TheRPGSite

This came up in another thread (here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=595405#post595405). Figured if anyone really wants to debate the meaning of Munchkin (or any of the other terms that came up there) might be better to do it in a new thread.

So, what is Munchkin?

It's basically a powergamer, and hints towards a Monty Haul type of play, to me.

Ever try to run an oWoD game, and one player shows up for the game armed with a backpack full of supplements and then uses little crunchy bits from all of them to make a character that makes no sense but is a combat monster? That's a munchkin. See also the 2nd edition Players handbooks for AD&D 2E, and the entirety of D&D 3.5.

A thread about the game would have been more productive.

A term I just realized I haven't uttered without being in reference to the card game in years.  Now I'm trying to figure out why.

Anyway, it's a player who abuses the rules and the other participants of the game in order to create an effective character.  This can include outright cheating, either at the table or away from it, but also includes metagame actions like taking advantage of a GM with a less comprehensive knowledge of the system to make a character that's legal within the rules but powerful in ways that may go against the intent of the campaign.

It also implies some level of dissonance within the group.  A table full of players doing that aren't going to call each other munchkins except out of irony.

The only definition I've ever heard or used was for a person whose primary goal was to eek out every possible + and bonus as possible, with little regard to group dynamics, role-playing, story, or any other aspect traditionally part of the role-playing experience other than + to hit and how much damage you did per round.  In fact, oftentimes the munchkin would actively go against the other players if it meant an extra bonus for his character or if something the players did hindered the munchkin at all.

I've been using that definition since the 80s, so I imagine I was there towards the beginning and thus have a pretty good idea about the actual definition as it was originally used.

That's why I think it's pretty funny when a munchkin tries to change the definition from what everyone else has used for decades.  Sort of like a racist who tries to say they aren't racist because they are changing the definition of what one is.

Min-Maxer, Powergamer, CharOper, Brian from KoDT (who am I kidding everyone in KoDT except BA, Sarah, Gordo, and the actor guy.) etc.

Dan's right though, the cardgame is much more entertaining, real Munchkins are very tedious, as evidenced by many recent threads.

EDIT: Rofl, now I see where this came from.  Goddamn, that is hilarious.  To anyone who isn't a munchkin, it's fucking obvious what one is, but what does the word mean inside the Munchkin sub-culture?  Something different as levels of munchkinism obviously become stratified.  Jesus Christ, this is a Sociology mid-term come to life.

:popcorn:

There are a number of related terms.  Since they're all often uses as pejoratives, they get muddied pretty easily.  Sort of like nerd and dork.  They're both kinda socially awkward, but nerds and dorks really aren't the same thing - but that doesn't stop most people from using them interchangeably.  Just because that's common usage doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

So some useful definitions:

Optimizer - Someone who works to make the character effective.  This doesn't mean they always have an effective character - just that's it's more effective than it usually is.  So an optimizer might make a 'battle chef' and make the character actually 'roughly equal' to the rest of the party, but if he had made an optimized druid, it would be much better.  Optimizers try to make their character as effective as possible within an established objective.  An optimizer will describe his 'build' and explain how he accomplished his aims.

PowerGamer - Someone who likes to use the games to make truly effective characters.  You can distinguish a PowerGamer from an Optimizer because he'll never use a 'worthless class' to achieve a particular aim.  Essentially, a PowerGamer is like an Optimizer with no tolerance for 'weak choices'.  A PowerGamer wants to 'be the best they can be', so they tend to consider the game a competition of the Party versus the challenges the DM throws at them.  They tend to like other players to also build effective characters and then work out synergies between them.  PowerGamers don't tend to mind if someone else plays a powerful character.  In fact, they encourage it.  They'll often say something like 'you play the Cleric, I'll play the Paladin, and here's how we'll combine to be unstoppable'.  

Munchkin - An immature player.  It requires no systems knowledge to be a munchkin.  Munchkins like to pretend to have rule knowledge, and they like to make 'twinky builds' that are actually illegal using the rules as written.  They 'forget' rules that are inconvenient.  The best example I have from real life is for a 3.5 20th-level Epic one-off adventure.  This player showed up with a 20th level character that also had +20 LA from templates.  Basically, if he had applied the rules correctly, he'd be a 1st level character with lots of templates.  When I told him that he could play the character, but instead of 400 hit points, he'd have 8, he left the game and was not missed.  Munchkins want to 'be the best' so they do consider the game competitive between players.  

Min-Maxer - Min-maxing is simply picking areas to specialize to make yourself as effective as possible.  Min-Maxers will give up something, often something important, to 'break' the game somewhere else.  The character that can deal 400 damage in a single attack but has a +4 Will save is probably a Min-Maxer.  Within their area of speciality, they are 'superb', but taken as a whole, they have some glaring weaknesses that usually make the character 'unplayable' in a standard campaign.  Many Min-Maxers also tend to be Munchkins, and 'pretend' their weakness doesn't exist or 'cheat' to avoid having their weaknesses come up in play.  A min-maxed Munchkin might say 'oh, you can't charm my character, I'm an elf.  They're immune to enchantments'.  If you look up the rule, you'll see that they're only immune to sleep and get a bonus on other enchantments.  

Optimizers tend to be okay in most groups because they're trying to make their character effective, not necessarily show everyone else up.  If the other characters are all 'incompetent', the Optimizer may shine more than intended and look like a PowerGamer.  

A PowerGamer loves playing in groups with other PowerGamers.  With a group incapable of making effective characters, they tend to have trouble.  The DM can't both challenge the PowerGamer and the rest of the party - anything that is a challenge for the PowerGamer is insurmountable for the party without him.  In these games, the PowerGamer ends up facing the 'boss' while the rest of the party fights the 'mooks'.  Otherwise, the PowerGamer leaves or possibly, the rest of the players start making more effective characters.  

