplement," as the party met something that wasn't in the kid's books.)

Another of my favorite campaigns was entirely roleplaying, with only two episodes of combat the entire two-year game (one of which was the final, apocalyptic session). I don't know if the GM hangs out here, but if so, Ben, take a bow. We were colonists in a Harnworld analog of pre-Colombian America, and most of our challenges were in setting up the town, setting up relations with the natives, and solving the mystery of just how our leader seemed to know so much about this area if no one had ever been here before. Plenty of suspense and roleplaying involved, and every character in the group had chances to shine.

The biggest problem in this thread -- and there are offenders on both sides -- is that some people aren't willing to accept that other groups might have fun with a radically different type of game ... or at least, that acceptance is grudging, with snide commentary about how they should have fun and leave the adults alone. The RPG community is large enough to accommodate all kinds of play styles. The difficulty comes when a player with one style of play tries to integrate into a group with another. Some players aren't meant to be in some groups. Some players can slide effortlessly among several. The power-gaming group I mentioned above contained several stellar roleplayers who played in other games that were deadly serious. It's a mistake to categorize them as inferior because they also liked the occasional "kill 'em all!" game.

One specific reply I want to make is to Bill's anecdote about having to dock a player for the "panty flash" incident. Apparently it works for his group, but I can't wrap my head around it at all. (This is odd because I normally can understand Bill's motivations, even when I don't share them.) It seems like the worst kind of "Don't screw with my game!" control-freakishness, and since I know for a fact Bill is not that kind of gamer, I'm completely befuddled. It seems like the player had an idea for an amusing encounter that required just a bit of GM connivance, and you shot him down and penalized him to boot. Harsh, dude. I would either have rejected the idea with no harm done, or accepted it (under the "Player Influence" rules in the BASIC SET, or equivalent philosophies in other games) and charged a character point to make it happen. Probably the latter. Bill, if you can explain your reasoning more fully, I'd be most appreciative.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

One specific reply I want to make is to Bill's anecdote about having to dock a player for the "panty flash" incident. Apparently it works for his group, but I can't wrap my head around it at all. (This is odd because I normally can understand Bill's motivations, even when I don't share them.) It seems like the worst kind of "Don't screw with my game!" control-freakishness, and since I know for a fact Bill is not that kind of gamer, I'm completely befuddled. It seems like the player had an idea for an amusing encounter that required just a bit of GM connivance, and you shot him down and penalized him to boot. Harsh, dude. I would either have rejected the idea with no harm done, or accepted it (under the "Player Influence" rules in the BASIC SET, or equivalent philosophies in other games) and charged a character point to make it happen. Probably the latter. Bill, if you can explain your reasoning more fully, I'd be most appreciative.

The player had previously had his character come on to the other character rather provocatively during the other character's job interview—not with the intent to accept a pass, but with the intent to reject it and argue against hiring him if he took the bait. This character has been set up quite clearly as sexually conflicted. And that's fine; I was perfectly willing to see her do that, and to see the other player's ability to resist his own Lecherousness tested. In fact, I gave the provocative player an extra eep for roleplaying that scene.

This later scene was different, in that the player was trying to test the other character's resistance to Lecherousness again—but he didn't want his character to be doing anything to provoke it, or to bear any responsibility for it. He wanted to control how much emotional pressure the other character was under, not through his character's actions, but through manipulation of the universe. And I didn't think that was playing fair. So I applied a gamist penalty to what I considered an abuse of game process. I did not want the other player dragged into a situation where his character might fail a Will roll, and have to act on his Lecherousness, and have in-game consequences for it, at the dictates of another player, without the checks and balances of the other character being observably responsible for the situation.

I don't generally like rules under which players can manipulate the universe. And this is a Transhuman Space campaign, which I consider to be a very realistic setting, and where I don't want cinematic coincidences of the sort that anime goes in for. So I gave the player a warning shot across the bow. It isn't as if losing one eep was going to do his character any lasting harm.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by whswhs

He wanted to control how much emotional pressure the other character was under, not through his character's actions, but through manipulation of the universe.

With that further explanation, I understand completely. Thanks for the context.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I don't generally like rules under which players can manipulate the universe.

I think the rules in the BASIC SET are entirely appropriate, but that's a matter of taste. I like even more the rules in UNSUNG (available on e23), which is very close to the tone of a game I would enjoy playing. I have some quibbles with the rules themselves, but the overall theme is one I like a lot. The heart of UNSUNG is that a player, with the consent of the GM and the recipient, may add a Gift to a scene -- basically, add a complication that forces the other player's PC to confront a moral question. I wish the game weren't so focused on cops and soldiers, though, because IMO the combat-intensive rules are a real flaw.

