Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.tdb.uu.se>
Subject: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:13:17 +0200 (MET DST)
(This message should have been sent yesterday, but apparently my
server went gazonkas, so I'm trying again.)

I've seen people rant on and on about these things, so I thought
I'd put my thoughts together in one posting. This has (hopefully) little
to do with the ongoing, never-ending "I'm better than you"-debate that is
currently going on, flooding this mailing list in a deluge of hot air. :)
So, without further ado...


I think the main axiom on what is Munchkinism and what is not is
this simple sentence:

ANY ACT THAT UNBALANCES THE GAME IS ANY MANNER IS BY DEFINITION
MUNCHKINOUS, REGARDLESS WHO MADE IT.

Maybe this is taking it to extremes, but anyway, this is the
definition I thought out spontaneously. Perhaps it needs a little
fine-tuning, but it's basically my feelings.
So, what do I mean? I think balance is something you want to
acheive in any game (perhaps there are a few exceptions, but...). Balance
is needed between players and NPCs (opponents and otherwise) to keep the
game exciting. The balance you want here is, IMHO, slightly in favour of
the opposition, to make the adventure an effort to the gamers, but still
have them see a small chance. Perhaps other groups want it in another way,
but strictly speaking, it should be fairly even.
Balance is also needed between characters. Nobody likes it when
one character suddenly takes over the whole campaign, and all the others
become appendices that just tag-along to see the real hero crush the bad
guys (except perhaps the dominating character's player). However, this
sort of unbalance can sometimes be easened because of differences between
character "types".
If a game is unbalanced in some way, the group is doing something
wrong, and that can be called munchkinism. When the GM relaxes and lets
the gamers eat dragons for breakfast, it's munchkinism. When the GM
modifies all the NPCs' stats to 30, it's also munchkinism. And when one of
the players advance further than any other player because he's better at
bending the rules, it's munchkinism.

TopCat, you mention that you are extremely adept at min/maxing
your characters. Fine. However, I hope all the other players in your group
are as good as you, because otherwise it'll be boring for them. If they
can, fine, it's "powergaming", and that's acceptable, mostly (though I
personally think this particular behaviour will amount to an armaments
race that no-one benefits from, but that's just me). As long as
powergaming characters have a reasonably epic opposition, it's okay.
However, you mention that you not only min/maxed your char, but
also had the GM make a lot of solo runs for you, to "explore the
character", and you were surprised to see that this just furthered the gap
between you and the others. I hope you won't hate me extremely much, but
from my point of view, both you and your GM acted munchkinously. You
decided to make your character the best of your group, not at all
considering the other gamers' situation because of this. And your GM, on
his part, failed to restrict your character and play up the others to get
balance.

Another thing. You all blah a lot about magic and technology,
about buing and learning, and I think it all amounts to the same. As
TopCat himself said, FASA has tried to make every aspect of Shadowrun
balanced (there's that word again... ). However, from my POV, tech has by
far a greater *potential* for munchkinism than magic. I base this argument
on the fact that there are rules for making spells which keep munchkinism
at bay - perhaps you can bend the rules here too, I'm no spell construct
major, but the point here is that the rules *exist*.
On the other hand, no real cybertech/bioware/weapon-construct
rules are alailable. When making new gadgets you're always forced to
common sense, and then it's easy to tweak things around. You just invent
the new bio-thingie that increases the eyes's image renewal cycle and say
it increases Q with 4 and R with 8, costing .1 Body Index. It's no big
thing. Look at the 'net-books out there. Lots and lots of cyber, bio and
weapons/gadgets for 'sams. Few "ultra-munchkin"-spells (in fact, few
spells at all) of the type that often are cited to exist.
Note that I don't say sams are better than mages, or anything
other along these lines. Sams just have more potentiol for rule-tweaking.

Finally, about long character bios. It's a nice thing and all, but
in the end, too long a bio will always bog down your gaming. You'll have
difficulty to keep everything in mind at once, and find yourself leafing
through the bio to find a reference to how the char will react in the
present situation, instead of ad libbing it. If you know how to do it,
then fine. I just don't think it's such a good idea at most times. A
couple of pages with history, quirks and brief personality does it for me.

I'm sorry if I kept on long, but that's just me.

-Jonas Gabrielson, worthless as a rules-lawyer
Message no. 2
From: mbroadwa@*******.glenayre.com (Mike Broadwater)
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 07:51:58 -0500
> ANY ACT THAT UNBALANCES THE GAME IS ANY MANNER IS BY DEFINITION
>MUNCHKINOUS, REGARDLESS WHO MADE IT.
>
>-Jonas Gabrielson, worthless as a rules-lawyer
>
So basically, anything that gives one person any kind of an advantage over
another is munchkin? Thats stupid. No game is perfectly balanced. No game
will be. Power gaming can make games less fun for the other players. If
the character is played correctly, however, it won't. I agree more with
Topcat, that munchkinism goes out side of the rules. How about this, (allow
me to make a sweeping generality) overall, most mages are not as good,
starting out, in combat as a street sam. Not that they can't be, but a more
well rounded one won't be. Well, there's a lot of combat in SR, so isn't
that unfair torwards the mage? Oh, maybe they can make up for it with other
things, but it's not the combat, and thats unfair. Thats munchkin? Cause
that's what your saying. You use the term "munchkin" to easily. Do you
also shoot down any idea with potential because you think it's
"unbalancing"? Doesn't this limit the enjoyment of the game for others, as
well as yourself? And isn't enjoyment the purpose of the game?

Mike Broadwater
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon
"An object at rest cannot be stopped! YEAH, BABY! YEAH!" - The Evil Midnight
Bomber What Bombs at Midnight.
Message no. 3
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.tdb.uu.se>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 17:54:18 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 15 May 1996, Mike Broadwater wrote:

> > ANY ACT THAT UNBALANCES THE GAME IS ANY MANNER IS BY DEFINITION
> >MUNCHKINOUS, REGARDLESS WHO MADE IT.
> >
> >-Jonas Gabrielson, worthless as a rules-lawyer
>
> So basically, anything that gives one person any kind of an advantage over
> another is munchkin? Thats stupid. No game is perfectly balanced. No game
> will be. Power gaming can make games less fun for the other players. If
> the character is played correctly, however, it won't. I agree more with
> Topcat, that munchkinism goes out side of the rules.

