The Gaming Den

I noticed a troubling tendency on boards to associate min-maxing and munchkinism as an inseparable whole. I nicknamed this trend the Munchkinmaxer Fallacy.

The original munchkin was a French D&D player known as Fat Bill. He played D&D not as a cooperative game where a party overcame challenges together, but as a game where the only things that mattered were for his character to "score the most loot and kills, and being the most powerful dude ever." Nothing else mattered.

He made powerful characters, but he did not do this to supplement party roles not filled or increase the group's survival. To him, D&D was a self-indulgent power fantasy where lording his "uber PC" over the group made him feel important and big in the pants.

http://wiki.ask.com/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)

Like the late great Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility." You can use your rules mastery and min-maxing to act like a douchebag and steal from fellow PCs and kill allied patrons, or you can figure out effective combinations to help the party avoid crippling TPKs and trap builds. Those who used their power irresponsibly contributed to player and DM resentment and online horror stories of derailed adventures. And such resentment gave rise to the belief that only munchkins min-max.

Thoughts?

Libertad wrote:
http://wiki.ask.com/Munchkin_(role-playing_games)

Just a note on the fussy BB codes here ... ing_games)

Libertad wrote:[url=http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2369.0]Like the late great Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility." You can use your rules mastery and min-maxxing to act like a douchebag and steal from fellow PCs and kill allied patrons, or you can figure out effective combinations to help the party avoid crippling TPKs and trap builds. Those who used their power irresponsibly contributed to player and DM resentment and online horror stories of derailed adventures. And such resentment gave rise to the belief that only munchkins min-max.

Thoughts?

I think it's that and a lot of gygaxian mentality that people who hold the DM to the rules are munchkins. People who min-max are often perceived as caring more about the rules than the game (whether or not it's true for any one given player) and in old D&D, min-maxing was often a pejorative. I think the two were linked back before the time when knowing the rules was considered good

I can tell you that the easiest way to get away with min-maxxing is to make all of the other characters in the group more powerful than yourself.

In 4E D&D, a well-oiled wizard or warlord can rock way more face than a ranger. But rangers are always in the hot seat because their awesomeness is direct and personal while wizard or warlord awesomeness benefits the rest of the people in the group. Indeed, reserving a significant portion of your power to benefit the other people in your group can be viewed as insurance against complaints or nerfing. It's why Cleric Archers are hated so bitterly even though their more powerful cousins the Blaster Clerics are more effective.

That's the same logic as to why the U.S. / EU / China put money in each others' banks even though they could just shake hands and call a mulligan without that big of a deficit. When someone owes you favors and you owe someone else favors but don't decide to call them in, it makes your relationship more stable.

There's optimizing, and then there's min-maxxing. The former is generally seen as okay, while the latter usually, in my experience, involves creating a boring, non-functional character that has one schtick that the PC is *really* good at.

Optimizing is saying "Int is my primary stat, so I'm dumping everything I can into Int."

Min-maxxing tends to be: "I am a god in combat but I literally need to be carried from one combat to the next. Can we just assume the fighter keeps me in a harness on his back in between combat? Oh and my Charisma of 2 means I probably shouldn't be talking too much."

Munchkin tends to be: "If I take 10 ranks in ride, I totally should be able to command the fighter like he's my mount. So give me his character sheet."

Is the same on tabletop games. People tend to confuse people who want to win with cheaters.

RobbyPants wrote:I think it's that and a lot of gygaxian mentality that people who hold the DM to the rules are munchkins. People who min-max are often perceived as caring more about the rules than the game (whether or not it's true for any one given player) and in old D&D, min-maxing was often a pejorative. I think the two were linked back before the time when knowing the rules was considered good

Hell, it's from the time when even using the rules was considered optional or badwrong. K linked to a board where they have a subforum devoted to Gygax; he had a username there, and this subforum was full of him answering questions (and, y'know, sucking his dick).

The only problem was, people would quote the rules at him and he would get pissed off when they didn't accept his bullshit contradictory answers. He literally told people "I don't care what I wrote in the book".

