Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Deus ex Matrix <legion@**************.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Munchkinitis
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 09:17:55 MDT
Well, I don't flame much, but I think that I have to speak my peace about
the posturing and "my character is better than yours" argument that has
been flooding the list.

First off, your character (no matter who it is) is *not* the best around.
There is always someone who has the potential to wipe you off the face of
the 6th world. Nobody wants to hear about how good your character(s) is
or about how highly initiated you are. If you really are a level 12 (ha!)
initiate, I doubt you're playing in 2054 because it would probably take
more than a few years to build up any where near that much karma, not to
mention some of the skill levels I've seen bragged about.

Next, most of us Shadowrunners here on SHADOWTK, as well as SHADOWRN, are
*not* corps or corporate flunkies. We do a hard days work and get
(sometimes) an honest day's wages. We don't have a corporation's assets
at our disposal to do with what we will. And we don't like to hear those
who do brag about it or goad people into trying to get them. NO ONE CARES!

Last, EVERYONE (repeating some of our fearless leader's words) READ THE
FAQ! Format your posts correctly and keep the bullsh!t off of SHADOWTK!
(Next time I use the carp and the munch word)

->uplink: I cc'd this to you because it looks like you can't reach
SHADOWRN from whatever dimension you're in.<-

Fed up...
_________________________________
Mike Loseke | Behold, here cometh the Dreamer.
legion@**************.army.mil | Let us slay him, and we shall see
Minister of Death - SWO | what will become of his dreams.
_________________________________|
Message no. 2
From: Marek Telgarsky <mtelgars@**.NMSU.EDU>
Subject: munchkinitis
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 17:12:14 -0600
I dont see why so many GM's have a problem with this. Why even *play*
if all that concerns the players is being able to roll every D6 in
their collection?

Marek

-- Alazar@#linux.linuxnet.IRC #include <std_disclaimer.h>
-- SCF Admin marek@***.nmsu.edu
-- CS Computer Operations Group mtelgars@**.nmsu.edu
Message no. 3
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:26:31 -0500
>I dont see why so many GM's have a problem with this. Why even *play*
>if all that concerns the players is being able to roll every D6 in
>their collection?

I kinda consider that my duty to keep that from happening in any campaign
I'm in. But some players just don't know anything other than "I pull my gun
and shoot him... what's my target number?"

There're many methods of dealing with this. Allow much larger karma awards
for roleplaying over rollplaying. Also, just make it HEAVY on the roleplay.
The dicers either get bored and leave or they figure out that roleplaying is
a pretty cool thing after all. Either way the campaign benefits. Now some
groups want all rollplay or an inordinate amount thereof. (I find this
common in wargamer-types, nothing against 'em...that's just what I've seen
in my area). If that's what you like, more power to ya and be sure to
support your local dice company. I prefer to (if at all possible) forget
about dice. When they're needed, they're used. If they could be used, but
aren't needed... well, they aren't needed so they aren't used.

This streamlines the campaign so rules arguments (which the GM will nearly
always win, but the players will argue endlessly about no matter what. I
say this as a player and as a GM) and the like don't turn "game time 3
seconds" into "real time 3 hours" and I know we've all seen it happen. And
you don't end up making checks for this and that. (i.e. You need to jump one
story to the ground, if you don't you will most likely die. >I< can jump
one story and land without fear of injury and I'm not the least bit graceful
about such things. This guy is a shadowrunner. He makes the jump and play
continues...). Now if he's encumbered or otherwise not "normal" then things
could change, but this whole approach adds the cinematic flair that we all
enjoy and keeps the dice rolling to a minimum (which some of us
enjoy...probably most).

I've babbled enough...replies, anyone?


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 4
From: Marek Telgarsky <mtelgars@**.NMSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 19:41:53 -0600
>>>>> " " == Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET> writes:

> about dice. When they're needed, they're used. If they could be used, but
> aren't needed... well, they aren't needed so they aren't used.

I am starting to think that most people on this list are of this
opinion, although I have seen lots of rules haggling here. But i
suppose that is what this is for, so that the arguments do not occur
during the game session, and some sort of resolution happens.

I dont want to accuse anyone of being a rules lawyer or a roll-player,
but is there anyone here with a different opinion then Bob? If not,
invite one of your munchkin friends to post, so I can understand this
syndrome.

Actually, one of my players is prone to trying to maximize everything
where combat is concerned, but I am going to do my best to fuck his
world tomorrow night. *whistles innocently* If he doesnt quit with the
munchkin crap, I may just kill him off. *shrug* He's one of those guys
with the large dicebox. I, on the other hand, have 2 D6's from an old
monopoly... or was it risk. aw hell. i cant remember. ;)

Marek

-- Alazar@#linux.linuxnet.IRC #include <std_disclaimer.h>
-- SCF Admin marek@***.nmsu.edu
-- CS Computer Operations Group mtelgars@**.nmsu.edu
Message no. 5
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 23:06:53 -0500
>I am starting to think that most people on this list are of this
>opinion, although I have seen lots of rules haggling here. But i
>suppose that is what this is for, so that the arguments do not occur
>during the game session, and some sort of resolution happens.

Just because I don't like dice as much as roleplaying doesn't mean I don't
haggle some rules... (puts mouthpiece back in as the bell rings, starting
off the 12th round of bare-knuckles rule sparring with Damian in the bad guy
corner...)

>I dont want to accuse anyone of being a rules lawyer or a roll-player,
>but is there anyone here with a different opinion then Bob? If not,
>invite one of your munchkin friends to post, so I can understand this
>syndrome.

