Forums of the Megaverse®

My interpretation is that it is used sarcastically. The Munchkin uses the biggest baddest combinations around and fights things far beneath them to make themselves feel big. The "lollipop people" are small and used to bring them back down to reality - sort of averaging out their need to feel big by making them feel small.

The term origionated fairly eairly in the hobby. You see, old school AD&D had a big issue: it was really complex, with a lot of rules, a LOT of charts, and dozens of situational modifers. it was really, really easy to forget/overlook some things when playing, especially for DM's who had to juggle all kinds of things at once.

A munchkin was someone who either had a really good memory or spent a lot of time studying, or both, because they remembered, if not everything, than MOST of those modifers and variables and rules. And they would remember to tell the GM/Party about them whenever it was convient for his character. and not mention them when it worked aginst him. these kinds of selfish traits also lended itself to playing aggressively to "win" and bullying other players.

This rather childish behavior was called munchkin in reference to the wizard of oz, insuating that the person is small and silly, and hasn't grown up.

the term has morphed over time, as the very linner and slow power curve of D&D gave way to more books with more gear/powers, other systems with advanced mechanics for gear, technology, and other paths to power other than finding a +3 longsword and +2 armor, these same personality traits lent themselves to quickly using the baseline attribute of abusing the rules to their own advantage to layer on more and more power in an attempt to "win", but this is just another permutation of the childlike, silly nature of this behavior that Munchkin derives from.

Well to quote what wiki defines a munchkin as 'In 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.'

That's the definition, yes, the question was where did it come from. like most words it's meaning has changed subtly over time, but the root is the heart of the matter.

Its also important to understand the difference between a munhkin, a powergamer, and arules lawyer.
These other two types of players are often labelled as munchkins, usually unfairly.

A powergamer, like a munchkin, usually knows a system like the back of their hand, and likes.to play powerful characters. Unlike a munchkin however, powergamers usually don't abuse the rules to do so.
Munchkins are out for personal powertrips, generally at the expense of other players. Powergamers want to have fun like other players, they just find higher powered campaigns more fun than lower powered ones.
Non-powergamers often don't perceive this distinction.

Rules lawyers also have immense knowledge of a system, but they insist that everyone follow them to the letter.. at all times. They won't stand for abuse of the rules. However since following the rules exactly can result in odd rules interactions, and sometimes results that can break games, rules layers too often get labelled as munchkins.

the main difference is that rules laywers are by definition consistant in how they enforce the rules, good and bad, while munchkins will only insist on following the rules if it's benificial to them.

Our own Killer cyborg is one of the best examples of a straight rules lawyer you'll find. not only is he relentlessly analytical with a deep knowlage of system rules and arcana, but he actually perfers low-powered games and thinks party co-operation is needed for a successful game, thus displaying neither munchkin nor powergamer traits. just pure lawyering.

I would agree with most of the wiki definition save for one thing.
Munchkins do not care if their character fits the rules or not.

As to the origin of the word?
It actually predates AD&D.
And yes it does relate back to The Wizard of Oz...
It started as a term to refer to any player under the age of 13.
But slowly became equated with players of a childish mentality.
Mainly because typically the younger players were the ones that threw the temper-tantrums associated with that type, however many "adults" would and still do this.

Nightmask wrote:Well to quote what wiki defines a munchkin as 'In 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.'

I generally view powergamers/munchkins as being more afraid than anything else. They don't trust the GM to run an enjoyable game and think their character will get killed by an "unfair" encounter and so they try to over prepare and over compensate for everything.

When they get used to the GM, and realize he is not out to get them, then they tend to relax and enjoy the game more and don't NEED to have invulnerability to everything, since they aren't as afraid as they normally are. Remove the fear, remove the munchkin behavior.

Athos wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Well to quote what wiki defines a munchkin as 'In 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.'

I generally view powergamers/munchkins as being more afraid than anything else. They don't trust the GM to run an enjoyable game and think their character will get killed by an "unfair" encounter and so they try to over prepare and over compensate for everything.

When they get used to the GM, and realize he is not out to get them, then they tend to relax and enjoy the game more and don't NEED to have invulnerability to everything, since they aren't as afraid as they normally are. Remove the fear, remove the munchkin behavior.

Powergamers want enough power to face any challenge.
Munchkins dont want any challenge.

