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

[Umbran]

I've never been in an campaign scheduled that tightly, though, so I can't really comment.

Well, I'll take my own group as an example. We're playing classic Deadlands - no classes, no levels. We could, in theory, play the campaign forever.

For a long time, the PCs have been (wisely) actively avoiding the Big Bad Evil People, because the BBEP would squish inexperienced characters like bugs. The PCs concentrated on foiling plans out on the outskirts, near their ends, rather than going for the heart. But, it has been a couple of years, now. They feel they're ready to take on the Bad People (they're correct - they can do it, if they're smart).

So, I'm looking at the point where they will resolve the major plot threads in the foreseeable future. And I have to ask myself, "Do I add more plot threads, or do I allow these to resolve, and then do something else with the group?" Every good story has a beginning, a middle, and an end, so I'm likely to choose to let the plots resolve, and close the campaign off. I then have to consider when I start putting real thought into my next game. If it is a year out, I don't need to worry about it now. If it is six months out, I ought to start looking at rulebooks for systems I've found intriguing.

This isn't "tightly scheduled". It is very vaguely scheduled, at best. But I have to think about it now, if I don't want months of non-play for my group in the future.

 

[TwoSix]

This isn't "tightly scheduled". It is very vaguely scheduled, at best. But I have to think about it now, if I don't want months of non-play for my group in the future.

That seems to be the distinction in perspectives. I have so many game concepts banked than I could probably start DMing a new game Friday night if someone pitched it right now.

The fact that I play almost entirely no-prep is mainly responsible for that, of course.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Another option that you might try is just not running the combats at all. Run the game as normal. But when a combat ensues, just tell the players that they beat whoever it is that they are combating and go on with the game.

On the plus side, you will probably get through a whole lot more of your campaign than you originally would have done. On the negative side, combats are usually enjoyable (though not if you're feeling stressed out over them), and you won't get to engage in any of those.

 

[Argyle King]

What edition of D&D are you running?

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

1. DM 4e. Power gaming results in much lesser problems under the 4e ruleset.

2. Have a heart-to-heart with the players, and ask them to tone things the down.

3. Fix the individual character options or combos that the players are using to steamroll the opposition. This makes the game challenging again, without invalidating player choice. Oh, and make sure the players know you'll do this every time they find a crazy powerful option or combo.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

If they're that min-maxxed for combat, there are other things that they aren't good at. Run the occasional session without combat encounters -- focus on roleplaying, or exploration. Put them in a dungeon full of traps and tricks. Have them negotiate a peace treaty, or investigate a murder that takes place during a giant party where there is nothing to fight.

Or run an adventure like Beyond the Crystal Cave, which actively punishes you for killing things.

Don't eliminate combat entirely; let them have their fun. But you should have fun too, and you can continue to challenge them, just in other ways.

 

[Quickleaf]

Man, I had a witty post written up for you, but the Internet ate it.

Bottom line: They're playing Step On Up. Hardcore Gamism. Players vs. DM. I Win D&D. That's the style of game they enjoy. They get their kicks from outsmarting your challenges. It's them vs. you, in their minds. Maybe your last campaign made them think this way, maybe their last DM did. Whatever. That's how they're thinking about it.

You, however, sound like you want to be playing something else. Some sort of mambsy-pambsy "Story DM" crap (Psst! I'm a "Story DM" too!).

That is your core issue right there. Everything else are symptoms of that issue.

This isn't a "problem" for you alone to solve, it's an issue you need to work out with your group and fins some kind of compromise.

Can you enjoy playing in a mostly competitive game where you'll be expected to pit your rain power against 4-6 of your friends? If not, are there tricks you can employ (e.g. Recruit a co-DM) that redu the strain on your time and brain but that allow you to compete and enjoy it?

Can they adjust to enjoy more story in their games that doesn't involve kicking the crap out of things? Is there a reason why they're hesitant to do that in your game (e.g. They are bitter about that last time you screwed them over with metagame knowledge and didn't even realize you did it)? Or is combat the only place they find fun in the game?

If you can't find a happy medium, maybe it's time to switch DMs or games?

 

[howandwhy99]

3e created a character creation game before the actual game that was probably more popular than the rest of the system, at least for some folks.

If building overwhelming PCs is the game they like, then that's what they probably expect from you. Ask them. Do they want standard monsters to completely bowl over time and again? Some players want that. If they want you to optimize every creature they come against I feel for you. You need to be in it more than they are for that optimization path because then you need to do it several times prior to each session where they only do theirs once.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I haven't played 3e--is there a reason why you can't just use higher-level monsters?

 

[MasterTrancer]

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

At times in the past I liked to have overpowered PCs around which build nigh-unbelievable campaigns, in fact encouraged it once: it can be fun and, most importantly, helps "stressing" the game, giving you a bigger grasp of the rules. Of course, such (mini) campaigns tend to be short.

I'd suggest you to relax, and adapt to the PCs you have at hand: can they slay a dragon single-handedly? Ok, so be it! But PCs so powerful are bound to attract some notice: in a whim they could be (force) recruited to lead assaults into the Abyss, or something like that; after a while the Powers-That-Be (i.e.: YOU) will.come calling the characters in their ranks, setting them as Saints of War (or whatever you deem fitting) and effectively removing them from the active play (while at the same time rewarding the players for such awesome builds).

After that, be clear with yourself and your players, and set together a shared playstyle.