I know lots of rules lawyers (off-line) and, confessedly, I am a munchkin
(it's kind of like being an alchoholic... once you start, there is no
stopping). But I manage to keep my tendencies under control. Maybe I'll
have a couple of them say hi one day...

>Actually, one of my players is prone to trying to maximize everything
>where combat is concerned, but I am going to do my best to fuck his
>world tomorrow night. *whistles innocently* If he doesnt quit with the
>munchkin crap, I may just kill him off.

All kinds of approaches there, and killing is the least satisfying. Let him
shoot whatever he wants to. Then Lone Star posts his pic up every 20 meters
around town. Oh, and don't forget the bounty hunters that such pics
attract. Or (and I'm glad I'm not in this campaign...I'd be dead) per Phil,
send the CIA after him...wow. I don't care how tough he is, when a silenced
sniper round takes off his right eyebrow as a "warning shot" he'll start to
wonder what he's doing wrong. And heaven forbid he should ever bleed
(Ritual sample, anyone? Ritual combat spells are ok, but I prefer spells
like Control Actions). Also, people have contacts. Mess with one person
and the contact finds out. Then his contacts find out. Etcetera. Sooner or
later EVERYONE know swho he is and the street rumors are getting worse by
the minute.

Case in point... My phys ad threatened a taxi driver once. Just tapped his
pistol on the driver's side window. Now he can't get a cab in Seattle to
save his life. He's known in the tight circle of drivers as the "cabbie
killer" and has an unheard of 28 assassinations-without-tip to date! Now,
he hasn't even pulled a trigger in the general direction of a cabbie, but
that won't stop street rumors.

That's just an example. And maybe your boy likes being hunted by all these
people. What do his friends think about that, hmm?


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 6
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 13:41:54 +0930
Bob Ooton wrote:
> Case in point... My phys ad threatened a taxi driver once. Just tapped his
> pistol on the driver's side window. Now he can't get a cab in Seattle to
> save his life. He's known in the tight circle of drivers as the "cabbie
> killer" and has an unheard of 28 assassinations-without-tip to date! Now,
> he hasn't even pulled a trigger in the general direction of a cabbie, but
> that won't stop street rumors.

Oh, yeah, and never stiff a street doc... :)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 7
From: Marek Telgarsky <mtelgars@**.NMSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 1995 22:36:17 -0600
>>>>> " " == Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET> writes:
> he hasn't even pulled a trigger in the general direction of a cabbie, but
> that won't stop street rumors.

hah. that is a really cool idea. *wicked laugh* thanks. :)

> That's just an example. And maybe your boy likes being hunted by all these
> people. What do his friends think about that, hmm?

Well, i dont know if this is approved on the list, but Im gonna post a
little of the scenario I've got going and since tomorrow is going to
be the second-time-ever-in-my-life-that-i-am-GM I hope you guys dont
flame me to hell. ;)

*deep breath* Ive got two players in this game. I realize that is a
small number, but we've been playing for a while, and the rest of the
group moved away over time.

one guy is a tough ork fellow who is not altogether balanced. The
other guy is a street kid who did got lots of cash for a hit, and then
disappeared from that town. The ork ork'ed out when he was in his late
teens... and although he has some recollections of what it was like
NOT to be an ork, those memories he tries to subvert because of his
current condition.

ok. so the ork (i dont remember the name) goes to the slum/shadow
section of town. He rips off a car, and drives down there. He parks in
a spot where nobody else parks there cars, and proceeds to walk around
the neighborhood (obviously armed). Lucky for him its 11am, and not
too much of the local wildlife is up yet. He walks into a couple
places and tries to figure out what to do. Eventually he gets bored of
wandering around (and not being able to figure out what most of the
shops are selling) and goes back to the car. Since he had taken the
distributor cap off it before he left, nobody else could start it, and
because they couldnt start it... they made sure he couldnt either. He
ends up walking back through that part of town (I rolled some "random
enounter" type rolls, but my dice sucked) and getting to some better
parts, and getting laid. Then he returns home.

Ok, now, here's some things I've come up for myself as far as possible
leads off this whole mess.
1. people were watching him there, i made that clear to him... so i
could have him accosted at his house in the better part of town.
he works for a lone-star yet not as big type outfit, so they could
possibly want some info about that.
2. if he goes back there he gets his ass kicked and is brought before
some badass for questioning. he is also fired from his job.
3. his employer finds out about his little jaunt westward, and decides
they guy is a liability, and fires him.
4. while working for the sec-corp (thats what im calling it) him and
his fellow PC run into something that is too big for them.

okay. now. does anyone have any other suggestions? I would like to get
something that would grab the both of them, as the ork has not behaved
responsibly around the human, and the human does not think of him as
an asset. I guess I need something to pull them together and let them
prove their worth to each other while also not making the game
tomorrow night one big combat.
Message no. 8
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 10:51:32 BST
Nice, someone else who has a hard time with cabbie's!

Mind you, my runners used to be in the habit of taking
the bus (TAKING THE BUS!) to and from runs where they
didn't have to carry large firearms.

You haven't GM'd till you;ve seen the Cyber-ninja take out
a bus-pass with a picture of him in ninja-mask on it, and
try to get on a bus out of the barrens. :-)


Never stiuff a street-doc, good one that. Epscially never
threaten to kill one because he had no choice in releasing
on of your chummers into corp-custody becuase they threatened his
family. Especially if the guy has been careful enought to remove
ritual samples from your body while you were under the knife, and
for a small donation; deliver them to Lone Star who want you for
all those multiple homicide's. :-)

Chased my players clear to chicago doing that ;-)


Shiny red button syndrome? cool.

