Greed...But not really

[Jake Norwood]

On the subject of munchkin play, munchkins are dysfunctional despite any system you use. There is no need to restrict non-munchkin players, and no way to restrict munchkin players. Why would you want to anyhow? Kick the munchkins out (or convert them if possible, I suppose), and move on. Allow the good players to do their thing unhindered by excessive limits. Just my opinion on the subject.

Mike

I just wanted to pound my stein and say, "here here!"

Jake,
who isn't feeling very useful, but is pleased with himself nonetheless.

[Nick the Nevermet]

If that fails, and if his character is becoming just plain silly by being in a constant sprititually charged state, then thats when he starts bumping into a ton of other bladeslingers; some better than him (who would beat him and possibly kill him), and some worse than him (who if he kills he potentially becomes infamous and wanted for murder).

Which is fine. Actually the player is telling you he wants to fight these guys, and probably should bump into them anyhow (or, more likely, be looking for them). I mean, how does he know if he's the best or not until he's fought others who might be the best.

That's the essence of the bladeslinger's riddle, no?

Mike

Oh, yes, thats exactly it.  We're in complete agreement.  However, maybe I'm just unlucky with who I've played with, but I can envision a lot of players being truly surprised you threw a potential enemy in front of them that is actually superior.

I like your point of overlapping between Drives and Passions.  I suspect the biggest difference between the two is a Drive is intended for activity (you want to accomplish something), versus passions which have a constant relationship toward something else (simplest examples are of the "Love/Hate ___" kind).  

As for munchkins... ugh.  I completely agree that they are a problem regardless of system.  Again, my experience has been its not always as simple as kicking them out.  But a full rant in Munchkins would first, be off topic big time, and second, it is the kind of rant that rpg.net is there for. (Not a knock on rpg.net, it simply serves different purposes than the forge or this particular forum)

[Mike Holmes]

However, maybe I'm just unlucky with who I've played with, but I can envision a lot of players being truly surprised you threw a potential enemy in front of them that is actually superior.

That's the cool thing about TROS. You can throw a combatant with a bigger CP at the character, who will win only by his SAs. This character will realize that he only won because he wanted it more, and hopefully think about increasing his pool, or change his character's direction. Because he knows that someday he'll meet the guy who wants it more, at which point he'd better be the best.

And then when he proves he's the best; then what?

Mike

[Jaif]

On the subject of munchkin play, munchkins are dysfunctional despite any system you use. There is no need to restrict non-munchkin players, and no way to restrict munchkin players. Why would you want to anyhow? Kick the munchkins out (or convert them if possible, I suppose), and move on. Allow the good players to do their thing unhindered by excessive limits. Just my opinion on the subject.

I know we're tossing terms liberally here, but a 'munchkin' isn't a binary thing.  My friends and I also play board (and computer) wargames.  Gaming the system is part of what we do.  It's nice to set clear limits in advance in this cases.  Why set limits? Because I want to tell stories that I find entertaining, and people running finding reasons to kill and loot gets dull w/o context.

So I tell the players up front that we're going to do stories, and I'm going to watch for overly-muchkin like behavior.  They try to hide it by taking creative SAs, and we all enjoy. :-)

-Jeff

[Mokkurkalfe]

Then he will either keep it and used it whenever he has to defend his position as the greates in the world. Or it will wane and disappear as he set out for different goals in life(other SA's)
That's one thing I like with SA's. They can change.

[Nick the Nevermet]

I know we're tossing terms liberally here, but a 'munchkin' isn't a binary thing.  My friends and I also play board (and computer) wargames.  Gaming the system is part of what we do.  It's nice to set clear limits in advance in this cases.  Why set limits? Because I want to tell stories that I find entertaining, and people running finding reasons to kill and loot gets dull w/o context.

-Jeff

*sigh* Gosh darn you to heck for spoiling the fun with something as meaningless as definitions & reality checks ;)

Seriously, though, what is a munchkin?  A munchkin is a guy who games the system in ways and to a degree the rest of the group beleives is improper.  I don't think there is as clear of a term for it, but players who want to do more "high-fallutin' " roleplaying are almost as despised by the groups I've been in.

