On munchkins, what do you think, no really, I care Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Bearclaw]

I LOVE muchkins.
If I make a phys-ad, he's gonna have a 12 in something. Is that wrong? If my troll phys-ad has blades 6(12) and 8 point ambidexterity with kung fu and whirling, it's because he trained his life to be the best. I can roll play it.
I've been a normal guy shooting a gun or getting in fights or sneaking into or out of places (nothing criminal, except the fights I guess). Why the hell would I want to role-play it?
And why do all the pre-made adventures have 6+ set fights if it's not about combat?
I'd appreciate it if you'd all get over your uber-geek dreams and accept you're a regular geek, like me, and it's OK to roll 18 dice against each of 8 attackers, on their turn.

[JACK THE CHIPPER]

[Bearclaw]

I saw that, and decided to leave it. I wish I could say I did it on purpose :D
Did I mention that the troll in question is brashly, loudly gay, with every stupid stereotype, especially the too short, too tight shorts and the lisp.

[mfb]

it depends on the game, and--more importantly--it depends on the player. one of the guys i play with online has a character whose initiate grade is in the 40s. another plays a character whose grade is probably somewhere in the 20s. thing is, they play them like the incredible powerhouses they are--that is, they recognize that there's always a bigger fish; they don't take on 'normal' shadowruns, they don't walk around destroying entire Lone Star response teams because they got caught doing something stupid, they don't act like munchkins.

the players i have a problem with--that is, that i refuse to game with for longer than it takes me to figure out how they play--are the ones who simply bash through the game because the rules say they can and the GM isn't quick-witted enough to stop them. for instance, i was chatting with a guy who advocated riggers because he once saw one take out an entire Lone Star station house in one combat turn, and claimed that the character got away with it because 'no one had time to call for backup.' when i presented him with a number of ways that the character could have been caught--satellite imagery being foremost among them--he finally admitted that the GM hadn't thought of that. (or, maybe, that was just the conclusion i do--i don't remember enough about the conversation to say for sure.) that's bad roleplaying, in my opinion; that's the bad kind of munchkinism.

[Derek]

Well, as I've said in numerous 'munchkin' discussions, it all depends on the game and the players. If you all (including the GM and the players) enjoy that style of play, then great. If, however, the majority of your group is WoD drama queens (heh, another stereotype), then being a munchkin would probably ruin the game for them, and cause friction and unhappiness for both them and you.

Besides, in my definition book, what you describe is power-gaming, which is making a powerful character. To me, a munchkin is someone who tries to win by being better/faster/smarter/more powerful than all the other players, and generally ruin it for them. Never a good thing, in my book.

Have fun in whatever you do!

Derek

[Kagetenshi]

Pshaw. I am too an übergeek.
Why else would I have made a combat decker with Flashbacks every time she sees static?
Oh wait, that's a masochist... well, I'm still an übergeek as well.

~J

[Sahandrian]

[Sphynx]

Yeah, the 2 biggest mistakes made by the "We are Roleplayers" types are that 1) If you have an uber character, than you must not know how to roleplay, and 2) If you have an uber character, well doesn't matter if you can roleplay, we're going to tell you for the next 2 hours why your character, despite a good story, "would never have a starting skill of 6 in his specialty because we believe that's "World Class" and if you don't lower it we'll never give you a chance to see if you can roleplay because we'll be too busy trying to convince everyone else not to let such a powerful character into the game, since we can't seem to convince you".

Reminds me of the first time I played a WOD game and took a discipline (via XP) to 5. The whole group was suggesting I find another game since anyone who'd take a Discpline at 5 must be a "munchkin". So, I did find another game. ;)

Sadly, I was one of the "elitist" who thought you had to have a complete storyline for every single item on your character sheet and if the story wasn't good enough, you had to lower the numbers to match the story. Fortunately, I started running games at the local YouthOrganization near where I lived and was reminded by watching first-time gamers, as to just how fun being a little "munchkin" was actually. Slowly working your way up to the 40th dice by careful planning is as fun as the roleplaying is. Reminded me of my AD&D days when I tried to get as many attacks as possible with my ambidextrous Ranger. ;)

Sphynx

[mfb]

indeed. people would do well to remember that it's not a role-playing game, it's a role-playing game. that is, the role-playing part isn't any more (or less) important than the game part.