Athos wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Well to quote what wiki defines a munchkin as 'In 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.'

I generally view powergamers/munchkins as being more afraid than anything else. They don't trust the GM to run an enjoyable game and think their character will get killed by an "unfair" encounter and so they try to over prepare and over compensate for everything.

When they get used to the GM, and realize he is not out to get them, then they tend to relax and enjoy the game more and don't NEED to have invulnerability to everything, since they aren't as afraid as they normally are. Remove the fear, remove the munchkin behavior.

That's probably true in at least some cases, I ended up losing interest and dropping out of a game because the Gm was too determined to be sure he could kill my character (it was a super-hero game) even when it's explicit power was immortality and was way under-powered compared to the rest of the PC group. Given what that cost having the GM so determined to have it be 'immortality but not really' I simply had no faith in the GM to not be out to kill my character and that killed any ability to think I could enjoy the game.

Athos wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Well to quote what wiki defines a munchkin as 'In 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.'

I generally view powergamers/munchkins as being more afraid than anything else. They don't trust the GM to run an enjoyable game and think their character will get killed by an "unfair" encounter and so they try to over prepare and over compensate for everything.

When they get used to the GM, and realize he is not out to get them, then they tend to relax and enjoy the game more and don't NEED to have invulnerability to everything, since they aren't as afraid as they normally are. Remove the fear, remove the munchkin behavior.

Except that in my experiance powergaming is often a learned trait. that is, they started out with an untrustworhty GM who WOULD routinely run unfair encounters.

Munchkin is a lot like 'troll'. It's a label slung around to insult someone'es character by making a declaration about the motives that underly the actions they take. I think it's best to avoid calling anyone these things. It's silly to do, because we're not telepaths, we're not empaths, so we don't actually know what motives people, how they respond, or all the reasons behind choices. Even when talking about hypothetical personality types I think it's better to use more thorough descriptions so it's clear what is meant, because the meanings associated with the terms isn't always clear.

Power-gamer and rules-lawyer are more acceptable because they have clearer meanings: playing powerful (a relative term, albeit) characters, and knowing the rules well and bringing them up to legislate games with. I believe a game master can also be a power gamer and a rules lawyer in the process of GMing, for example. People tend to avoid labelling GMs such things though to keep on their good sides.

Munchkin just isn't clear though. Does it mean a cheater? Someone trying to one-up other players? Defeat all enemies? Never die? Never satisfied, always trying to get better? It's just too complex, and there's no authority on how to define it strictly. This makes it become progressively broad and situational with people bickering over what it means and who deserves to be called it.

It's the sort of name given, because the name giver needs them to be that thing (little guys from the wizard of oz).

Essentially it's more the GM fearing when mechanics have more control over the events of play than his spoken fiction does.

I mean, it's kind of ridiculous to condemn someone for wanting to be able to face any encounter, or wanting to never die.

The real problem is generally the game system can't handle itself - it provides difficult of, say, 5 power, then allows the capacity to have character who are 20 power or higher.

Someone who tries really hard not to do suddenly finds themselves far beyond what they need to do so.

What are they supposed to do - try not to die, but do so with kid gloves?

And that's exactly what alot of simulation inclined gamers do want. People who want a GM to engineer a fight so pretty much the exact result the recreated story requires does occur. Of course those stories rarely have the PC's die, so that's why people say 'they need to relax as a fair GM wouldn't be out to kill them...'

It's a bit like going to some historical war recreation society, bringing a mini gun, when the war recreation society will simply have the side that historically won will always win and will never change that.

The shadow of munchkin, the other side of the coin, are people who decide the result of battles before 'playing' them at the table. They don't get called a derogitory name. As yet.

I think the term munchin probably came from the player using the game to over compensate (I'm not saying it's the case I'm saying his buddies said it was the case). It also probably has ties to minmaxing. In some games if you pick a weakness like 'short' you get extra points to spend on stats.

I'll have to admit that at my worst I am a rules lawyering power gamer. I have played some powerful characters in past games. I have also played some characters who were the least powerful in the party and enjoyed them.

One of the reasons I have ran a powerful character is that the GM kept tossing things that were several levels hire than the level of the party. like tossing third and fourth level threats at a first level party. Yeah we survived but it wasn't very fun until we got some much better stuff.

