What does it take to be a munchkin?, Is there a consensus? Options

[hyzmarca]

A munchkin is a rules-lawyer who specilizes in gaining the most powerful equipment and stats possible by stretching the rules and abusing loopholes.

The guy who takes Blood Invoking as a metamagic specifically so that he can create a force 1 spirit, bind it several times, and then orders it to eat ten million people to pump it up for Force 60,000,000 while only expending one service and then uses that spirit on an actual Shadowrun is a munchkin.

[Sterling]

A munchkin is the guy in second edition who made his own spell locks and used them as bullet tips, so when he fired his Tiffani self defender it only took a free action to activate so suddenly you have a force 6 physical barrier spell moving at 250+ MPS.

A munchkin is the guy I ran into at con who wore a Ballista Multi-role Missile Launcher System and had it trid-specced to appear as a parrot on his shoulder. His GM wasn't much better, Security guys so cybered their lower half were tracked vehicles, etc.

[Critias]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

It's never the character that is 'munchkin' - it's the player.

[Ophis]

Munchkin - a Dwarf Metavarient, originally expressing in the area of Kansas City. Noted for a tendency towards musical talent. +1 Body,-1 Quickness, +1 Strength, -4 Charisma, +1 Willpower. Thats what they where in SR3 right?

[deek]

[mfb]

a munchkin is someone who breaks the game in ways that make it less fun for the rest of his group. in some groups, that could mean getting shotguns 5 (CMBT 7). in other groups, guys like hyzmarca mentioned are the norm.

[Cain]

A munchkin is a disruptive player. Everything else is a subset of munchkin.

[stevebugge]

Generally I would agree with the Frank-Rothbert hybrid definition.

I would add that a common defining factor is that a Munchkin's characters tend to be defined mostly by stats, attributes, and gear and be largely lacking a personality.

[Talia Invierno]

So abused the term, many of us have started using it for whatever kinds of characters -- players? -- we don't like. Yet if this thread has made one thing clear, it's that one person's munchkin may be another's smart build. Either we abandon the concept of munchkin as useless (in the sense of agreement of definition based on internal consistency), or we start re-considering things we take for granted.

Primacy of chargen and in-game numbers has been mentioned, but opinion is sharply divided on whether building by the numbers is munchkin or simply a smart build. The core of the argument seems to be whether a character should require built-in vulnerabilities or limits on the numbers to be "real".

Variations on the one-trick pony have been brought up as a specific type of numbers munchkinism, über-powerful in a couple directions and useless (or minimally skilled) in all others. Again, sharp argument has ensued: is this really munchkinism or a member of a well-planned team? I myself much prefer rounded PCs, but that's mostly a preference. I do think that PCs were not always the members of well-planned teams, and that characters which grow and change into what they start as rather than spring forth fully-conceived will have some skills in non-optimal areas. Not to have such odd skills, however, doesn't in and of itself make a munchkin.

A supreme focus on personal power or powergaming has been mentioned, but I've GMed PCs who made that focus the core of their character, and it sometimes led to some of the best stories I've ever encountered. (Think Faust.)

Setting the numbers above the roleplaying/story/personality (in the interests of character power) has been mentioned, but simply from the vehemence of arguments up and down the Dumpshock boards, I think if this were to be adopted as the definition, a good quarter of posting Dumpshockers would be considered munchkin. I am going to have faith and assume that is not the case. (The thread using the rules versus being bound by them, what's a GM's job? brings up some strong, relevant points about the role of the numbers/rules in playing Shadowrun.) Another counterargument is how much is required for "true" personality. I probably fall at one extreme, in that I become very interested in how life events shaped a character to evolve attitudes and skills: personality to me is not a static thing. The examples given in every SR BBB give a skill outline, a few brief lines of attitude, and (in the SRC) suggest twenty questions to round out personality. Many gaming groups would rather get right to the gaming than even to take the time to fill out twenty questions: a few sketched lines of PC concept, and go! -- and does that PC necessarily have less of a personality, for not having been evolved ahead of time in detail?

