Do you use or not use specific rules because of fears of munchkinism?

[Glyfair]

I was reading a recent thread about an optional rule added in a recent supplement. It was implied by some that the optional rule wasn't good because it could be abused by munchkins or min-max players.

I was wondering how many DMs actually have avoided adding a rule to the game because it might be abused by a so called munchkin, or added a rule to try to keep munchkins in check. Is it enough of a concern that it actually affects the rules used within a campaign?

Note I'm talking about actual rules. If you have a rule that everything needs to be run by the DM for approval, that's not really effecting the rules. I'm talking about active rules. For example, saying that you can't have more than one prestige class in a character, to avoid ability dipping would be adding to rule to avoid that behavior. Not using a point buy system because you are afraid of abuse would be an example of not using a rule because of fear of abuse.

 

[Drowbane]

I fear no munchkins!

I'm much quicker to nix a rule because it doesn't make sense, or otherwise doesn't fit the game (as I see it).

That said, I only allow 3rd Party on an DM-Approval basis... if I haven't viewed it, you're not using it. Thats mainly due to all the WHACKY 3rd party stuff released back in 3.0

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It depends on my fellow players. If I know I have a munchkin amongst n00bs, I'll rein him in a bit with some selected house rules, like not allowing more than 1 PrCl per PC, or no more than half of a PC's levels may be in PrCls at any time.

But usually, I run a pretty wide open campaign.

 

[Glyfair]

That said, I only allow 3rd Party on an DM-Approval basis... if I haven't viewed it, you're not using it. Thats mainly due to all the WHACKY 3rd party stuff released back in 3.0

I'm definitely not talking about not using something because it might be too powerful, or you just don't understand it (often because you haven't seen it). When I talk about not using a rule, I mean avoiding using a rule you think would be a good rule, but are worried about it possibly being abused by munchkins, so you don't use it.

 

[TheAranan]

I can't say that my collection of house rules has anything on it that discourages "munchkinism" or optimizatin or whatever you'd call it. Once my latest game gets under way, I fully intend on encouraging the players to optimize their characters, actually. They're adventurers, the cream of the crop, the focus of the game. They're supposed to be exceptional compared to the average Joe and they're supposed to be good at whatever they choose to do.

Excuse me while I go hide in a corner before I get mauled for thinking min/maxing a character is a good thing.

 

[Elephant]

I can't say that my collection of house rules has anything on it that discourages "munchkinism" or optimizatin or whatever you'd call it. Once my latest game gets under way, I fully intend on encouraging the players to optimize their characters, actually. They're adventurers, the cream of the crop, the focus of the game. They're supposed to be exceptional compared to the average Joe and they're supposed to be good at whatever they choose to do.

Excuse me while I go hide in a corner before I get mauled for thinking min/maxing a character is a good thing.

Oh, no! Min-maxing! Optimization! WrongBad Fun!

 

[jsewell]

I fear no munchkins!

I'm much quicker to nix a rule because it doesn't make sense, or otherwise doesn't fit the game (as I see it).

This is basically my stance. I neither encourage nor discourage min-maxing. I do refer new players to Goblyns: http://thunt.comicgen.com/.

 

[Sejs]

Nope, I can't think of anything like that that I do as a DM.

To use one of the listed exampled, rules-limiting PrC access to mitigate ability dipping. I don't feel any need to say flat out no you can only take so many Prcs, because when I'm running a PrC isn't just something you magically sprout when you go up a level. You want to take levels in Shadowdancer, that's great. Let me know ahead of time and I'll do my best to incorporate that into the game so when the time comes, your character will be in a position where entry into that PrC is perfectly feasable. Making that sort of decision all the more real to the players tends to steer them away from things like, oh, say, randomly deciding they want to become an Ur-Priest.

When your player themself thinks ...no, why would my cleric want to do that? That's totally unlike him and he doesn't have the motivation to (etc, etc) ... then you don't really need wince rules. Things take care of themselves. Of course, that sort of thing does require a good deal of communication and trust between DM and player, but ultimatly that's what a lot of good gaming is built on.

 

[X-Marks!]

Oh, well then...

I'm definitely not talking about not using something because it might be too powerful, or you just don't understand it (often because you haven't seen it). When I talk about not using a rule, I mean avoiding using a rule you think would be a good rule, but are worried about it possibly being abused by munchkins, so you don't use it.

In that case, I may have answered wrongly. I voted saying I'd changed/outlawed core rule(s) when they weren't seeming balanced (i.e. a feat too powerful by comparison to similarly 'levelled' feats) and thought they could easily be abused by players.

 

[Tsillanabor]

I don't allow any rule I haven't examined and considered. If someone wants to try something from a book I don't have, I'll borrow the book from them and get back with them on it the next week. Other than that if it fits the setting I'm usually alright with it (I reel in min-maxers other ways).