Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Munchkin, was Re: Physical Adepts and Weapon Foci
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 19:07:10 -0400
>You're kidding right? You actually _want_ a physad with 12 points worth
>of abilities running around? Can we say munchkin?
>
>-Q

I'm not asking what a munchkin is, because we all know -- and that is a
determination that can't be made over email with absolutely no idea on who
is playing what character, no matter how powerful. I don't care if someone
is playing a vampire phys mage with a 12 magic and 2 points of physad
abilities per 1 magic point -- don't yell munchie unless you know the guy
and he actually is one. The character could be quite interesting, well
balance, well motivated, etc, though I won't argue that the potential for
abuse is there.

Sorry to rant on, but I'm tired of hearing cries of "Munchkin!" everytime a
semi powerful character is discussed. It is coming to the point on this
list where if you mention resources A or Panther autocannon's that you will
bring down most likely undeserved rath. Why?

--DT
Message no. 2
From: Shaun Hall <Hard.master@********.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Munchkin, was Re: Physical Adepts and Weapon Foci
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 05:09:23 -0700
> From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
>
> >You're kidding right? You actually _want_ a physad with 12 points worth
> >of abilities running around? Can we say munchkin?
> >
> >-Q
>
> I'm not asking what a munchkin is, because we all know -- and that is a
> determination that can't be made over email with absolutely no idea on
who
> is playing what character, no matter how powerful. I don't care if
someone
> is playing a vampire phys mage with a 12 magic and 2 points of physad
> abilities per 1 magic point -- don't yell munchie unless you know the guy
> and he actually is one. The character could be quite interesting, well
> balance, well motivated, etc, though I won't argue that the potential for
> abuse is there.
>
> Sorry to rant on, but I'm tired of hearing cries of "Munchkin!" everytime
a
> semi powerful character is discussed. It is coming to the point on this
> list where if you mention resources A or Panther autocannon's that you
will
> bring down most likely undeserved rath. Why?
>
> --DT

Well I don't remember having cried munchkin at anyone on this list, but
I have accused my players of it from time to time. I have also thought it
as a result of some of the posts I've seen here. I suspect that the reason
the cry is so common is because when a non-munchkin talks about an
"interesting, well balanced, well motivated..." character they talk about
so much more than just the panther assault cannon or 12 points of physical
adept abilities. They indeed do talk about the character's motivations,
history, psyche profile, goals and so forth. If you really have a well
balanced character then the fact that he has 12 points of PhysAd powers, a
weapon focus or a magic stat of 12 is really only a minor aspect of the
character and worthy of only a few minor comments. That there is more to a
character than just the numbers on the character sheet is the first thing I
try to teach my players. If they don't seem to get it then they tend to
play munchie style, and generally only talk about all of the cool powers,
items, abilities, etc...primarily because there isn't anything else to the
character for the player to talk about.
You are correct in requesting that we not jump to any conclusions based
on what little we see here, but I can certainly understand why some of is
feel the inclination to do so.

Shaun
Message no. 3
From: Fade <runefo@***.UIO.NO>
Subject: Re: Munchkin, was Re: Physical Adepts and Weapon Foci
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 03:05:41 +0000
David Thompson wrote:
*snip*
> Sorry to rant on, but I'm tired of hearing cries of "Munchkin!" everytime a
> semi powerful character is discussed. It is coming to the point on this
> list where if you mention resources A or Panther autocannon's that you will
> bring down most likely undeserved rath. Why?

I guess it has to do with two things. First, munchkins are fairly
common. Not necessarily MUNCHKINS, but definitely munchkins.
Secondly, most suggestions on this list is concerning possible house
rules.

And thus they have to be considered in regard to how much they
can be exploited or abused.


