DM Dilemma: Munchkins are getting out of hand... and I let it happen.

[magnusmalkus]

I've got a problem. (FastFoward to the BOLD to get to the point)

I'm running a game with players who have created min/maxed munchkins. Lately, they're busting out these HUGE combat-ending abilities/tactics and I'm left wondering why I bother planning combats at all? What good was all the effort I put into developing conflicts if the combats aren't even a challenge?

I want the game to be fun for everyone, even me. I let the PC's have their choice of whatever they wanted to play so long as they run it by me first. Everything was always presented individually and separate and seemed simple enough by themselves. I believed I could encourage and/or trust them to build well rounded characters. My casual attitude was abused, and I was hoodwinked by my own lack of desire to have to do the work to put 2 and 2 together to find out what they were 'building' towards'. I do not study D&D resources the way a Dr. studies Gray's Anatomy. Many munchkin-like PC ability combinations definitely pass beneath my radar.

As a result of my casual attention towards their PC builds, I now have a party of min/maxed munchkins with many synergistic abilities and items. As a result, they are dominating the game. We're at 8th level now and I can't just make them put it all away and start over. The game is starting to become a chore and not a joy, as now I've got to become a min/maxer myself when developing my NPC's/Monsters in order to foil the PC's 'big-stick' tactics.

I'm not opposed to players being cunning/crafty/smart about their choices, but I no longer want to run a game with such imbalance. Nor do I want to handicap players to the point where they loose interest.

Must I enhance the NPC's/monsters with the appropriate foils to the PC's game-busting abilities (DR, SR, immunities)? I see that akin to opening Pandora's box:

1) I can beef up NPC/Monster natural abilities, but that increases the XP award, which in turn levels up the PC's faster than the campaign was planned for.

2) I could beef up the NPC's/Monsters with items to help them be competitive, but then after the combat when the pc's inevitable win because we all want the game to go on, those same items now fall into the PC's hands serving to strengthen *THEM* even FURTHER...

3) But WORSE THAN THAT, finding foils to PC abilities means I need to take time out of my busy schedule to slice and dice their character sheets so that I can find out what their secret 'big-stick' tactics are in order to outfit the NPC's/Monsters and mitigate (NOT *NULLIFY*) PC 'super-powers', HOPEFULLY making the encounter a challenge worth plotting. (History has shown that they won't voluntarily say "what their character can do" when asked while presenting the DM new level-up additions to their PC... Instead, combat-busting actions are sprung on the DM with the explanation that they "just discovered they could do it" when asked why they didn't reveal this ability when asked previously. I suspect they were just afraid their choice for their character would have been denied if they would have revealed the 'combat-buster' prior to the opportunity to use said ability+item/tactic.)

In the end, I dislike custom foiling the PC's, it's just another form of min/maxing. I'm not a min/max'er. I lack the skill and the desire to do so. And besides... I want to AVOID an 'arms escalation'. That sort of behavior just encourages the players to try and exploit other player options in order to swing another, different big-stick, recycling the whole process over again.

How do I deflate this situation? How can I honor player choice when building their PC's, while limiting their ability to dominate the game by creating min/maxed munchkins and bring the game back to a state where PC's are actually challenged without resorting to 'DM tricks' and custom-built, imposed ineffectivity upon their PC's min/maxed abilities?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Simplest answer to me is your suggestion #1. Use more powerful enemies. And then not give a rat's ass what the book says in terms of XP and give them like 50% XP per enemy defeated, or else double the amount of XP needed to go up in level. That way you can challenge them, while also keeping the story on level.

If they complain... you tell them to get over it. You're slowing down the leveling for the good of the game. And if they still complain... then offer to start a new game altogether (at which time you can keep better tabs on their power as they advance.)

 

[Umbran]

1) I can beef up NPC/Monster natural abilities, but that increases the XP award, which in turn levels up the PC's faster than the campaign was planned for.

Not necessarily.

If I recall correctly, in discussing XP awards, the 3e DMG included the concept of, "Gee, the CR said that was supposed to be tough, but it turned out easy, so you get less XP". Why not apply that concept?