Munchkins hate playing with other Munchkins.  In fact, having more than one in a group is nearly impossible.  Unless they're siblings or something, they'll tend to drive each other away until only one is left.  Munchkins do need to be better than everyone else (and they'll cheat to ensure that it happens).  You'll know you're playing with a munchkin when he rolls his third Nat 20 for the evening on his third 'you need a 20 to succeed' roll.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;595431Munchkin - An immature player.  It requires no systems knowledge to be a munchkin.  Munchkins like to pretend to have rule knowledge, and they like to make 'twinky builds' that are actually illegal using the rules as written.  They 'forget' rules that are inconvenient.  The best example I have from real life is for a 3.5 20th-level Epic one-off adventure.  This player showed up with a 20th level character that also had +20 LA from templates.  Basically, if he had applied the rules correctly, he'd be a 1st level character with lots of templates.  When I told him that he could play the character, but instead of 400 hit points, he'd have 8, he left the game and was not missed.  Munchkins want to 'be the best' so they do consider the game competitive between players. .

Sorry, but this is not true.  Munchkin was around long before 3e, and most of your requirements don't apply.


What we have here folks is people who are munchkins, but don't want to be called munchkins, come up with different, less "insulting sounding" words.  Sort of like the janitor who is sanitation engineer.

Fact is, is that you're all a bunch of munchkins.  Making up your own definitions that are contrary to decades of established precedence doesn't change that.  Nor does replacing it with a less bad sounding term, like "optimizer".  Deal with it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;595435Sorry, but this is not true.  Munchkin was around long before 3e, and most of your requirements don't apply.


What we have here folks is people who are munchkins, but don't want to be called munchkins, come up with different, less "insulting sounding" words.  Sort of like the janitor who is sanitation engineer.

Fact is, is that you're all a bunch of munchkins.  Making up your own definitions that are contrary to decades of established precedence doesn't change that.  Nor does replacing it with a less bad sounding term, like "optimizer".  Deal with it.

Or the term is a bit of gamer folklore with an accordingly fluid definition.

I suppose saying the only reason people want to change the term is because they're all closet munchkins makes for a more interesting fight though, so let's go with that as being true.

Um.  How dare you.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;595423The only definition I've ever heard or used was for a person whose primary goal was to eek out every possible + and bonus as possible, with little regard to group dynamics, role-playing, story, or any other aspect traditionally part of the role-playing experience other than + to hit and how much damage you did per round.  In fact, oftentimes the munchkin would actively go against the other players if it meant an extra bonus for his character or if something the players did hindered the munchkin at all.

I've been using that definition since the 80s, so I imagine I was there towards the beginning and thus have a pretty good idea about the actual definition as it was originally used.

That's how I've used it and have heard and seen it used since the early 1980s.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;595431There are a number of related terms.  Since they're all often uses as pejoratives, they get muddied pretty easily.  Sort of like nerd and dork.  They're both kinda socially awkward, but nerds and dorks really aren't the same thing - but that doesn't stop most people from using them interchangeably.  Just because that's common usage doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

.

But what are you basing your definition on? These are coined terms that grew and evolved over time and are not even in the dictionary as far as I can tell...common useage would seem to be what we ought to follow here. You can't just spout off a list of various terms and meanings and assert those are their definitions. Just because there are more granular variations of meaning in your circles, that doesn't change how the word is used elsewhere or make it wrong.

To use an example, take the word Yankee. In the states it means someone from the north. But inside new england it means someone of anglo stock who is a descendant of the early settlers. Outside the US, it can refer simply to Americans as a whole. Just because it means something rather specific here in Boston, that doesn't mean southerners are wrong when they call me a yankee.

Hey, it has a wikipedia page!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)

QuoteIn gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills", and grab the most loot, no matter how detrimental their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers.

The term was applied originally to young gamers by older players, presumably because the connotation of being short and ridiculous (like the Munchkins in the book and film The Wizard of Oz) made it an apt label for the childish gamers it was applied to. However, before long it came to refer to anyone who engaged in a juvenile gaming style no matter their height, age or experience.

Munchkins are often accused of twinking or roll-playing, a pun on 'role' that notes how munchkins are often more concerned with the numbers and die rolls than with the roles that they play.

A more neutral use of the term is in reference to novice players, who, not knowing yet how to roleplay, typically obsess about the statistical "power" of their characters rather than developing their characters' personalities.

A game master who constantly awards players large amounts of treasure or powerful magic items without proper backstory or justification can also be called a munchkin master. Such campaigns are sometimes called 'Monty Haul' campaigns, after Monty Hall, the host of an old game show.

In France, the munchkin is known as a Gros Bill (Fat Bill or Big Bill), from the nickname of a Parisian player who played with roleplaying game author François Marcela-Froideval. Marcela-Froideval later wrote an article about this type of player with colleagues Didier Guiserix and Daniel Duverneuil in the leading roleplaying game magazine Casus Belli, causing the widespread use of that nickname among French powerplayers.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;595450But what are you basing your definition on? These are coined terms that grew and evolved over time and are not even in the dictionary as far as I can tell...common useage would seem to be what we ought to follow here. You can't just spout off a list of various terms and meanings and assert those are their definitions. Just because there are more granular variations of meaning in your circles, that doesn't change how the word is used elsewhere or make it wrong.

To use an example, take the word Yankee. In the states it means someone from the north. But inside new england it means someone of anglo stock who is a descendant of the early settlers. Outside the US, it can refer simply to Americans as a whole. Just because it means something rather specific here in Boston, that doesn't mean southerners are wrong when they call me a yankee.