If you had read on (you know, the little print beneath the large
flaming letters... :-) , you would've seen that I took up this one. I said
characters that start dominating a campaign are munchkinous. Of course
there are exceptions - eg. a magus in Ars Magica will always dominate if
the rest of the group are grogs and companions - but in a game where you
are supposed to start out (roughly) equal, you will have come to such a
position through munchkinism. In this case, munchkinism can represent
anything from bending the rules until they scream of agony, or GM
favouring, etc.
Yes, munchkinism goes outside the rules, but I think other things
could be included, too, because they amount to the same thing - an
enourmous hoarding of power.
Certainly, no game is perfectly balanced, and there's a fine line
between advantages/character specialities and munchkinism, but in general
I think it's quite easy to distinguish the two by player attitudes. A very
mighty character can be balanced if the player tones down his strengths,
and vice versa. As you say, it's up to role-playing.

As for what I mean by "dominating a campaign", it's more or less a
demonstration in Might Makes Right. A char gets mightier than the others,
does everything by himself and/or forces the others to subject to his
will. And that's unbalanced as well as boring, IMHO.

BTW, thanks for the "you're stupid" comment. I needed that. I
think it in a very nice way added flavour to your post. I could insult you
back, but I know you won't read this far, so what's the use? :-)

> How about this, (allow me to make a sweeping generality) overall, most
> mages are not as good, starting out, in combat as a street sam. Not
> that they can't be, but a more well rounded one won't be. Well, there's
> a lot of combat in SR, so isn't that unfair torwards the mage? Oh,
> maybe they can make up for it with other things, but it's not the
> combat, and thats unfair. Thats munchkin?

Nope, because it's not the whole picture. Taking everything into
account, most characters are balanced, more or less. We've been through
this - all character types has some kind of an edge over the others. But
if you min/max the sam, then it's munchkinous, because all of a sudden
he's invincible in combat, and it upsets the balance.

> Cause that's what your saying.

No, again.

> You use the term "munchkin" to easily.

Perhaps, but it's all shades of corruption. :-)

> Do you also shoot down any idea with potential because you think it's
> "unbalancing"?

What do you mean, "idea"? Is that, like, allowing a Tank Troll
into the campaign? Then the answer is no, if the player hasn't got a
*very* good excuse and plenty of words to back it up.
If you mean introducing new cyberware, spells and stuff, then as
long as it's balanced and I as GM have the last word on what goes, it's
cool. If someone wants the new pistol-sized Great Dragon with a 50D damage
code, then the answer is no. Unbalancing is munchkinous. Give me an
example, will you?

> Doesn't this limit the enjoyment of the game for others,
> as well as yourself? And isn't enjoyment the purpose of the game?

Enjoyment like in "you can't go out popping great dragons for a
hobbie"? Then I don't want it. Enjoyment like playing the ultra-epic
save-the-world campaign? Then as long as the characters are roughly equal
and the opposition is theoretically beatable, it's okay. Why would a
balanced group be more boring? It just means no-one can blast the others
to bits over an argument. I'm not sure I can see your POV, mister.

-Jonas Gabrielson, Libra (surprise!)
Message no. 4
From: mbroadwa@*******.glenayre.com (Mike Broadwater)
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 11:36:23 -0500
>
>
>On Wed, 15 May 1996, Mike Broadwater wrote:
>
>> > ANY ACT THAT UNBALANCES THE GAME IS ANY MANNER IS BY DEFINITION
>> >MUNCHKINOUS, REGARDLESS WHO MADE IT.
>> >
>> >-Jonas Gabrielson, worthless as a rules-lawyer
>>
>> So basically, anything that gives one person any kind of an advantage over
>> another is munchkin? Thats stupid. No game is perfectly balanced. No game
>> will be. Power gaming can make games less fun for the other players. If
>> the character is played correctly, however, it won't. I agree more with
>> Topcat, that munchkinism goes out side of the rules.
>
> If you had read on (you know, the little print beneath the large
>flaming letters... :-)
I did read it.

> BTW, thanks for the "you're stupid" comment. I needed that. I
>think it in a very nice way added flavour to your post. I could insult you
>back, but I know you won't read this far, so what's the use? :-)
Oh, an attempt at a back handed slap! So why did you keep writing?
Everyone elses education?

No, I didn't say _you_ were stupid, I said the _idea_ was stupid. If I was
going to say "you're stupid" like you misread me saying (and you say I don't
read the posts? Thats rather hypocritical) I would've very clearly said
"Hey, and I not only think your idea is dumb, I think you are too." But I
didn't, and I'm not going to. But back on topic.

I think it's idiotic to believe that unless everything is equal, then it's
munchkinous. If a player role plays better in my campaign, he's going to
get more karma to use on his character than the player that doesn't do as
well. Their character is going to get more powerful. I'm not favoring
their character, I'm being fair, yet, that's munchkinous? I think that's
stupid, so I said as much. Don't expect me to lie to make you feel better.

>> How about this, (allow me to make a sweeping generality) overall, most
>> mages are not as good, starting out, in combat as a street sam. Not
>> that they can't be, but a more well rounded one won't be. Well, there's
>> a lot of combat in SR, so isn't that unfair torwards the mage? Oh,
>> maybe they can make up for it with other things, but it's not the
>> combat, and thats unfair. Thats munchkin?
>
> Nope, because it's not the whole picture. Taking everything into
>account, most characters are balanced, more or less. We've been through
>this - all character types has some kind of an edge over the others. But
>if you min/max the sam, then it's munchkinous, because all of a sudden
>he's invincible in combat, and it upsets the balance.
But you just said everyone has their weaknesses. If the starting street sam
can take out four cards in one combat turn, a squad of five can drop him
just as easily, especially after his pool is gone. :)

So, it's munchkinous to use the standard rules to your advantage? That's
what I don't get. If you use the rules, make a good character, who, while
they may be powerful in some aspects, has a good background, fits with the
group, and is fun to play, that is somehow munchkinous. I don't believe
that's right or fair to any player.