I have also seen GM's play favorites and let their significant other play muchkin characters repeatedly.

notafraid2die wrote:This may show some of my ignorance... But where the heck did the term "Munchkin" originate from?

As I understand it, and I could be completely wrong, a Munchkin is a power gamer, someone who slams their character with so much power, armor, and weapons that they can handle anything their GM throws at them... and they don't like to loose.

Of course, when I hear the term, I immediately think of the dancing lollipop people singing "Follow the yellow brick road" in the Wizard of Oz.

I don't see how it adds up.

Just curious if anyone knew why they use the term Munchkin, what it actually is supposed to mean and where the heck it came from.

Thanks.

It originated from days where newbie gamers who were little kids were basically cheating, power-hungry schmucks who had no understanding or respect for fairness, balance, or responsibility.
You'd work for 5 years to work your character up to 10th level, and earn a bunch of magical toys or whatever, and when you talk about it, some 12 year-old newbie would pipes up about how his character is 100th level, with a magical hammer that does 2d100 damage when he throws it, and he's only been playing for a couple months.
Basically, children who couldn't tell the difference between role-playing games and "just making **** up."

It's evolved since then, a bit, and these days it's still an insult, but with slightly different connotations.
Instead of actual children, "Munchkins" are people with childish notions and priorities, and who have a good dose of "small man's syndrome."
People who are so small in real life that the only way they can feel big about themselves is to spend their spare time beating up on imaginary people who don't have a chance of winning.
They get bullied in life, so they become bullies in their fantasy life, picking on imaginary prey while sneering about how weak the opponents are in comparison to the Munchkin.
They can't and won't give any credit to any foe. They 'll kill Tiamat, then brag about how they're looking for a "real challenge."
But they're not- they're lying.
They don't want a challenge. They don't want a fair fight.
Their ego cannot handle loss, or even a good chance of loss.
They can't even handle sharing the spotlight.
Why?
Because they're Munchkins.
They're small people, not necessarily in body, but in mind and spirit. They have to have huge characters in order to compensate for their own short-comings in life.
They're tiny, puny, fragile egos who are too weak emotionally to handle playing actual GAMES, and instead prefer to indulge purely in fantasy scenarios where they can pretend that they're cool, and mentally-masturbate over how awesome they are (or how awesome their characters are).

In theory, it's easy to tell the difference between a munchkin and a power gamer: The munchkin wants to be powerful while the powergamer wants to accomplish a goal. Unfortunately, it usually requires a lot of power to accomplish a worthy goal, so in practice it is often tricky to see the difference since both the munchkin and power gamer appear to be on a quest for power.

As most of you know, I am unabashedly a power gamer and over the years I've developed a handful of rules of thumb to help tell the difference. These are in no particular order and no test is perfect, but I thought I'd share some of them.

1. Power gamers value allies and are usually happy to see other party members improve their gear or abilities. Munchkins seem to see other characters as competitors and often get jealous or upset of some other character manages to find or earn a choice piece of equipment, especially if it's superior to what the munchkin has.

2. The power gamer usually plans for contingencies, or at least looks for ways out when things start going badly. The munchkin usually doubles down with more of the same tactic (whatever they perceive as their most powerful attack, usually) and then gets agitated or panicky when they continue to lose. When the munchkin loses, he will often not want to play anymore. When the power gamer loses, he comes up with a new plan.

3. Starting with a powerful character allows the power gamer to make progress towards his goal faster, but not as much as starting with a character that can cover for the weaknesses of the rest of the party. Because of this, the power gamer will work with the other players during character generation. Munchkins usually have little interest in what the other players are playing as long as the other characters aren't obviously "better" than the munchkin's character (by whatever definition of "better" the munchkin feels like using at the time).

4. A power gamer will usually be interested in the logistics of the campaign. A munchkin is usually bored by anything that isn't somehow related to "winning" (usually combat, but not always).

5. In conversation, the power gamer will often talk about what they plan on doing. A munchkin usually wants to talk about something cool that they did.

6. I've never known a munchkin to bring pizza or snacks to share.

And here are some things that aren't good ways to tell the difference:

1. Min-Maxing: I've seen both munchkins and power gamers do this
2. Rules Lawyering: Both munchkins and power gamers can be rules lawyers (although in my experience, a power gamer is less likely to throw a fit than a munchkin if the GM rules differently...although I've seen it happen).

