So, the word has been used a lot, but it seems as if one person's munchkin is another person's clever player. What do you think makes a player a munchkin?

Does it take putting a 1 in an Attribute? Or more than one Attribute?

Is it using Qualities that make no sense for the character, to get more BPs?

Is it an attitude towards the game, the GM, the other players?

If the player doesn't break any rules as provided in the source books, then does s/he deserve censure? After all, if it was against the spirit/logic of the game, why would it be in the rules?

If it's not about the rules, then what are the determining factors, and who gets to decide?

Munchkin? Well the correct definition is a player who only cares about making the most powerful character he can, usually by abusing the system in ways it was not intended and possibly also cheating.

A better word would be "power gamer" which is part of the first (min-maxing, negative quality shopping. They usually has less interest in roleplaying and more in creating powerhouses to "beat" the GM.

Still a player may have power-gaming traits and still be a good rolelplayer, but the GM should probably keep him in check to avoid unbalance unless all the players are like that. If they're all power-gamers then it's no problem.

The GM has final say, and the players have veto rights in that they can walk out at any time. Thus an agreement is best.

I think the wiki does a pretty good job of explaining what a munchkin is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_%28r...laying_games%29

The things you described could also apply to real role playing powergamers, or loonies for that matter.

Still all that stuff is fishy.

I would define a munchkin by their goals. A munchkin is someone who's primary goal in creating a character is to make them as competent as possible in a given area (usually combat) while reducing the disadvantages of being so lopsided through flawed logic.

So, for example, the guy who builds the massive troll with 1s in most of his mental scores (gotta keep that willpower up for mental resistance), then proceeds to lead the group into combat with clever tactical plans that the character would be incapable of making.

Or the elf mage who takes a bunch of tech related disadvantages like Sensitive Neural Structure, Sensitive System, and Scorched, knowing that their character will likely never actually experience any problems from these disadvantages.

Or, the most common, the frail rigger who stays locked in a bunker while his drones do the work for him.

In my experience, the munchkin character isn't nearly as much of a problem as the asshole controlling him.

i would basically define it as someone who creates characters purely for the purpose of those characters being powerful, without regard for the fun of others or roleplaying. frequently this ties in very closely to questionable rulings, rules-lawyering, abuse of various rules, deliberate misinterpretation of the rules (often accompanied by attempts to pressure a GM into accepting their misinterpretation as valid) and so forth. these things may be a symptom of munchkinism (and if all are present in large quantities, chances are you've got a munchkin) these symptoms do not necessarily indicate you have a munchkin on their own, however.

It's the desire to "win" the game. And I still think it's more of a player thing than a character thing. I've been in games with well-optimized characters. That's fine. Players who are goal-oriented and want money/exp to improve themselves? Also not a problem. But there is a selfishness, a whinyness, and an utter disregard for their fellow players and GM that defines a true munchkin (also known as the cheese whore among my friends) for me.

I think there is an inherent problem in drawing a line at where being a munchkin starts and stops...I agree with the consensus so far that it it primarily somone who tries to 'win' the game, and only cares about making a purely supreme character...

The problem comes from the fact that, as I see it, most players (not all), will try to make a character that is as effective as possible, whilst prehaps not touching a core concept, or rationalising all their choices by explaining them in the bio.

This leads to the problem that if somone makes an amazing character and then explains EVERYTHING in a novel and interesting way in the bio, I'd stop short of calling them a munchkin. You could claim that, if this was the case, that making the uber character wasn't a primary aim, but it is possible to have multiple aims...

Generally, the only definitive line is, as far as I can see, a munchkin is only a munchkin if his actions are bad enough to have a (generally negative) impact on the game for the other players (and remeber the GM is a player too..).


Yeah, I'm aware the end dosent agree with the beggining...meh, what you gonna do.

People whose characters are defined mechanically in a way you don't like are "munchkin", especially if they are at all effective for having been defined in that way on paper.

The term is used as a pejorative so frequently and with such ignorance that it truly means nothing at all.

-Frank

Whoever ruins the game for others by taking more than his fair share of 'screen time'.

The other side-effects of an egocentric 'Me first' attitude like min-maxing, rules-lawyering, whining, etc. are just symptoms - they don't make or break a 'munchkin'.
What it boils down to is that the desire to be the 'star' grows so strong that the other players are degraded to 'audience'.

In which case they could watch a movie as well, read a book, or stuff.

I guess I'd have to paraphase a rather bad Supreme Court quote to answer your question.

"I may not be able to define what a Munchkin is, but I know it when I see it."


Seriously though, both FrankTrollman and Rotbart van Dainig are right, just combine their two posts and you've got the 'true' defination of a Munchkin.

Hm. That would pretty much result in:

'Munchkin: Someone who ruins the game for the rest'

Which is indeed a great way of defining one.