>> Cause that's what your saying.
>
> No, again.
Then I misunderstand what you're trying to say. Or maybe I don't, and we're
just going to have views at two ends of the spectrum

>> Do you also shoot down any idea with potential because you think it's
>> "unbalancing"?
>
> What do you mean, "idea"? Is that, like, allowing a Tank Troll
>into the campaign? Then the answer is no, if the player hasn't got a
>*very* good excuse and plenty of words to back it up.
Exactly. That and the GBD are stats on a page that could have very good
historys/backgrounds/etc to go with them and make very good characters.
Yes, they are tough, but as it's been demonstrated, everyone has a weakness.

>Why would a balanced group be more boring? It just means no-one can blast
the >others to bits over an argument. I'm not sure I can see your POV, mister.
A balanced group isn't boring. Fun isn't based off just how balanced a
group is. Why would an unbalanced group be boring? Because in some
situations one person has an advantage over the other. So you have the
Troll Tank and the GBD on your team. Maybe your other members are a sorcery
adept who used to huny paranormal animals for bountys, an on the run Samurai
phys-ad, and a detective. You go into combat, the Troll Tank and GBD womb
some ass, the Samurai helps out some with a magical being (cause
hand-to-hand works better) and so does the sorcery adept. The detective
hugs mother earth and hopes not to get shot with all the lead flying around.
So later the players want to find out who they went up against. The
detective starts hitting the streets, checking his people, etc. The adepts
each check with some friends of theirs they made in their respective
communitys, and the GBD and Tank Troll...sit around cause they aren't
exactly the greatest talkers in the world. Oh, their ok, but their so
cybered out and psycho people get edgy and nervous around them and don't
usually hang around long enough to give out the good dirt. Sounds to me
like, if its done correctly, everyone can do all their stuff and still have
fun. Now, if that troll tank also was handed massive karma awards by the
gm, or the gm gave him some super power, something normally outside the
rules, then yes, I can see that being a definate problem. But just because
things aren't "balanced" doesn't mean that no one has any fun and that
everyone gets boring. Combat is a big part of SR, as I said, but it's also
the most boring to play. "I shoot him, he shoots back, blah, blah, blah"

I'll just restate my entire point, in case you just skipped to the bottom.
You take the meaning of "munchkin" to an extreme. To you, it's anything
that makes a character more powerful than another, no matter what the
reason. Whether it's extra karma, using the rules to their advantage, or
whatever. I personally only think it's "munckinous" if it goes outside the
rules of the game. Now, if I was in a group and I played the GBD and the
group asked me not to play him anymore, because I'm ruining the entire game
for everyone else (and I don't know how being a combat god can do that,
unless everyone else is trying to be a combat god and aren't.) then I would
change. What's fun and what's not depends on your group. Hey, some people
like to take the rules, break them in half, and play some weird game that
resembles shadowrun. Again, it all depends on if you and the group are
having fun. If you are, then it's good. If you're not, then it's bad. But
just because my character is tougher in combat than someone elses doesn't
mean he's a munchkin. I think that term gets slung around to easily by
people who don't care for the power level of somebody elses whatever.

Mike Broadwater
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon
"An object at rest cannot be stopped! YEAH, BABY! YEAH!" - The Evil Midnight
Bomber What Bombs at Midnight.
Message no. 5
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 13:33:16 -0600 (MDT)
Jonas Gabrielson wrote:
|
| Nope, because it's not the whole picture. Taking everything into
|account, most characters are balanced, more or less. We've been through
|this - all character types has some kind of an edge over the others. But
|if you min/max the sam, then it's munchkinous, because all of a sudden
|he's invincible in combat, and it upsets the balance.

I disagree with the philosphy that min/maxing is munchkinous. Sams should
be good at combat, great at combat if they want to live. I have no qualms
about any of my players min/maxing a character. Because this same
min/maxing will force them to be specialized in one area to the point that
they will be at a serious disadvantage in many other areas. A sacrifice has
been made to be the best butt kicking Sam that they can be. And after a few
adventures and some karma they start to cover the character's weakenesses
and it balances out. Or if someone else has min/maxed (like the detective)
then the Sam leaves that job up to the detective and leaves it at that.
Munchkinous would be when a player breaks the rules and makes a
decker/sam/rigger that is good at all of those things. And being a munchkin
takes two, the GM is equally at fault when he lets this happen.

And sometimes there is a hole in the game that is munchkinous. For example
I ran DC Heros. There is one power that alows the character to duplicate
any other power. One player took advantage of that with devestating effect,
he was doing everything. I pulled him aside and told him that his character
was disrupting the game, and sucking the fun out of the game for the other
players. He made another character without any fuss. And I added a house
rule that that power was for NPCs only (hey, a GM's gotta have some fun :)

To my knowledge there are no munchkinous rules in SRII.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 6
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 00:22:35 -0500
> TopCat, you mention that you are extremely adept at min/maxing
>your characters. Fine. However, I hope all the other players in your group
>are as good as you, because otherwise it'll be boring for them. If they
>can, fine, it's "powergaming", and that's acceptable, mostly (though I
>personally think this particular behaviour will amount to an armaments
>race that no-one benefits from, but that's just me). As long as
>powergaming characters have a reasonably epic opposition, it's okay.

I explained that earlier, I thought. TopCat was powergamed from creation,
then fleshed out when I decided that wasn't the way to go (Champions still
flows through my veins). The other characters really didn't take the time
to understand the game and the GM more or less made their characters around
their ideas, which was okay. I ended up far above them in power and detail
within oh...one group gaming session. TopCat ended up missing a few runs
and eventually retiring so the game would remain fun for everyone (I got a
kick out of just watching the game in the moments when I wasn't playing).
TopCat was my first character and the only one that I hideously powergamed
at creation.

> However, you mention that you not only min/maxed your char, but
>also had the GM make a lot of solo runs for you, to "explore the
>character", and you were surprised to see that this just furthered the gap
>between you and the others. I hope you won't hate me extremely much, but
>from my point of view, both you and your GM acted munchkinously. You
>decided to make your character the best of your group, not at all
>considering the other gamers' situation because of this. And your GM, on
>his part, failed to restrict your character and play up the others to get
>balance.

I decided to flesh out my character and the GM and I hung out a lot
together. Other players also did solo runs, so I wasn't alone in this. The
karma I earned from solo stuff allowed me to add skills that fit the
character but had no effect on combat. Most of them I don't ever remember
rolling dice once for, combat or not. TopCat was a pretty good Chinese
cook. The last run TopCat ever did netted him (literally) millions of nuyen
(ever wonder how much a shipment of the latest simsense would be worth?).
After that I changed his 'ware and retired him.