I firmly believe that a munchkin can be "cured".

I don't think a power gamer can be "cured".

--flatline

Original term was Monty Haul, and referred to campaigns.

flatline wrote:6. I've never known a munchkin to bring pizza or snacks to share.

A very good point.

google "real man real roleplayer loonies and munchkins" . . . it should explain everything and be good for a laugh or two.

I find there's one simple rule that is usually a good indicator if your dealing with a power gamer or a munchkin.

the GM identify a power gamers present goal and, after talking to them about it, work out a way for them to acheive it without necessarly jacking the power level of the campaign through the roof. With a munchkin, you cannot, because jacking the power level through the roof IS their goal. The power gamer sees power as a means to an end. if the GM makes it clear they only need a certain level of power to acheive their goals, they will be happy to accept limits on their power growth. the munchkins will never be satisfied.

notafraid2die wrote:So, basically, comparing what I'm reading to my troupe; My munchkin has been kicked out of the group (nothing game related, he was just a poke), and what I'm left with is a group of respectable power gamers. I can handle this.

Edit: not a "poke", the censor didn't seem to like the "pr" word with the "ick" at the end.

Some of the most exciting campaigns I've been in consisted of groups of power gamers who started with medium power characters and had big plans and a GM who was willing to let us try anything as long as we accepted the consequences of our actions.

Good times

As a GM, having a group of power gamers means you can let them steer the campaign (for better or for worse). GMs who are accustomed to planning the campaign far in advance and, perhaps, railroading the players if they veer too far off course will be likely to get very frustrated with a group of power gamers.

Hope you have fun with your group!

--flatline

The term Munchkin as I underdstand it came from a gamers con where people tried to classify gamer types. A large group of small squeeky voice gamers where there with charters that were over powered, usaly from GMs that where the same. They had the best or better of the gear for there classes and tened to think they could just smash anything. As most of the players of the type with overtly over powed charters often to the point of breaking the rules where short kids the work munchkin a refence to Wizard of Oz was giving to that type of player.

Rockwolf66 wrote:like tossing third and fourth level threats at a first level party. Yeah we survived but it wasn't very fun until we got some much better stuff.

Why wasn't it fun? Was it supposed to be about equal level encounters, so the party has a few HP shaved off, and once they've had to many they go rest up?

I think the ideal way to approach this would be to do an etymological study. For example, definition 4 at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/munchkin#Noun references a 2001 quote.

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG_munchkin was created in 2005.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin is sadly lacking information on the subject.

Surely the term was at least around in the 90s if not the 80s though. Can we find sources for oldest references? Only by studying historical usage can we determine the root cause of meaning.

In the 80s and 90s we referred to Monty Haul and not Munchkin. *shrug* I only heard the term Munchkin after moving to Indiana.

/Sub

Subjugator wrote:In the 80s and 90s we referred to Monty Haul and not Munchkin. *shrug* I only heard the term Munchkin after moving to Indiana.

/Sub

I definitely heard the term "munchkin" in use in the late 80s and early 90s. And I'm quite certain it's much older than that.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Subjugator wrote:In the 80s and 90s we referred to Monty Haul and not Munchkin. *shrug* I only heard the term Munchkin after moving to Indiana.

/Sub

I definitely heard the term "munchkin" in use in the late 80s and early 90s. And I'm quite certain it's much older than that.

--flatline

Some quick research shows an article by Nathan Gribble named, "The Munchkin Examined: How Children Roleplay", in Interactive Fantasy magazine. It was published in 1994. It might be the origin, or might even come before that. *shrug* No idea.

/Sub

Subjugator wrote:In the 80s and 90s we referred to Monty Haul and not Munchkin. *shrug* I only heard the term Munchkin after moving to Indiana.

/Sub

I'm fairly sure Monty Haul refers to a style of GM'ing and not so much players.

It referred to a dungeon, a GM, or the expectations of the players. To my eyes, munchkin does the same thing. A munchy GM would expect players to want no challenge with huge rewards. A munchy player would expect that from a GM.

Galroth wrote:

Subjugator wrote:In the 80s and 90s we referred to Monty Haul and not Munchkin. *shrug* I only heard the term Munchkin after moving to Indiana.