Phil (Renegade)

BTW, he jumped on the roof and bus-surfed back to his hideout :-)
Message no. 9
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 1995 18:29:09 -0500
>Nice, someone else who has a hard time with cabbie's!

Gee, thanks... you know that you could've said it was completely
unreasonable to do that and then I coulda showed my GM and then I'd be able
to take a cab again. But NOOOOOOOO...

>Mind you, my runners used to be in the habit of taking
>the bus (TAKING THE BUS!) to and from runs where they
>didn't have to carry large firearms.

The bus is what I had to ride after the cabbies wouldn't come to pick me up
anymore. After I did that twice, I bought some in-line skates and now he
skates wherever he needs to go. (he has an athletics skill of 8 so he's
pretty quick on 'em)

>Shiny red button syndrome? cool.

S'what I thought. And there's not a runner out there who doesn't have it.
Heheheheh...


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 10
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 18:49:13 +1000
Marek Telgarsky writes:

> > [Dice aren't needed]
>
> I dont want to accuse anyone of being a rules lawyer or a roll-player,
> but is there anyone here with a different opinion then Bob? If not,
> invite one of your munchkin friends to post, so I can understand this
> syndrome.

Well, seriosuly, after all the munchkin bashing we've been doing the last
month or so, would _you_ be game to post and say "I stand up for power
gaming!"? I wouldn't think so. But anyway, I'll put in my two cents worth.

If any of you remember Terry's "Roll-playing vs Role-playing" post from a
while ago, I think you'll know that it contains some _very_ good points, I
was particularily taken with it. If you want, I or someone else can get it
out from our archives and post it again, as it is very good. Basically it
defends Roll-playing as against Role-playing. You should read it if you
haven't.

Anyway, my take on things are similar. I'm all for role-playing, but it pays
to remember that not all of us are of the acting sort. Dice rolls become
neccessary to make up for either inexperience on the part of the player, or
simple lack of knowledge. My character might have Biology 6 and be able to
name every fish species ever discovered, but the odds are I don't. Likewise
my character might have some suburb social skill, and I not. Terry's post
covers this much more eloquently.

But that's roll vs role playing. Now onto munchkinism and power gaming.

These are a little different. You remember when you first started
role-playing? Probably with $$&$, quite a while back? Well, I do. Anyway,
role-playing is what you do in role-playing _games_. Right? Now, in any game,
the object is to win. Right? Now, in order to win a game of $$&$, you have
to kill off all the monsters and steal away with the treasure (well, more or
less that's the way I viewed it back then). Now, to facilitate such monster
destruction, one siply max/min-ed one's abilities to make the ultimate
character. This usually led to power gaming and munchkinism.

Usually, as time progresses, one realises that this method of gaming is a
little hollow, and is really not too satisfactory. One begins to realise
that the idea of role-playing is to have fun, not neccessarily to eleminate
every single bad guy the GM throws your way. And one generally realises that
to have fun does not neccessarily require you to be the bigest toughest
mother f***er around. Usually. There are quite a few noteable exceptions
that I can think of of the people I know <shudder>.

Generally I find munchkinism evident in younger players, and in those who
either play or did play wargames/boardgames. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THESE
PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS MUNCHKINS! OK? Just that in general I find this is the
way. Nor is it to say that _only_ these people can be munchkins. I
personally know quite a few younger players who are better role-players than
I. And I myself play and enjoy wargames and boardgames (like Btech for
example). I feel the tug of stat maxing often, but I realise that when it
comes to role-playing, this usually ends up nowehere. Not everybody will
work this out (I can think of a particular guy I know, who _every_ single
time we used to play $$&$, used to have the most munchkinous characters you
could ever imagine. He just didn't realise there was anything more to it.).

As the FAQ says, munchkins _expect_ to win. The idea is that their character
will always walk away with the booty (and the karma in the case of SR). You
remember the old "monster bash" that everyone used to have in $$&$ games?
You know, it's like a case I remember when we as a group (GM excepted)
decided to go looking for random encounters so that we could get some XP.
The times when you used to walk through a dungeon and kill off everything
you saw, regardless of what it was, because you knew there'd be XP in it
somewhere. It was a purely numbers thing. You got better stats, and better
abilities, and could kick butt better, and your character was better than
your mates, and so on.

Fortunately, I think SR does not promote such activity, at least nowhere
near as much as $$&$ does (though I could be biased). The thing that
munchkins tend to miss is that POWER is _relative_. Sure, you might have a
character who is a God in his game, but really, it is a simply mathematical
process to create one who is better. Anyone with a calculator, a pencil and
a spare hour or so could do it.

But, nonetheless, munchkins will still infest the world. Not really knocking
munchkins, but just saying that their style of gaming tends to lack a few of
the better aspects (I should know, I've been one). There's nothing
inherently wrong with it, it's rather that there is more that could be right
with it. Some people prefer a game like that, there's nothing wrong with it,
but I feel they are missing out on a few things.

> Actually, one of my players is prone to trying to maximize everything
> where combat is concerned, but I am going to do my best to fuck his
> world tomorrow night. *whistles innocently* If he doesnt quit with the
> munchkin crap, I may just kill him off. *shrug* He's one of those guys
> with the large dicebox. I, on the other hand, have 2 D6's from an old
> monopoly... or was it risk. aw hell. i cant remember. ;)

Well, I'd say a better method to solve the problem is not to directly fuck
him over, but to show him (gradually perhaps) the better side of
role-playing. Put him in situations where combat skills are about as useful
for him as tits on a bull. Introduce very cool and stylish NPCs who are in
no way maxed for combat, yet have a particular flavour to them which will
entice him. Lead by example. It is the best way to do it.

