DM vs. Munchkin problems. [Archive] - Wizards Community

DM vs. Munchkin problems. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
skywyze
06-13-07, 12:12 AM I'm fortunate enough to be playing in a fairly mature group, so I know that if I allow every dragon magazine class and every WotC book, they won't make unbeatable, munchkinny characters. All of us know that being unbeatable makes the game boring after about 5 minutes of play. And who really wants to be bored?

So, my question is as follows:
If a player is broken (i.e. a munchkin), why do you allow them in your game to begin with? If you can't find enough players to replace them, play an online game or something. OpenRPG is great and they're always looking for more DMs. And why ban stuff if it's too powerful? Shouldn't you be able to trust your friends (the players) enough to allow anything and then just have the players limit themselves? Keep themselves in check?
claypigeons
06-13-07, 12:35 AM So, my question is as follows:
If a player is broken (i.e. a munchkin), why do you allow them in your game to begin with? If you can't find enough players to replace them, play an online game or something. OpenRPG is great and they're always looking for more DMs. And why ban stuff if it's too powerful? Shouldn't you be able to trust your friends (the players) enough to allow anything and then just have the players limit themselves? Keep themselves in check?

Sometimes people just can't control themselves. Sometimes people actually try to play crap like Pun-pun.

I do ban something things (Frenzied Berserkers) not because they are overpowered (they might be, but not always), but because they can either disrupt the game immensely, or they are just bad (Illithid Heritage... :rolleyes: ) or they just don't fit thematically (divine magic of all kinds in my newest game).

To answer the question the precisely... I don't really have to worry about munchkin/powergaming players. None of the players I game with has much of an eye toward efficiency. Not even full on min/maxing, but even efficiency is lost due to "looking cool". So, as a result, a CR-2 encounter can kill us, even if we have the advantage... It's glorious (<--speaking as a player. As a DM, I have to pull punches to keep from killing people in a decent encounter).
CCS
06-13-07, 02:39 AM So, my question is as follows:
If a player is broken (i.e. a munchkin),

why do you allow them in your game to begin with? If you can't find enough players to replace them, play an online game or something.

** Sometimes simply because they're your friends.....
And I'd rather play really bad games - with friends - than any type of online gaming. Hell, I'd prefer no game to that alternative.

OpenRPG is great and they're always looking for more DMs.

** So? For some it may indeed be great. But I dislike most forms of computerized gaming. Thus even if they were to pay me I'd decline to be an online DM.

And why ban stuff if it's too powerful? Shouldn't you be able to trust your friends (the players) enough to allow anything and then just have the players limit themselves? Keep themselves in check?

** It has nothing to do with trust. I don't ban stuff because it's overpowered.
I ban stuff either because I simply don't like it (psionics & the ability to play virtualy any type of creature with lv adjustments just to name a few) or because it doesn't fit the theme of whatever's being run campaign wise (most oriental stuff).
It's this simple: I don't like x. If you insist upon running x, we now have a problem. The solution is equelly(sp?) simple. Mine is not the game you're looking for.
Afterall, I can't be forced to DM things I don't enjoy....
claypigeons
06-13-07, 05:45 AM ** It has nothing to do with trust. I don't ban stuff because it's overpowered.
I ban stuff either because I simply don't like it (psionics & the ability to play virtualy any type of creature with lv adjustments just to name a few) or because it doesn't fit the theme of whatever's being run campaign wise (most oriental stuff).
It's this simple: I don't like x. If you insist upon running x, we now have a problem. The solution is equelly(sp?) simple. Mine is not the game you're looking for.
Afterall, I can't be forced to DM things I don't enjoy....

I'm curious as to your reasoning behind banning Monstrous PCs and Psionics. As far as psionics go, is it the flavor? Or the system itself (power points, augmenting, etc.)?
SephDragoon
06-13-07, 10:09 AM I have no problem with munchkins... m problem is a munchkin in the wrong group. If I ave an entire grou of people who all have munchkin characters, I am fine ith it, because I can challenge their munchkin builds pretty easily.

I am not fine with a munchkin in the middle of 3 other non-munchkin players. That gets disruptive.

It is not being a munchkin that is the problem... it is not meshing with the group you play in.
Sunic_Flames
06-13-07, 11:05 AM I think some terms are being crossed.

Power gamer: Highly optimized within the rules of the game. Strong, sometimes strong as hell, but perfectly legal.