> Another thing. You all blah a lot about magic and technology,
>about buing and learning, and I think it all amounts to the same. As
>TopCat himself said, FASA has tried to make every aspect of Shadowrun
>balanced (there's that word again... ). However, from my POV, tech has by
>far a greater *potential* for munchkinism than magic. I base this argument
>on the fact that there are rules for making spells which keep munchkinism
>at bay - perhaps you can bend the rules here too, I'm no spell construct
>major, but the point here is that the rules *exist*.

I am a number cruncher and I've looked over every aspect of Shadowrun
available to me. The most munchable basic archetypes in the Shadowrun game
are mages and deckers. I love samurai, probably because they aren't in that
category and end up having karma lying around that can go to fleshing-out
skills. Many people also confuse speed in combat with munchkinous. If the
character is rolling 7 dice for initiative because he's got +3D6 from a
spell and +3D6 from wired 2, then he's munchkin. If he gets 6 dice for MBW4
and a SynAcc1, then he's within the rules. The GM had to let the character
get that way and I'd assume the rest of the characters are also along those
lines, so it's just a powerful campaign. If the character has no defining
traits aside from "firearms skill of 6, specialized in AK-98" or "has a
force 6 hellblast" then it's powergaming.

> On the other hand, no real cybertech/bioware/weapon-construct
>rules are alailable. When making new gadgets you're always forced to
>common sense, and then it's easy to tweak things around. You just invent
>the new bio-thingie that increases the eyes's image renewal cycle and say
>it increases Q with 4 and R with 8, costing .1 Body Index. It's no big
>thing. Look at the 'net-books out there. Lots and lots of cyber, bio and
>weapons/gadgets for 'sams. Few "ultra-munchkin"-spells (in fact, few
>spells at all) of the type that often are cited to exist.

I never saw a need to create munchkinous bioware/cyberware as
Cybertechnology has pretty much covered a lot of the bases that the SSC,
SRII, and Shadowtech left open. Spells of munchkinous proportions are out
there, Edge Runners contains numerous examples.

> Note that I don't say sams are better than mages, or anything
>other along these lines. Sams just have more potentiol for rule-tweaking.

Far from. Take a long look at the numbers available to mages, there's more
out there and they can be defined in more numerous ways. Which is all it
takes for a hideous amounts of tweaking. Cyberware is cyberware, it can't
be tweaked to provide more for less, there's always at least one downside
and usually there's two (essence, price, or power, pick one to keep low,
raise the rest). This isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. Magic,
however, faces no such limitations. Which is a bad thing, IMNSHO.

> Finally, about long character bios. It's a nice thing and all, but
>in the end, too long a bio will always bog down your gaming. You'll have
>difficulty to keep everything in mind at once, and find yourself leafing
>through the bio to find a reference to how the char will react in the
>present situation, instead of ad libbing it. If you know how to do it,
>then fine. I just don't think it's such a good idea at most times. A
>couple of pages with history, quirks and brief personality does it for me.

I never have to leaf through a bio to figure out anything about my
characters. I know the characters nearly as well as I know me if I've done
anything right at all. I couldn't imagine ever having to leaf through a bio
to figure out what a character would do, I wrote the bio, I know the
character, I know what he'll do in any given situation. If you didn't write
it, then I could see problems. Never once has a well-developed character
bogged down a session due to having to look through his bio in my entire
lifetime of gaming. I could be an exception, though. Am I?

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 7
From: Tom Pendergrast <pendergr@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism...
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT)
> I never saw a need to create munchkinous bioware/cyberware as
> Cybertechnology has pretty much covered a lot of the bases that the SSC,
> SRII, and Shadowtech left open. Spells of munchkinous proportions are out
> there, Edge Runners contains numerous examples.

Am I the only one who is REALLY beginning to hate that term? Anyway...
As far as I can tell, just about everything in SRII is more or less
(sorry) balanced... I know I was the one who brought up the monster mage
discussion, but one thing people overlook... just as 'ware has
disadvantages (yup, I play champions too), such as high essence cost,
speels have drain.... do you know how nasty the drain on a manabolt-11
is? You only cast it once, because if you do, you're screwed...

> > Finally, about long character bios. It's a nice thing and all, but
> >in the end, too long a bio will always bog down your gaming.
<snip>

> I never have to leaf through a bio to figure out anything about my
> characters. I know the characters nearly as well as I know me if I've done
> anything right at all. I couldn't imagine ever having to leaf through a bio
> to figure out what a character would do, I wrote the bio, I know the
> character, I know what he'll do in any given situation. If you didn't write
> it, then I could see problems. Never once has a well-developed character
> bogged down a session due to having to look through his bio in my entire
> lifetime of gaming. I could be an exception, though. Am I?

Nosirreebobski... I for one could answer any question, relate any
personality trait, quirk, description, knowledge, name, place, how, what,
when, where, why, who, and his girlfriends favorite color... all from
memory, right now... I guess I come from the "Roleplaying and staying
character above all else" school of gaming... If I didn't know better, I
would have thought that I helped found it :)


---Tom---


--The former double parenthesis guy--
Message no. 8
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism...
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 13:31:39 -0500
>> I never saw a need to create munchkinous bioware/cyberware as
>> Cybertechnology has pretty much covered a lot of the bases that the SSC,
>> SRII, and Shadowtech left open. Spells of munchkinous proportions are out
>> there, Edge Runners contains numerous examples.

> Am I the only one who is REALLY beginning to hate that term? Anyway...
>As far as I can tell, just about everything in SRII is more or less
>(sorry) balanced... I know I was the one who brought up the monster mage
>discussion, but one thing people overlook... just as 'ware has
>disadvantages (yup, I play champions too), such as high essence cost,
>speels have drain.... do you know how nasty the drain on a manabolt-11
>is? You only cast it once, because if you do, you're screwed...

Have you seen Edge Runners, yet? Some of the characters in there would be
good competition for a whole brigade of Grade 10 initiates. A lot of the
characters are well-done and not in the least bit munchy. But there are a
few glaring examples that define the term. Check it out and you'll see what
I mean.