I myself feel dice are an integral part of RPGs. After all, "if you take the
dice away, you lose the game part of it", as one of my players put it. I
agree. RPGs are different from acting for exactly that reason. This is why I
do not really (personally) like free forms, and games such as Vampire which
are very much non rules games (although I've seen a couple of Vampire
munchkins - gee, do they have a hard time of it :-)). But others will have
different tastes, and will like free forms. Just like others will not like
RPGs, but will quite enjoy wardgames. Each to their own and all that...

--
Damion Milliken Unofficial Shadowrun Guru E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 11
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 12:53:33 BST
Bob : -

> The bus is what I had to ride after the cabbies wouldn't come to pick me up
> anymore. After I did that twice, I bought some in-line skates and now he
> skates wherever he needs to go. (he has an athletics skill of 8 so he's
> pretty quick on 'em)

heh, I don;'t believe it, another one who's character uses skates, it's
not just me. I am not alone :-)

Phil (Renegade)
Message no. 12
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 01:11:26 +1000
Marek Telgarsky writes:

> okay. now. does anyone have any other suggestions? I would like to get
> something that would grab the both of them, as the ork has not behaved
> responsibly around the human, and the human does not think of him as
> an asset. I guess I need something to pull them together and let them
> prove their worth to each other while also not making the game
> tomorrow night one big combat.

The first thing that came to mind for me was to get them both working on
different aspects of the same job. And then have them combine their efforts
to get to the eventual solution. A situation where neither can continue in
his investigation without a certain bit of info, which, as luck would be,
the other has uncovered. Then they can both complete the task together,
knowing that neither could have done it without the other.

Exactly what kind of investigation they would be on I have no suggestions at
the moment. The ork will likely be put onto it as a part of his job, but how
the kid gets involved eludes me at this time. Hmm, there's a thought. A
conspiracy within the organisation the ork works for. Like, say powerful
exec Y is up to some evil nsaty things (like he's a real wierdo who likes to
do some unpleasant stuff with SINless folks at night or something equally
distasteful). Now, in order to cover up his own activities, he instigates an
investigation into the crimes, placing some poor sod as the prime suspect.
The ork gets this case. Meanwhile, another exec, Z, is plotting and planning
to get Y out of the way so's that Z can advance up the corporate ladder. He
hires the kid to do some snooping into Y's activities in an attempt to
uncover some dirt on Y (standard practice for moves such as Z is planning on
making).

Now, the idea is that the ork has to try to find out who the real criminal
is, while the kid has to try to dig up dirt on Y. Both PCs are working at
different aspects of the same case. Anyway, I'll stop there, and see if it's
at all useful to you.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 13
From: Marc A Renouf <jormung@*****.UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 11:20:02 -0400
On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Marek Telgarsky wrote:

> >>>>> " " == Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET> writes:
>
> > about dice. When they're needed, they're used. If they could be used, but
> > aren't needed... well, they aren't needed so they aren't used.
>
> I am starting to think that most people on this list are of this
> opinion, although I have seen lots of rules haggling here. But i
> suppose that is what this is for, so that the arguments do not occur
> during the game session, and some sort of resolution happens.
>
> I dont want to accuse anyone of being a rules lawyer or a roll-player,
> but is there anyone here with a different opinion then Bob? If not,
> invite one of your munchkin friends to post, so I can understand this
> syndrome.

Actually, I like to combine the two, especially for PC vs. PC
interactions. This is mainly in the area of social skills. In most
cases, I ask my players to keep the dice roll in mind while role-playing,
or I will take the role-playing in mind when setting a target number for
the dice roll.
In this way, you get the best of both worlds. If one PC with a
high Negotiation skill is bargaining with another PC with a low
willpower, the negotiator shouldn't get shafted just because the target
is a PC whose player may have a willpower higher than that of his
character. Likewsie, you don't want to leave it to *just* a die roll,
'cause that gets old and is generally much less fun. It also doesn't
net you any role-playing Karma.
Luckily, I have a good group of players. If a roll comes up not
in their favor, most will role-play it to the hilt very well. It works,
it keeps everybody happy, so I use it.

Marc
Message no. 14
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 18:47:51 +0200
> >I dont see why so many GM's have a problem with this. Why even *play*
> >if all that concerns the players is being able to roll every D6 in
> >their collection?
>
> I kinda consider that my duty to keep that from happening in any campaign
> I'm in. But some players just don't know anything other than "I pull my gun
> and shoot him... what's my target number?"
> There're many methods of dealing with this. Allow much larger karma awards
> for roleplaying over rollplaying. Also, just make it HEAVY on the roleplay.
> The dicers either get bored and leave or they figure out that roleplaying is
> a pretty cool thing after all. Either way the campaign benefits.

The problem with this attitude is that there are players that actually
do want to roleplay. I have this problem in my group were we have one
player/GM that refuses to understand that a roleplaying game is not about
"winning". I have hade looooong and ardious (sp?) discussions with him
on this subject (a couple *during* a session) and I hope that I am
finally geting through to him. OTOH he is a great guy and we want him
to keep playing with us so I really dont take it personally.

Then there are people who simply can not poleplay - this is a point
usually mentined by Damion, but what the heck :). Not everyone out
there is a born actor, some of us actually *need* those dice rolls
to resolve a roleplaying situation. Are you suggesting that all those
people should refrain from playing because theiy are not professional
actors ?

