Re: Re: Character Generation

From: Mike Holmes <mike_c_holmes_at_...>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 08:16:08 -0600

>From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
>
>--- Gary Sturgess <gazza666_at_...> wrote:
>
> > I'd certainly do the
> > tiny amount of arithmetic Jane suggests here. I
> > wouldn't call it munchkinism personally;
>
>No, nor would I.
>
>Trying to think why I'd do it, and why I dislike it...

I recall playing a demo with Jeff Kayer (at Origins?) a couple of years back, and he handed me a character sheet and said that it needed a bit of pumping up. So he handed out a small pile of points. Not being particularly interested in the character at hand (it being a pre-gen), I just took the points and rounded up a bunch of abilities to 15 and 5W. Reasoning that this would, for the purposes of the scenario, best do what Jeff intended.

I think Jeff had a nickname for the behavior when I'd described what I did. Something like "min-max two step."

What's fascinating is that it actually made the process of spending the points much easier. Instead of worrying about how many points I found interesting to spend on each ability, I just could raise the abilities up to the break-point, and then back-calculate what I'd spent. Took about five minutes, maybe less.

The mechanical advantage of such break-points is actually so very minor - a +1 on a roll augmented by an ability that's at a break point typically means less than a percent shift in the odds. Further, the way the points work, you're only going to be able to min-max so many abilities (you've got to spend in chunks of 2 points for abilities at 13, or 8 points for abilities starting at 17 - or more if you're contemplating more experienced characters with more points). So it's not likely to influence my character-building a whole lot. Again it's going to be much more influenced by the "Oooh, this is what's cool about the character" factor in my case, and in most that I've seen.

But where break-pointing it does influence the process, I think it makes the process faster, not slower. At least it does for me.

In any case, again, knowing that I can max out an ability, and it's not going to be out of range in any way makes it so that I can set ability levels without hesitation. The example I gave was supposed to illustrate that, but I guess it wasn't clear enough. I may or may not max out some ability with a character. But I know with a point cap that if I do, that the character is "legal." Instead of being tempted to say, "I want my character to have an ability 'Destined To Rule 10W5,' when making my Argrath." And then wondering if I've overstepped some boundary.

Note that I often want more powerful characters in play (not as high as above, but probably will some day). And if I do want more powerful characters, I can set the bar high enough with the point limits that my players won't balk at taking abilities that high. Note that this aspect of this method is not much different than simply setting an arbitrary max - that's what it does in effect. But the other effect is to give the player an idea of how many abilities they should be emphasizing (or spreading the points out amongst if that's their decision). It gives the player an idea of when they should stop.

All I can say is that it's always worked for me, and apparently for all of the players who've used it in the games I've run.

On the subject of Munchkinism, the term derives from an early Dragon Magazine article that spoke to the problems of convention play in that you often ended up playing with young players. And these players, unsurprisingly, tended to be into playing out power fantasies. The quote about it is something to do with them explaining their 42nd level Anti-paladin character to you, and how he slew Thor or somesuch.

The problem with all such RPG terms is that over time they tend to take on whatever meaning the local group ascribes to them. So thanks for the clarification on cheating as the behavior in question (that's a relatively unambiguous term).

The only thing I'd say there is that cheating is indicative of one of two things. Either the player in question is an ass, in which case I'd question why you're playing with him (system won't make a difference here). Or the player really wants to be playing some other system (perhaps D&D or the like), and not HQ, in which case the problem is that you're using a system that isn't supporting that style - and for whom the "no limit" method isn't going to be valid either.

Now, I can see if Jane's players were actually D&D powergamers how one might want to take the point limit off in order to be informative that the limit wasn't saying that the system is meant to be played like D&D. But from what I know of those players, I'm doubting this is the case in her game.

It has to come down to Jane's aesthetic point. That is, if it simply bothers her (and/or her players) that math is involved in the process, then it only makes sense to take the math out. Not seeing how this pertains to any use of the term munchkin.

Mike



Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701

Powered by hypermail