Whats a Munchkin?

[kure]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

edit: for the recrd I too can enjoy a low powered game, I've been known to play Child's perpestive campain by choice, sort of like the adventures of the Famous Five

Personally I love play low-power game.
Quite often I can see that players with lots of good skills and even some powers tend to use "muscles" instead of "brains",
means why try to make up some trap or plot when we can do it by force.
(have to say I also tend to do it :o)

On other way when you have 50pts char group and have to deal with vampire, that is a chalenge. It was not a gurps, but we used to play humans within Word of darknes games and this was great fun.

And about guy described below, Munchkin who cheat on dices and charsheet is far worse than "honest" one.
I hate people like this, because they ruin fun for everybody even for themselfs.
When you can convict others to folow your way of rules, this is kind of victory and takes some effort.
But cheating is cowardice.

[Lord_Kjeran]

Chello!

Originally Posted by roguebfl

one of the main reason I min-max is to build an effect character, with enough points left over to flewsh out the "fluff" abilites 8)

lol, roguebfl!!! If you min/max to make yoyur charater effective and have points left over for "fluff" (by which you mean "useless" background and roleplaying skills), you're not really min-maxing! ;)

MUNCHKIN: A player who uses out-of-game info to the character's advantage and plays the game in a vain attempt to WIN and prove his speriority to all the other "LOSERS" at the table. This can involve min-maxing and rules-lawyering, activities which in and of themselves are not bad...however, the munchkin is not doing it for the benefit of the group or to help the GM, but to wheedle some "ADVANTAGE" for himself ALONE.

Tony

[Tom Kalbfus]

Originally Posted by Lord_Kjeran

Chello!



lol, roguebfl!!! If you min/max to make yoyur charater effective and have points left over for "fluff" (by which you mean "useless" background and roleplaying skills), you're not really min-maxing! ;)

MUNCHKIN: A player who uses out-of-game info to the character's advantage and plays the game in a vain attempt to WIN and prove his speriority to all the other "LOSERS" at the table. This can involve min-maxing and rules-lawyering, activities which in and of themselves are not bad...however, the munchkin is not doing it for the benefit of the group or to help the GM, but to wheedle some "ADVANTAGE" for himself ALONE.

Tony

Well, the solution is you don't give that player out of game information.

[Lord_Kjeran]

Chello!

I'm not talking about adventure info, but mechanics info...do CHARACTERS think in terms of damage ratings, will rolls, if I do this I get a -2, things like that? That's what I mean.

[Harald B]

Originally Posted by Lord_Kjeran

I'm not talking about adventure info, but mechanics info...do CHARACTERS think in terms of damage ratings, will rolls, if I do this I get a -2, things like that? That's what I mean.

An advanced character who's been through a lot of combats should have good and fairly specific information about which tactics work and which don't. To properly represent this the player needs to know which tactics work in-game and select them. To a large degree I consider this to be expected behaviour, not munchkinism. The same is true for any other types of rolls where the character should be well aware of how the circumstances affect his chances.
Ofc problems do arise when the player's and character's degree of combat optimization don't match. If you feel the player optimizes combat choices too much you might consider asking for rolls against IQ or Tactics or giving him only limited time to make up his mind as to the next action. If that doesn't work he should either play a more experienced character or have some compensating disadvantages.

[Twyll]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

I thank many gods...

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

[Twyll]

Originally Posted by MacGregor

Would this guy be considered a Munchkin?

I'd call him a dam' phreak. And I would do what it takes not to have him a second time around my table, be I a player or a GM.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

Well, the solution is you don't give that player out of game information.

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.

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."

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.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Twyll

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

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Yes, please give Spartacus his due.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Bookman

Yes, please give Spartacus his due.

Fool do you want to tick Eris off? ;)