There's a term for this I can't remember, but essentially, as the group size is changed, the word is redefined.
 

• When your group size is the world, Americans are Yankees.
• When your group size is America, where under that first definition, all are Yankees, the definition changes to becomes all Northerners.
• When your group size is North Easterners, where under the second definition, all are Yankees, the definition changes to become people from New England.
• When your group size is New England, it then changes to those descended from the original colonials.

This happens for various reasons, depending on word.  In this case, Munchkin is a disparaging term, so when the group is all Munchkins, they invent other terms for themselves and redefine Munchkin to refer to a subclass they want to disparage.

Most racial and cultural epithets get redefined in the same way.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;595406So, what is Munchkin?

My understanding of the term "munchkin" was forged during my early days on FidoNet and Usenet. It was heavily influenced by:

Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm)
The 35 Types of FRP Player (http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/user/yandros/rpg/frp-player-types.txt)
The 28 Types of Game Master (http://www.duke.edu/web/DRAGO/humor/GMList.html)

Munchkin, in general, refers to an immature player. (Hence the "munchkin" pejorative.) As a result, its use can become somewhat amorphous as it gets applied to any sort of immature behavior.

But in the late '80s and early '90s, the term seemed to most consistently be applied to players who wanted twinked out characters that could trivially dispatch opponents. This usually involved either cheating or monty haul treasures or both. (The latter being reflected in things like "I totally rolled six 18's in a row naturally on all three of my characters". The latter being reflected in things like "the six goblins were carrying a +5 holy avenger".)

This is distinct from powergaming: Powergamers want to maximize the effectiveness of their characters, but they want to do it legitimately and they want to earn it. They wouldn't cheat to achieve their goals and they would feel cheated if the GM rewarded them disproportionately. Powergamers also generally want to be legitimately challenged, whereas munchkins want the easy victories with excessive rewards.

The gray area between powergamers and munchkins tends to be filled largely with the degree to which they're willing to take advantage of exploits in the rules. True powergamers would tend to look at obviously broken rules and say "right, well, let's fix that". Then you have a long, gray slide until you get to "Pun-Pun is book-legal, so I should totally be allowed to play him" (which gets you pretty firmly into munchkin territory).

Eh, this comes up once in a while.

I have no problems with a min maxer as in real life we'd all minmax if we could. Also he knows the rules and doesn't need to have things told to him all the time.

I have no problems with the guy who buys everything and uses rules and gear from supplements. he helps keep the game alive by buying so much, he has to share his stuff with the rest of the group though, and people who couldn't afford every supplement can use the rules and gear too.


I really don't mind a guy trying to get every bonus he can as we'd do that in real life if our lives depended on it, it's what he does with his maxed out character. (Also, if he maxes out a combat monster, he's kind of easy to screw, just don;t have as much combat.)

My only problem is when a guy tries to take over the group, declare himself leader, force all other players to treat him like draftees treat an officer, etc.

I don't always take down a guy like that, I see what the other gamers do. If they decide to knock him down a few pegs I help, if they let him take over and I get tired of it I, as a GM, stop running one player's power trip or as a player try to 'frag" the l'il hitler type. If that doesn't work I tell them "Fuck all y'all!" because I'm not there to basically run an NPC for another player.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;595454My understanding of the term "munchkin" was forged during my early days on FidoNet and Usenet. It was heavily influenced by:

Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm)
The 35 Types of FRP Player (http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/user/yandros/rpg/frp-player-types.txt)
The 28 Types of Game Master (http://www.duke.edu/web/DRAGO/humor/GMList.html)

Munchkin, in general, refers to an immature player. (Hence the "munchkin" pejorative.) As a result, its use can become somewhat amorphous as it gets applied to any sort of immature behavior.

But in the late '80s and early '90s, the term seemed to most consistently be applied to players who wanted twinked out characters that could trivially dispatch opponents. This usually involved either cheating or monty haul treasures or both. (The latter being reflected in things like "I totally rolled six 18's in a row naturally on all three of my characters". The latter being reflected in things like "the six goblins were carrying a +5 holy avenger".)

That's what I always considered a Munchkin. Nowadays the term means "any PC who has better stats and more stuff than my character does".

Quote from: One Horse Town;595411A thread about the game would have been more productive.

I thought that's what it was when I clicked on the recent topics sidebar.

:(

Quote from: Peregrin;595522I thought that's what it was when I clicked on the recent topics sidebar.

:(

Yeah should change the title to "What is a munchkin?"  Add the a, uncapitalize the Munchkin.

Quote from: red lantern;595468Eh, this comes up once in a while.

I have no problems with a min maxer as in real life we'd all minmax if we could. Also he knows the rules and doesn't need to have things told to him all the time.

I have no problems with the guy who buys everything and uses rules and gear from supplements. he helps keep the game alive by buying so much, he has to share his stuff with the rest of the group though, and people who couldn't afford every supplement can use the rules and gear too.


I really don't mind a guy trying to get every bonus he can as we'd do that in real life if our lives depended on it, it's what he does with his maxed out character. (Also, if he maxes out a combat monster, he's kind of easy to screw, just don;t have as much combat.)

My only problem is when a guy tries to take over the group, declare himself leader, force all other players to treat him like draftees treat an officer, etc.

I don't always take down a guy like that, I see what the other gamers do. If they decide to knock him down a few pegs I help, if they let him take over and I get tired of it I, as a GM, stop running one player's power trip or as a player try to 'frag" the l'il hitler type. If that doesn't work I tell them "Fuck all y'all!" because I'm not there to basically run an NPC for another player.

