>From: "Gary Sturgess" <gazza666_at_...>
>
>In fact, I'd suggest that removing all limits removes the
>possibilities of munchkinism. You can't effectively cheat if there
>aren't any rules.
Your reply is interestingly out of context, but you have a good point. I've often advocated the same thing. And, in fact, it's just slightly possible that a system that so limits might inform somebody that play is about winning.
But taken as a whole, HQ doesn't do this that I've seen (with the limits). Further a player who has a good limit can't "cheat" either. Well, actually any player can technically cheat at any time, but we'll assume that we're playing with people we trust and that what you mean is players who try to play for power or to win.
Munchkin is a dangerously loaded term to use, and has lots of different local meanings.
Anyhow, with players we trust, and the system not promoting the wrong sort of play, the limits do serve to create a structure that helps with making good characters through constraint (along with the keyword structure and lots of other parts of the system all working together). Or so I've observed in my play.
Mike
Powered by hypermail