[Synner]

Sphynx - I think you're consistently missing the point. I have yet to see people criticize a high-karma campaign (beyond the usual whatever bakes your cookies comments) or even uberpowerful characters.
I honestly think that the problem most people, especifically GMs is that the powerlevel of certain campaigns inherently skews their vision of the Sixth World. For your typical ubercharacter to face a legitimate challenge he will often have to face what many of us believe are "unrealistic" threat levels and opposition. Most times the fact that a GM has to "field" appropriate numbers and levels of adversaries and situations to actually challenge the group on a regular basis is what skews the game, not the characters themselves.

A comparative example is your thread on the Aleph's. Just one of those guys would haver been enough to put a scare on my runners let alone getting hit by cybered monstrosities over a couple of weeks. Not because they're powerful but because in my game they would be (extremely) rare individuals.
Don't get me wrong my runners like it that security guards and gangers are challenges and wouldn't have it any other way, they like it that its a battle of wits as much as a challenge to their skills. They've only ever met a cyberzombie (not to say these are czombies, just trying to make a point) once in their entire careers (10+ runs in the current incarnation) and that time they just ran because in my game these things are rare and dangerous. And please note this doesn't mean my guys are stuck in the same old same old. They regularly go on road trips around the world, face the wierdest opposition possible and never fall into a rut. However they rarely make it past 100 karma without retiring, getting permanently damaged, dead or worse.

As ever its your game so you chose what is fun but by the same coin don't be judgemental of others' different approaches to the same material.

[Sphynx]

Err... uhm.... what "point" am I missing exactly? I'm not talking about people who don't go with the "whatever bakes your cookie" type of comments. So my point is towards exactly those people.

The question to ask though is if the GM is the one doing the killing/retiring because he lacks the ability to give the players challenges. I'm all for low-powered games to start, we started in Chicago as gangsters just trying to hold our own turf while bug spirits and warlords tried to take it from us. That's been years ago though and now my PC is what I'd like to hope is in the "bad ass" category. I'd be disappointed if our GM decided to kill us off just because he lacked the ability to be creative with these power levels.

And it's also not like our games are filled with uber-villians either. The Alpeh Society scenario has been blossoming for 3 sessions now and we've still not actually fought anyone from the society, just some dealings with a priest-type who is very magically active and has pointed us towards this group as the cause for alot of the Atzlan corruption we've been battling. (Personally I think we're getting used by the Templars and the Aleph group is a non-malicious group that is in their way, but that's too OOC :P). Aside from these 2+ uber-villians the only encounters we've ever had with creatures of our Powerlevel is Ghostwalker (who is definitely way beyond our Powerlevel) and some Spirits, primarily Insect types. A killer Toxic shaman who was a Grade 4 I think, and a group of cyber-junkies who plagued much of Seattle with their genocidal methods of doing Runs.

Anyhows, sounds like I'm rambling now. I think that a 200 point karma (something I've been trying to attain for 8+ years now) character is the minimum for 'uber', and a 50 karma is about to leave the 'newbie' category. To me, a GM who kills off or retires players at 50ish Karma is like a GM who can't allow players to exceed a level 5 PC in AD&D.

Shadowrun (like any RPG) is a whole new game at 'uber' levels. Things are suddenly alot more world-encompassing, and that's just as fun as being street-encompassing at a street level of gaming. Good GMs don't have trouble finding things for 'uber' characters, but instead are usually waiting patiently for you to achieve 'uber' status to place you into some ideas they've developed over the years it took to get to 'uber'.

Regardless, the topic is admittedly more about character-creation I think. At character Creation, I make myself as uber as I can to make the game more fun for me and my GM. Starting with skills of 6(12 for Adepts) is common practice and what creates a more interesting character (usually) for the game. I'd just as happily play at lower levels, but whatever you put my cap at, that's where my numbers will be at. I'm in it for the fun, which is as much rolling dice as role-ing the character.

Sphynx

[Siege]

I think I can summarize the point nicely:

Sphynx, your characters are invariably more powerful than the group standard. Just because you can role-play Tiamat having a bad day doesn't mean the rest of the group is ready or willing to engage on such a power escalation.

-Siege

[Sphynx]

Who's "group standard" you talking about there? Not any of the groups I know. People play as much to see character-growth (power escalation) as for the pleasure of roleplaying. You think I force (as a player, not the GM) the other people in my group(s) to spend their karma and nuyen? :P

Sphynx

[Siege]

"Group Standard" -- the group you happen to be playing with at the time.

In the case of the WoD players, you exceeded the level.

In the case of your current SR crew, you seem to be doing fine.

-Siege

[Morphling The Pr...]

Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but in SR, if you don't attempt to powergame, won't you get killed? I'll use myself as an example: or, more accurately, I'll use Andrea, the character. She is a troll adept punk rocker with some standard powers. Not 12s in everything, and built in BeCKs. High attributes, and modest skills. Not geased out.

She is going to get kacked. Tap-Tap, that's all folks, checkout time.

Why? Because, unlike the Night Elf Ex-Lone Star Chemist with Muscle Toner and etc, or the Albino Ex-Wage-Mage with exceptional attribute willpower (not a dwarf, but might as well have been), she just cannot live through many mistakes. If she screws up with any degree of severity or spectacularity, she is going to die under a hail of gunfire.

Why take that risk? Because I liked the concept. Ironically, though, by applying this to a concept I enjoyed and story into which I invested time, I make it more likely that the character will be cruelly taken away. The converse: An unattached, boring character who is amazing enough to afford a few screw-ups.

I'm not envious or resentful of this fact; I just prefer to embrace it, and act even more cautiously. Too bad I am an idiot, and incapable of not flubbing it up and down the damn gridiron.

[TinkerGnome]

[Sphynx]

[Siege]

Relative power.

If I were playing in Sphynx's group, I'd get splattered in seconds. Mostly because what challenges his critter annihilates mine.

That's not a bad thing, but it's definitely a consideration.

If you're playing in a group that makes the Red Samurai run home wailing "momma-san!", then you have to adjust your critter accordingly. If you're playing in a group that's running street level critters, the text-book samurai would butcher the entire crew.

So no, you don't have to min-max your critter, you just have to scale the power to the rest of the group.

-Siege

[Sphynx]

Yeah, but putting your character in our group is like putting a 2nd level character into a 15th level group in AD&D (hence why you get half your current karma towards any new character, so you fit in). Any new character will do fine in our starting game unless you just go out of your way (usually in the name of roleplaying) to make an ungodly weak creature who should never even consider Shadow work cause he would/should die on the first try. My character at 0 karma got wiped in the First Run "Food Shack" because he was super ass weak, and that was despite us outnumbering them by 3. My PC (Raven Shaman) had +1 TN's and no sustained spells (hadn't bonded my foci yet)and barely got an Invis spell off after taking a Serious Wound and ran for his life. Sure, I had min-maxxed by getting a Trauma Dampener making Drain tons easier, but what good did that do? Now my PC could take on the whole gang accidently without much risk at all. That's what advancement is about. I'd hate to think a 150+ karma character would have trouble there, and if he does, then what the hell did he spend the karma on? Knowledges?

Seriously, it's crazy to use that kinda comparrison. Or crazier, to have spent all that karma on non-survival skills, thus implying there's no risk in your games.

If you wanted to play some gay troll debutante who is an ex fashion designer (not an attack on you Siege, nor anyone else who may actually play such a bizarre type of character), then I agree, you don't belong in our games. As a matter of fact, any weak-ass troll who came in pink leotards talking in a gay lisp to a run I was on would take something in the back of the head shaped roughly like a bullet (or actually, shaped exactly like a bullet) by the entire group just as a matter of principle. :P This is a dirty/gritty game where the weak die and only the strongest (munchkin) survive, that's how it should be IMHO.

Sphynx

[Siege]

Ex-fashion designer? I am deeply, deeply offended. Or highly amused, I haven't decided yet. :grinbig:

The analogy is perfect -- if the group is playing 15th level characters, don't walk in with a 2nd level. Your nickname will be "ex" because it won't live long enough for the rest of the party to add "pendable."

Edit: By the same token, creating a character Carson from the Fab-5 and dropping him in with Marine Recon isn't going to fly either.

-Siege

[TinkerGnome]

Umm... the gay Baccus shaman hair stylist/fashion designer on our team actually made quite a good face. He wasn't too bad in combat, either, even though his best spells were makeover and fashion.

[Siege]

Without knowing the character, I'm going to assume that the Face had at least some relevant skills and probably wasn't thrown into an environment outside of his experience.

-Siege

[Sphynx]

[TinkerGnome]

[Siege]

Actually, it's dead on.

If you munchkin at creation, you won't be able to mesh with an uber-powerful group.

Particularly one that did min-max and number crunch.

All of which goes directly to "adapting to the power level of the gaming group."

Personally, I don't enjoy the absurd power level that your character tends to manifest but I do realize what it takes to function successfully in such a group.

It's like the d20 system -- if you want to end up as "Prestige class X" or get "nifty feat Y", you have to plan your character accordingly.

-Siege