I do know that the drain on a force 11 manabolt is big, s'why I'd never
learn one. Force 11 mana missile, yes (5M). If my magic pool was hefty
enough, I might even go with the manabolt, but I doubt it. I subscribe
whole-heartedly to the high-force/low-drain spell theory and would try to
stay within it's bounds whenever possible.

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 9
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.tdb.uu.se>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:35:58 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 15 May 1996, Mike Broadwater wrote:

> > BTW, thanks for the "you're stupid" comment. I needed that. I
> >think it in a very nice way added flavour to your post. I could insult=
you
> >back, but I know you won't read this far, so what's the use? :-)
>
> Oh, an attempt at a back handed slap! So why did you keep writing?
> Everyone elses education?

It could be surmised that the teacher in me took over. Or perhaps
it had something to do with that strange sigil at the end of the paragrap=
h
:-) No, I didn't take it as an insult. Really. :-)

> If I was going to say "you're stupid" like you misread me saying (and
> you say I don't read the posts? Thats rather hypocritical) I would've
> very clearly said "Hey, and I not only think your idea is dumb, I think
> you are too."

Ah. Perhaps I should get over this "sarcasm" thingie, since it
seems no-one ever get them, huh? :-)

> I think it's idiotic to believe that unless everything is equal, then i=
t's
> munchkinous. If a player role plays better in my campaign, he's going =
to
> get more karma to use on his character than the player that doesn't do =
as
> well. Their character is going to get more powerful. I'm not favoring
> their character, I'm being fair, yet, that's munchkinous? I think that=
's
> stupid, so I said as much. Don't expect me to lie to make you feel bet=
ter.

First out, let me just state that I have stopped using
differentiated Karma awards, after one of our players quit the group and
gaming altogether after taking a significantly lower award than the other=
s
as a personal attack. But back from the "traumatic experiences"-topic.
In general, I have nothing against the concept of handing out
different Karma awards depending on the players (though I rarely use it
anymore). But even then the GM has to keep it in check - I mean, the
amount of Personal Karma you get is normally just one or a few points, an=
d
aren't unbalancing in themselves. But when the GM chisels in stone "Playe=
r
X shall always have more Karma than others, because he roleplays better",
then what was originally used as a carrot for the group in general to
*play* more has gone over the edge to unbalancing practice. GM favoritism=
,
in other words. And that's not fair, it's munchkinous.

> > Nope, because it's not the whole picture. Taking everything into
> >account, most characters are balanced, more or less. We've been throug=
h
> >this - all character types has some kind of an edge over the others. B=
ut
> >if you min/max the sam, then it's munchkinous, because all of a sudden
> >he's invincible in combat, and it upsets the balance.
>
> But you just said everyone has their weaknesses. If the starting stree=
t sam
> can take out four cards in one combat turn, a squad of five can drop hi=
m
> just as easily, especially after his pool is gone. :)
>
> So, it's munchkinous to use the standard rules to your advantage? That=
's
> what I don't get. If you use the rules, make a good character, who, wh=
ile
> they may be powerful in some aspects, has a good background, fits with =
the
> group, and is fun to play, that is somehow munchkinous. I don't believ=
e
> that's right or fair to any player.

No, that sounds perfectly reasonable. But read on.

> > What do you mean, "idea"? Is that, like, allowing a Tank Troll
> >into the campaign? Then the answer is no, if the player hasn't got a
> >*very* good excuse and plenty of words to back it up.
>
> Exactly. That and the GBD are stats on a page that could have very goo=
d
> historys/backgrounds/etc to go with them and make very good characters.
> Yes, they are tough, but as it's been demonstrated, everyone has a weak=
ness.

But exposing that weakness takes cutting through a lot of power,
and if the other players get caught in the cross-fire, they're going to
be *very* sorry.

> >Why would a balanced group be more boring? It just means no-one can bl=
ast
> >the others to bits over an argument. I'm not sure I can see your POV,
> >mister.
>
> A balanced group isn't boring. Fun isn't based off just how balanced a
> group is. Why would an unbalanced group be boring? Because in some
> situations one person has an advantage over the other. So you have the
> Troll Tank and the GBD on your team. Maybe your other members are a so=
rcery
> adept who used to huny paranormal animals for bountys, an on the run Sa=
murai
> phys-ad, and a detective. You go into combat, the Troll Tank and GBD w=
omb
> some ass, the Samurai helps out some with a magical being (cause
> hand-to-hand works better) and so does the sorcery adept. The detectiv=
e
> hugs mother earth and hopes not to get shot with all the lead flying ar=
ound.
> So later the players want to find out who they went up against. The
> detective starts hitting the streets, checking his people, etc. The ad=
epts
> each check with some friends of theirs they made in their respective
> communitys, and the GBD and Tank Troll...sit around cause they aren't
> exactly the greatest talkers in the world. Oh, their ok, but their so
> cybered out and psycho people get edgy and nervous around them and don'=
t
> usually hang around long enough to give out the good dirt. Sounds to m=
e
> like, if its done correctly, everyone can do all their stuff and still =
have
> fun. Now, if that troll tank also was handed massive karma awards by t=
he
> gm, or the gm gave him some super power, something normally outside the
> rules, then yes, I can see that being a definate problem. But just bec=
ause
> things aren't "balanced" doesn't mean that no one has any fun and that
> everyone gets boring. Combat is a big part of SR, as I said, but it's =
also
> the most boring to play. "I shoot him, he shoots back, blah, blah, bla=
h"

It's just one little problem I have with all this, and it's
competition. So, you have a well-rounded out group, with several
medium-powered PCs (the detective, decker, mage, etc.) and the two combat
monsters, our friends TT and GBD. I don't know about you, but I think a
real adventure needs competition. So, if we have two combat monsters, we
need some really good competition to keep the game interesting and
exciting. Because when you start mowing your way through hordes of
stormtrropers, it's just a futile excercise in rolling dice which will
have all players bored to death, mostly the non-fighters, but TT and GBD
as well. So, you throw in elite SWATs or whatever.
But where did they come from? Out of the blue? No, a powerful
enemy in combat is likely to work for someone equally powerful, or even
more so. And do powerful masterminds have small plans? No. Suddenly you
have to create a high-level campaign/adventure to keep realism and thrill
in the game, even though most PCs are fresh out of CharGen, and only two
of the characters actually stand a chance.
Another problem comes when the group splits. Suddenly, the
detective hasn't got the TT to cover him when the enemy goons rain down o=
n
him from an ambush. Separately, the stand no chance, so they stick to TT
and GBD, who end up solving all the adventures by themselves (and believe
me, with that firepower they can solve most everything even thogh it's no=
t
their speciality with threats, and if someone gets pissed, they just get
shot down).
That's why I would come down hard on any player wishing to play a
GBD or TT - because it makes my job as a GM so much harder, and make the
other players yawn.

