The Munchkin, The Loony, and The Roleplayer

Recently I was fascinated by the classification of types of players I found on the Internet. There have been such classifications in the past (I have even made them myself), and the ideas are old, but let's put the current name on the old faces. First, as gamers playing roleplaying games, hopefully we are striving for the roleplayer ideal. This is an ideal held out to most players of fantasy roleplaying games as something that should be done, when you do it "properly." The roleplayer really gets into his character and actually asks himself questions like what his character will do, why he will do it, and what may come of it. How his character feels, what his relations are to other characters, and a host of other similar questions go hand in hand with the roleplayer. This player may give serious thought to what the character's cloths may look like, what foods they like, and what the character wants to do with their life considering the character's background. A roleplayer can and usually does play a character that has not only different abilities than they do, but a different personality as well. It isn't just themselves in a different body with new abilities, but it can be an entirely different personality. And for this discussion, specifically for emphasis, a roleplayer is a master at keeping player and character information separate.

Here is a brief example. Conversations over the gaming table between the DM and the players may reveal certain information to a player that their character does not have. The DM may tell the thief about the trap he found - and now all the players know it is there as well since they all heard the DM, even though all their characters there may not know about it - and the thief character decides not to share that information with his party members. (Don't ask why, these things just occasionally happen). Now your character follows the thief down the hall just as he has been doing all night. What do you have him do? You probably shouldn't start asking about any traps your character might see. After all, you didn't ask before during the last 75 feet of hall, so what has changed? If your character is so badly injured already and another trap will kill them, then what will you have them do? Sure, it's easier to walk into the trap when you know it will hurt your character but not kill them, but it's a lot harder when you know the serious consequences of roleplaying your character properly will lead to their death. So what will you have your character do?

After 20 years of playing with dozens of different players, I have seen my fair share of answers to that killer question. Unfortunately, for many players the ideal is beyond them. They will refuse to have their character proceed (unless the DM forces them or at least has to point out the obvious to them), or they may start looking around themselves for traps, beg to be told some difference they noticed in the thief this time as opposed to last time he looked and didn't find a trap, or come up with some other excuse to go another way. It is a rare player indeed who will knowingly walk their character to their death (especially with a loved character). For good or ill, these people who can do that sort of thing exemplify some of the highest ideals of the roleplayer. I'm not suggesting asking the DM if your character did notice something awry is a bad thing; just that doing so more than once is indicative of bad roleplaying, or at any rate, roleplaying below the high ideal.

It should be noted, however, that this ultimate separation of character knowledge from player knowledge is a roleplaying ideal and not necessarily a gaming ideal. If you are playing a game and do not wish to strive for the roleplaying ideal - simply because it is not that important to you or perhaps because you do not have fun basking in the realism of keeping player and character knowledge apart - then no one should really blame you for not roleplaying well. After all, it wasn't your personal goal to roleplay so much as it was to have some fun, and if the roleplaying ideal isn't fun for you, then you simply aren't a good roleplayer, even though you may still be a good gamer. This is just another one of the many possible approaches to playing a game. Yet, one may think a roleplaying game should strive for the roleplaying ideal because the very word roleplaying is in "roleplaying game," but never forget, the word game is also there.

The Loony, on the other hand, has a different sort of purpose for playing the game. This is the guy who makes a joke out of everything. The word "Serious" is not in his vocabulary. Excellent for comic relief, and even a great addition to the game, the loony will make no great distinction between character and player knowledge, usually mixing the two freely in order to make a joke. But the point is not to try to roleplay so much as to have fun and make jokes. This is fine, if you like it, but never confuse it with roleplaying.

Of course, to qualify as a true Loony you would have to do this as a sort of extreme. Many people may occasionally do loony like things (when the game halts and everyone goes OOC and has a good laugh), but they often strive for a more roleplaying ideal as well (when it suits their purpose). So many gamers fall short of both the loony ideal and the Roleplayer ideal, finding themselves somewhere on middle ground.

Finally, the Munchkin is nearly always present. Mini maxing, out of character, usually trying to find something in the game (derived from their character) to compensate for a lack of satisfaction in real life perhaps (and I'm not talking about simply having fun), the Munchkin's purpose is simply to be the most powerful thing walking, the center of attention, a character fast on his way to deity hood, finally through their character, commanding the respect he or she "deserves." This player misses so many roleplaying opportunities, never quite realizing it can be extraordinarily fun to play one's weaknesses as well as one's strengths, never fully understanding working with the team means they don't have to be an island of power unto themselves. Frequently, they look upon their character as nothing more than numbers and statistics, trying to maximize their power with minimal effort. They may choose a long sword because the book says it does the most damage, but would hardly ever take a rapier or a cutlass for style when told these weapons do less raw damage in a particular system. And almost without fail, there is no great distinction between the character's personality and their own.