There are still grognards who claim that all rules are only guidelines, and anything you pull out of your ass is just as valid as anything written in the rulebook.

Gx1080 wrote:Is the same on tabletop games. People tend to confuse people who want to win with cheaters.

I dunno...I think sometimes there's a letter vs. spirit of the rules thing going on. Sometimes a rule can be interpreted in a way that makes the entire game ridiculous...so if a player insists on interpreting it that way, I think that's fairly shitty. I'm not going to call him a cheater, but I'm probably not going to play with him either.

Ultimately, IMO, most rules interpretations don't come down to "what does this literally say", but "what makes the game fun for everyone involved".

@PoliteNewb

You see, I want to agree with that, but the problem is that said arguments leads into this kind of passive-agressive statements:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Cus ... r_2011.pdf

So I can't. Sorry.

Gx1080 wrote:@PoliteNewb

You see, I want to agree with that, but the problem is that said arguments leads into this kind of passive-agressive statements:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Cus ... r_2011.pdf

So I can't. Sorry.

Yeah, this is a stupid differentiation.

Because Munchkin and Min-Maxer... and Powergamer and Rules lawyer and blah blah blah ALL mean the the same thing and no it isn't some elaborate specific level of "acceptable" awesome rules use.

It means "People Gygaxian Basket-Weavers hate".

The actual definition of ALL those terms shift with the needs of the Basket-Weavers as their demands, accusations and target individuals shift. It has about as much of a specific meaning as being called a "Commie Pinko Traitor".

Now you can make some stupid bullshit argument that perhaps some of those terms have experienced a "take it back and make it our own campaign" equivalent to "Gay" or whatever, or even that perhaps some originated in an attempt by some overly optimisitic ass somewhere to convince the Basket-weavers that yeah yeah sure Munchkins are bad but Power-gaming is awesome.

But really the attempts by some communities to "take back" Min-Maxer and Power Gamer (and the relative lack of attempts to "take back" Munchkin and Rules Lawyer) is pretty much pointless. We don't need the label. The label remains tainted, and ultimately the conversation with those that insist on using those labels has only ever been successful in the limited number of cases when it has when you talk about how to actually productively improve the game rather than having shit fights over whatever the hell it is you and the three people you game with have subjectively interpreted to be proper insulting role playing gamer labeling.

edit: And this is also one of the reasons I still think arguable the WORST piece of shit brought to us by 4E edition was the "Mike Mearls or whoever the crazy fuck who wrote this was labels and insults every form of gamer he can imagine" chapter.

PhoneLobster wrote: edit: And this is also one of the reasons I still think arguable the WORST piece of shit brought to us by 4E edition was the "Mike Mearls or whoever the crazy fuck who wrote this was labels and insults every form of gamer he can imagine" chapter.

I don't own any 4th Edition books. I'd like to hear about what the gist of this passage says if that's not too much trouble.

PhoneLobster wrote:Yeah, this is a stupid differentiation.

Because Munchkin and Min-Maxer... and Powergamer and Rules lawyer and blah blah blah ALL mean the the same thing and no it isn't some elaborate specific level of "acceptable" awesome rules use.

My joke aside, I disagree with this answer. You're basically saying there is no such thing as someone who abuses loopholes in the rules even (or especially) if it harms the game?

I generally describe "munchkin" as someone who has come up with a definition of "winning" a game that does not have a win condition and persues it, even at the cost of the game falling apart.

Is that sucking Gygax cock? I mean, isn't this genre of games supposed to be communal? Or is there no such thing as a disruptive player?

TheFlatline wrote:There's optimizing, and then there's min-maxxing.

There's chewing, and then there's masticating.

The terms mean the same thing.

This distinction annoys me.

That is all.

Because the RPG community, by and large, is made up of idiots?

I don't see anything wrong with building a character that's supposed to be more powerful because the game itself rewards you with power for doing things. Thus, the point of the game (ignoring story goals for the moment) is to gain more power. And even with story goals, a lot of these tend to be things like "Kill Evil Lord Fuckstick" or "Get Revenge on the Asshole who Stole My Cheetos", things which usually require power to do. You will never see a fantasy story where the hero is offered no-strings-attached magic power (i.e. not going to possess them) and decides to turn it down and go fight Lord Fuckstick without it.