I was instantly a big fan of the idea of making a contract between the players and GM when I first heard about it

I think a lot of problems with SAs in TROS can be solved by discussion about what is and isn't appropriate.  Its one of the easiest areas to 'pump' a character's power-level, and therefore should be an area covered by any such discussion or contract for a TROS campaign

[Nick the Nevermet]

And then when he proves he's the best; then what?

Mike

I think thats the question for a lot of drives and destinies.  Many could conceivably be realized during play, bringing up the interesting question of 'what next?'

I haven't played this game enough to think of a good answer

[Mike Holmes]

Well, my point was the same as others here, it's OK for a PC to be the best, because then he will have to change his drive. He's obtained what he was going for. Now he can't keep trying to be the best, he is. He must now try for something else.

I love the fact that TROS is so new that nobody has any "Oh, yeah, I had this one guy with a 64CP who killed three hundred men al by himeself" stories. Think we can avoid it entirely? Probably not. But there's always hope.

Anyhow, Jeff is, of course, correct about the whole communcation thing. This is a fine way to slay the earstwhile munchkin. But I also want to see that character who is the best in my game have to make that "What next" decision. I think it will be a cool moment. Certainly a good place to retire a character, but also a great place to change him radically. I mean, at this point shouldn't he have his answer to the Riddle? And if so, shouldn't that set him off on a new path?

Well, whatever the answer, I'd like to see it anyhow.

The only big concerns that I have with SAs is that one player does not take ones that are so outrageous compared to the others that theirs seem lame in comparison. Character envy can destroy player interest. As such, I advocate more than just player/GM communication, but player/player. "Oh, you're taking that? Then maybe it would be cool if I took this?"

Another thing I'm really looking forward to is players taking Passions for their dear friends, the other PCs. That's a cool way to keep a group together, and to make them internally powerful. This is one of those occasions that the player drive for power, and the GMs drives coincide nicely. No longer do I need to have lame reasons why the characters are together, they can come up with good reasons themsleves, leaving me more free to do my thing.

Mike

[Jake Norwood]

Another thing I'm really looking forward to is players taking Passions for their dear friends, the other PCs. That's a cool way to keep a group together, and to make them internally powerful. This is one of those occasions that the player drive for power, and the GMs drives coincide nicely. No longer do I need to have lame reasons why the characters are together, they can come up with good reasons themsleves, leaving me more free to do my thing.

We do that out here all the time. Soap Opera, man, Soap opera

Jake
who is watching Gladiator out of the corner of his eye right now

[Jaif]

Heh, I have gladiator on DVD too.  Awesome flick - I skip all the talking stuff, and go straight for the fight scenes!

Love watching the famous Roman Longbowmen firing fire arrows! :-)

-Jeff

[Lyrax]

I just wanted to pound my stein and say, "here here!"

Jake,
who isn't feeling very useful, but is pleased with himself nonetheless.

Jake, you don't even drink beer.  Well, I guess if you're drinking root beer or apple beer (don't ask... it's a Utah thing), you could have a stein...

Lance,
who continues to ramble about steins, drinks and beer but isn't going to write it all down.

[Jake Norwood]

True, but I do have a stein with a naked lady in the bottom. I'll show it to you next time you're in Utah...a present from my dad in his drinking days.

Jake

[Thirsty Viking]

Earlier in this thread there was talk about taking away SA Points... which was heartilly decried....

My alternative is to declare a point move out of a SA that is consistenly or blatantly violated.

For instance the "Pasion Obtaining Wealth/ never go hungry again"  or similar SA and the charachter doesn't lift the sack of coins from his slain foe.

This can either be to where the player wants,  or to an SA specified by Sen.  

Anyway,  i didn't see anyone pose that as a workable alternative.

[Jake Norwood]

Removal of SA points was something that I had originaly considered, but felt thta too many games punish players for doing things when it doesn't make the game more fun. I have been known, sporradically, to take away SA points in-game when someone regularly and blatantly violates some of their SAs. More often than not I ask them to change their SA if they're not going to play it.

The occasional violation, however, has great story-making potential.

Jake

[Jaif]

Removal of SAs is something in the rules, at least in the first edition.

-Jeff