> I'll just restate my entire point, in case you just skipped to the bott=
om.

Ahhh, riposte! Beautiful! :-)

> You take the meaning of "munchkin" to an extreme. To you, it's anythin=
g
> that makes a character more powerful than another, no matter what the
> reason. Whether it's extra karma, using the rules to their advantage, =
or
> whatever. I personally only think it's "munckinous" if it goes outside=
the
> rules of the game.

As I've said, I don't really mind about power, as long as it's
justified and isn't way beyond everyone else's. Then I say stop. No,
nothing is ever balanced, but I try to keep things from getting out of
hand, wether it's by holding on the extra karma, disallowing taking
advantage of loopholes, or whatever.
Okay, I admit that "munchkin«" may not be the best of terms,
because of its lack of shading. But I still think it's roughly the same
thing. Munckin (as in going outside rules) and extreme powergaming
(min/maxing until the rulebooks bleed) are equally bad, in my book.

> Now, if I was in a group and I played the GBD and the group asked me no=
t
> to play him anymore, because I'm ruining the entire game for everyone
> else (and I don't know how being a combat god can do that, unless
> everyone else is trying to be a combat god and aren't.) then I would
> change. What's fun and what's not depends on your group. Hey, some
> people like to take the rules, break them in half, and play some weird
> game that resembles shadowrun. Again, it all depends on if you and the
> group are having fun. If you are, then it's good. If you're not, then
> it's bad.

How noble, sacrificing yourself like that. My eyes water... :-)
Anyway, the fun part is the essential chokepoint here. I guess my
group and I like to have our games tough but not impossible overall, and
with all characters being good at various things, but with no-one
extremely better than the others. If you like to run games where you play
a dragonslayer and the others are street punks, then go ahead, you have m=
y
blessing. But I'm never going to do that.
I guess we can agree to disagree, huh?

> But just because my character is tougher in combat than someone elses
> doesn't mean he's a munchkin.

Not necessarily, no.

> I think that term gets slung around too easily by people who don't care
> for the power level of somebody elses whatever.

"I don't like the look of that pitbull terrier - it looks ...
munchkinous." :-)

-Jonas Gabrielson, low-powered everything
Message no. 10
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.tdb.uu.se>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 17:43:51 +0200 (MET DST)
On Wed, 15 May 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

> Jonas Gabrielson wrote:
> |
> | Nope, because it's not the whole picture. Taking everything into
> |account, most characters are balanced, more or less. We've been through
> |this - all character types has some kind of an edge over the others. But
> |if you min/max the sam, then it's munchkinous, because all of a sudden
> |he's invincible in combat, and it upsets the balance.
>
> I disagree with the philosphy that min/maxing is munchkinous. Sams should
> be good at combat, great at combat if they want to live. I have no qualms
> about any of my players min/maxing a character. Because this same
> min/maxing will force them to be specialized in one area to the point that
> they will be at a serious disadvantage in many other areas. A sacrifice has
> been made to be the best butt kicking Sam that they can be. And after a few
> adventures and some karma they start to cover the character's weakenesses
> and it balances out. Or if someone else has min/maxed (like the detective)
> then the Sam leaves that job up to the detective and leaves it at that.
> Munchkinous would be when a player breaks the rules and makes a
> decker/sam/rigger that is good at all of those things. And being a munchkin
> takes two, the GM is equally at fault when he lets this happen.

Hey, if it worked out, I have no problems with it. My experience
is that it won't work out, and I have to nudge the player into changing
his PC for everyone's convenience and over-all fun. And yes, they can
perhaps start covering other bases, but why would they? They'll just lose
edge! And as long as one min/maxed character continues along his specialty
only, the others will want to follow so as not to become "weaker".
And yes, I stated before that no player can be a real munchkin
without a munchkinous GM.

-Jonas Gabrielson, who dares say "balance"! :-)
Message no. 11
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.tdb.uu.se>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 18:14:15 +0200 (MET DST)
On Thu, 16 May 1996, TopCat wrote:

> TopCat was my first character and the only one that I hideously powergamed
> at creation.

So fine, it's OK. I take it back. (I really hate this about
e-mail, you can't really get all the sides of the story and have to write
on false premises.)

> > However, you mention that you not only min/maxed your char, but
> >also had the GM make a lot of solo runs for you, to "explore the
> >character", and you were surprised to see that this just furthered the gap
> >between you and the others. I hope you won't hate me extremely much, but
> >from my point of view, both you and your GM acted munchkinously. You
> >decided to make your character the best of your group, not at all
> >considering the other gamers' situation because of this. And your GM, on
> >his part, failed to restrict your character and play up the others to get
> >balance.
>
> I decided to flesh out my character and the GM and I hung out a lot
> together. Other players also did solo runs, so I wasn't alone in this. The
> karma I earned from solo stuff allowed me to add skills that fit the
> character but had no effect on combat. Most of them I don't ever remember
> rolling dice once for, combat or not. TopCat was a pretty good Chinese
> cook. The last run TopCat ever did netted him (literally) millions of nuyen
> (ever wonder how much a shipment of the latest simsense would be worth?).
> After that I changed his 'ware and retired him.

So, you did the right thing after all. But it could have gone
awfully wrong. That's all I'm saying.

> I am a number cruncher and I've looked over every aspect of Shadowrun
> available to me. The most munchable basic archetypes in the Shadowrun game
> are mages and deckers. I love samurai, probably because they aren't in that
> category and end up having karma lying around that can go to fleshing-out
> skills. Many people also confuse speed in combat with munchkinous. If the
> character is rolling 7 dice for initiative because he's got +3D6 from a
> spell and +3D6 from wired 2, then he's munchkin. If he gets 6 dice for MBW4
> and a SynAcc1, then he's within the rules. The GM had to let the character
> get that way and I'd assume the rest of the characters are also along those
> lines, so it's just a powerful campaign. If the character has no defining
> traits aside from "firearms skill of 6, specialized in AK-98" or "has
a
> force 6 hellblast" then it's powergaming.