Libertad wrote:

PhoneLobster wrote: edit: And this is also one of the reasons I still think arguable the WORST piece of shit brought to us by 4E edition was the "Mike Mearls or whoever the crazy fuck who wrote this was labels and insults every form of gamer he can imagine" chapter.

I don't own any 4th Edition books. I'd like to hear about what the gist of this passage says if that's not too much trouble.

4e Dungeon Master's Guide, page 8 wrote:Most players enjoy many aspects of the game at different times. For convenience, we define the primary player motivations as types of players: actors, explorers, instigators, power gamers, slayers, storytellers, thinkers, and watchers.

That section then goes on to tell you what these arbitrary categories of players want.

The 4e DMG is of course written by James Wyatt, but I am told that large amounts of it were copypastaed from Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies by... Bill Slavicsek and Rich Baker. So it's very possible that that particular section was originally written by Rich Baker or Bill Slavicsek and then either given a new set of paint or not by James Wyatt.

Interestingly: James Wyatt went on to write Dungeon Mastering 4th edition D&D for Dummies.

-Username17

CapnTthePirateG wrote:Because the RPG community, by and large, is made up of idiots?

Ain't that a little harsh?

Truth usually is.

Just because a subculture uses a term inappropriately doesn't mean that they're irrational morons. I think that people who associate min-maxing with munchkinism were negatively affected by some problem players. First impressions tend to make a dent,and hearing about similar negative experiences from other groups tends to cement biases. This can even happen to intelligent and reasonable people.

I think the best option is to show gamers that there are different degrees of min-maxing. Example: A high Int, low Str Wizard is min-maxing, but he's not trying to wreck the game. Whenever someone picks a superior option for their character, they're min-maxing. One end of the spectrum has things like Barbarians with Power Attack (sensible options to not gimp your character), the other end has Pun-Pun and the Incantatrix (options which can almost effortlessly steamroll most opposition and break the game).

Gx1080 wrote:@PoliteNewb

You see, I want to agree with that, but the problem is that said arguments leads into this kind of passive-agressive statements:

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_Cus ... r_2011.pdf

So I can't. Sorry.

I'm...missing something.

The designer's note strikes me as candid and correct. "Whoops, we fucked up; we're probably going to fix that, and in the meantime, I suggest you don't be a dick and take advantage of a loophole." That is an entirely coherent statement, and one I agree with.

The ONLY thing that makes it stupid is where they say that despite his comment, the official answer is "yes". That is the best definition of a pure "letter of the rules" argument that makes the game less fun I have ever seen.

When people generally agree that following the letter of the rules is dumb and bad for the game, it is dumb to follow the letter simply because "it says so!".

They should have just said, "No, we fucked up, even though the rules say that it's not what was meant. Here is a helpful errata to make things play right."

EDIT: I notice they hedged by saying, "we're saying YES just because after hemming and hawing, we think it's not too bad". But that is a bullshit hedge, and they admit it when they say they're going to fix it next edition. If it ain't broke, they wouldn't be fixing it. They were just too cowardly to go ahead and make the fucking errata.

But why aren't they allowed to if it isn't overpowered for them anyway?

And on the topic, keep in mind that many of the so called min-maxxers ignore what the rules actually say because they want them to say something else so another one of their combo's work. Or you know, so they can ban specific builds they don't like.

There is also the ever-fun clash of perceptions where someone rules-savy goes "look, as written you can totally do Balor mining" and someone else goes "wtf, that's bullshit". Now what should happen next is the two agreeing on not doing that and maybe writing a houserule for it if it comes up too often. What happens far too often though is this:

A: look, as written you can totally do Balor mining
B: wtf, that's bullshit
A: no, it's not, just read the text
B: no, that totally doesn't work
A: look, the rules are quite clear
B: if you fucking munchkin try that in my game I'll have a mountain drop onto your character
A: great, remind me to never play in your group then, dickhead

Basically some people are quite bad at hearing the implied "this is nuts, we need a houserule" or the equally implied "look, that may be true, literally speaking, but we won't play it like that". When the issue in question is any less ludicrous than Balor mining and you put two such people in the same room you will end up with both of them cursing each other. Happens all the time.