Min-max is a roleplay thing though right. Because characters don;t all MIN-MAX if that was the case I woudln;t waste time writing this I would focus on being better at my job or bing a better dad or workign out in the gym or whatever.
Its fine for some of your PCs to be the laser focused professionals, its fine for some of your guys to be the guy that always has a penknife, skeleton key, roll of gaffer tape, cable ties, multi-tool, has sealed all his matches in wax etc .. but if all your guys are always like that they you have narrowed your roleplay choices a bit too far I think.

Quote from: jibbajibba;595537Min-max is a roleplay thing though right. Because characters don;t all MIN-MAX if that was the case I woudln;t waste time writing this I would focus on being better at my job or bing a better dad or workign out in the gym or whatever.
Its fine for some of your PCs to be the laser focused professionals, its fine for some of your guys to be the guy that always has a penknife, skeleton key, roll of gaffer tape, cable ties, multi-tool, has sealed all his matches in wax etc .. but if all your guys are always like that they you have narrowed your roleplay choices a bit too far I think.

One min max player we had did both, he played someone with an OCD towards "being able to defend himself" after some incidents in his childhood. He played his character fine in role playing and combat.

I think the zone between powergamer and munchkin is very fluid. Marks of munchkinism include being willing to violate the social contract of the game, bending, twisting, ignoring or violating the rules, and a petulant, whiny attitude.
I think my favourite munchkin was a guy who turned up to the first session of a 4e D&D game I played in (Swords of Punjar), and kept telling the GM, me, and everybody else that we were 'doing it wrong'. In my case I was doing it wrong because my Thief PC did not possess a trapfinding item of equipment from the Eberron Player's Guide. Explaining that this was not an Eberron game, that was not a permitted source, and the permitted sources were listed by the GM - all water off a duck's back. He went on to explain to the GM that he was 'doing it wrong', likewise. Luckily he didn't come back.
Another munchkin brought a twinked-out Cleric to a 3.5 D&D game. Again, he told everyone they were 'doing it wrong' - especially the only female player, he kept telling her what to do. When combat started - the PCs assaulting a troglodyte-occupied cathedral - he had his Cleric PC separate from all the other PCs and attack solo. He swiftly got himself killed, and the party narrowly avoided a TPK.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;595435Sorry, but this is not true.  Munchkin was around long before 3e, and most of your requirements don't apply.

Being an immature player.  I was pretty explicit that being a munchkin requires being an immature player and otherwise doesn't require any systems knowledge.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;595435What we have here folks is people who are munchkins, but don't want to be called munchkins, come up with different, less "insulting sounding" words.  Sort of like the janitor who is sanitation engineer.

Fact is, is that you're all a bunch of munchkins.  Making up your own definitions that are contrary to decades of established precedence doesn't change that.  Nor does replacing it with a less bad sounding term, like "optimizer".  Deal with it.

:Amused

Quote from: Justin Alexander;595454My understanding of the term "munchkin" was forged during my early days on FidoNet and Usenet. It was heavily influenced by:

Real Men, Real Roleplayers, Loonies, and Munchkins (http://dragon.facetieux.free.fr/jdr/Munchkin.htm)
The 35 Types of FRP Player (http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/user/yandros/rpg/frp-player-types.txt)
The 28 Types of Game Master (http://www.duke.edu/web/DRAGO/humor/GMList.html)

Munchkin, in general, refers to an immature player. (Hence the "munchkin" pejorative.) As a result, its use can become somewhat amorphous as it gets applied to any sort of immature behavior.

But in the late '80s and early '90s, the term seemed to most consistently be applied to players who wanted twinked out characters that could trivially dispatch opponents. This usually involved either cheating or monty haul treasures or both. (The latter being reflected in things like "I totally rolled six 18's in a row naturally on all three of my characters". The latter being reflected in things like "the six goblins were carrying a +5 holy avenger".)

This is distinct from powergaming: Powergamers want to maximize the effectiveness of their characters, but they want to do it legitimately and they want to earn it. They wouldn't cheat to achieve their goals and they would feel cheated if the GM rewarded them disproportionately. Powergamers also generally want to be legitimately challenged, whereas munchkins want the easy victories with excessive rewards.

The gray area between powergamers and munchkins tends to be filled largely with the degree to which they're willing to take advantage of exploits in the rules. True powergamers would tend to look at obviously broken rules and say "right, well, let's fix that". Then you have a long, gray slide until you get to "Pun-Pun is book-legal, so I should totally be allowed to play him" (which gets you pretty firmly into munchkin territory).

+1.

The Wikipedia (and Fidonet) definitions are the ones that are closest to my use of the term. A lot of the definitions floating around in this thread seem more like symptoms of munchkinism, rather than the definition of "munchkin".

A munchkin is someone who wants to win at role-playing games. A good munchkin is OK with other players winning, too, as long as they don't have to look bad in comparison; this way leads towards "good" powergaming and optimizing. An average munchkin would be called a "sore loser" in any other game or in sports. Everything they do in the game is about being "The Best" and beating other people; how they are regarded by other players depends on how extreme their need to beat others is. A really bad munchkin would be called a "sore winner" in other games.

For what it's worth, Munchkin a decent enough card game; I bought it, played it once with four friends, put it back in the box.

It's fun enough, but I don't quite see how it spawned an entire line. Then again, my Beta decks of Magic cards sat in the closet for a year before some friends told me about this great new card game...

Quote from: talysman;595617The Wikipedia (and Fidonet) definitions are the ones that are closest to my use of the term. A lot of the definitions floating around in this thread seem more like symptoms of munchkinism, rather than the definition of "munchkin".

A munchkin is someone who wants to win at role-playing games. A good munchkin is OK with other players winning, too, as long as they don't have to look bad in comparison; this way leads towards "good" powergaming and optimizing. An average munchkin would be called a "sore loser" in any other game or in sports. Everything they do in the game is about being "The Best" and beating other people; how they are regarded by other players depends on how extreme their need to beat others is. A really bad munchkin would be called a "sore winner" in other games.

