Whats a Munchkin?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by zogo

And yet many, probably most, rpgs have non combat oriented traits. Many have some degree of rules for social interactions, even more have rules for mental feats not directly pertaining to combat. I have never encountered and rpg that doesn't have rules for non-combat physical actions.

First edition D&D comes darn close. However, a game with only combat rules is typically called a wargame (often a miniatures wargame) rather than an RPG.

[Maz]

Gaah so many post.
It seems to me that we need to classify the differet types of Badgamers as it seems there are many lables for them that seems to cover different things.

From this thread and my own experience there are 4 types of Badgamers. The all strive to be somehow "better" than others, both other players and the NPC and encounters the GM can come up with. They have different ways of trying to become better though and it is by these ways I define them.

There are 4 types.
The Metagamer.
The Powergamer or Min/maxgamer.
The Idiotgamer. (also known as smeghead or total gimboit).
And ofcourse the Munchkin.

It should be noted that many badgamers have aspect from more than one of these but I thik, like all good personallity theories that we should try to define them in a pure form.

The Metagamer
The metagamer uses out of character knowledge to his benefit. This might be the use complicated combat rules that his character shouldn't know much about. It might be knowledge about other character he couldn't know or it might be setting specific knowledge about races or relationships the character couldn't possible know.

The metagamer is a problem because you can't let him play an "unexperienced" character if he know the system or setting. He can't be allowed to know things he shouldn't be able to, so you have to waste time making secret conversations with the other character if he shouldn't know what they know.

The solution is to be secret and let the player pay character points for his knowledge, let him pay for tactics and local history and so on.

The Powergamer
The powergame maximises his character to be the best at something, almost always combat. The powergamer wants to be better than everyone else at his chosen field and expect to be able to do everything within this field (again, usually combat). Failure for the character is a failure for the player.

The biggest problem with the powergamer is not that he optimizes. Afterall if everyplayer optimizes the GM just does the same. So you play powerlevel 150 poitns, with 100 points character.
He doesn't break any rules, he just use them to the fullest. The problem is that he brings unbalance to the force... err, game. He might create an investigator/juournalist who is a better marksman than the ex-marine, because he took a higher-than average DX and a fair guns(pistol). As he is a "rogue"-type character, this seems fair. While the ex-marine takes high ST and HT instead.
Problems also arise when a challenge for one part of the group is too easy for the powergamer and a challenge for the powergamer is impossible for the "normal" players.

My solution is to just nerf the powergamers character. He might argue that he just follows the rules and I ruin his character. But my games arn't about winning, they are about experiencing a story. I don't run strategic wargames, I run RPG's.
Ofcourse and alternative is to help every player optimize their characters and this can be done if you don't want to discuss with the powergamer (potentially losing him).

The Idiotgamer
I'm lucky to not really have any experience with such a gamer. However, form what other writes and my own, limited experience. An idiotgamer is the type that goes too far. Instead of bending rules he breaks them, isntead of discussing he argues and call people names.

For a great example see MacGregor post in this thread, post #40.

The only solution, as far as I see it, is that the idiot gamer stops being and idiot or he leaves the game (and properly the gaming group).

The munchkin
I had a bit of difficulties defining the munchkin. As is obvious with this long thread there are many opinions about what a munchkin is. However, with the help of the other gamertypes I've mentioned, and the knowledge that most badgamers are not only munchkins but also other types of badgamers. I think I got a solution.

The munckin is someone who breaks the settings theme or the specific style of play of the game.
For instance, as I've mentioned before, a superfast superhero who puts on armour, protecting him against are effect and surprise attacks. Another exampel is to take Combat Reflexes even if he isn't a combat character, just because it's such a good advatanges to have when combat breaks out. And so on. Taking diss.ads. that are never really diss.ads. is another good example.
Another thing I would also lable as munchkin is those who bend the rules to their advantage. Like the Hackmaster example about shooting your friends to increase you chance to hit.

In my experience the munckins are the hardest ones to explain that they do something wrong, as they don't bend or break any written rules. And it's very hard to explain to a person to play fair and follow a certain moot when they just want to "win". Ther is also a fine line between being a munchkin an not being one. I think this is the reason the wird has so many different uses.
That being said I know mine diffinition is not the "real one", it's just how I understand it.