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

Princesses that do the ruling and lead armies into battle are so much more fun. Queen Elizabeth I was like that.

Well, she ruled but didn't lead armies into battle. If she did that you ought to be able to name the ship she was on when the Spanish Armada came, and name a battle where she commanded the troops on the field of battle.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Andrew Hackard

I think the rules in the BASIC SET are entirely appropriate, but that's a matter of taste.

I think those are appropriate for cinematic games. In realistic games, especially simulationist ones, they are entirely innappropriate. People in real-life cannot influence reality, neither should realistic characters.

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

If the main action is NPC vs NPC and all the princess gets to do is watch, where's the challenge in that?

There is an emotional, and pyschological challenge. There may also be a political and diplomatic challenge as well, depending on how ambitious the princess is and what the outcome of the battle is. Man vs. man is not the only conflict possible in literature. Man vs. society and man vs. himself both work well in RPGs. Even man vs. man can be a subtle social or political conlfict of influence and manipulation rather than a physical struggle of arms.

Gone with the Wind isn't about Sherman, it isn't even about Rett Butler. Scarrlett is a protagonist hampered by the role expected of her, and that's the source of conflict in the story.

A Song of Ice and Fire, has many female characters who are constrained by society, yet they manage to engage in very intertaining political intrigues.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think those are appropriate for cinematic games. In realistic games, especially simulationist ones, they are entirely innappropriate. People in real-life cannot influence reality, neither should realistic characters.

As a metagame rule to start with, I have no problem with it in simulationist games, either, as long as the changes add to the realism rather than mucking it about.

Of course, simulationist games come perilously close to my own personal Hurting Wrong Fun Zone, so my perspective is probably considerably removed from yours.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I think those are appropriate for cinematic games. In realistic games, especially simulationist ones, they are entirely innappropriate. People in real-life cannot influence reality, neither should realistic characters.

It doesn't actually bother me on that ground, because in my understanding of spending drama points to influence the script, it's not the character who's doing it. It's the player. All that the character knows is that he had an unexpected stroke of fortune or turn of events; he isn't influencing reality.

In fact, a character who could influence reality, as a power, would be fine with me. That's exactly how coincidental magic works in Mage: The Ascension, and I have no problem with it.

What I have a problem with is having the game world meddled with. I view a campaign as a process through which players learn about the world by experimenting with it. If they can reach into the test tube and tweak the outcome of the experiment, then the results are no longer valid. I build a world that works a certain way, and I want the players to try to learn how it works; what happens to them ideally reflects how well and how much they've learned.

I have less of a problem with this sort of thing in campaigns that are focused on the character stories and not on the world—but that's not my normal mode. It bothers me less in campaigns based on a fictional source that the players are familiar with. I'm fine with my Buffy the Vampire Slayer players spending drama points, because we all know what is or isn't appropriate to the Buffyverse.

[Andrew Hackard]

Originally Posted by whswhs

What I have a problem with is having the game world meddled with. I view a campaign as a process through which players learn about the world by experimenting with it. If they can reach into the test tube and tweak the outcome of the experiment, then the results are no longer valid. I build a world that works a certain way, and I want the players to try to learn how it works; what happens to them ideally reflects how well and how much they've learned.

I would NOT allow world-shaping alterations, and I think the intent of the GURPS rule is pretty clear that it's for minor changes only. Furthermore, the rule explicitly gives the GM veto power, so anything that breaks the in-game reality can be nixed. But I don't see how it breaks the game for a player to say, "Hey, we're in a rich guy's house, so I'm heading for the wet bar" if the GM hadn't planned for one to be there. It's logical, it's unlikely to wreck the plot, so where's the harm?

Edit: I should mention, in further reply to Bill's message, that I've done very few "The PCs go out and learn about the world" sorts of games. Almost all of my adventures are character-centered, which doubtlessly colors my view of what is and isn't game-appropriate.

[Lord Carnifex]

As a GM, I enjoy when players contribute to the world, especially when adding incidental color or details that I hadn't thought of. Okay, sometimes the more creative types will figure a way to manipulate those additions or changes to their characters advantage; that leaves me cheering inside and acting grumpy. However, I defenitely can see whswhs's point. Especially when one character is trying to gain an advantage over another PC. I might have allowed a panty flash to happen, but made it clear that the charcter was doing it intentionally... that's a matter of GM'ing style, I think.

+++|<=== Lord Carnifex ---