You win the thread, this is a great example of a bad munchkin. I've gamed with people who just had to 'beat' the other players by being in charge, etc.

I don't mind a guy wanting a certain really cool gun, piece of gear, etc. What does get me is when he has to have a better one than any other player.

What is munchkin?

Being offended at the mischaracterization of being described as one of "munchkin", "twink", "powergamer" or "minmaxer" instead of their preferred pick out of the set is usually a good sign. Also people who pretend that there's some clearly defined definition, usually a clear line between "good munchkins" they identify as and "bad munchkins".

In the end, a bad player is one who does not respect other players, who's style of play has negative effects on other players, who even goes out of his way to be a dick to other players, usually in the guise of 'playing in character" or "it's just a game".

There are different types and levels of this,  but in the end it comes down to being a good or bad player. The details are secondary at most.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;595435Fact is, is that you're all a bunch of munchkins.  Making up your own definitions that are contrary to decades of established precedence doesn't change that.  Nor does replacing it with a less bad sounding term, like "optimizer".  Deal with it.

I find the hostility some people are displaying in this thread towards the idea of someone making mechanical selections in order to optimize their character concept to be quite bizarre.

A couple of thoughts here.

First: The idea that terms like "power gamer" don't have a long history in their own right is quite counter-factual. For example, the earliest reference to "power gamer" on Usenet dates back to 1989.

Second: I quibble with deadDMwalking's attempt to draw a significant or precise distinction between "optimize", "min-max", and "power gaming". They constitute a body of related terminology that's often used interchangeably and implying that sharp distinctions can be drawn is to claim a definitional precision which is never going to exist in the real world. (I would consider "optimizer" to be basically a synonym for "power gamer". Min-maxing, on the other hand, is one technique that's used by power gamers and munchkins. As a term it seems to carry a slightly greater negativity than "optimizing", most likely because it frequently involves exploiting the rules or creating lopsided characters that function poorly in actual play.)

But what I find even more ridiculous is the implication being thrown around by people in this thread that anyone who picks up the Precise Shot feat because they're playing an archer is a munchkin. And that anyone who disputes that kind of black-and-white extremism must be a munchkin themselves.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;595435Sorry, but this is not true.  Munchkin was around long before 3e, and most of your requirements don't apply.


What we have here folks is people who are munchkins, but don't want to be called munchkins, come up with different, less "insulting sounding" words.  Sort of like the janitor who is sanitation engineer.

Fact is, is that you're all a bunch of munchkins.  Making up your own definitions that are contrary to decades of established precedence doesn't change that.  Nor does replacing it with a less bad sounding term, like "optimizer".  Deal with it.

Hoagie's!
A munchkin is nothing short of a cheating scumbag that just tries to pose as an Optimizer or Powergamer.

Quote from: vytzka;595656What is munchkin?

Being offended at the mischaracterization of being described as one of "munchkin", "twink", "powergamer" or "minmaxer" instead of their preferred pick out of the set is usually a good sign. Also people who pretend that there's some clearly defined definition, usually a clear line between "good munchkins" they identify as and "bad munchkins".

There are clearly-defined meanings of "munchkin". Just not common ones. I'm all for the fuzziness of language, but that fuzziness comes from variation from community to community and context to context; the definitions of words are based on the consensus within a given community.

Which, you know, appears to be the purpose of this thread: to poll this community to see what definition seems to be common.

People who complain about a word not having a clear definition and reject attempts to reach such a consensus are usually afraid of what the definition may turn out to be.

As a GURPS fan I must confess amusement at the bitter irony that GURPS is being killed by a card game called Munchkin.

Quote from: Phantom Black;595716Hoagie's!
A munchkin is nothing short of a cheating scumbag that just tries to pose as an Optimizer or Powergamer.

But does that mean there are no optimizers or powergamers?

I have to admit, "optimizer" is a pretty BS word to use to describe a type of gamer. EVERY gamer optimizes to some extent, after all (not alot of wizards that don't have Int as highest possible, or at least high, stat, for example).

On the other hand, Powergamer does sound pretty interchangeable with Munchkin.

And how is GURPS being taken out by a card game? I don't see how one really messes the other that much.

Quote from: David Johansen;596025As a GURPS fan I must confess amusement at the bitter irony that GURPS is being killed by a card game called Munchkin.

I think you mean "saved". If SJG was completely dependent on the sales of GURPS supplements, there are pretty good odds they would have gone out of business.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;596036I think you mean "saved". If SJG was completely dependent on the sales of GURPS supplements, there are pretty good odds they would have gone out of business.

This might be a good thing. if the company went under maybe someone would buy the rights to gurps and do it better than it's being done now, which is the proverbial 'red headed stepchild' status.

Maybe someone like the people doing Eclipse Phase would get the rights to it and market it like EP.

I'm not sure.  I think properly handled SJG could have really capitalized on the 4e D&D fan split.  I think with proper art direction, setting tailored intro books, and a compelling setting GURPS could command a greater portion of the market share.  I'm sure if they'd just get GURPS Vehicle Design out they'd totally eclipse Pathfinder and all those other D&D varients for the #1 spot.  (okay probably not...)

But yeah, I think it's deeper than the bulk of the resources being dumped into other games, it's a rejection of setting and art as selling points.  "Generic Universal" I get it, but like it or not, settings sell far more games than rules.  And art sells settings.  I like the intent of the 4e art.  I like that they went with a realistic and grounded look instead of the goofy toons found in other books (huh, maybe in 5e D&D can just have PCs fall down for three minutes...)  There's a reason that Angus McBride is the greatest rpg artist ever (what me biased?).

