| From: | Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.tdb.uu.se> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: My take on Munchkinism |
| Date: | Fri, 17 May 1996 17:35:58 +0200 (MET DST) |
> > 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