(I'm reminded of a Knights of the Dinner Table quote: where the GM instantly and eagerly gives one of his players bonus points for not having come up with a elevated character concept which would inevitably fall short of the play reality.)

A few have touched on the munchkin not being so much a type of build as a player attitude -- and that, I think, comes closer.

Is it a desire to "win" the game? Maybe that depends on how we define success in a roleplaying game: success, after all, being a type of win. The aim of most reasonably sane characters is at the very least to survive, and to try to thrive. Thriving at the expense of others is very close to a core Shadowrun theme.

But a character thriving at the expense of the game enjoyment of the other people at the table? FriendoftheDork reminded just how negative the term "munchkin" really is; JonathanC mentions "an utter disregard for their fellow players and GM"; and Rotbart van Dainig adds "Someone who ruins the game for the rest." This is the first thing that really begins to approximate -- but still, approximate only. Any of us could probably think of many players who, for whatever reason, just kept clashing with group and game style until everyone was completely fed up with them -- yet most disruptive players would not be seen as munchkins (though we might agree on calling many of them jerks). By itself, an inability to play well with others does not suffice.

One possibility that no one has yet mentioned is the desire to thrive and dominate and ultimately overpower all else very nearly as an entitlement. I've always encouraged players to build with great potential -- if they could imagine it, I assured them that I could imagine it higher -- but I've only run into two players, ever, who seemed to assume that the completion of that potential should almost fall into their lap.

So, try this:

A munchkin is a player who:

• Consistently designs characters to be powerful and quickly and easily become more powerful. If only powerful in a narrow field, the character will be designed to render non-powerful fields irrelevant.
• Consistently expects the GM and other players to play according to the rules as interpreted solely by the munchkin player according to the needs of the munchkin character.
• Consistently designs and plays characters without regard to the enjoyment or sometimes even involvement of other players or GM, except insofar as it suits the current character goal.
• [Whose] consistent lack of regard for other players and GM does result in ruining the game for them, and either doesn't notice or doesn't care.

All of these are required for a true munchkin. Drop even one, and the question immediately becomes one of play style, or of the correct interpretation of rules, or of an entirely different kind of doesn't-play-well-with-others which, whatever else, is not munchkinism.

[sunnyside]

Well not the last one, but the rest seem right. A munchkin can be a bit of a pain, but often they won't ruin a game. That depends as much on the GM as the munchkin.

And I still think munchkin isn't a simple yes they are or no they aren't thing. It's a matter of degrees. Again like the word "jerk." You get the sort who chips in for a quarter of the pizza and eats a third to the "cheats on his wife with her sister" sort.

[Jaid]

[Talia Invierno]

Clarification re that quote:

I didn't mean discussion about rules -- which, as you accurately point out, has a strong common basis -- but the debate side which holds that numbers supercede all else. In fact, I think I did specify it:

[Demon_Bob]

[Rifleman]

I'm inclined to say that Talia Invierno has it right, just because of the nature of some of my players would make them munchkin.

It basically boils down to the play style, although you can normally foresee it in the character design. Thus, we tend to base the disease on the symptom, since it is the easiest think to point out to other people.

As an example of a power gamer who wasn't a munchkin, in a recent game, a player showed me a character, (A human cyber Social Adept with High Edge and really good advantages selection.) for my approval. It was Power Gamed pretty high up there, and the game was with mostly new players. But the flaws were decent, and the player I knew to be good, and it at least was a thoughtful powergame rather than the cheap elvan version.

Still, I ran a little test I use to ferret out Munchkins.

"I dunno, seems a bit much..." I began

[Edit: This was meant to be the player making suggestions at my concerns, BUT I forgot to add in the bit in bold previously. My bad. It's what cause the next bits of confusion.]
He they says "No problem, I can switch out some points out of edge, put is some biotech. Or if it's the charisma..."

