| From: | MC23 <mc23@**********.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Motion |
| Date: | Tue, 12 May 1998 18:15:17 -0400 |
> Frankly, I'm tired of the stifling of ideas and the incessant
>arguments that arise from the use of the term munchkin.
I've never liked that the list could never agree on it's definintion. For
example, I violently disagree that being able to roleplay is a
disqualifier for it.
> I feel that an idea in and of itself is merely an idea. It can be an
>unbalancing one, or a good one. It can violate rules, or merely exist as
>an interpretation of the rules. A munchkin is a person who role-plays
>poorly. They break rules solely to gain power for the character, etc etc.
>Just because a person wants to explore an idea beyond the rules does not
>make them a munchkin.
Yet again, poor to no roleplaying is a stereotype but not a catch
all. The ideas themselves and their approach does give great insight into
though.
> Further, we have for the most part never played with any of the other list
>members. Some are in the same groups, and some play at cons or over IRC,
>but the majority have not had any gaming experience with more than one or
>two others. We frankly don't know what kind of role-players are on this
>list, and therefore we can't make any statement about how any individual
>poster games.
But we do have an idea by what they post. They are more than welcome
to correct our opinion.
> Therefore, I move that the FAQ be modified so that it includes a statement
>barring attacks on members of this list, rather than their ideas. Accusing
>others of being munchkinous based solely on a knowledge of their ideas for
>the game, rather than how they actually play the game makes no sense.
>Attacks on ideas are perfectly valid, discuss rules, discuss game balance,
>say that the idea has no place in SR, but don't assume that the person
>behind the idea is a poor roleplayer, even if the idea is overpowered.
>Attacking people only upsets, and it obscures the discussion of the ideas,
>which is why I think we are all here.
I didn't know the FAQ permitted or encouraged personal attacks.
Seriously though, it is proper nettiquette not to but it will still
happen. A rule banning it won't stop it from happening.
> I personally would like to hear more outrageous and interesting and even
>unacceptable ideas rather than simply grind through the standard
>conservative boring posts. If I'm alone, then I guess I'll just leave, but
>does this list have to be a bastion of conservatism and stifle creativity
>with labeling?
When it comes to gaming I am very conservative towards game rules
and background and I don't think that has ever stifled my creativity. I
do want to hear interesting ideas and outrageous ideas can be passed over
easily enough. Unacceptable ideas I try to answer on why they shouldn't
exist. I will admit I almost veiw them as an attack on this game I've
come to love so much. And I have even started flame wars because of such
things.
-MC23, who is just waiting for the right moment to flame Gurth again-
"Ooh he's so nice and he's isn't even smug about it. I hate him so."