Well I was going for:

"Munchkin:

( 1 ) Someone who ruins the game for the rest.

( 2 ) A term used on the internet for someone with a "bad-fun" playstyle."


But yeah, you two have pretty much summed it up.

Munchkin is a bit like the word "Jerk" in that if you try to get down to the nitty gritty of it and try to make hard rules it tends to not work out. And in any web based discussion you will probably have some people who are jerks muddying the waters as they attempt to get their behavior on the "I'm not a jerk" side. And few jerks or muchkins self identify as a jerk, or a munchkin.

It's more of a matter that there are certain behaviors/characters that are munchkin like. And when you get a bunch of the together you've got a munchkin.

In a SR game which is already a game of (sometimes magical) superheroic technofantastic folks, the munchkin lines get a little blurred.

IMO as it pertains to a SR game is a player who escalates their character's power level past an appropriate power level for their particular module/GM is a munchkin.

Overspecialized characters may or may not be munchkin. If they overwealm most of every module with their shtick, then they are for sure. Inbetween those two extremes its all GM opinion whose opinion on munchkinism is ALL that matters.

I love making shadowrun characters. I have more fun making some of them than I do playing them.

Munchkin, to me, is not someone who over specializes. My definition is someone who plays the game just for the math involved and does not think of his character as a person, but as a set of numbers with which he may take over the world.

A munchkin is far more than a min-maxer. A munchkin is someone who takes cheesy exploits and questionable rule interpretations to pimp out their character, with the intention of "winning" the game at the expense of the GM's campaign and everybody else's fun. They tend to bully the other characters, expect the spotlight to always be on them, and whine and compain at the most miniscule setbacks.



I agree with others that the term has been far, far overused. Often, it shows up as a derogatory term for any min-maxed or effective character. Often, 'balance" is cited, as if all of the characters in an open-build campaign should be equally effective.

One of the most common complaints is "If I make the enemies tough enough to challenge this guy, they will be too tough for the rest of the group". A problem easily rectified by either increasing the numbers of guards and have the tough character deal with the "extra" ones, or having a "boss"-type NPC that the tougher character can focus on while the others take out the grunts. Or heck, simply focus on other aspects of the game (information gathering, disabling security, etc.), so that the weaker combattants won't feel as useless if their contributions are minimal during a firefight.

Another problem comes up when a newer player makes a character who is not as good in his specialty as an experienced player's character is in his. But personally, I don't see that as a problem. Why should someone inexperienced expect to start out as good as someone who has been playing the game for awhile?



Personally, I think the terms "munchkin" and "overpowered" are far too overused. There have been a distressing number of threads cropping up complaining about everything from power foci, to stick-n-shock ammo, to characters who (gasp!) have dice pools greater than 12, and so on.

I think a lot of GMs need to relax and remember that SR4 characters are supposed to be effective characters. They are hardened pros hired to hit highly guarded facilities, in a world of cutthroat corporate espionage. They are mages who can shoot fire from their fingerips or summon otherdimensional beings to do their will, hackers who can bend the matrix to their whim, augmented beings capable of superhuman feats, and so on.

Be a membr of the dumpshock forums.

People who toss around the phrases "munchkin" and "abuse the system" are the worst sort of children to play with because they always think they know the only "right" way to play with your toys. In their mind, there is only one "right" way to play a game and no other way is acceptable.

In general, munchkin haters hate anyone who ever tries to get ahead. And they especially hate anyone who tries to get ahead of them. They think they must "put people in their place" and "teach them a lesson."

You can't reason with these zealots, you're better off just finding better people to play with (and be friends with).

And as you can see, zealotry is clearly a two-way street.

...is "Zealoty" actually a word? The closest Reference.com can come up with is Zloty which is a unit of Polish currency.

It's "zealotry."

There, its fixed...

In my experience, a munchkin is someone who focuses on one aspect of a character (usually ranged or melee combat) and then makes that a priority above all else.

This will include not having the social skills needed to survive on the street, or even street etiquette. As long as they have the max dice in their skill and the max dice in the related stat, the best (most damaging) gun or weapon and the best accessories (if possible) to make their preferred area of expertise not only lethal, but better than anyone else's.

So you'll have Street Samurai who are deadly in combat, but can't negotiate or do much of anything social.

You'll have mages with ones in all their physical stats and spells that will boost them (improved str, sta, agi, etc).

A classic example I keep running into (especially back in the priority character build system) were human characters with ones in all natural physical stats, but when a million nuyen's worth of cyberware was applied, you had a character that was strong in physical and mental stats (but always with a charisma of one!) and cybered out so badly (and the new cyberlimb armor rules seem to back this up) that not even full auto assault rifle fire scares them.

Munchkins are easy to spot. Their character sheets show only one real dimension, and their background is usually "I am the best there is at doing X" and nothing else.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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? It's practically a steal!

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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