So this is my deffinitions.
As you can see all the badgamers have a few things in common. They wan't wan't to be the best and they want to win. Many use many different ways to achive this goal but I think the gamer-types I've described above covers the most common ones.

[zogo]

Originally Posted by Anthony

First edition D&D comes darn close.

One counterexample doesn't break my point since I said MOST not all

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Maz

The Metagamer

The solution is to be secret and let the player pay character points for his knowledge, let him pay for tactics and local history and so on.

I prefer the alternate solution of pointing out that he's metagaming and asking him to stop; and then docking him eeps for not playing in character; and then dropping him from the campaign, or not inviting him back for the next cycle. My play style, with minimal secrecy, works very well for me and my players; I see no reason to change it for the sake of someone who isn't willing to abide by the customs of the house.

A weird variant on this came up during my current Transhuman Space campaign: two of the PCs were alone together in the firm's offices, and one of them, playing an Ishtar computer hacker, said his character was going to panty flash the other character (who had previously been established to have Lecherousness). I said, fine, roll vs your Sex Appeal. The player said that his character wasn't trying to panty flash the other character, and would, in fact, be horrified to have him be sexually aroused by her; what he wanted was for the game world to provide a convenient anime-style accident that would be sexually provocative to the other character. I said that he couldn't do that, and when I handed out eeps I docked him one for inappropriate roleplaying. That was sufficient to make the point.

This was not metagaming in the usual sense, but it seems like a kind of active metagaming—where instead of the character acting on knowledge that they don't have, the player makes something happen that's based on knowledge the character doesn't have and that's effected without the character doing anything or having any responsibility for it.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Originally Posted by whswhs

This is the kind of response I think many people are looking for from you.

A number of your past posts have said things that sounded like, "There is only one way to game, and this is it." And that gives the impression that you either are not very experienced as a gamer, or not very experienced except with one play style or system—or very doctrinaire about gaming. Because many of the people taking part in these discussions have played in more than one style, and even more have learned about people who play in styles very different from theirs, and thus are less likely to assume that their preferences are universal truths.

Over on the Pyramid boards, Chad Underkoffler coined the phrase "hurting wrong fun" for people who don't merely object to playing in a certain way themselves, but object to other people playing in that way, even if those other people enjoy doing so. It's a useful phrase.

No one objects in the slightest to your having preferences about how to game. But some of the reactions you've been getting are from people who've gotten the impression that you don't accept their right to have different preferences—that you consider their different preferences to be hurting wrong fun. (See for one example your discussion of including sexual content in RPGs.) If you make it more explicit that you are expressing your personal preferences, you may get less argumentative responses, and less of people explaining to you over and over that it's all a matter of personal taste.

And learning about how other people like to game is always informative, even if you don't want to do it the same way. Or so I find it, at least.

I'm actually trying to learn the GURPS combat system by practising it. If I do a lot of role playing with very little combat, when I actually do get into combat, I won't know what to do. Therefore my goal is to create a combat intensive setting and create a bunch of characters that can take a beating and go on, I think a dungeon crawl will do. Need some basic 25 and 50 point humanoid monsters at TL 0-3. I've got an Orc, judging from the Old D&D encounter tables for 1st level, I'll need to create a GURPS version of a Goblin, and a GURPS Kobold. basically I'll take the size of the Creature as described in the D&D monster manual and work backwards to find the creatures ST from its size. A Goblin is a 3' to 3.5' tall creature, so it is a weakling, so therefore the PCs will need to encounter many to challenge them. We'll see how it goes. If you know the GURPS system by heart, then you may not care about combat so much, but I like to know what to do in case of combat, so I tend to emphasize it. And as for awarding character points for killing things. I think for every 25 points of foe, an award of 2 character points would seem appropriate.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

*rolls eyes*
Sounds like a video game, not a role playing game.
Gee, I killed something, lets power up, duudududuu.
*grin*

For the type of game you're describing, you don't want to be using a role-playing game's rules, you want to use wargaming rules.