> I've babbled enough...replies, anyone?

How about this one ? :)

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 15
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 18:53:22 +0200
> Actually, one of my players is prone to trying to maximize everything
> where combat is concerned,

Would you care to explain why creating an efficient character within
the rules is undesirable ? After all the character has to be able to
survive in some way, doesnt he ? Dont get me wrong, I dont mean that
everyone should be the perfect combat machine, flaws and weaknesses
can make for great fun and roleplaying, but I dont think that flaming
people just because they dont want to play dweebs/cripples/weenies :)
is a good idea.

> but I am going to do my best to fuck his
> world tomorrow night. *whistles innocently* If he doesnt quit with the
> munchkin crap, I may just kill him off. *shrug* He's one of those guys
> with the large dicebox. I, on the other hand, have 2 D6's from an old
> monopoly... or was it risk. aw hell. i cant remember. ;)

Munchknin in my book means breaking the rules, someone that stays
within the rules is not munchkin, maybe a powergamer, but no munchkin.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 16
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 13:32:17 -0500
> Munchknin in my book means breaking the rules, someone that stays
>within the rules is not munchkin, maybe a powergamer, but no munchkin.

Nah, munchkinism is the final product of powergaming. Think of a munchkin
as a level 9 powergamer initiate. Breaking the rules is cheating, which is
a whole other situation.


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 17
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 20:40:46 +0200
> > I dont want to accuse anyone of being a rules lawyer or a roll-player,
> > but is there anyone here with a different opinion then Bob? If not,
> > invite one of your munchkin friends to post, so I can understand this
> > syndrome.
>
> Well, seriosuly, after all the munchkin bashing we've been doing the last
> month or so, would _you_ be game to post and say "I stand up for power
> gaming!"? I wouldn't think so. But anyway, I'll put in my two cents worth.

"I stand up for power gaming!" So here we go :)

First of all let me explain what I understand as power-gaming.
Power-gaming is the pursuit of efficiency withing the rules, its not
bending the rules, not inventing new ones and definitely not breaking them.

A power gamer is a player who wants to create a character that would
be described as a capable professional in the game-world. This character
would be of of the best in his line of work.

Ok so I dare you to prove to me and to the list that such characters
are not feasible from a role-playing point of view. I believe that they
are just another sort of characters, charcters that are as real as
any other (most of the time even more so).

As I have already said in a different post I dont see why people
chose to limit roleplaying to characters that have some definite
cripling flaw, why do "good roleplayers" have to play cripples,
blind people, serial killers, psychological time-bombs etc. (well
you get the idea).

This however does not mean that weak characters are not interesting,
they most certainly are. All I am trying to say is that we should try
to refrain from the typical witchhunt that condems everyone that has
a character able to defend himself in a fight as a munchkin.

A munchkin is someone who shows no respect to the rules and
blatantly rapes them (a term we use in our group) every chance
he gets. I do not consider myself do be a munchkin and I would
be greatly offended if someone where to actually propose such
a thing.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 18
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 1995 21:14:28 -0400
>>>>> "Jani" == Jani Fikouras
<feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE> writes:

Jani> Would you care to explain why creating an efficient character within
Jani> the rules is undesirable ?

How much fun is it to play an omnipotent god? What's the point?

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
Message no. 19
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:52:40 +1000
Jani Fikouras writes:

> "I stand up for power gaming!" So here we go :)

Jani, you are nothing more than a munchkin, pure and simple.

<grin> (I just couldn't resist the bait you put at the bottom of your post
:-)) [It was not to be taken at all seriously, OK?]

> [Pretty cool stuff on Power gaming vs munchkinism]

Yep, I agree. But it is a fine line between Power gaming and munchkinism,
which can be all too easily overstepped. And Power gamers _tend_ (note
emphasis) to overlook the role-playing aspects of their games and characters
in their pursuit of the ever elusive +1. But obviously a good player will do
both, while a less good player will be entirely focused on the "Bod 26" he's
got, and not turn out to be a great role-player. However, that's a problem
with role-playing ability, rather than power gaming itself - a good
role-player can power game just as well as a poor one, only he will
role-play well also.

I rather liked Bobs description of a munchkin as a 9th Grade Initiate Power
Gamer. Someone who has taken flogging the rules and their interpretations for
all they're worth to the greatest height in the never ending search for that
extra +1 or 2. It is the interpretations bit which tends to make the
difference in my view, that and the justification (ie, munchkins tend to
allocate all manner of bonuses/equipment to themselves with little or no
reason other than it gives good plusses, and no justification as to
where/how it all come from).

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
Message no. 20
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:31:25 +0200
> Then there are people who simply can not poleplay - this is a point
>usually mentined by Damion, but what the heck :). Not everyone out
>there is a born actor, some of us actually *need* those dice rolls
>to resolve a roleplaying situation. Are you suggesting that all those
>people should refrain from playing because theiy are not professional
>actors ?

Andf of course you have people falling somewhere in the middle. I for one
have a hard time roleplaying the NPCs in FASA-published adventures, usually
because I have to keep looking in the book to see what they know and don't,
but I have little or no trouble making up an NPC with his/her own character
in the middle of an adventure.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Beware of unfamiliar chickens
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 21
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 17:08:00 +0200
> Jani> Would you care to explain why creating an efficient character within
> Jani> the rules is undesirable ?
>
> How much fun is it to play an omnipotent god? What's the point?