Munchin: Cheater, breaking or ignoring rules to their own benefit, not even playing the same game.

Which do you mean?
SephDragoon
06-13-07, 11:30 AM I think some terms are being crossed.

Power gamer: Highly optimized within the rules of the game. Strong, sometimes strong as hell, but perfectly legal.

Munchin: Cheater, breaking or ignoring rules to their own benefit, not even playing the same game.

Which do you mean?

I imagine he means powergamer. I did too, but I kept with the terminology of the thread.
Emjaysmash
06-13-07, 12:17 PM In my game, if someone is a broken class or something, I usually will only find this out through the player's use of such a character.

Now, in the course of my DMing, I've made dumb mistakes, (like giving a 5th-level party a sack of magical marbles that replicate close to 9th level spells) but have remedied those dumb mistakes.

Some times, trial-and-error is how we can figure these things out.
On_the_wings_of_TPK
06-13-07, 01:03 PM I ban stuff either because I simply don't like it (psionics & the ability to play virtualy any type of creature with lv adjustments just to name a few) or because it doesn't fit the theme of whatever's being run campaign wise (most oriental stuff).
It's this simple: I don't like x. If you insist upon running x, we now have a problem. The solution is equelly(sp?) simple. Mine is not the game you're looking for.
Afterall, I can't be forced to DM things I don't enjoy....

This seems a little high handed, don't you think? Why should your likes and dislikes be the only ones of importance? It is a group activity after all, are the other players less important then you for some reason?

As for the whole munchkin thing. I don't disallow things because of power reeasons. I disallow things because for a merade of reasons. Party cohesion, and flavor being the top two.
UltimateReality
06-13-07, 01:18 PM This seems a little high handed, don't you think? Why should your likes and dislikes be the only ones of importance? ....I disallow things [for] flavorUm. Dude. You just said your likes and dislikes (i.e. FLAVOUR) are more important than the rest of the group's.

Anyway, the reason the DM's opinions are more important is that, in a traditional D&D power structure, the DM has more obligation towards the game and more authority within it. With that comes the ability to say "no, I don't like it, take it away". Players who really really like it anyway can always start their own game and use it.
On_the_wings_of_TPK
06-13-07, 02:31 PM Um. Dude. You just said your likes and dislikes (i.e. FLAVOUR) are more important than the rest of the group's.

Theres a slight deference between likes/dislikes and flavor. I could not like a class for mechanical reasons, and still like its flavour. For example the frenzied bezerker. I dislike the class because it is a party bomb. In that it balances itself by making it a burden on the party. However the flavour of a bezerker warrior is kinda cool, and I can get behind that. And as for as power is concerned, it isn't all that scary.

I disallow it however because it is a party bomb. I find PvP to be one of the more disruptive aspect of the games, and try to curb it. Sean however disagrees, and likes the FB. We still play together, and in his game one could play one. In mine one can't. But we have had many discussions on this in the past, and in the end we both listened to each, and agreed to disagree. The point I did listen to his concerns, and him mine with neither of taking the my way or the highway approach.
CryoSilver
06-13-07, 03:15 PM I don't have munchkin problems. When I DM, everything gets my stamp of approval before being approved, and even though I'm generally a pacifist, my Chair of Salvation is a negotiating tool.

There are no broken builds in my games because they never reach the table. They stop when the DM (I) says "No, pick a different feat/class"

And since I'm a bit of a powergamer myself, I almost always catch things before they snowball.
Bruunwald
06-13-07, 03:40 PM First, note that you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, and there you have the facts of life. The facts of life. One fact of life is compromise. Another is that you may find you have to "roll with the punches to get to what's real" (to quote Diamond Dave).

Not everybody in your game group is always going to be your friend. Sometimes they are a boyfriend or girlfriend of a good friend who you want to keep in your group. It looks silly in print, but the reality of life for most of us is that we compromise, negotiate, hold hostage, and even extort in our various relationships with others, whether consciously or unconsciously. Yes, I am a jerk about certain things, but my friend tolerates me, and I tolerate how big a jerk he is about some other thing.

Or, as Billy might say: "You can pick your friends. And you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your friend's nose. Sometimes you just have to accept them for who they are. And let them pick it themselves."

In my case, I want to keep A in my gaming group. I have known her for a long time, and she is my friend. However, her boyfriend G, is also in the game, though I could do without him most of the time. When she asked for him to join, nobody could predict he would become such a munch (he hadn't really ever played before). By the time we figured it out, it was too late to extricate him from the table without some sort of gigantic breakdown amongst all the others.