I guess I have to take it from an expert on the field. :-)
But the MBW4+SynAcc1 would be a no-go in my game, nevertheless (at
least not before a long campaign, a great hoard of cash, very good
roleplaying, several heavy favours and a few sacrifices).

> I never saw a need to create munchkinous bioware/cyberware as
> Cybertechnology has pretty much covered a lot of the bases that the SSC,
> SRII, and Shadowtech left open. Spells of munchkinous proportions are out
> there, Edge Runners contains numerous examples.

Yeah? Sorry, haven't read it. I don't agree with you when you say
that everything has been covered - I mean, there seems to be an insatiable
demand for cyber on the net. And creating munchkinous ditto is just a
question of GM bribery.

> > Note that I don't say sams are better than mages, or anything
> >other along these lines. Sams just have more potentiol for rule-tweaking.
>
> Far from. Take a long look at the numbers available to mages, there's more
> out there and they can be defined in more numerous ways. Which is all it
> takes for a hideous amounts of tweaking. Cyberware is cyberware, it can't
> be tweaked to provide more for less, there's always at least one downside
> and usually there's two (essence, price, or power, pick one to keep low,
> raise the rest). This isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. Magic,
> however, faces no such limitations. Which is a bad thing, IMNSHO.

On the contrary, magic also have a lot of limitations. Spells cost
karma in the way cyber costs essence, and more often than not cost money
too, though it can be substituted for lots of time. (Pick one to keep low,
raise the rest, huh?) Magicians carry around foci. Foci can be grounded
through. agicians travel the astral. The Astral brims with evil entities
that would love to take a big bite in a savoury aura. Etc, etc. Let's keep
this from the tech/magic debate, shall we?

> I never have to leaf through a bio to figure out anything about my
> characters. I know the characters nearly as well as I know me if I've done
> anything right at all. I couldn't imagine ever having to leaf through a bio
> to figure out what a character would do, I wrote the bio, I know the
> character, I know what he'll do in any given situation. If you didn't write
> it, then I could see problems. Never once has a well-developed character
> bogged down a session due to having to look through his bio in my entire
> lifetime of gaming. I could be an exception, though. Am I?

No, probably not. Though I were primarily talking about setting
you personality on paper (because I think you play better if you limit
yourself to improvisation). Histories can fly. (But I can't imagine why
you would need 20 pages...) But perhaps this dislike comes from the time a
played a superhumanly intelligent magician (in a fantasy game, mind you)
and had troubles fathoming the incredible brain power she had. :-)

-Jonas Gabrielson, approximately IQ 150.
Message no. 12
From: mbroadwa@*******.glenayre.com (Mike Broadwater)
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Fri, 17 May 1996 13:03:38 -0500
> I guess we can agree to disagree, huh?
Yep. We have slightly different views, but the same goal. Guess we'll have to.

>> I think that term gets slung around too easily by people who don't care
>> for the power level of somebody elses whatever.
>
> "I don't like the look of that pitbull terrier - it looks ...
>munchkinous." :-)
Something along those lines, yes. :)


Mike Broadwater
http://www.olemiss.edu/~neon
"An object at rest cannot be stopped! YEAH, BABY! YEAH!" - The Evil Midnight
Bomber What Bombs at Midnight.
Message no. 13
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:32:35 -0500
> First out, let me just state that I have stopped using
>differentiated Karma awards, after one of our players quit the group and
>gaming altogether after taking a significantly lower award than the others
>as a personal attack.

That was that player's problem. The player obviously didn't have the grasp
of the game needed to enjoy it, he needed "experience points and treasure"
or the game didn't mean anything. Introduce him to D&D.

> In general, I have nothing against the concept of handing out
>different Karma awards depending on the players (though I rarely use it
>anymore). But even then the GM has to keep it in check - I mean, the
>amount of Personal Karma you get is normally just one or a few points, and
>aren't unbalancing in themselves. But when the GM chisels in stone "Player
>X shall always have more Karma than others, because he roleplays better",
>then what was originally used as a carrot for the group in general to
>*play* more has gone over the edge to unbalancing practice. GM favoritism,
>in other words. And that's not fair, it's munchkinous.

As I said before, roleplaying is worth a piddly extra point (or maybe two if
lucky) at the end of a run. Any more than that is getting out of hand. If
a GM chisels any awards in stone, it's time for a new GM.

>> That and the GBD are stats on a page that could have very good
>> historys/backgrounds/etc to go with them and make very good characters.
>> Yes, they are tough, but as it's been demonstrated, everyone has a weakness.
> But exposing that weakness takes cutting through a lot of power,
>and if the other players get caught in the cross-fire, they're going to
>be *very* sorry.

Yup, but that's what happens sometimes. Run with the big dogs and you might
get bit, sort of thing. GM's _have_ to take part in chargen to keep this
stuff from happening. Is it the players fault that nobody told him to make
a more rounded character or the GM's for actually letting him go through
with it?

>[snipped the competition problem]

Competition doesn't always mean combat. What about mental challenges (clue
finding, riddle solving, etiquette situations, etc)? They encourage
roleplaying and don't require a gun, spell, or high combat skills to complete.

> That's why I would come down hard on any player wishing to play a
>GBD or TT - because it makes my job as a GM so much harder, and make the
>other players yawn.

As GM, you should balance the group for the level of campaign you'll be
running at chargen. Not doing so hurts the game all around. Gamemaster
doesn't just mean "the guy who plays the NPC's". And balance doesn't mean
combat balance. It means all around. It also doesn't mean PC balance, the
game level may need to be tweaked.

>> Now, if I was in a group and I played the GBD and the group asked me not
>> to play him anymore, because I'm ruining the entire game for everyone
>> else (and I don't know how being a combat god can do that, unless
>> everyone else is trying to be a combat god and aren't.) then I would
>> change. What's fun and what's not depends on your group.

I whole-heartedly agree with Mike here. I stopped playing TopCat for this
very reason and would do so again if it ever happened.