There is no point and no fun in playing an omnipotent god, but playing
a competent profesional that knows what he is doing can be lotsa fun.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 22
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 17:33:10 +0200
> > [Pretty cool stuff on Power gaming vs munchkinism]

Thanx :)

> Yep, I agree. But it is a fine line between Power gaming and munchkinism,
> which can be all too easily overstepped. And Power gamers _tend_ (note
> emphasis) to overlook the role-playing aspects of their games and characters
> in their pursuit of the ever elusive +1. But obviously a good player will do
> both, while a less good player will be entirely focused on the "Bod 26"
he's
> got, and not turn out to be a great role-player. However, that's a problem
> with role-playing ability, rather than power gaming itself - a good
> role-player can power game just as well as a poor one, only he will
> role-play well also.

I agree.

> I rather liked Bobs description of a munchkin as a 9th Grade Initiate Power
> Gamer. Someone who has taken flogging the rules and their interpretations for
> all they're worth to the greatest height in the never ending search for that
> extra +1 or 2. It is the interpretations bit which tends to make the
> difference in my view, that and the justification (ie, munchkins tend to
> allocate all manner of bonuses/equipment to themselves with little or no
> reason other than it gives good plusses, and no justification as to
> where/how it all come from).

I once again agree, there is a point where power-gaming stops and munchkinism
starts, thats where the player should have the common sence to retire his
character.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 23
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:30:20 -0400
>>>>> "Jani" == Jani Fikouras
<feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE> writes:

Jani> There is no point and no fun in playing an omnipotent god, but playing
Jani> a competent profesional that knows what he is doing can be lotsa fun.

Playing a competant professional (who, by definition, will have weaknesses)
is fine; turning the chracter into an omnipotend god is munchky.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Message no. 24
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 20:56:25 +0200
> Jani> There is no point and no fun in playing an omnipotent god, but playing
> Jani> a competent profesional that knows what he is doing can be lotsa fun.
>
> Playing a competant professional (who, by definition, will have weaknesses)
> is fine; turning the chracter into an omnipotend god is munchky.

I dont think anyone can argue against that.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?
Message no. 25
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:16:49 -0500
>Anyway, my take on things are similar. I'm all for role-playing, but it pays
>to remember that not all of us are of the acting sort. Dice rolls become
>neccessary to make up for either inexperience on the part of the player, or
>simple lack of knowledge. My character might have Biology 6 and be able to
>name every fish species ever discovered, but the odds are I don't. Likewise
>my character might have some suburb social skill, and I not. Terry's post
>covers this much more eloquently.

Right, the dice are needed for that situation and would be used (though I
don't think that naming every species of fish discovered will crop up in too
many game sessions). If they weren't needed (i.e. player with biology 6
looks at a goldfish and wants to know if its a goldfish) then just give him
the answer, sheesh...

>I myself feel dice are an integral part of RPGs. After all, "if you take the
>dice away, you lose the game part of it", as one of my players put it. I
>agree. RPGs are different from acting for exactly that reason. This is why I
>do not really (personally) like free forms, and games such as Vampire which
>are very much non rules games (although I've seen a couple of Vampire
>munchkins - gee, do they have a hard time of it :-)). But others will have
>different tastes, and will like free forms. Just like others will not like
>RPGs, but will quite enjoy wardgames. Each to their own and all that...

Dice are an integral part of the game. Use them when they're needed (combat
and other such things). But every single action shouldn't require a skill
test. And as far as "free-form" RPG's like White Wolf's games, I like them
except for the fact that when they do need dice, they have no idea how to
use them (the rules system is sorely lacking, but the game background is
pretty good). And munchkinism is way too easy in that series...


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 26
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:29:25 -0500
> The problem with this attitude is that there are players that actually
>do want to roleplay. I have this problem in my group were we have one
>player/GM that refuses to understand that a roleplaying game is not about
>"winning". I have hade looooong and ardious (sp?) discussions with him
>on this subject (a couple *during* a session) and I hope that I am
>finally geting through to him. OTOH he is a great guy and we want him
>to keep playing with us so I really dont take it personally.

Hate to say it, but he's probably playing the wrong game. **&* is much
better suited to that type of play. And, believe me, I have to deal with
players like that too, but they grow attached to their characters and are
semi-forced into roleplaying (I give karma awards for well-developed
backgrounds. A munchkin quickly finds himself behind the pack when all his
friends have great backgrounds and better-made characters. He will soon
write a background and begin to play within it.)

> Then there are people who simply can not roleplay - this is a point
>usually mentined by Damion, but what the heck :). Not everyone out
>there is a born actor, some of us actually *need* those dice rolls
>to resolve a roleplaying situation. Are you suggesting that all those
>people should refrain from playing because they are not professional
>actors ?

Nope, but anyone can be shown that dice isn't all there is to games. Even a
"non-actor" can find a scrap of imagination and throw it into his character.
And (as I mentioned before) if the dice are needed, use them. If they
aren't, then leave 'em be. Should they refrain from playing if they have no
clue what the game is about and only want to roll dice and get karma?
Maybe, maybe not... in my old **&* days, we did finally ask one of our
friends not to play. Wasn't easy (for some, anyway) but from then on
everyone was much happier with the game. And fun is what it's about. If
one person ruins it for the rest, then maybe he shouldn't be in the game.
If the player is just not a very good roleplayer (first try the background
thing mentioned above, it can work wonders) but doesn't take anything away
from the rest of the group's fun, then I see no reason why he should have to
leave. Chances are he's having fun and all's well.