Game groups, especially longterm groups, are political animals in many ways. We all have various reasons for wanting to stick with or leave a group. Because other free-willed individuals are involved, you can't predict the longterm dynamic. Playing ends up becoming a political exercise in balance and people management.

That said, there are things a DM can manage and can predict. Among the easiest are the books he allows in the game, allowed races, classes, etc. All of this is worth it for many of us because of the relationships both in the game and out, that we develop over the years. Like anything else, it's a matter of how much and what you are willing to sacrifice, and whether the payoff is worth it to you.

For me, it is worth it. I prefer to play with people I am friends with, and to limit what is utilized in the game, not only to keep the munch in check, but also so the game flows more easily and freely by not bogging the DM down with ten extra volumes of information, which may never end up getting used. Trust is a peculiar thing, you see. You can trust your friend in real life, and still know he's a munchkin, and still take the necessary precautions to safeguard the rest of the game.

Going from game to game everytime someone peeves you off with an overpowered build isn't going to develop anything in that regard. No trust, no friendship, no longterm campaign goals. For me, putting up with the munch and managing him, is best. It's just a compromise I make for my friend's benefit. And my own.
skywyze
06-13-07, 04:23 PM *snip*First thing's first: Well written reply. More to the point, wouldn't it be easier to just... Talk to the munch? Tell him that he's outshining everyone and that it'd be better for group dynamics if he limited himself a little? That it'd make the game more fun for everyone else if he let them act once in a while? Then everyone who *isn't* a munchkin could choose things from the previously-banned books and come closer to realizing the kind of character they wanted to play.

And that's exactly my point here: Limiting books etc limits both the good players and the bad. And if you're friends with the bad players (munchkins), wouldn't they listen to you when you talked to them about balancing their characters? Getting angry that you want to limit their cheese-intake makes it sound like a very immature player.
RadicalTaoist
06-13-07, 04:53 PM It is not being a <insert playstyle anyone complains with here> that is the problem... it is not meshing with the group you play in.