What GURPS needs is a Warhammer 40k or a Rifts of its own.  Not in the sense of a goofy, absurdly hard core mishmash but in the sense of a successful, supported, and compelling setting with its own artistic vision.

But, I won't deny that the truck loads of money Munchkin brings in are what keeps SJG going, I only question whether it's the only possible solution.

(http://index.rpg.net/pictures/show-thumbnail.phtml?picid=2756&maxWidth=150&maxHeight=300)

Munchkin d20 was the first RPG that violated the d20 System Trademark License in that it used the d20 logo and contained the full character creation rules (which would have been ok under the OGL but not the d20STL).
Today the d20 logo has vanished:

(http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/rpg/playershandbook/img/cover_sm.jpg)    (http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/rpg/mastersguide/img/cover_sm.jpg)    (http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/rpg/monstermanual/img/cover_sm.jpg)

But that was not due to WotC going after SJG. (They never seemed to bother.)
It was because the whole license was revoked in ... 2008?

I always thought a munchkin was a player that desired overpowered stuff and cared little for roleplay.


And a delicious treat from Dunkin Donuts.

Quote from: Bill;596220I always thought a munchkin was a player that desired overpowered stuff and cared little for roleplay.

.

They pretty much are.  The problem is that those munchkins don't like to be called munchkins so they made up another word for it, and added a bunch of other criteria to the definition, like "munchkins will cheat", when in fact not all munchkins will cheat.

I think the specific definitions of "powergamer", "rules lawyer" and "min-maxer" are far more clear cut than Muchkin.  I suppose "munchkin" might be someone who does all of the former without any of the technical precision; so, an amateur doofus who wants to be very powerful and play the system.

RPGPundit

As to gurps being killed by munchkin, I think part of what hurt gurps was the name. I mean, damn, if they can't come up with something better than that how good can the game be?

Gurps sounds like a babyfood or something similar.

Quote from: red lantern;596685As to gurps being killed by munchkin, I think part of what hurt gurps was the name. I mean, damn, if they can't come up with something better than that how good can the game be?

Gurps sounds like a babyfood or something similar.

I do think the name was an issue.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;596697I do think the name was an issue.

As a joke/slap at the government they could have called it "I.R.S." for "Infinite Roleplaying System".

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;596697I do think the name was an issue.

It's certainly possible. But GURPS had enough popularity in the first 20 years of its existence to support one of the largest libraries of supplemental material in the RPG industry. So it seems more likely that something changed to reduce its popularity, rather than that everyone woke up one day and said, "Holy crap, that's a really stupid name."

Off-hand, looking at the timeline involved, there appear to be three possibilities:

(1) Something happened shortly before the release of 4th Edition that reduced the popularity of the system (and possibly prompted the release of 4th Edition in effort to get the system back on track). 4th Edition came out in 2004: That suggests that the D20 boom or the industry contraction in 2003 could be pointed at. But it's also possible that GURPS had simply reached the end of a very long supplement treadmill and/or was now sufficiently "archaic" by industry standards that it was losing popularity to newer, arguably superior generic engines.

(2) The release of 4th Edition itself precipitated the problem. This is my personal theory: By 2000, the GURPS engine was something of a relic. It continued to enjoy immense popularity, however, because it was uniquely well-supported as a universal game engine due to the legacy of its huge support library. 4th Edition eliminated the only advantage GURPS still had going for it.

(3) Some combination of both #1 and #2.

I dont think the name explains its current state of popularity. My only point was when it first came out, the name was something of a deterrent. I think it would have been slightly more popular in its heyday if they selected a half descent name. It wasn't one of those names that made you want to play.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;596720It's certainly possible. But GURPS had enough popularity in the first 20 years of its existence to support one of the largest libraries of supplemental material in the RPG industry. So it seems more likely that something changed to reduce its popularity, rather than that everyone woke up one day and said, "Holy crap, that's a really stupid name."

Off-hand, looking at the timeline involved, there appear to be three possibilities:

(1) Something happened shortly before the release of 4th Edition that reduced the popularity of the system (and possibly prompted the release of 4th Edition in effort to get the system back on track). 4th Edition came out in 2004: That suggests that the D20 boom or the industry contraction in 2003 could be pointed at. But it's also possible that GURPS had simply reached the end of a very long supplement treadmill and/or was now sufficiently "archaic" by industry standards that it was losing popularity to newer, arguably superior generic engines.

(2) The release of 4th Edition itself precipitated the problem. This is my personal theory: By 2000, the GURPS engine was something of a relic. It continued to enjoy immense popularity, however, because it was uniquely well-supported as a universal game engine due to the legacy of its huge support library. 4th Edition eliminated the only advantage GURPS still had going for it.

(3) Some combination of both #1 and #2.

Or #4: it was the supplements that were popular, not GURPS itself. So when 4ed came out and SJG switched to re-releasing the old supplements with compatibility changes, few people saw the need to upgrade to the new versions; they never used GURPS itself, just the non-game material, so they saw no point in the upgrade.

This was a symptom of another problem, which is what lead to GURPS 4th in the first place. SJG was catering to two audiences: those who wanted detailed sourcebooks, primarily for historical material they couldn't find from other RPG companies, and those who wanted "realistic" game rules. The former often didn't care about the increasingly-complex GURPS combat system; if they played GURPS at all, instead of using GURPS world books with some other system, they just used the basic 3d6 resolution system and didn't bother with things like the size/range table.