/Sub

I'm fairly sure Monty Haul refers to a style of GM'ing and not so much players.

Monty haul is when you get tons of loot and gear at a increadble pase. Like getting 2 major upgrades every session or more money than you can spend.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Galroth wrote:

Subjugator wrote:In the 80s and 90s we referred to Monty Haul and not Munchkin. *shrug* I only heard the term Munchkin after moving to Indiana.

/Sub

I'm fairly sure Monty Haul refers to a style of GM'ing and not so much players.

Monty haul is when you get tons of loot and gear at a increadble pase. Like getting 2 major upgrades every session or more money than you can spend.

Or when the reward far exceeds the risk.
But the risk is still there.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Galroth wrote:

Subjugator wrote:In the 80s and 90s we referred to Monty Haul and not Munchkin. *shrug* I only heard the term Munchkin after moving to Indiana.

/Sub

I'm fairly sure Monty Haul refers to a style of GM'ing and not so much players.

Monty haul is when you get tons of loot and gear at a increadble pase. Like getting 2 major upgrades every session or more money than you can spend.

Or when the reward far exceeds the risk.
But the risk is still there.

True but I tend not to think of the risk when I think of monty haul, it is just like WoW we got way to much loot. Like a party of 5 capturing one of the big CS death hand tranports the one that is a fling base. And yes I was in a game when that happend the normal GM was not avaible so his friend ran 1 sessesion. First thing the normal GM did was have it "Disapear" from the hanger.

Noon wrote:The other side of the coin, are people who decide the result of battles before 'playing' them at the table. They don't get called a derogitory name. As yet.

Nonsense. Of course there's a name for them. It's "GM"

I played a game of DnD a few years ago. It took place over several years. We went all the way from lvl1 to lvl20 (this was 3.0, later 3.5. We didn't have 3.5 from the start because it hadn't been invented yet). Anyway, in our group there was both a powergamer AND a munchkin. I think they both define the types quite well.

The powergamer used a home-brewed prestige class that he'd adapted from some 2nd ed adventure (usually a munchkin sign). It was rather annoying because he was a cleric, but could out-fight the fighter, and out-magic the sorcerer. Thing is, he rarely did. He COULD but didn't. He could have summoned a zillion mephits to do his bidding, but didn't. Why? Game Balance, that's why. He liked being powerful, and the DM appropriately threw potent adversaries at us from time to time, where his limits and weaknesses were tested. It was a great game and, as I said, it went on for years.

The munchkin was rather a lot younger than the rest of us. The kid brother of a mutual friend. He was all about the killin'. He used his abilities because he could, not because it made any sense (eg: he spent an entire game session going around the dungeon on his hands with manacles on his feet, because he suffered no penalties to do so). He was constantly passive-aggressive towards other players, often indicating how he could 'take down the whole adventuring party in one round'. I must make this point, it's wasn't just the character, but the mentality as well with no regard to game or game balance. Example quote: 'If I kill an angel, would that be bad?' (his character at that time was a paladin) and (whenever confronted by any sort of combat) 'oh good. More XP'. He couldn't settle on one character. Once flaws had been found, that one mysteriously died and was replaced the following game session by another, different, more powerful character. His stats were always ungodly (one day he turned up with a new character, whose stats were ALL 18 rolls. He said 'no really! I rolled it naturally!'). Names existed at the top of his character sheet, but really they were just there to differentiate other sets of attributes from each other (usually names were absurdly long or 'elvish' ones, to make up for the complete and total lack of character backstory). This went on for several years until university pressures became too great and he only attended a few games, much to our relief.

Both characters were effectively the same, both were super-statted out to the max. What's the difference? The way they were played. One was played with reason, forethought, character backstory, and restraint. The other was played as "Hey everyone! I'm the best ******* thing in this party. Can't you see how awesome I am? If you disagree, I'll kill your character too, 'cause I totally can!"

Therefore, one is a powergamer, the other a munchkin.

Damian Magecraft wrote:Or when the reward far exceeds the risk.
But the risk is still there.

The reward has to *far* exceed the risk for Monty to make his appearance. Easy treasure is the basis of it.

"Oh! You killed a goblin king! He was a level 4 fighter! Here's a +5 vorpal sword!"

That's Monty Haul.