oh hi I upgraded your post

Source for those of us who don't memorize the latest intarweb memes. (http://www.myconfinedspace.com/watermark.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2007/01/upgraded-yo-ram.thumbnail.jpg)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
skywyze 06-13-07, 12:12 AM	I'm fortunate enough to be playing in a fairly mature group, so I know that if I allow every dragon magazine class and every WotC book, they won't make unbeatable, munchkinny characters. All of us know that being unbeatable makes the game boring after about 5 minutes of play. And who really wants to be bored? So, my question is as follows: If a player is broken (i.e. a munchkin), why do you allow them in your game to begin with? If you can't find enough players to replace them, play an online game or something. OpenRPG is great and they're always looking for more DMs. And why ban stuff if it's too powerful? Shouldn't you be able to trust your friends (the players) enough to allow anything and then just have the players limit themselves? Keep themselves in check?
claypigeons 06-13-07, 12:35 AM	So, my question is as follows: If a player is broken (i.e. a munchkin), why do you allow them in your game to begin with? If you can't find enough players to replace them, play an online game or something. OpenRPG is great and they're always looking for more DMs. And why ban stuff if it's too powerful? Shouldn't you be able to trust your friends (the players) enough to allow anything and then just have the players limit themselves? Keep themselves in check? Sometimes people just can't control themselves. Sometimes people actually try to play crap like Pun-pun. I do ban something things (Frenzied Berserkers) not because they are overpowered (they might be, but not always), but because they can either disrupt the game immensely, or they are just bad (Illithid Heritage... :rolleyes: ) or they just don't fit thematically (divine magic of all kinds in my newest game). To answer the question the precisely... I don't really have to worry about munchkin/powergaming players. None of the players I game with has much of an eye toward efficiency. Not even full on min/maxing, but even efficiency is lost due to "looking cool". So, as a result, a CR-2 encounter can kill us, even if we have the advantage... It's glorious (<--speaking as a player. As a DM, I have to pull punches to keep from killing people in a decent encounter).
CCS 06-13-07, 02:39 AM	So, my question is as follows: If a player is broken (i.e. a munchkin), why do you allow them in your game to begin with? If you can't find enough players to replace them, play an online game or something. Sometimes simply because they're your friends..... And I'd rather play really bad games - with friends - than any type of online gaming. Hell, I'd prefer no game to that alternative. OpenRPG is great and they're always looking for more DMs. So? For some it may indeed be great. But I dislike most forms of computerized gaming. Thus even if they were to pay me I'd decline to be an online DM. And why ban stuff if it's too powerful? Shouldn't you be able to trust your friends (the players) enough to allow anything and then just have the players limit themselves? Keep themselves in check? ** It has nothing to do with trust. I don't ban stuff because it's overpowered. I ban stuff either because I simply don't like it (psionics & the ability to play virtualy any type of creature with lv adjustments just to name a few) or because it doesn't fit the theme of whatever's being run campaign wise (most oriental stuff). It's this simple: I don't like x. If you insist upon running x, we now have a problem. The solution is equelly(sp?) simple. Mine is not the game you're looking for. Afterall, I can't be forced to DM things I don't enjoy....
claypigeons 06-13-07, 05:45 AM	** It has nothing to do with trust. I don't ban stuff because it's overpowered. I ban stuff either because I simply don't like it (psionics & the ability to play virtualy any type of creature with lv adjustments just to name a few) or because it doesn't fit the theme of whatever's being run campaign wise (most oriental stuff). It's this simple: I don't like x. If you insist upon running x, we now have a problem. The solution is equelly(sp?) simple. Mine is not the game you're looking for. Afterall, I can't be forced to DM things I don't enjoy.... I'm curious as to your reasoning behind banning Monstrous PCs and Psionics. As far as psionics go, is it the flavor? Or the system itself (power points, augmenting, etc.)?
SephDragoon 06-13-07, 10:09 AM	I have no problem with munchkins... m problem is a munchkin in the wrong group. If I ave an entire grou of people who all have munchkin characters, I am fine ith it, because I can challenge their munchkin builds pretty easily. I am not fine with a munchkin in the middle of 3 other non-munchkin players. That gets disruptive. It is not being a munchkin that is the problem... it is not meshing with the group you play in.
Sunic_Flames 06-13-07, 11:05 AM	I think some terms are being crossed. Power gamer: Highly optimized within the rules of the game. Strong, sometimes strong as hell, but perfectly legal. Munchin: Cheater, breaking or ignoring rules to their own benefit, not even playing the same game. Which do you mean?
SephDragoon 06-13-07, 11:30 AM	I think some terms are being crossed. Power gamer: Highly optimized within the rules of the game. Strong, sometimes strong as hell, but perfectly legal. Munchin: Cheater, breaking or ignoring rules to their own benefit, not even playing the same game. Which do you mean? I imagine he means powergamer. I did too, but I kept with the terminology of the thread.
Emjaysmash 06-13-07, 12:17 PM	In my game, if someone is a broken class or something, I usually will only find this out through the player's use of such a character. Now, in the course of my DMing, I've made dumb mistakes, (like giving a 5th-level party a sack of magical marbles that replicate close to 9th level spells) but have remedied those dumb mistakes. Some times, trial-and-error is how we can figure these things out.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-13-07, 01:03 PM	I ban stuff either because I simply don't like it (psionics & the ability to play virtualy any type of creature with lv adjustments just to name a few) or because it doesn't fit the theme of whatever's being run campaign wise (most oriental stuff). It's this simple: I don't like x. If you insist upon running x, we now have a problem. The solution is equelly(sp?) simple. Mine is not the game you're looking for. Afterall, I can't be forced to DM things I don't enjoy.... This seems a little high handed, don't you think? Why should your likes and dislikes be the only ones of importance? It is a group activity after all, are the other players less important then you for some reason? As for the whole munchkin thing. I don't disallow things because of power reeasons. I disallow things because for a merade of reasons. Party cohesion, and flavor being the top two.