This is what being a munchkin is all about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_%28card_game%29

Murtak wrote:There is also the ever-fun clash of perceptions...

The problem is your exact same scenario all too frequently holds with Balor mining, wish farming, abusing broken spells, using perfectly functional spells, using something even remotely resembling the actual Grapple rules, knowing WTF an AoO or a Balance check is and when or how to use it, and NOT dying to "Rocks fall you all die!".

And all too many total suckers are prepared to take the same route as Libertad and assume that the people who spread around and populised the slurs of Munchkinism and Min Maxing did so based on valid experiences like balor mining instead of the much more common argument over say things like "No really that's how the 3.5 hold person spell fucking works and you told me you wanted to use to play 'very core' rules".

Sorry. But many, if not most, if not ALL of the people who OBSESS over "Munchkins" and "Rules Lawyers" do NOT differentiate "levels" of "acceptable" rules use. If you EVER disagree with them over ANYTHING especially if you dare mention a rule in the process then their response is to pick their favourite RPG slur of the day and label you with it. Who cares if all you did was say "er... your wizard can't dispell my ongoing spell without at least making a concentration check due to it's effects..." because the people who shout "MinMaxer!" sure as hell don't give a fuck over such minor differences in treason against their divine right as God DM.

Libertad appears to be new here. Or something. He should go read my thread about "Our Favorite Edition..." because he needs a reminder of what actual play scenarios with "problem rules lawyers" like myself actually look like and for everyones benefit they almost never seem to involve the much wanked upon Balor Mining level of scenario.

@PoliteNewb

And that's my problem.

I will not support any statement that deviates responsabilities for non-shit rules from the developers to the players. Period. Why? Because the players are paying money for said rules. So, I expect developers to either man up and errata the damn things or to tell whiners to deal with it.

Also, my gut instinct tells me that some GMs can't tolerate that some players are more rules-savy than them.

Which is a sad thing all in it's own.
The GM should know a good chunk of the rules, especially the more general ones.
But the people playing the characters being more rules savy in their chosen niche is fine and dandy so they can keep work from the GM to let him spin the tale in which you play a role that lets you roll dice in the first place.

PhoneLobster wrote: Because Munchkin and Min-Maxer... and Powergamer and Rules lawyer and blah blah blah ALL mean the the same thing and no it isn't some elaborate specific level of "acceptable" awesome rules use.

So it's all the same thing, interesting note, although terms "Powergamer" and "Munchkin" were very similar anyway. As seen nowadays, that people confused those terms, where one uses it to merely further the concept of their character, or otherwise do the best at what they do. Whereas Munchkin would be abusing rules loopholes, most commonly for rather silly concept it brings (like a whale man in D&D, or flock of bats with gravity vs. Tiamat in 4th edition, perhaps Balor mining), and usually, at the expense of the other players enjoyment. Fair enough would be rather pointless term to fight for, since who doesn't do any form of "power gaming" in this case, and already have a term for "munchkin" like people, many in fact: Jerks, @$$holes, or the more internet accepted "Trolls".

As for the 4th edition player labeling bit, I'm wondering why something like that is truly all that bad? Don't other RPG's already do label players in a way, least, I believe even 3rd edition did so. Mentioning preferences, that those prefer to just mingle socially with friends, murder stuff 24/7, others might be into the in player dramas more. Anyway, even the Den has called certain players the Jimmy/Girlfriend, the ones, that the Tome Barbarian Class was apparently made for. Seemed to recognize that there are the casual kind of player that's just kind of there, and thus would want a simple character type to play. Believe 4th edition instead called them the "Watcher", so that type exists to say the least. So why is it bad that 4th edition is putting labels to players, that we already do anyway?