> How noble, sacrificing yourself like that. My eyes water... :-)

Sacrifice it isn't. A decision to enjoy the game and to help others enjoy
it is what this is. Despite (somewhat) common belief, it isn't fun to be
godlike powered in a weaker group.

> Anyway, the fun part is the essential chokepoint here. I guess my
>group and I like to have our games tough but not impossible overall, and
>with all characters being good at various things, but with no-one
>extremely better than the others. If you like to run games where you play
>a dragonslayer and the others are street punks, then go ahead, you have my
>blessing. But I'm never going to do that.

The GM is the only one to fault if it happens...

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 14
From: TopCat <topcat@******.net>
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Sat, 18 May 1996 13:32:39 -0500
>>[explanation of TopCat's karmic accumulation]

> So, you did the right thing after all. But it could have gone
>awfully wrong. That's all I'm saying.

No, it couldn't have. With me not wanting it to get any worse and the GM
not wanting it to do so either, we were pretty much set. If the GM had been
more lax and me less concerned about my enjoyment of the game, I could've
dumped 140+ karma into TopCat's firearms skill or something equally as nasty.

> But the MBW4+SynAcc1 would be a no-go in my game, nevertheless (at
>least not before a long campaign, a great hoard of cash, very good
>roleplaying, several heavy favours and a few sacrifices).

Couldn't afford MBW4 and synapp from chargen anyway :)

It sounds like there's a lot of combat in your campaign though, so maybe
speed does seem abnormally overpowered. Work in more mind-work and the
campaign will benefit all around.

> Yeah? Sorry, haven't read it. I don't agree with you when you say
>that everything has been covered - I mean, there seems to be an insatiable
>demand for cyber on the net. And creating munchkinous ditto is just a
>question of GM bribery.

I never really saw a need for new cyberware after Cybertechnology came out.
Didn't see mention of a need for more at all on the lists, WWW, or USENET.
I know there were a lot of net cyber-supplements out there before
Cybertechnology, but much of that was covered when the book came out. Some
of that stuff is munchy, but I wouldn't use cyberware from outside the
rules, anyway.

> On the contrary, magic also have a lot of limitations. Spells cost
>karma in the way cyber costs essence, and more often than not cost money
>too, though it can be substituted for lots of time. (Pick one to keep low,
>raise the rest, huh?) Magicians carry around foci. Foci can be grounded
>through. agicians travel the astral. The Astral brims with evil entities
>that would love to take a big bite in a savoury aura. Etc, etc. Let's keep
>this from the tech/magic debate, shall we?

Spells cost a piddly amount of karma and take FAR less time and nuyen than
cyberware for an equal/better effect. Foci are terrible, if I ever do get
to play a mage, he'll never use foci of any sort. They aren't worth
anywhere near the karma/nuyen investment.

>-Jonas Gabrielson, approximately IQ 150.

Bob Ooton, 160 at last testing, but using it for all the wrong things ;)

-------------------------------------
"I was thinking of the immortal words
of Socrates, who said: I drank what?"
-- Real Genius
-------------------------------------
TopCat at the bottom...
Message no. 15
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: My take on Munchkinism
Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 18:25:57 -0600 (MDT)
Jonas Gabrielson wrote:
|
|On Wed, 15 May 1996, David Buehrer wrote:
|
|> Jonas Gabrielson wrote:
|> |
|> | Nope, because it's not the whole picture. Taking everything into
|> |account, most characters are balanced, more or less. We've been through
|> |this - all character types has some kind of an edge over the others. But
|> |if you min/max the sam, then it's munchkinous, because all of a sudden
|> |he's invincible in combat, and it upsets the balance.
|>
|> I disagree with the philosphy that min/maxing is munchkinous. Sams should
|> be good at combat, great at combat if they want to live. I have no qualms
|> about any of my players min/maxing a character. Because this same
|> min/maxing will force them to be specialized in one area to the point that
|> they will be at a serious disadvantage in many other areas. A sacrifice has
|> been made to be the best butt kicking Sam that they can be. And after a few
|> adventures and some karma they start to cover the character's weakenesses
|> and it balances out. Or if someone else has min/maxed (like the detective)
|> then the Sam leaves that job up to the detective and leaves it at that.
|> Munchkinous would be when a player breaks the rules and makes a
|> decker/sam/rigger that is good at all of those things. And being a munchkin
|> takes two, the GM is equally at fault when he lets this happen.
|
| Hey, if it worked out, I have no problems with it. My experience
|is that it won't work out, and I have to nudge the player into changing
|his PC for everyone's convenience and over-all fun. And yes, they can
|perhaps start covering other bases, but why would they? They'll just lose
|edge! And as long as one min/maxed character continues along his specialty
|only, the others will want to follow so as not to become "weaker".
| And yes, I stated before that no player can be a real munchkin
|without a munchkinous GM.

Ah...I sometimes forget that I've been playing with the same group for six
years now. And I also tend to forget what my gaming life was like before
that and (incorrectly) assume that the other players on this list may not
be in the great group like I'm in. Sorry.

>From what I've read from your postings it
seems that you are playing with a group that hasn't really matured yet
(but is working on it :)

A couple of other points. You've stated that on one occasion a player left
because he wasn't getting enough karma. And that you know give every
character the same amount karma. This is not a good idea. You are creating
a situation where one or more players can ride on the coat tails of the
other players and receive the fruits of their labors. I believe in
individual reward for individual effort. If someone can't deal with that
then it's their problem, not mine, not the other players'.

On game balance and powerful characters vs not so powerful characters.
This is an experience thing. I and the other people I play with at one
time made powerful characters (within the rules) and played them
exclusivly within their realm of speciality. We made life hell for the
GM and weren't really playing the game. And then, at some point, that
changed. We still make powerful characters, but for some reason we gain
satisfaction from roleplaying them outside their realm of expertise.
Take a tank troll into a seedy bar and start asking around about the
guy your looking for and see how much fun you can have. Or have your
detective hold off a squad of shock troops with an ares predator (from
behind full cover) and see how much the troll now respects him for at
least trying (your detective's hospital room will be filled with FTD
baskets).

After much rambling my point would be...we're at a disagreement on the
definition of munchkinism because of our varying degrees of experience. For
me munchkinism is cheating and fucked up roleplaying values. I can live
with everything else :)

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about My take on Munchkinism, 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!