"Oh! You killed a goblin king! He was a level 4 fighter! Here's a +2 flaming burst sword!"

Heavy, yes. Depending on the nature of the fight, it might not be Monty though.

/Sub

Comrade Corsarius wrote:

Noon wrote:The other side of the coin, are people who decide the result of battles before 'playing' them at the table. They don't get called a derogitory name. As yet.

Nonsense. Of course there's a name for them. It's "GM"

I played a game of DnD a few years ago. It took place over several years. We went all the way from lvl1 to lvl20 (this was 3.0, later 3.5. We didn't have 3.5 from the start because it hadn't been invented yet). Anyway, in our group there was both a powergamer AND a munchkin. I think they both define the types quite well.

The powergamer used a home-brewed prestige class that he'd adapted from some 2nd ed adventure (usually a munchkin sign). It was rather annoying because he was a cleric, but could out-fight the fighter, and out-magic the sorcerer. Thing is, he rarely did. He COULD but didn't. He could have summoned a zillion mephits to do his bidding, but didn't. Why? Game Balance, that's why. He liked being powerful, and the DM appropriately threw potent adversaries at us from time to time, where his limits and weaknesses were tested. It was a great game and, as I said, it went on for years.

The munchkin was rather a lot younger than the rest of us. The kid brother of a mutual friend. He was all about the killin'. He used his abilities because he could, not because it made any sense (eg: he spent an entire game session going around the dungeon on his hands with manacles on his feet, because he suffered no penalties to do so). He was constantly passive-aggressive towards other players, often indicating how he could 'take down the whole adventuring party in one round'. I must make this point, it's wasn't just the character, but the mentality as well with no regard to game or game balance. Example quote: 'If I kill an angel, would that be bad?' (his character at that time was a paladin) and (whenever confronted by any sort of combat) 'oh good. More XP'. He couldn't settle on one character. Once flaws had been found, that one mysteriously died and was replaced the following game session by another, different, more powerful character. His stats were always ungodly (one day he turned up with a new character, whose stats were ALL 18 rolls. He said 'no really! I rolled it naturally!'). Names existed at the top of his character sheet, but really they were just there to differentiate other sets of attributes from each other (usually names were absurdly long or 'elvish' ones, to make up for the complete and total lack of character backstory). This went on for several years until university pressures became too great and he only attended a few games, much to our relief.

Both characters were effectively the same, both were super-statted out to the max. What's the difference? The way they were played. One was played with reason, forethought, character backstory, and restraint. The other was played as "Hey everyone! I'm the best ******* thing in this party. Can't you see how awesome I am? If you disagree, I'll kill your character too, 'cause I totally can!"

Therefore, one is a powergamer, the other a munchkin.

To me, they are both munchkins, one is just a little more subtle in showing his munchie-ness

Athos wrote:

Comrade Corsarius wrote:

Noon wrote:The other side of the coin, are people who decide the result of battles before 'playing' them at the table. They don't get called a derogitory name. As yet.

Nonsense. Of course there's a name for them. It's "GM"

I played a game of DnD a few years ago. It took place over several years. We went all the way from lvl1 to lvl20 (this was 3.0, later 3.5. We didn't have 3.5 from the start because it hadn't been invented yet). Anyway, in our group there was both a powergamer AND a munchkin. I think they both define the types quite well.

The powergamer used a home-brewed prestige class that he'd adapted from some 2nd ed adventure (usually a munchkin sign). It was rather annoying because he was a cleric, but could out-fight the fighter, and out-magic the sorcerer. Thing is, he rarely did. He COULD but didn't. He could have summoned a zillion mephits to do his bidding, but didn't. Why? Game Balance, that's why. He liked being powerful, and the DM appropriately threw potent adversaries at us from time to time, where his limits and weaknesses were tested. It was a great game and, as I said, it went on for years.