Before GURPS 4th came out, SJG released a two-volume GURPS Compendium, which collected additional rules that had been developed in various supplements. They tended towards the more detailed and more complicated, soe they were obviously aimed at the "realistic" camp, rather than the "detailed" camp, and some of these revised rules formed the basis of changes included in GURPS 4th. So, the Compendiums were basically the first warning that SJG was choosing to cater to the needs of Camp 2 instead of Camp 1.

The problem, of course, is that Camp 1 was their source of income. Camp 2 was just a tiny customer base. So sales of GURPS lagged, and sales of Munchkin (obviously not aimed at Camp 2 people) became SJG's bread and butter.

Really, it's just the same thing we see over and over with game companies who squander their popularity. They come up with something new that people like, then they drive those people away while catering to a small obsessive fan base.

And to tie this into the real point of the thread: I'd say that the essence of a munchkin is identical to the essence of these small, obsessive demographics. Munchkin sells better than GURPS because GURPS started catering to munchkins.

I don't think GURPS is a dinosaur.  It's certainly a simulationist game but there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem with 4e though is that it's a massive compendium edition that's really dependent on system mastery and a firm GM.  I'd much prefer a book more in line with the 3e version of characters with the vast majority of supernatural and cinematic stuff in supplements.  It's much easier to say, anything in the basic set + fantasy is okay than write a ten page treatise on what is or is not allowed and why.

The speed range table isn't complex but I do think the high penalties at short ranges are off putting to new players.  I wish they'd kept the -4 snap shot penalty and bumped the modifiers on the table by 4 points to balance it.  But I'm really glad they dropped the old snap shot rating and autofire rules.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;595406So, what is Munchkin?

Quote from: Mr. GC;596508. . . {I}f you cannot convert gold into magic items, it is basically worthless flavor text to be entirely ignored.

Asked and answered.

Quote from: David Johansen;596733I don't think GURPS is a dinosaur.  It's certainly a simulationist game but there's nothing wrong with that.

The problem with 4e though is that it's a massive compendium edition that's really dependent on system mastery and a firm GM.  I'd much prefer a book more in line with the 3e version of characters with the vast majority of supernatural and cinematic stuff in supplements.  It's much easier to say, anything in the basic set + fantasy is okay than write a ten page treatise on what is or is not allowed and why.

The speed range table isn't complex but I do think the high penalties at short ranges are off putting to new players.  I wish they'd kept the -4 snap shot penalty and bumped the modifiers on the table by 4 points to balance it.  But I'm really glad they dropped the old snap shot rating and autofire rules.

Pretty much.

The issue with GURPS for new players/GMs is that the basic game includes too much. The whole thing is a gigantic toolbox from which the experienced can construct a great game.

Hardcore design geeks can take that concept and start building. Everyone else will just keep looking for a more focused system that gives them the game they are looking for without having to build it themselves. Its just too difficult to buy the basic set books, read them, and begin playing something without a whole lot of picking through stuff to get what you need.

Dungeon Fantasy supplements have some cool stuff in them but there is still all of the exclusions to be done from the basic book before you can play a D&D style game with them.

To use a food analogy, think of GURPS crunch as succulent crabmeat. The basic books are a basket of steamed crabs. What gamers want is a plate of delicious crabcakes.

Gurps is close to the bottom of my list of games. I really dislike the system.

But when it comes to sourcebooks, Gurps may well be the King of rpgs.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;596036I think you mean "saved". If SJG was completely dependent on the sales of GURPS supplements, there are pretty good odds they would have gone out of business.

It's still possible they're going to decide to stop throwing out money on GURPS and just work on Munchkin some day.

And as long as people are ragging on GURPS I'd like to pitch in too. You can run any setting or premise with the system and all it feels like is GURPS.

I think GURPS struggles with flavor as much because the art and layout and page design all scream GURPS as anything rules related.  It would help a great deal if there was a stylistic character sheet for each genre and the books each had their own style.

But even I'll admit that GURPS only works if the GM is fluent in the rules and good at creating flavor on their own.  The tools are there and knowing how and when to use them is important.

For example in our horror game on Monday one PC emptied a clip from his FN-FAL through a closed, armored door into the room behind (armored door? It's a FAL!) I didn't layout the room behind the door and check to see which targets were hit.  I just had him roll the attack and determined the number of hits.  It's far easier to abstract a concrete system than it is to draw concrete data out of an abstract one.

There's still the tension of the unseen and unknown that way.

But, yeah, you'll never see GURPS using a Jenga tower or anything like that.

Quote from: David Johansen;596847But, yeah, you'll never see GURPS using a Jenga tower or anything like that.

Well you could buy GURPS Jenga Towers, it has a lot of well researched background information and the rules to simulate characters playing Jenga in a completely realistically physical oh God someone kill me.

Quote from: vytzka;596887Well you could buy GURPS Jenga Towers, it has a lot of well researched background information and the rules to simulate characters playing Jenga in a completely realistically physical oh God someone kill me.

:rotfl:

I know GURPS gets a bad rep for being too gritty but there is quite a bit of cinematic stuff that is just silly and fun. The bulletproof nudity rules, skills such as SCIENCE! and THE SWORD! ,etc allow for some wacky off the wall stuff.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;596893:rotfl:

I know GURPS gets a bad rep for being too gritty but there is quite a bit of cinematic stuff that is just silly and fun. The bulletproof nudity rules, skills such as SCIENCE! and THE SWORD! ,etc allow for some wacky off the wall stuff.

But those are gritty, overly-detailed silliness. For example, precise PD adjustments for every degree of nudity. That's taking the fun out of silliness.

I'll be damned if I can actually explain it in words, but even on the same level of granularity Rolemaster combat seems fun and visceral, whereas GURPS just feels like shuffling numbers around.