Killing something gives you *no* experience in GURPS, which is a very, very good thing. Any muchkin bait game which gives experience for killing something is more like a videogame than a roleplaying game in that respect.
Whenever I run D&D one of the first things I do is eliminate the munchkin experience award for killing stuff.

Getting back on theme, Munchkins are the type of people who think killing things gives their characters experience, and usually look for that easy kill to go up a level. *bseg*

But in a World War II game, you meet your objective by killing enemy soldiers, and after killing a number of them and surviving, it stands to reason that you should get better at it, so you award points for enemy soldiers killed since that advances the story.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

But in a World War II game, you meet your objective by killing enemy soldiers, and after killing a number of them and surviving, it stands to reason that you should get better at it, so you award points for enemy soldiers killed since that advances the story.

No your awared points for defeating then emeny troups, not killing them, you can actull get more reward by not killing them, but taking them prisoner so that intellal can have a crack at them.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

But in a World War II game, you meet your objective by killing enemy soldiers, and after killing a number of them and surviving, it stands to reason that you should get better at it, so you award points for enemy soldiers killed since that advances the story.

No.

What you're describing is a wargame, not a roleplaying game. For wargame purposes you kill enemy units and your units get killed, if you want to reward for killing enemy units you should be getting additional replacement units.

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

And as for awarding character points for killing things. I think for every 25 points of foe, an award of 2 character points would seem appropriate.

That's just so Munchkiny and ridiculously ludicrous in a roleplaying setting, that I don't even know how to respond.
I can make a 0 point combat monster that can kill any 250 point character, not to mention the good 500 point characters which wouldn't stand a chance in a fight with a 50 point soldier.

Getting character points for killing things is videogaming and Munchkin gaming.

Since this is a thread about Munchkins and how to deal with them in a roleplaying situation, and all you're describing is catering to Munkinism I suggest you're posting your questions in the wrong thread.
Now, if you want ideas on how to do sometype of wargame or arena type combat game using GURPS, just start a new thread about it, 'cause in this thread, you're going down the wrong path.

[zogo]

Originally Posted by whswhs

The player said that his character wasn't trying to panty flash the other character, and would, in fact, be horrified to have him be sexually aroused by her; what he wanted was for the game world to provide a convenient anime-style accident that would be sexually provocative to the other character. I said that he couldn't do that, and when I handed out eeps I docked him one for inappropriate roleplaying. That was sufficient to make the point.

I have run campaigns where the players could have caused out of game circumstances like that, often through the expenditure of Hero/Drama/Fate Points. It's metagam action but as long as their characters act within the game it doesn't bother me. In games where this is not appropriate I wouldn't have penalized a player for the first offense but that is a personal style thing

[Tom Kalbfus]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

No.

What you're describing is a wargame, not a roleplaying game. For wargame purposes you kill enemy units and your units get killed, if you want to reward for killing enemy units you should be getting additional replacement units.


That's just so Munchkiny and ridiculously ludicrous in a roleplaying setting, that I don't even know how to respond.
I can make a 0 point combat monster that can kill any 250 point character, not to mention the good 500 point characters which wouldn't stand a chance in a fight with a 50 point soldier.

Getting character points for killing things is videogaming and Munchkin gaming.

Since this is a thread about Munchkins and how to deal with them in a roleplaying situation, and all you're describing is catering to Munkinism I suggest you're posting your questions in the wrong thread.
Now, if you want ideas on how to do sometype of wargame or arena type combat game using GURPS, just start a new thread about it, 'cause in this thread, you're going down the wrong path.

But if you socially interact with enemy soldiers, that's called fraternizing with the enemy, and is strictly forbidden! Do you really expect US GIs to say "hello there," to the German troops in the pill boxes as they storm the beaches of Normandy? No need to get insulting. A World War II game is all about killing and surviving, its not a wargame as wargames eliminate the personal dimension and abstract it to the movement of troop units from the General eye's point of view. Role playing is at the squad level for World War II, unless you are going to role play a General who talks to his staff, gives orders, and listens to reports from the front.