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Who finds many posts saying that dice are needed for some situations which
is what he said in his original post... but for some reason these come at
him as arguments. They just aren't needed for ALL situations.
Message no. 27
From: Bob Ooton <topcat@**.CENCOM.NET>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 14:43:55 -0500
> "I stand up for power gaming!" So here we go :)

(rubs hands together in anticipation of this one...)

> First of all let me explain what I understand as power-gaming.
>Power-gaming is the pursuit of efficiency withing the rules, its not
>bending the rules, not inventing new ones and definitely not breaking them.

Nor do munchkins. It's the degree of powergaming that becomes munchkinism
(although frankly I don't find a difference, once the slide starts <with
powergaming>, it's fast and it doesn't stop). Munchkins can't break the
rules, because then they could be called to back up the character and
wouldn't be able to do so. They can however interpret things so far and
wide that they can mean nearly anything.

> A power gamer is a player who wants to create a character that would
>be described as a capable professional in the game-world. This character
>would be of of the best in his line of work.

Even capable professionals aren't great at everything... In fact, anyone
with skills/attributes over 3 is considered "capable". And definitely
anyone with any magickal ability or cyberware is "capable". And to be the
best at one's line of work doesn't just happen out of the blue. It takes a
whole hell of a lot of time. And if they are the best, then they're munchkins.

> Ok so I dare you to prove to me and to the list that such characters
>are not feasible from a role-playing point of view. I believe that they
>are just another sort of characters, charcters that are as real as
>any other (most of the time even more so).

From a role-playing view? I hate playing characters like that and I hate
being in groups with characters like that. It's nearly impossible to
roleplay someone like that. (i.e. <munchkin> "I do <whatever>"
<rest of
the group> "ok, now what do we do?") That's not roleplaying... and it's
exactly what happens when players reach that power-level.

> As I have already said in a different post I dont see why people
>chose to limit roleplaying to characters that have some definite
>cripling flaw, why do "good roleplayers" have to play cripples,
>blind people, serial killers, psychological time-bombs etc. (well
>you get the idea).

Don't need a crippling flaw. Is being average at something crippling? Is
being merely above average crippling? Is being average at one thing while
being good at another crippling? Easy answers... There's still no need to
be god-made-shadowrunner.

> This however does not mean that weak characters are not interesting,
>they most certainly are. All I am trying to say is that we should try
>to refrain from the typical witchhunt that condems everyone that has
>a character able to defend himself in a fight as a munchkin.

Not able to defend himself is one thing. The only way to make a character
like that would be to not allow priorities over E. If your idea of
defending is being able to shake off 20 dice worth of missile coming at his
unarmored body, then I've definitely missed the point of the game somewhere...

> A munchkin is someone who shows no respect to the rules and
>blatantly rapes them (a term we use in our group) every chance
>he gets. I do not consider myself do be a munchkin and I would
>be greatly offended if someone where to actually propose such
>a thing.

No, they show great respect to the rules. They show no respect to the
spirit of the game. Major difference. I consider myself capable of being a
munchkin. I don't/won't play munchkinous characters, though. Why? Because
it's no fun. Everything becomes menial, there is no such thing as a
challenge. "Oh boy, we're gaming again... I wonder if I'll be able to roll
50 dice this time!" Blah...


-- Bob Ooton <topcat@******.net>
Message no. 28
From: G'Koth of the Narn Regime <esj@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 1995 12:51:29 -0700
All right, I'm stopping the munchkinitis thread to a stop, RIGHT NOW!

Do any of us remember what happened last time? It erupted into a full
scale flame war, with ME in the middle of it. This whole debate NEVER
goes anywhere, nothing is learned, nobody is changed. All these munchkin
debates ever get is a lot of pissed off people and hurt feelings. So
stop it now.

Let me repeat that.

STOP THIS THREAD NOW!

And now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Erik, a.k.a. the Whistler
list.member.grumpy

"Weep for the Future Na'Toth,
weep for us all."
Message no. 29
From: Timothy Little <t_little@**********.UTAS.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 07:48:35 +1000
> "I stand up for power gaming!" So here we go :)
>
> First of all let me explain what I understand as power-gaming.
>Power-gaming is the pursuit of efficiency withing the rules, its not
>bending the rules, not inventing new ones and definitely not breaking them.

OK, this is pretty much the same as my definition. A player who breaks the
rules is a cheater, no question there. A player who bends (or "rapes") the
rules is what I call a munchkin. I don't consider inventing new rules to be
either good or bad in itself, it's the intention behind the act that
matters. (Note that by 'inventing new rules', I mean suggesting a rule to
the GM, since the GM is the final arbiter of what is a rule and what is
not). A 'rules-lawyer' is someone who points out game rules to their
advantage, whether those rules are reasonable or not.

> A power gamer is a player who wants to create a character that would
>be described as a capable professional in the game-world. This character
>would be of of the best in his line of work.

I break down the distinctions a bit finer. I consider a 'power gamer' to be
someone who uses game-mechanic knowledge to create a highly efficient
character. I don't view this as necessarily bad either; this depends very
much on the player and the rest of the gaming group. For me as GM, if it's
justified and doesn't crowd out someone else's character, it's OK.

As an example, many players take resisting values (eg a deck's Persona
ratings) to 6 (or more) if they can, since that is a game-mechanic
breakpoint. This is powergaming. Not good or bad in itself, but dangerous.
It might lead to the character conception degenerating into attribute
values. There should be some other interesting facets to the character.
Also, out-of-character knowledge should be justified out-of-character, even
if by something as simple as "I don't want my character to get wasted by the
first IC she comes across".