--
Fade

And the Prince of Lies said:
"To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven."
-John Milton, Paradise Lost
Message no. 4
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Munchkin, was Re: Physical Adepts and Weapon Foci
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:29:07 -0400
>
> Well I don't remember having cried munchkin at anyone on this list, but
>I have accused my players of it from time to time. I have also thought it
>as a result of some of the posts I've seen here. I suspect that the reason
>the cry is so common is because when a non-munchkin talks about an
>"interesting, well balanced, well motivated..." character they talk about
>so much more than just the panther assault cannon or 12 points of physical
>adept abilities. They indeed do talk about the character's motivations,
>history, psyche profile, goals and so forth. If you really have a well
>balanced character then the fact that he has 12 points of PhysAd powers, a
>weapon focus or a magic stat of 12 is really only a minor aspect of the
>character and worthy of only a few minor comments. That there is more to a
>character than just the numbers on the character sheet is the first thing I
>try to teach my players. If they don't seem to get it then they tend to
>play munchie style, and generally only talk about all of the cool powers,
>items, abilities, etc...primarily because there isn't anything else to the
>character for the player to talk about.
> You are correct in requesting that we not jump to any conclusions based
>on what little we see here, but I can certainly understand why some of is
>feel the inclination to do so.
>
You're right that there is more to a character than the powers. But
frequently, in discussions such as this one (about changing physad power
levels, where specific character are not the focus), the term munchkin
comes up when it really has no place. I just think that often people
(including myself) are quick to use the term without thinking about the
situation. In many situations, such as with the physads, there is
potential for abuse, but that doesn't guarantee that abuse will happen. I
think it is a cop-out to just call something munchkin when often it can be
quite beneficial to a game if used correctly by good role-players.
Personally, I'd love to have more magic points as a physad, because then I
could have combat powers and non-combat powers, instead of being forced to
focus more on one than the other (often, I admit, neglecting the non-combat
related areas), and even though that is a description of powers and not
character, I still don't think it is munchy.

--DT
Message no. 5
From: David Thompson <david.s.thompson@****.EDU>
Subject: Re: Munchkin, was Re: Physical Adepts and Weapon Foci
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 1997 00:33:28 -0400
At 03:05 AM 9/17/97 +0000, Fade wrote:
>David Thompson wrote:
>*snip*
>> Sorry to rant on, but I'm tired of hearing cries of "Munchkin!"
everytime a
>> semi powerful character is discussed. It is coming to the point on this
>> list where if you mention resources A or Panther autocannon's that you will
>> bring down most likely undeserved rath. Why?
>
>I guess it has to do with two things. First, munchkins are fairly
>common. Not necessarily MUNCHKINS, but definitely munchkins.
>Secondly, most suggestions on this list is concerning possible house
>rules.
>
>And thus they have to be considered in regard to how much they
>can be exploited or abused.
>

Fine, then I'd suggest the response should be -- "you'd better make sure
that some munchkin doesn't rape those rules and your game, because the
potential is there" -- rather than just saying it is munchkin. Whatever,
this is a minor point, and is more a personal bias I have (set to high
levels currently by something that just happened here) against using
labeling terms like munchkin rather than examining each individual case.

--DT
Message no. 6
From: NightLife <habenir@******.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Munchkin, was Re: Physical Adepts and Weapon Foci
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 01:03:32 -0400
>I'm not asking what a munchkin is, because we all know -- and that is a
>determination that can't be made over email with absolutely no idea on who
>is playing what character, no matter how powerful. I don't care if someone
>is playing a vampire phys mage with a 12 magic and 2 points of physad
>abilities per 1 magic point -- don't yell munchie unless you know the guy
>and he actually is one. The character could be quite interesting, well
>balance, well motivated, etc, though I won't argue that the potential for
>abuse is there.

The simple fact of 12 magic points from the get go is by defination of what
the majority of people here define a munchkin. Does everybody in this
hypothetical campaign have the equivalant tech/gear/cyber etc as the 12
point physad.


>Sorry to rant on, but I'm tired of hearing cries of "Munchkin!" everytime a
>semi powerful character is discussed. It is coming to the point on this
>list where if you mention resources A or Panther autocannon's that you will
>bring down most likely undeserved rath. Why?
>
> --DT

We're nor talking about semi powerful, the bias is towards god like pc that
can't be stopped short of dropping a tank on his/her head. Resources A isn't
what most of us jump on munchkin but taking a PAC down to the 7-eleven is.
That kind of mentality is what gets the munchkin baskers in a uproar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nightlife Inc.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I summon the unholy demons of Apathy, Sarcasm and Cynicism!!

Wally from the Dilbert comics

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Document Classified
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Munchkin, was Re: Physical Adepts and Weapon Foci, 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!