|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Feb 28, 2013 2:41:50 GMT -8
I just hated the guy because all he could rabbit on about was how by breaking a game he was playing the game . . . That's like those rich kids when you were at primary school who got the newest and best toys and basically spent their time smashing them for fun because they could. Aaron Now, now there is no wrong way to play. ;D Sad that Jaguar XJS on blocks will never run the same because the propheshional inbred that owns it is too drunk on hubris to realise what a beautiful system he has/had and now no one gets a ride in it. Still he owns the XJS and you do not. But don't be envious. There is no wrong way to play.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Feb 28, 2013 3:38:33 GMT -8
I just hated the guy because all he could rabbit on about was how by breaking a game he was playing the game . . . That's like those rich kids when you were at primary school who got the newest and best toys and basically spent their time smashing them for fun because they could. Aaron Now, now there is no wrong way to play. ;D Sad that Jaguar XJS on blocks will never run the same because the propheshional inbred that owns it is too drunk on hubris to realise what a beautiful system he has/had and now no one gets a ride in it. Still he owns the XJS and you do not. But don't be envious. There is no wrong way to play. But he's not really playing just breaking. It's the guys attitude that sucks . . . A game imploded and he wasn't really bothered even a true munchkin wants a game to ccntinue so s/he can be more 'awesome'. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Feb 28, 2013 4:42:25 GMT -8
I just hated the guy because all he could rabbit on about was how by breaking a game he was playing the game . . . That's like those rich kids when you were at primary school who got the newest and best toys and basically spent their time smashing them for fun because they could. Aaron Now, now there is no wrong way to play. ;D Sad that Jaguar XJS on blocks will never run the same because the propheshional inbred that owns it is too drunk on hubris to realise what a beautiful system he has/had and now no one gets a ride in it. Still he owns the XJS and you do not. But don't be envious. There is no wrong way to play. The exact quote is "If you are having fun, you are doing it right," which I take as the plural you, which means if other people felt shit upon at that table, there is a problem. Again, if you take his idiocy and he is with a whole group of players like that and a DM who likes that sort of challenge (like Aaron!), then they are doing something right. I need to listen to this podcast though before I say stuff like this...
|
|
|
Post by greatwyrm on Feb 28, 2013 5:37:56 GMT -8
The more I think about it, I think there's also a connection between the system-breaking munchkin and the "it's what my character would do" guy. Both are just using some other part of the game, be it rules or roleplay, to justify acting like assclowns.
|
|
|
Post by ericfromnj on Feb 28, 2013 5:54:43 GMT -8
The more I think about it, I think there's also a connection between the system-breaking munchkin and the "it's what my character would do" guy. Both are just using some other part of the game, be it rules or roleplay, to justify acting like assclowns. Very good point. It's a human issue where people need to be ahead in the pecking order by putting other people down. I support Stu's call of vigilantism.
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Feb 28, 2013 8:14:36 GMT -8
Now, now there is no wrong way to play. ;D Sad that Jaguar XJS on blocks will never run the same because the propheshional inbred that owns it is too drunk on hubris to realise what a beautiful system he has/had and now no one gets a ride in it. Still he owns the XJS and you do not. But don't be envious. There is no wrong way to play. The exact quote is "If you are having fun, you are doing it right," which I take as the plural you, which means if other people felt shit upon at that table, there is a problem. Again, if you take his idiocy and he is with a whole group of players like that and a DM who likes that sort of challenge (like Aaron!), then they are doing something right. I need to listen to this podcast though before I say stuff like this... Lol I don't like it . . . I just put friendship before game style . . . the challenge was learning how to reign him in for the benefit of the other player who was not a munchkin. the other player gave me what I needed as a DM while I gave the munchkin what he needed as a munchkin while still catering to the non-munchkin. The trick was to manufacture situations that let the non-munchkin shine while giving enough options for brute force solutions to satisfy the munchkin . . . it really came down to solving problems the subtle way or the hard way. The lesson I built in each time, to prod the munchkin away from power gaming, was to somehow make it apparent, once the smoke and carnage had settled, that there had been an easier way all along OR to make brute force a non-option. For example: towards the end of the campaign they discovered that the artifact they were seeking was actually a person not a thing. Munchkin assumed, once found, this person would happily come along and do what he had to do - but instead they found someone totally unwilling to get involved ("I didn't choose to be this, no one asked me . . . I don't want any part of this shit that's going down I just want to live out my life undisturbed and uninvolved") - yeah munchkin sort of had a mild stroke at that point because all his power and abilities counted for shit, he couldn't force the guy to cooperate or solve it thru combat, he had RP it . . . no reaction tables just a simple "convince me to change my mind". Non-munchkin got to shine because he came up with a pretty convincing argument after loads of interplayer exchange . . . munchkin was happy because they had 'ticked the quest box' non-munchkin was happy because it was solved thru RP. Aaron
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Feb 28, 2013 8:50:53 GMT -8
Greatwyrm - you bring up an interesting point.
Both munchkins and thespians can break games.
|
|
|
Post by rickno7 on Feb 28, 2013 10:30:20 GMT -8
Greatwyrm - you bring up an interesting point. Both munchkins and thespians can break games. I would die to see a Munchkin-centric Forum where they are discussing how Super Dimensional Battle-Hammer Post-strike Balls 3rd Edition Revision 2.7 9er: The Quickening was broke because a player role played too hard and broke their system. Ruined the whole night for all of them he did. No one got to roll dice for like 2 hours. The exact quote is "If you are having fun, you are doing it right," which I take as the plural you, which means if other people felt shit upon at that table, there is a problem. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Feb 28, 2013 21:59:28 GMT -8
I just listened to PCftD tonight at work, and you might want to go back and listen to it again. Peter wasn't saying some of the things that you attribute to him. Mike(y?) was the one who said "But the rules let me do it." as what their response might be to trying to pull them back. Peter responded with "They need to put on their Big Boy Pants."