Open ended roll! That's 17 hits and a D puncture critical and you rolled 83. Blood is spraying everywhere from that abdominal wound you just inflicted. Scary! +10 hits, 3 rounds stunned no parry, bleeding for 6 and at -20 for one round.

vs (sorry don't remember exact numbers anymore as it's been a while)

You rolled a 7 and hit them in the head! They flub their parry. You're using a pick so the damage that goes through armor is tripled or something. Oh and *roll* your pick is stuck in their head and you have to pry it free next round.


Is it the pithy little descriptions? The fun icons with effects - if you get a whole row of them as above, you know it's gonna hurt? The fact that pretty much everything is on the chart instead of remembering a bunch of rules, and so much variety there? The much larger numbers of damage done (the Final Fantasy effect so to speak)? The d100, open ended vs 3d6 (which is simultaneously more variety and higher numbers)? The fact that the GURPS GM I spent most time playing with was absolutely atrocious and a huge fan of 3e for some reason? Probably all of the above in varying amounts.

Quote from: vytzka;596934I'll be damned if I can actually explain it in words, but even on the same level of granularity Rolemaster combat seems fun and visceral, whereas GURPS just feels like shuffling numbers around.

Open ended roll! That's 17 hits and a D puncture critical and you rolled 83. Blood is spraying everywhere from that abdominal wound you just inflicted. Scary! +10 hits, 3 rounds stunned no parry, bleeding for 6 and at -20 for one round.

vs (sorry don't remember exact numbers anymore as it's been a while)

You rolled a 7 and hit them in the head! They flub their parry. You're using a pick so the damage that goes through armor is tripled or something. Oh and *roll* your pick is stuck in their head and you have to pry it free next round.


Is it the pithy little descriptions? The fun icons with effects - if you get a whole row of them as above, you know it's gonna hurt? The fact that pretty much everything is on the chart instead of remembering a bunch of rules, and so much variety there? The much larger numbers of damage done (the Final Fantasy effect so to speak)? The d100, open ended vs 3d6 (which is simultaneously more variety and higher numbers)? The fact that the GURPS GM I spent most time playing with was absolutely atrocious and a huge fan of 3e for some reason? Probably all of the above in varying amounts.

It's all based on experience and it sounds like you had a great Rolemaster experience vs. a terrible GURPS experience. I'm the opposite....I would rather eat shards of glass now than try to play Rolemaster again, but GURPS seems trivially easy to me (to run....prepping for it is more nightmarish).

Likewise, I'll take Rolemaster or GURPS over Hero. Which I guess means I'd rather eat glass while playing Rolemaster than play (or run) Hero.

Quote from: vytzka;596887Well you could buy GURPS Jenga Towers, it has a lot of well researched background information and the rules to simulate characters playing Jenga in a completely realistically physical oh God someone kill me.

If you'll send me a round trip ticket to lithuania.....

Quote from: Bill;596829Gurps is close to the bottom of my list of games. I really dislike the system.

But when it comes to sourcebooks, Gurps may well be the King of rpgs.

I agree. The one game system I'll never play or run that I own the most products for. The 3rd edition sourcebooks are absolute gold. I must have close to 100 of them.

Speaking of munchkin, I'd say a great(?) example of munchkins would be the mods on the banning page. Selfish, immature little power trippers who want everything their way, want to be all powerful, have no respect for others, demand everything go their way all the time, etc.

This board is ran by good gamers who know gaming  isn't all about them and what they personally want. So just compare this place to rpg.net to see the difference between good gamers and munchkins.

Quote from: David Johansen;596847I think GURPS struggles with flavor as much because the art and layout and page design all scream GURPS as anything rules related.  It would help a great deal if there was a stylistic character sheet for each genre and the books each had their own style.

But even I'll admit that GURPS only works if the GM is fluent in the rules and good at creating flavor on their own.  The tools are there and knowing how and when to use them is important.

For example in our horror game on Monday one PC emptied a clip from his FN-FAL through a closed, armored door into the room behind (armored door? It's a FAL!) I didn't layout the room behind the door and check to see which targets were hit.  I just had him roll the attack and determined the number of hits.  It's far easier to abstract a concrete system than it is to draw concrete data out of an abstract one.

There's still the tension of the unseen and unknown that way.

But, yeah, you'll never see GURPS using a Jenga tower or anything like that.

I liked this post and agree with it. Some people bitch too much about detail and lots of rules, but they forget you can just not use them if you don't want to, but if you run into a situation where you could actually use some detail, it's there if you need it.

And yeah, I don't like the dice towers either. Just roll the damn dice already! Plus with multiple dice you don't need it.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;596720It's certainly possible. But GURPS had enough popularity in the first 20 years of its existence to support one of the largest libraries of supplemental material in the RPG industry. So it seems more likely that something changed to reduce its popularity, rather than that everyone woke up one day and said, "Holy crap, that's a really stupid name."

Off-hand, looking at the timeline involved, there appear to be three possibilities:

(1) Something happened shortly before the release of 4th Edition that reduced the popularity of the system (and possibly prompted the release of 4th Edition in effort to get the system back on track). 4th Edition came out in 2004: That suggests that the D20 boom or the industry contraction in 2003 could be pointed at. But it's also possible that GURPS had simply reached the end of a very long supplement treadmill and/or was now sufficiently "archaic" by industry standards that it was losing popularity to newer, arguably superior generic engines.

(2) The release of 4th Edition itself precipitated the problem. This is my personal theory: By 2000, the GURPS engine was something of a relic. It continued to enjoy immense popularity, however, because it was uniquely well-supported as a universal game engine due to the legacy of its huge support library. 4th Edition eliminated the only advantage GURPS still had going for it.

(3) Some combination of both #1 and #2.

This seems like a sound analysis to me, yes.

RPGPundit