The munchkin was rather a lot younger than the rest of us. The kid brother of a mutual friend. He was all about the killin'. He used his abilities because he could, not because it made any sense (eg: he spent an entire game session going around the dungeon on his hands with manacles on his feet, because he suffered no penalties to do so). He was constantly passive-aggressive towards other players, often indicating how he could 'take down the whole adventuring party in one round'. I must make this point, it's wasn't just the character, but the mentality as well with no regard to game or game balance. Example quote: 'If I kill an angel, would that be bad?' (his character at that time was a paladin) and (whenever confronted by any sort of combat) 'oh good. More XP'. He couldn't settle on one character. Once flaws had been found, that one mysteriously died and was replaced the following game session by another, different, more powerful character. His stats were always ungodly (one day he turned up with a new character, whose stats were ALL 18 rolls. He said 'no really! I rolled it naturally!'). Names existed at the top of his character sheet, but really they were just there to differentiate other sets of attributes from each other (usually names were absurdly long or 'elvish' ones, to make up for the complete and total lack of character backstory). This went on for several years until university pressures became too great and he only attended a few games, much to our relief.

Both characters were effectively the same, both were super-statted out to the max. What's the difference? The way they were played. One was played with reason, forethought, character backstory, and restraint. The other was played as "Hey everyone! I'm the best ******* thing in this party. Can't you see how awesome I am? If you disagree, I'll kill your character too, 'cause I totally can!"

Therefore, one is a powergamer, the other a munchkin.

To me, they are both munchkins, one is just a little more subtle in showing his munchie-ness

I agree with this assessment. Creating your own class and not balancing it is the hallmark of a munchkin, not a power gamer. Nice of him to not rub it in the faces of the other players, though. Of all the kinds of munckins you could have in a game, he sounds pretty tolerable.

--flatline

Subjugator wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:Or when the reward far exceeds the risk.
But the risk is still there.

The reward has to *far* exceed the risk for Monty to make his appearance. Easy treasure is the basis of it.

"Oh! You killed a goblin king! He was a level 4 fighter! Here's a +5 vorpal sword!"

That's Monty Haul.

"Oh! You killed a goblin king! He was a level 4 fighter! Here's a +2 flaming burst sword!"

Heavy, yes. Depending on the nature of the fight, it might not be Monty though.

/Sub

What if your treasure roll comes up with a vorpal sword after killing the goblin king?

It's a curious event if it's actually within the rules, yet called a monty haul?

Noon wrote:What if your treasure roll comes up with a vorpal sword after killing the goblin king?

It's a curious event if it's actually within the rules, yet called a monty haul?

GMs are not robots. They are people. They are supposed to find something else in such cases.

/Sub

Noon wrote:

Subjugator wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:Or when the reward far exceeds the risk.
But the risk is still there.

The reward has to *far* exceed the risk for Monty to make his appearance. Easy treasure is the basis of it.

"Oh! You killed a goblin king! He was a level 4 fighter! Here's a +5 vorpal sword!"

That's Monty Haul.

"Oh! You killed a goblin king! He was a level 4 fighter! Here's a +2 flaming burst sword!"

Heavy, yes. Depending on the nature of the fight, it might not be Monty though.

/Sub

What if your treasure roll comes up with a vorpal sword after killing the goblin king?

It's a curious event if it's actually within the rules, yet called a monty haul?

Well that is basicaly off a random loot table, so while posible not likly to be part of monty haul campain. The monty haul campain whould dish out more than 3X standard random treasure. Every charter whould also likely get 1 major upgrade or more per session.

So the sword might be an upgrade for 1 charter but not every one. So not likly to be a Montey Haul campain. (besides you should roll up treasure first that way the goblin king whould be using it in the fight.)

Noon wrote:

Subjugator wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:Or when the reward far exceeds the risk.
But the risk is still there.

The reward has to *far* exceed the risk for Monty to make his appearance. Easy treasure is the basis of it.

"Oh! You killed a goblin king! He was a level 4 fighter! Here's a +5 vorpal sword!"

That's Monty Haul.

"Oh! You killed a goblin king! He was a level 4 fighter! Here's a +2 flaming burst sword!"

Heavy, yes. Depending on the nature of the fight, it might not be Monty though.

/Sub

What if your treasure roll comes up with a vorpal sword after killing the goblin king?

It's a curious event if it's actually within the rules, yet called a monty haul?

For something to be Monty Haul, it has to be an ongoing pattern, the norm for the adventure.
If you're using official charts to decide treasure, then such a find is going to be highly unusual, not the norm.
Unless the charts are designed in such a way as to give outrageous rewards for minor accomplishments, in which case I'd say that it's a Monty Haul game.

A first level halfling rogue finding The One Ring while hiding from some goblins is not Monty Haul.
Unless that's the kind of treasure that a first level halfling can expect to find every time he hides from goblins, or kills a goblin or two, or picks a pocket.