His thing was that he likes to build the most effective character (and this is the important part) within the strictures that the GM puts on him.
Plus Steve's whole Mission from the King scenario was more than a little rail-roady. And his whole bit where the Power Player only goes along with it because he wants to was a little silly. Now, I think that Steve was just articulating what he was going for badly. I don't think he meant to come off quite as whiny as he did there.
The guys from Fear the Boot really say it best. Your group needs to get together and figure out what you all want from the game, and put down some guidelines for what is or isn't acceptable. The problem player is the one who refuses to work inside those guidelines.
|
|
HyveMynd
Supporter
Dirty hippie, PbtA, Fate, & Cortex Prime <3er
Posts: 2,273
Preferred Game Systems: PbtA, Cortex Plus, Fate, Ubiquity
Currently Playing: Monsterhearts 2
Currently Running: The Sprawl
Favorite Species of Monkey: None
|
Post by HyveMynd on Feb 28, 2013 22:42:31 GMT -8
I just listened to PCftD tonight at work, and you might want to go back and listen to it again. Peter wasn't saying some of the things that you attribute to him. Mike(y?) was the one who said "But the rules let me do it." as what their response might be to trying to pull them back. Peter responded with "They need to put on their Big Boy Pants." His thing was that he likes to build the most effective character (and this is the important part) within the strictures that the GM puts on him. Plus Steve's whole Mission from the King scenario was more than a little rail-roady. And his whole bit where the Power Player only goes along with it because he wants to was a little silly. Now, I think that Steve was just articulating what he was going for badly. I don't think he meant to come off quite as whiny as he did there. The guys from Fear the Boot really say it best. Your group needs to get together and figure out what you all want from the game, and put down some guidelines for what is or isn't acceptable. The problem player is the one who refuses to work inside those guidelines. I sir, call munchkin on you. Munchkin, I say. Seriously, how dare you dump all over our hate spewing and complaining by using reason and intelligence. I bite my thumb at you, sir.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Feb 28, 2013 22:56:22 GMT -8
I just listened to PCftD tonight at work, and you might want to go back and listen to it again. Peter wasn't saying some of the things that you attribute to him. Mike(y?) was the one who said "But the rules let me do it." as what their response might be to trying to pull them back. Peter responded with "They need to put on their Big Boy Pants." His thing was that he likes to build the most effective character (and this is the important part) within the strictures that the GM puts on him. Plus Steve's whole Mission from the King scenario was more than a little rail-roady. And his whole bit where the Power Player only goes along with it because he wants to was a little silly. Now, I think that Steve was just articulating what he was going for badly. I don't think he meant to come off quite as whiny as he did there. The guys from Fear the Boot really say it best. Your group needs to get together and figure out what you all want from the game, and put down some guidelines for what is or isn't acceptable. The problem player is the one who refuses to work inside those guidelines. I sir, call munchkin on you. Munchkin, I say. Seriously, how dare you dump all over our hate spewing and complaining by using reason and intelligence. I bite my thumb at you, sir. Must resist desire to start quoting Romeo and Juliet.... Must stay strong.... You bite your thumb at ME, SIR??? I tried... honest.... ^.^
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Mar 1, 2013 3:19:36 GMT -8
Greatwyrm - you bring up an interesting point. Both munchkins and thespians can break games. I would die to see a Munchkin-centric Forum where they are discussing how Super Dimensional Battle-Hammer Post-strike Balls 3rd Edition Revision 2.7 9er: The Quickening was broke because a player role played too hard and broke their system. Ruined the whole night for all of them he did. No one got to roll dice for like 2 hours. The exact quote is "If you are having fun, you are doing it right," which I take as the plural you, which means if other people felt shit upon at that table, there is a problem. Yep. Try the min max forum ref: flame war many winter moons ago. They love optimising cause 'you can't enjoy the game otherwise' (seriously that was the up shot of many posts there). The PCftD 'munchkin' - really it is about the person and the game. Like playing backgammon with or without the doubling die - if you play it with then you're playing for money and that's a very different game from a social 'let's play a couple of rounds of backgammon and see if I can't gammon your ass' Aaron
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 3, 2013 3:05:42 GMT -8
You know how they say that you tend to notice things more often when you are focused on them (social psychology calls this confirmation bias)...? Well this thread tends to suggest a number of solid reasons for the publishing of some universal system agnostic rules to RPGs to guide player behaviour. Now rules can be broken, so a call for rules is not a call for an RPGA Police to be formed. If a bunch of douche bags want to play pin the tail on the douche and that is fun for them - like we say: more power to them. But the new player sitting with the douche bags will cotton on to the fact that he or she is not the problem. (For my money, THAT is the reason to have these etiquette rules published.) It would be nice if, like in my situation where I hide my system behind AD&D 1e, a group can call upon pg 110 of the DMG (or whatever "rule" book if game system is your way) and call bullshit on unacceptable behaviour. That includes calling out the GM, as with any other player, for being a douche bag. A published rule is also not necessarily a personal opinion so, maybe, instead of an argument a discussion could erupt - again away from that table because - I think - one etiquette rule is no rules arguments during game.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on Mar 3, 2013 22:14:13 GMT -8
By the by... On the subject of Shaolin Soccer. It's a great film, but it's not Steven's best. Try Kung Fu Hustle, and definitely track down God of Cookery.
|
|