[UA] Powergamer != Munchkin

[Rayburn, Russell E.]

-----Original Message-----
From: ua-bounces at lists.unknown-armies.com
[mailto:ua-bounces at lists.unknown-armies.com]On Behalf Of Mike Lake
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:41 PM
To: The Unknown Armies RPG Mailing List
Subject: Re: [UA] Powergamer != Munchkin

<snip>
>> "They find a way to make a character so effin' dreadful that
>> the minute he steps on the field of combat, it's already resolved. "
>
> Struck me as particularly off.  <snip> Getting others to surrender without 
> a fight is seen as a good thing,

It's certainly a good thing from the PCs' perspective.  The gamers' 
perspective is something else again.  If all concerned like executing the 
risk-free master plan, there is, of course, no problem.  If the GM is aiming 
for something with more dramatic flair or, worse, one or more players are 
bored by the number-crunchers' quiet, bloodless victory, there's a problem, 
and the GM needs to step in.
</snip>

I think you're speaking of playing style... and I agree to a point.  If one player doesn't fit, then the occasional allowance can be made.  At the same time, if that one player consistently doesn't fit, perhaps it's time for that player to find another game.  

<snip>
This goes double for some of the hideously unbeatable creations I've seen 
from Champions, where it's possible to be unbeatable by anyone without a 
custom-made set of counterpowers.  If the PCs can't lose, who cares when the 
evil Zappoman threatens them?
</snip>

Quite a lot of the anti-powergamer sentiments seem to come from people who've played Champions and/or D&D.  I guess I'm at a disadvantage here, since I've never played champions and the last time I played D&D was 2nd ed. .  

Perhaps we're seeing the limitations of a particular system? 

<snip>
Sure, its realistic for characters to go to extraordinary lengths to 
preserve their skins.  But realism doesn't always make for a good story. 
</snip>

See also: CoC.