| From: | Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.tdb.uu.se> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: My take on Munchkinism |
| Date: | Wed, 15 May 1996 17:54:18 +0200 (MET DST) |
> > 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!)