You take the standard monster, toughen it somewhat, but keep the original monster's XP award. Do this fairly systematically, and it is a reasonably fair alternative that keeps your game's pacing where you wanted it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Life is too short to run games that you are not enjoying. My advice would be an open and honest discussion with your players. A campaign that not fun for the GM will become not fun for the players eventually. I don't find campaigns that become little more than an arms race slap fight to be enjoyable either so I stopped running them.

 

[jamesmanhattan]

I assume you are playing Pathfinder, or 3.5 because that sounds like what always happens in those systems.

Most easiest solution, get a DM screen and roll saving throws and monster attack rolls behind the screen, and cheat. or as Gary Gygax called it "Be in control of your game" as all DM's have a right to do.

or "Have the Talk" with your group, about overpowered stuff, and how it increases your work-load. Of course you'll be bombarded on these forums with suggestions of "tons of stuff you can do to increase the challenge". Which will of course be "lots of WORK" you could do, which you said you wanted to avoid.

 

[DMZ2112]

without resorting to 'DM tricks'

I am always astounded by how willing dungeon masters are to mismanage their campaigns when it benefits their players, but as soon as it involves inconveniencing them, suddenly mismanagement involves "tricks" that should not be "resorted to."

Magnus, it is your job to mismanage your campaign. If all you were supposed to do is manage it, a computer could run your table. Remember that what your players don't know can't hurt you, throw out any semblance of verisimilitude, and reduce them to quivering, weeping supplicants. Then crush them to a fine powder. Thusly I charge you.

 

[Greenfield]

One piece of general advice I give in this situation: You can't convince a Munchkin that Munchkinry is wrong by out-Munchkining them. All you'll do is convince them that they needed to Munchkin more effectively in order to win.

That being said, step 1: End the campaign and start over. New characters, from scratch. Tell them exactly why: You're tired of the power gaming and general munchkinry.

Step 2: Exercise source book control, placing limits on what materials are available. Limit the available sources to ones you're comfortably familiar with.

Step 3: Make sure you really are familiar with the source materials you're allowing. Keep an eye out for creative rules interpretations, and know the rules well enough to stomp on them, hard, when they arise.

Step 4: Make the story in the new campaign engaging enough that the players don't mind being people instead of war gods. Specifically, include role playing challenges and problem solving situations that rely on brains and proper use of class features. Make them things that can't be solved by dealing 150 hp in a single blow.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm failing to see the difficulty in challenging 8th level characters, even min-maxed ones. Now's a good time for the big bad to show up and gate in 6 vrocks. Hard but not impossible for a min-maxed 8th level party.

And if they get a lot more XP, so what? They'll be higher level, but probably won't have equivalent wealth because they're leveling up so quickly.

And even if they do level up quickly, what's the harm? Why is it a problem that your party kicks ass? Throw more at them and let them enjoy being ass-kickers.

Here's the thing. That schedule you had in your head? Let it go. Whatever your big twist was, introduce it now. Then make up a bigger one.

My campaign was going to have the discovery of the tarrasque being held by immovable harpoons within a city harvesting its flesh and meat to raise a mutant army be the big end-game twist. But about a third of the way of the game, I said "screw it", and let the discovery happen. The game has been better for it, and the stakes of the campaign keep going up and up and up, and the players LOVE it.

 

[Umbran]

Here's the thing. That schedule you had in your head? Let it go. Whatever your big twist was, introduce it now. Then make up a bigger one.

Well, there's a social aspect to schedules. Numbers completley out of thin air: Say he figures he's going to run a campaign form level 1 to level 20, and that'll take them two years. Now, with fast advancement, he's seeing that it'll finish up six months early.

That means that someone has to start working on the next campaign six months earlier than expected. That could be an issue for the group.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, there's a social aspect to schedules. Numbers completley out of thin air: Say he figures he's going to run a campaign form level 1 to level 20, and that'll take them two years. Now, with fast advancement, he's seeing that it'll finish up six months early.

That means that someone has to start working on the next campaign six months earlier than expected. That could be an issue for the group.

Well, I was more addressing the idea that he had scheduled out campaign and plot events to happen at a certain time, but yes, I suppose that could be an issue.

I've never been in an campaign scheduled that tightly, though, so I can't really comment. Our games tend to run until it feels like an agreeable endpoint. Some DMs go six months, some go 2 years.