A minor note: There is a subtle distinction between mini maxing and munchkinism, and though munchkins may use mini maxing techniques where they can, the munchkin goes further. First, munchkins are often younger, need not have as firm a grasp on the rules, and derive their power not by maximizing the advantages within the rules, but by taking it (if allowed to create a character by design. For example, simply taking three 18s or more and a plethora of powerful magic items), or often by having power handed to them by GMs known as Monty Hauls. The munchkin also strives to be the most powerful character walking and often has notions they are on the path to godhood (even if it might take months of playing to get there!!!). Mini maxers, after squeezing the rules for every advantage, tend to be more realistic, so their "problem" mostly concerns character generation while the munchkin's extends well into actual game play. Munchkins often do not roleplay well or even particularly wish to, though mini maxers may play their roles very well, after character generation gives them the advantages they desired to play.

Again, actually being a pure munchkin is rather hard since such a player would make little or no distinction between a DM giving them a +5 holy avenger for killing the fierce Kobold or a +15 holy avenger. Many so called Munchkins actually have their limits as to what they feel is within bounds of common sense and probabilities, perhaps even being appalled by the idea of having a +15 sword even existing in the world (or some other ridiculously powerful magic item or ability). Yet, though most "Munchkins" do have a line even they won't cross, that line is considerably further along than most roleplayers (or even gamers who generally try to roleplay every now and then) would be comfortable with. It is just a relative matter of how you wish to approach the game.

Now you may get the impression I have nothing but contempt for the munchkin, but you'd be wrong. They are more often than not simply younger or inexperienced players. They have some growing up to do in real life and it is no wonder they may act childish even when trying to roleplay a serious adult character. In time, given many proper examples, they will grow up and they will learn, and they may even become surprisingly good roleplayers. So even though I have no love for their current playing abilities, I have nothing but hope and respect for the actual player, and I wish them all the best in the games they do play. To them I can only say this. When and if you are accused of being a munchkin, if your impulsive reaction is to vehemently deny any truth to the accusation, you are probably telling a more experienced player that he or she was ABSOLUTELY correct in their initial assessment of who and what you are. Rather than take the accusation as a personal insult, try to understand why they feel this way. Even ask them. Ask if they can show you a better way. If nothing else, your apparent willingness to learn how to become a better player will shut them up since they will be so taken aback by a non defensive attitude from a "munchkin" they will have no choice but to reevaluate you.

Naturally, it may not be that simple, for these things do take time. But I think you will eventually see that playing ridiculously powerful or the highly improbable characters is for many not the point of roleplaying games; it is to have fun, and one may have a great deal of fun playing something other than a god-like being (also remember, god-like is a relative term and not an absolute one, so any argument your character is not god-like (in your eyes) will hold no water. If some people tells you it is, then to them, it is, and it doesn't matter if you have a different idea of where god-like truly begins. You will not be playing with that particular player with a character of that sort. You may, however, offer to try another less god-like character, and even you should by now know what that might look like, for if you don't you are a true munchkin after all and not simply a bit on the munchie side).

Now, I mentioned these types of payers here not because I wished to do an in depth write up on them, but only because it pertains to rolling up characters. There are many flavors of games out there, from poverty and low powered games to the ultra powerful, magic filled campaigns with characters who resemble walking gods. All can be fun and none are inherently wrong; it is just a matter of style and taste. However, the rules of super humanism may leave a bad taste in one's mouth since they seem to cater to the Munchkin's desires, allowing them to make ultra powerful characters. In fact, even having such rules almost makes it incumbent upon one to use or abuse them, generating extremely powerful characters while ignoring the fact it may be fun to roleplay a mentally challenged individual, a cripple, a hideously malformed, less than highly charismatic person, or a weakling. All these things can be fun to play, but certainly would not be found in the realm of the super human. With that said I would simply like to point out that having rules of super humanism and using them are two entirely different things. The existence of the rules should never be used to force you to play with them, and I do highly recommend playing interesting characters with interesting weaknesses as well as interesting strengths, even if doing so puts your character outside the possible realm of those super human rules for all times. It is still fun.

Character Generation, Starting Statistics, And The Rules Of Super Humanism