Then again, this example could represent a decker's knowledge of how much of
an edge a fairly small (Rating 5 to Rating 6) but tricky (programmer's
average successes halve) bit of programming can give her, and using that
knowledge. In this case, the player is using in-character knowledge rather
than out-of-character mechanics and hence is not (in my terminology)
powergaming. The difference comes in the justification the player uses for
creating the game statistics.

Even though I consider powergaming to be acceptable, I prefer the
in-character development (call him an 'efficient role-player') to be
superior. The difficulty comes in deciding which of the mechanics are
generally known to the characters. There's no simple dividing line, and
furthermore the fuzzy area is blurred further by the fact that the mechanics
don't simulate the game world perfectly. For example, full heavy armour
with helmet is no more effective than a cheap vest against a holdout pistol.
A street sam can easily kill Joe Average in either.

> This however does not mean that weak characters are not interesting,
>they most certainly are. All I am trying to say is that we should try
>to refrain from the typical witchhunt that condems everyone that has
>a character able to defend himself in a fight as a munchkin.

I agree in general. Some characters, though, may crowd out others simply
because they are better in everything the others can do. Because this is
undesirable, a character that fits in perfectly to one team can seriously
affect another. This can happen even when the new character is not
powerful, especially when an existing character is a specialist in a field
in which the new character is also expert.

--
Tim Little
Message no. 30
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: munchkinitis
Date: Mon, 1 May 1995 19:06:34 +0200
> > First of all let me explain what I understand as power-gaming.
> >Power-gaming is the pursuit of efficiency withing the rules, its not
> >bending the rules, not inventing new ones and definitely not breaking them.
>
> Nor do munchkins. It's the degree of powergaming that becomes munchkinism

You have a point there, one can go from innocent power-gaming to outright
munchkinism, but I would expect from a good player to know better than that.

> Munchkins can't break the
> rules, because then they could be called to back up the character and
> wouldn't be able to do so. They can however interpret things so far and
> wide that they can mean nearly anything.

As far as I am concerned no munchkin can back up his character against
a GM that knows his stuff. Most munchkins exploit the ignorance of their
own GM to force him into decisions they use as "precidents".

> > A power gamer is a player who wants to create a character that would
> >be described as a capable professional in the game-world. This character
> >would be of of the best in his line of work.
>
> Even capable professionals aren't great at everything...

Agreed, I did not say they are.

> In fact, anyone
> with skills/attributes over 3 is considered "capable". And definitely
> anyone with any magickal ability or cyberware is "capable". And to be the
> best at one's line of work doesn't just happen out of the blue. It takes a
> whole hell of a lot of time. And if they are the best, then they're munchkins.

Dont forget that this is SR and runners are supposed to be the elite
the crem de la crem of the underworld. Simple thugs and gangers dream of
one day "becoming shadowrunners". So runners are by definition *very*
capable individuals - thats why I think that "strong" characters are
even more feasible as shadowrunners than charcters with severe flaws.

> > Ok so I dare you to prove to me and to the list that such characters
> >are not feasible from a role-playing point of view. I believe that they
> >are just another sort of characters, charcters that are as real as
> >any other (most of the time even more so).
>
> From a role-playing view? I hate playing characters like that and I hate
> being in groups with characters like that. It's nearly impossible to
> roleplay someone like that. (i.e. <munchkin> "I do <whatever>"
<rest of
> the group> "ok, now what do we do?") That's not roleplaying... and it's
> exactly what happens when players reach that power-level.

I do not recall saying that a "capable proffesional" can do everything
we wants. He is definitely no god, he just knows what he is doing and
knows his field - I dont think that this is too much to ask from a runner.

> > As I have already said in a different post I dont see why people
> >chose to limit roleplaying to characters that have some definite
> >cripling flaw, why do "good roleplayers" have to play cripples,
> >blind people, serial killers, psychological time-bombs etc. (well
> >you get the idea).
>
> Don't need a crippling flaw.

Then we agree.

> Is being average at something crippling? Is
> being merely above average crippling? Is being average at one thing while
> being good at another crippling? Easy answers... There's still no need to
> be god-made-shadowrunner.

No, No, No, No

> > This however does not mean that weak characters are not interesting,
> >they most certainly are. All I am trying to say is that we should try
> >to refrain from the typical witchhunt that condems everyone that has
> >a character able to defend himself in a fight as a munchkin.
>
> Not able to defend himself is one thing. The only way to make a character
> like that would be to not allow priorities over E. If your idea of
> defending is being able to shake off 20 dice worth of missile coming at his
> unarmored body, then I've definitely missed the point of the game somewhere...

You are right, the SR character generation system is so good it
actually prevents you from making a bad character. I was actaully thinking
more along the lines of other systems...

> > A munchkin is someone who shows no respect to the rules and
> >blatantly rapes them (a term we use in our group) every chance
> >he gets. I do not consider myself do be a munchkin and I would
> >be greatly offended if someone where to actually propose such
> >a thing.
>
> No, they show great respect to the rules. They show no respect to the
> spirit of the game. Major difference. I consider myself capable of being a
> munchkin. I don't/won't play munchkinous characters, though. Why? Because
> it's no fun. Everything becomes menial, there is no such thing as a
> challenge. "Oh boy, we're gaming again... I wonder if I'll be able to roll
> 50 dice this time!" Blah...

Someone that has no respect to the ideas the rules represent, cant
respect the rules themselves - we disagree there. As for the rest,
I agree.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++S++L+$>++++ L+>+++ E--- N+ W(+)(---)
M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about munchkinitis, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!