[TML] Munchkin talk was RE: Who here is paying attention to

[Azalais Aranxta]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Michael Taylor wrote:

> > Regarding munchkins- Here are my suggestions:> Whatever
> > happened to just saying "No"?
>
> Well, because that's easy to say, but not really practical to
> do. First it requires a pretty lengthy review of all the PCs
> before the game starts. Most players dont want a session where
> there is no playing but merely an interview before the "PC
> Police".

This has been a big problem for me with point-based games because
while I can handle mathematical concepts *relatively* well, I
have dyscalculia and suck ass at simple arithmetic, so I have to
have someone I can trust not to be a munchkin themselves review
character sheets.

If you think this means I don't run point-based games as a
general rule, you'd be right.

> An altenrative would be to prepare a handout before the game
> detailing what is legal or non-legal. This is also a boatload
> of work that isn't practical for most time-crunched GMs.

I've found that in general, having this information available
online for my players does work, because if it's online I can
edit it on the fly as needed.  I currently am running a game
online that doesn't involve dice or points, and I have a lot of
discussions up that go over what is and isn't legal.

I also think it's helpful to have players who understand the
basic concept of worldbuilding and are receptive to the idea that
you want your game to have a certain semi-realistic feel and that
powergaming often destroys that, unless you're playing Supers
(and you can play Supers in fantasy or in space, as well as in
modern-day worlds).

> Second, the 'munchkin' exploiting loopholes in the rule is
> merely roleplaying the part of a sane human being. Only an
> idiot doesn't try to maximize their potential advantage in
> whatever situation they are in.

I do and don't agree with this.  It's not idiotic to temper your
own advantage with concern for other people or with your
environment, or to put long-term enjoyment ahead of short-term
gratification.  Munchkins are in general not interested in
whether or not the game is fun for you (often they need to be
reminded that this is not a job, you're not getting paid, and
you do it for your own entertainment not as community service),
whether the game is fun for other players, or whether they break
the world-building.  Thinking about these things does not make
you stupid, if only because if the ref and the other players
aren't having fun and the world gets broken, either you'll have
to find another game soon because it broke up, or you'll have to
find another game soon because they won't let you back.

And pretty soon even online you are going to run out of people
who will put up with you.

> The whole idea of punishign the player for playing the game
> seems likely to rather than 'tame' the munchkin into not taking
> Disadvantages that are perfectly legal in the rules to simply
> go to another GM.

Yes, but if I have a munchkin, I want it to go away.

> So saying "No" when the game they came to play says "Yes" just
> turns a game that is suppossed to be communal into an
> adversarial process.

Munchkins of the genuine munchkin (tm) variety expect that and
don't understand community anyway.  Frequently they have their
own issues that will take over a game.

> That's not to say a GM should have a heart-to-heart with the
> players about what types of characters he wants for his
> campaign. He should.

Yes.  And people who aren't willing to respect that need to go
somewhere else.

> But fixing the broken rules is a heccuva lot more practical. Or
> picking a ruleset that matches what kind of game you want to
> play.

Or, you know, playing with people who want to play the kind of
game you want to run.

> Nothing will stop a 'munckin' from going ape-shot and killing
> everything in sight. That's not a rule problem. That's a
> communication problem (the heart-to-heart was not specific
> enough!).

I can stop it with four words:  "That's not happening here."

> I'm specifically talking about swapping out Traveller's D&D
> random class system for something that actually lets you play a
> character you're interested in playing that can have whatever
> skills and benefits he wants within whatever parameters (cost)
> the GM decides starting characters should have.

Well, I'm all for letting people have characters they're
interested in playing.  And for avoiding campaigns that don't
sound fun for you (I avoid the hell out of refs whose MO is to
keep everyone poor, scrambling from job to job just to survive--I
spent too many years living that way to ever think it would be
fun to roleplay, and in fact told a ref in my 20s, 'Excuse me, I
have to worry all the time about whether or not I can make rent
AND buy groceries as an underfunded grad student...I come to
games to ESCAPE that life...'.)

I don't like random class systems and I am not a big fan of 'died
in character generation' (although we had some fun with that back
in the day), and yes, if you force people to play character types
they're not interested in, you're going to have a problem.  But
at the same time, people whose MO is to subvert every game they
are in and make everything all about them and their need to prove
whatever?  Are not fun to play with, and will find a way to be
obnoxious no matter what you do.  They're not roleplaying sane
human beings, they're being predatory assholes, and let's get a
little distance between IC and OOC here:  regardless of whether
or not it's IC for them to be predatory assholes, when dealing
OOC with the ref and other players, I expect people to be willing
to help make the game world a fun place to put your head for
everyone, myself included.

If you just want to WIN, for G-d's sake play poker.

~malfoy :)

****************************************************************
Azalais Aranxta (~malfoy)
ataniell93 on LiveJournal and Vox
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malfoymadness

"I know the true world, and you know I do. But we needn't let it
think we all bow down." --Christopher Fry