A powergamer is the guy who has to have the most powerful character in the game and will exploit any weakness in the system or of the GM to be and build the baddest. I can deal with them, in my games they tend to just stand around until the bullets fly (which is usually just once per game session).

A munchkin is the guy or gal who wants to take over every aspect of the game and act like an idiot until everyone quits playing because of their antics. They tend to giggle a lot and cheat on their dice rolls at every opportunity. One of the ones I knew actually had clear non-colored dice so we couldn't ever see what he rolled. I heard from a friend who gamed with him that he allegedly rolled 3 natural 20's in a row. We ducked and dodged him for years, even took up playing Axis and Allies so he wouldn't come around to 'F' up our games.

Anyway-
Munchkins tend to go from game to game, group to group until they finally just end up getting their jollies from CCG's. Most of the munchkins I knew are all pure CCGer's now. That's the one good thing about CCG's I guess.

MurderCityDisciple wrote:even took up playing Axis and Allies

Wow. That's messed up. At least try Twilight Imperium first.

MurderCityDisciple wrote:A powergamer is the guy who has to have the most powerful character in the game and will exploit any weakness in the system or of the GM to be and build the baddest. I can deal with them, in my games they tend to just stand around until the bullets fly (which is usually just once per game session).

Hmm...I think this is an overly narrow view of what a powergamer is. I consider myself a powergamer, yet combat is the least interesting part of the game to me and as a result, my characters are often the least combat capable characters in the party.

I suppose it's possible that I've been assigning myself the wrong label all this time. Seems like someone would have corrected me somewhere along the way...

--flatline

flatline wrote:

MurderCityDisciple wrote:A powergamer is the guy who has to have the most powerful character in the game and will exploit any weakness in the system or of the GM to be and build the baddest. I can deal with them, in my games they tend to just stand around until the bullets fly (which is usually just once per game session).

Hmm...I think this is an overly narrow view of what a powergamer is. I consider myself a powergamer, yet combat is the least interesting part of the game to me and as a result, my characters are often the least combat capable characters in the party.

I suppose it's possible that I've been assigning myself the wrong label all this time. Seems like someone would have corrected me somewhere along the way...

--flatline

Considering how some misuse a particular label to cover just about everything wouldn't be all that shocking to think others have a similar misconception of the word.

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:

MurderCityDisciple wrote:A powergamer is the guy who has to have the most powerful character in the game and will exploit any weakness in the system or of the GM to be and build the baddest. I can deal with them, in my games they tend to just stand around until the bullets fly (which is usually just once per game session).

Hmm...I think this is an overly narrow view of what a powergamer is. I consider myself a powergamer, yet combat is the least interesting part of the game to me and as a result, my characters are often the least combat capable characters in the party.

I suppose it's possible that I've been assigning myself the wrong label all this time. Seems like someone would have corrected me somewhere along the way...

--flatline

Considering how some misuse a particular label to cover just about everything wouldn't be all that shocking to think others have a similar misconception of the word.

Well, I certainly don't have any special claim to the word. Maybe the way I've been using that word all these years contradicts the common usage. Wikipedia's article doesn't help much since it both agrees and disagrees with my usage depending on what paragraph you're reading and what kind of bias you have when reading.

Oh well. Words mean different things to different people.

--flatline

notafraid2die wrote:All in all, I think it's been established that "Munchkin" is a derogatory term, whereas "Power-gamer" is more of a badge of honor. At least, that's the way I take it after starting this topic.

Pretty much, while a few take some strange kind of pride in proclaiming themselves to be munchkins the term itself is used in a purely derogatory fashion. Power Gamer has a more neutral meaning so sometimes someone is using it as an insult other times as a simple label which is why you don't generally offend someone calling them a power gamer but you generally will if you call them a munchkin.

notafraid2die wrote:All in all, I think it's been established that "Munchkin" is a derogatory term, whereas "Power-gamer" is more of a badge of honor. At least, that's the way I take it after starting this topic.

I think that's a reasonable assessment.

I've played with power gamers that were awesome to play with and power gamers that I'll never willingly play with again so I tend to think of it as more of a description of play style than as a compliment or insult. Although I've certainly heard it used as both.

--flatline