Whats a Munchkin?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Der Wanderer

The beauty of GURPS he would have Quadriplegic (Mitigated by Powersuit)...

The character was probably not legal in Champions either -- you can only take the focus disadvantage if you are occasionally without the focus, and the point value for disadvantages is modified by frequency of occurrence -- which, if negated by a power suit, would be low.

On the original topic, a munchkin is a player who values in-game power more or in ways than the speaker considers appropriate. As such, its actual meaning varies significantly depending on who's speaking.

[Brandy]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The character was probably not legal in Champions either. If nothing else, he'd need to buy down the frequency of occurrance for his disadvantage.

Agreed. My copy of Champions, 4th edition has in big bold type on page 117:

A Disadvantage that isn't a Disadvantage isn't worth any points!

On topic, my own definition of "munchkin" is a player overly concerned with optimizing character utility and power. "Overly concerned" is the point at which the character's point values and game-mechanical atributes are more important than the setting, the story, or the other characters.

[Luther]

I have to strongly disagree with all the definitions regarding power level and PC optimization. Munchkinism has to do with respect and fun. The RPGnet definition is faulty too, I would play a Ninja in a Risus Victorian game, and using the inappropriate cliché rules would be entertaining for all.

Whs got it almost right, as far as I am concerned. From a post of mine in Power-gamers, Munchkins and Min-maxers: What's the difference or is there one?

- Power Gamers like high point levels.

- Min-maxers optimize choices.

- Munchkins exploit weaknesses in the rules.

Only the last one is inherently bad: by "exploiting weaknesses", I mean twisting the rules beyond their intended scope to the detriment of other players -- including the GM.

[Tom Kalbfus]

Originally Posted by Bookman

Agreed. My copy of Champions, 4th edition has in big bold type on page 117:

A Disadvantage that isn't a Disadvantage isn't worth any points!

On topic, my own definition of "munchkin" is a player overly concerned with optimizing character utility and power. "Overly concerned" is the point at which the character's point values and game-mechanical atributes are more important than the setting, the story, or the other characters.

What if your getting ready for a World War II GURPS campaign, and one character insists on equiping himself as Erril Flynn, has a rapier, wears tights and has extensive skill in fencing, and then announces that he'll challenge the first German he sees to single combat man to man, and he even brought an extra sword for the enemy, he looks around and sees the others all dressed in combat gear and now swords and calls them all a bunch of power gaming munchkins who have no style? Who's right? if one player wants to fight the Germans with a bullwhip and a chair and the others are equipped with M1 rifles and Bazookas, who is the munchkin here trying to optimize their fighting ability?

[Lord_Kjeran]

Chello!

I think Luther pegged it well. Here's an example fro Hackmaster:

In Hackmaster, firing into melee is a BAD THING. Everyone who is in melee with the target becomes a potential target. It is modifed by size. So, if there are 2 elves (medium) in melee with a Huge creature (like a giant) and one fires at the giant, the break down is 4:1:1....you have a 4 in 6 chance to hit the giant and 1-in-6 for either of the elves.

Here's the clencher: if you would have hit the original target, it DOES NOT MATTER WHAT THE OTHER TARGETS AC IS. You automatically hit.

A munchkin would do this: Hmmm....the giant has a -4 AC. Since I would be shooting my ally from behind, his effective AC is 6. I'll AIM AT MY ALLY, PROBABLY HIT, AND HOPE THAT I HIT THE GIANT INSTEAD.

I told my table after that came up that if they tired anything like that I was pulling out the Smart Ass Smackdown Table and rolling until they were all dead.

An example quote from a Hackmaster board that exemplifies the Munchkin Attitude (about this same example):

You know, I never understood the logic of this reasoning (which I've heard many times for many different games).

If a rule is broken then it should be replaced, period.

I can't comprehend an attitude such as: OK this is allowed, but if you actually try it, I'm gonna punish you...

Oh, but the rules allow it argument! lol

Tony

[Lord_Kjeran]

Chello!

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

if one player wants to fight the Germans with a bullwhip and a chair and the others are equipped with M1 rifles and Bazookas, who is the munchkin here trying to optimize their fighting ability?

But, Tom, if the other players want to play a serious WW2 game, there PCs would be equipped according to the TOE of the proper unit. Sounds like Zorro boy wants to play Mystery Men. which is fine, but he's not playing by the rules of the game the other players and the GM have ready to go.

That's munchkin.

Tony

[Tom Kalbfus]

An imperfect rule set allows for munckinism For instance under one rule set you might have 2 players blocking a 10-foot wide hallway while a hundred orcs are proceeding down the hall 2 abrest so that only two can attack the PCs at a single time. The players have plenty of hit points and healing potions so they just calmly stand side-by-side and kill tow orcs at a time. The orcs in the back can't fire their crossbows at the PCs since the ceiling is low and their are orcs in front standing in the way, by the time they get a clear line of sight shot at them with their crossbows, they are in the front row and the PCs just chop thier heads off with their swords. Eventually the PCs kill all 100 orcs and gather their treasure together in one huge pile.

Is that munchkinism?

[yam]

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

An imperfect rule set allows for munckinism For instance under one rule set you might have 2 players blocking a 10-foot wide hallway while a hundred orcs are proceeding down the hall 2 abrest so that only two can attack the PCs at a single time. The players have plenty of hit points and healing potions so they just calmly stand side-by-side and kill tow orcs at a time. The orcs in the back can't fire their crossbows at the PCs since the ceiling is low and their are orcs in front standing in the way, by the time they get a clear line of sight shot at them with their crossbows, they are in the front row and the PCs just chop thier heads off with their swords. Eventually the PCs kill all 100 orcs and gather their treasure together in one huge pile.

Is that munchkinism?

Nope.
That's D&D.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

Is that munchkinism?

It's bad GMing, unless there's a rational reason the hundred orcs are willingly marching into the shredding machine. It's not munchkinism to take advantage of their stupidity, though it is munchkinism to expect them to be that stupid.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Tom Kalbfus

Who's right? if one player wants to fight the Germans with a bullwhip and a chair and the others are equipped with M1 rifles and Bazookas, who is the munchkin here trying to optimize their fighting ability?

The player asking for the Errol Flynn character in a WW2 campaign may or may not be a Munchkin, but he definitely is a jerk who is basically dissing both the GM and the rest of the gaming group by pushing for a totally different game setting than what's being offered and/or has been agreed to by everyone else. (If they were playing an Indiana Jones type game, then it might all be appropriate.)

The Munchkin would be asking for a time travelling character fully equipped with TL10 gear disguised as normal equipment who was using the rest of the party as a front and would killing them all whenever he got a chance so he could win.