UltimateReality 06-13-07, 01:18 PM	This seems a little high handed, don't you think? Why should your likes and dislikes be the only ones of importance? ....I disallow things [for] flavorUm. Dude. You just said your likes and dislikes (i.e. FLAVOUR) are more important than the rest of the group's. Anyway, the reason the DM's opinions are more important is that, in a traditional D&D power structure, the DM has more obligation towards the game and more authority within it. With that comes the ability to say "no, I don't like it, take it away". Players who really really like it anyway can always start their own game and use it.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 06-13-07, 02:31 PM	Um. Dude. You just said your likes and dislikes (i.e. FLAVOUR) are more important than the rest of the group's. Theres a slight deference between likes/dislikes and flavor. I could not like a class for mechanical reasons, and still like its flavour. For example the frenzied bezerker. I dislike the class because it is a party bomb. In that it balances itself by making it a burden on the party. However the flavour of a bezerker warrior is kinda cool, and I can get behind that. And as for as power is concerned, it isn't all that scary. I disallow it however because it is a party bomb. I find PvP to be one of the more disruptive aspect of the games, and try to curb it. Sean however disagrees, and likes the FB. We still play together, and in his game one could play one. In mine one can't. But we have had many discussions on this in the past, and in the end we both listened to each, and agreed to disagree. The point I did listen to his concerns, and him mine with neither of taking the my way or the highway approach.
CryoSilver 06-13-07, 03:15 PM	I don't have munchkin problems. When I DM, everything gets my stamp of approval before being approved, and even though I'm generally a pacifist, my Chair of Salvation is a negotiating tool. There are no broken builds in my games because they never reach the table. They stop when the DM (I) says "No, pick a different feat/class" And since I'm a bit of a powergamer myself, I almost always catch things before they snowball.
Bruunwald 06-13-07, 03:40 PM	First, note that you take the good, you take the bad, you take them both, and there you have the facts of life. The facts of life. One fact of life is compromise. Another is that you may find you have to "roll with the punches to get to what's real" (to quote Diamond Dave). Not everybody in your game group is always going to be your friend. Sometimes they are a boyfriend or girlfriend of a good friend who you want to keep in your group. It looks silly in print, but the reality of life for most of us is that we compromise, negotiate, hold hostage, and even extort in our various relationships with others, whether consciously or unconsciously. Yes, I am a jerk about certain things, but my friend tolerates me, and I tolerate how big a jerk he is about some other thing. Or, as Billy might say: "You can pick your friends. And you can pick your nose. But you can't pick your friend's nose. Sometimes you just have to accept them for who they are. And let them pick it themselves." In my case, I want to keep A in my gaming group. I have known her for a long time, and she is my friend. However, her boyfriend G, is also in the game, though I could do without him most of the time. When she asked for him to join, nobody could predict he would become such a munch (he hadn't really ever played before). By the time we figured it out, it was too late to extricate him from the table without some sort of gigantic breakdown amongst all the others. Game groups, especially longterm groups, are political animals in many ways. We all have various reasons for wanting to stick with or leave a group. Because other free-willed individuals are involved, you can't predict the longterm dynamic. Playing ends up becoming a political exercise in balance and people management. That said, there are things a DM can manage and can predict. Among the easiest are the books he allows in the game, allowed races, classes, etc. All of this is worth it for many of us because of the relationships both in the game and out, that we develop over the years. Like anything else, it's a matter of how much and what you are willing to sacrifice, and whether the payoff is worth it to you. For me, it is worth it. I prefer to play with people I am friends with, and to limit what is utilized in the game, not only to keep the munch in check, but also so the game flows more easily and freely by not bogging the DM down with ten extra volumes of information, which may never end up getting used. Trust is a peculiar thing, you see. You can trust your friend in real life, and still know he's a munchkin, and still take the necessary precautions to safeguard the rest of the game. Going from game to game everytime someone peeves you off with an overpowered build isn't going to develop anything in that regard. No trust, no friendship, no longterm campaign goals. For me, putting up with the munch and managing him, is best. It's just a compromise I make for my friend's benefit. And my own.
skywyze 06-13-07, 04:23 PM	snipFirst thing's first: Well written reply. More to the point, wouldn't it be easier to just... Talk to the munch? Tell him that he's outshining everyone and that it'd be better for group dynamics if he limited himself a little? That it'd make the game more fun for everyone else if he let them act once in a while? Then everyone who isn't a munchkin could choose things from the previously-banned books and come closer to realizing the kind of character they wanted to play. And that's exactly my point here: Limiting books etc limits both the good players and the bad. And if you're friends with the bad players (munchkins), wouldn't they listen to you when you talked to them about balancing their characters? Getting angry that you want to limit their cheese-intake makes it sound like a very immature player.
RadicalTaoist 06-13-07, 04:53 PM	It is not being a <insert playstyle anyone complains with here> that is the problem... it is not meshing with the group you play in. oh hi I upgraded your post Source for those of us who don't memorize the latest intarweb memes. (http://www.myconfinedspace.com/watermark.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2007/01/upgraded-yo-ram.thumbnail.jpg)