No arguements, no complaints, just a couple actual compromises to bring it in line. At that point, I just figured that if he wasn't going to fight for it here, he wasn't gonna push it later.

So, I just let it go.

"Nah, not necessary. It's not that bad when I look at it." And he went on and forgot he forgot about it.

He later cut edge down a bit on his own, but not at any prodding of my own.

Since then, despite giving me headaches, he has played it straight, with good roleplaying, and has done nothing to trump the team.

Of course, with all that I missed what he was really good at. Found out the most dangerous thing for him to do with this character is to get him near a casino. With his edge, gambling skills, and associated Knowledge skills, and mob connections, he's taken to bankrolling the team with winnings.

Then I figured out the silent reasoning behind his character ran the shadows.

How else is he going to get that many heavily armed men to guard him from angry gamblers and casino operators? :please: It's practically a steal!

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Glyph]

That's actually a good point. Some characters are easy to tweak, but for others, changing skills or flaws can really mess up their background, depending on how integrated they were with it.

I think combat specialists and faces also get unfairly singled out a lot, because they can have the highest dice pools. However, they also have the most potential negative modifiers, and are rolling opposed tests. By contrast, a car mechanic who's only rolling 8 to 10 dice will actually be able to handle most situations where that skill comes up.

[Rifleman]

[Rotbart van Dain...]

I'm perfectly aware that it was the player's suggestions - and that was my main point. ;)

And no, being a professional gambler does not really entitle somebody to be able to implant cyberware.

[raphabonelli]

At least by Steve Jackson description on the Munchkin Guide to Powergaming Book (a hilarious book, BTW) part on being a munchkin is, besides doing the best combat oriented character possible and exploiting rules in every way they can, but cheating the GM too.

In case of Shadowrun, a Munchkin would be a guy how "slips" 20 or 10 more points in his character in the hope that the GM wouldn't check... a guy who would roll his initiative while the GM is checking something and lie about the result... a guy who roll in 8 dices: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 5, 3 and call 1 hit but lies about the glitch... or just note less damage than he really takes on the Damage Monitor. Things like that would make a real munchkin (by Steve Jackson description).

And specialy, munchkin never, ever, plays with gnomes in the "game that shall not be named".

[deek]

[ThreeGee]

I don't think it's just ruleslawyers, minimaxers and cheaters who are munchkinny.

Some of the worst players I've had to GM regard themselves as high end roleplayers.

So they refuse to cooperate with the rest of the the party because this is their characters birthday and they think everyone should giving them presents or they take a slight insult so seriously they set up elaborate traps to kill other party members.

Anybody who puts their personal gaming experience above the enjoyment of the rest of the group is a Munchkin.

Gwilliam, if your out there this means you.

[ElFenrir]

Im also in the boat of ''cheating to get what you want and win the game''. ANd i admit some GMs get way bent out of shape for some people simply making an effective character.


It was well said about that damned if you do, damned if you don't in the case of making a rounded versus specialist. If you make a specialist, you're accused of munchkining or at the very least, powergaming for lots of dice. If you round a character, you're accused of making someone who doesn't need a team. With this happening more often than i'd like, can one blame players for being a bit confused? They don't know what they should do.

There's nothing wrong with specialists, there's nothing wrong with being rounded, so long as A. Rules weren't exploited and B- The character doesn't utterly trump the others in everything they do. The former is munchkin tactic, the latter can be done perfectly legally, but the player should just be talked to about balance a bit.

[Critias]

There's always been a difference to me between a munchkin and a cheater. Munchkins are guys who might abuse the rules, bend them over and no-lube rape them for no good reason, twist and contort the character creation system in order to make it his own, and just generally find any loophole he can (and horribly use it).

Cheaters, though, are just plain fuckheads. At least a Munchkin still plays within the rules (albeit not the spirit) of the game. Cheaters can't even boast that much respect for the people they're playing with.

[Catharz Godfoot]

Munchkin is another name for Funny Buffalo, but only haunts Role Players (NOT Roll Players).