While I do encourage a certain amount of munchkinism (probably a great deal of it, in the grand scheme of things), both my players and I have sat down to either eliminate or completely rewrite a rules system once we recognize an unacceptable potential for abuse. Many systems have been nerfed over the past week, in fact (this is our annual period for rules-review), though nothing's been completely removed on this go around.
Do you use or not use specific rules because of fears of munchkinism?
- Thread starter Glyfair
- Start date
Hairfoot
First Post
That's interesting. I like point buy because it avoids the inequalities of random rolls. If one player rolls, say, eight more points than the others, he's effectively creating a PC with an unpenalised LA.Glyfair said:
Having said I like point buy, I haven't actually used it yet. Is it open to abuse in some way I haven't considered?
Psion
Adventurer
I don't think I have banned a rule specifically because a munchkin might abuse it.
I do ban rules because I think that Joe Average Gamer would abuse it.
In these discussions (and other discussions, like discussions where I discuss my reasons for not liking any sort of up-front-compensation disadvantages) is that abusable rules are not just abused by munchkins. I think the idea that the average player will never take advantage of a perceived benefits of certain character options is a myth. I think run of the mill players exhibit this; so-called "munchkins" are just extreme cases of a pretty normal syndrome.
I do ban rules because I think that Joe Average Gamer would abuse it.
In these discussions (and other discussions, like discussions where I discuss my reasons for not liking any sort of up-front-compensation disadvantages) is that abusable rules are not just abused by munchkins. I think the idea that the average player will never take advantage of a perceived benefits of certain character options is a myth. I think run of the mill players exhibit this; so-called "munchkins" are just extreme cases of a pretty normal syndrome.
Last edited:
Odhanan
Adventurer
Munchkinism is a misnomer.
The Evolution of Munchkin (by Monte Cook).
Do I devise rules to keep the players on their toes? No. I prefer to do this through encounters and events in the game rather than metagaming.
Do I devise rules to guarantee the balance of the game? No. That's not a goal, that's a prerequisite in principle.
The Evolution of Munchkin (by Monte Cook).
Do I devise rules to keep the players on their toes? No. I prefer to do this through encounters and events in the game rather than metagaming.
Do I devise rules to guarantee the balance of the game? No. That's not a goal, that's a prerequisite in principle.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
Given that two of my house rules are: Using gestalt characters, and allowing many more feats, I don't think that I could be said to try and avoid munchkinism. ![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
I run games where the PCs end up the Heroes of the World (think Belgariad) so that just sort of fits.
I run games where the PCs end up the Heroes of the World (think Belgariad) so that just sort of fits.
RodneyThompson
First Post
I don't use attack rolls. Too much room for abuse of mechanics.
My groups have not had problems with munchkinism, so I haven't had to do this myself.
I do, however, occasionally defend design choices that help contain such problems, because not all groups are like mine. And I find considering such decisions enhances my own understanding of the rules dynamics - and that's always helpful to a GM.
I do, however, occasionally defend design choices that help contain such problems, because not all groups are like mine. And I find considering such decisions enhances my own understanding of the rules dynamics - and that's always helpful to a GM.
Gold Roger
First Post
I'm ok with powergamers, hell, I'm a powergamer myself.
I'm confident in my ability as DM to "outpowergame" any player that might try to overpower the game.
Actually I encourage my players to be a bit powergamy so I can use all these nice things I could come up with as DM.
A real, truly nasty Munchkin found himself in my game he'd either get reeducated or, more likely, booted.
If a otherwise decent gamer came up with a abusive build I'd call him on it.
If the amount of powergaming was so different in my group that some players get overshadowed, I'd call the group on it, helping the powerless ones to power up and the powergamers to tone down.
If the group as a whole did something that was allowed by the rules but severely hurts suspense of disbelive I'd call them on it.
To draw the bottom line, we play to have fun. If members in my group where not ready to play on the same powerlevel, they'd better find themself the door. Rule changes and regulations are no valid displacement for a good group dynamic.
I'm confident in my ability as DM to "outpowergame" any player that might try to overpower the game.
Actually I encourage my players to be a bit powergamy so I can use all these nice things I could come up with as DM.
A real, truly nasty Munchkin found himself in my game he'd either get reeducated or, more likely, booted.
If a otherwise decent gamer came up with a abusive build I'd call him on it.
If the amount of powergaming was so different in my group that some players get overshadowed, I'd call the group on it, helping the powerless ones to power up and the powergamers to tone down.
If the group as a whole did something that was allowed by the rules but severely hurts suspense of disbelive I'd call them on it.
To draw the bottom line, we play to have fun. If members in my group where not ready to play on the same powerlevel, they'd better find themself the door. Rule changes and regulations are no valid displacement for a good group dynamic.
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
I voted the munchkinism part, though really I consider it more of "optimization". Out of our current circle of players
I've been playing 3rd edition since it came out, and DMing about once a week.
One has played d20 a fair amount, and understands the rules well, and has been in my campaigns for years.
One hasnt played d20 before this, though has read the rulebooks and has a fairly good understanding of the game.
Two have never played before, but have a moderate understanding of the mechanics their characters use frequently.
One has no clue.
Most of us have been playing about 20 years, they just havent been in a 3rd edition game before. As such, they tend to randomly pick skills and feats... so I tend to nudge them in the right direction. One player thought she was good at disarming traps... we looked at her sheet one section, and she had 2 ranks at level 7, so I explained that disable device is one of those skills thats more useful if its at the max rank for your level (and that a +3 on disable device is really just going to get you into trouble). Other players took skill focus in skills they didnt have ranks in, etc. I've found the best way for them to survive is for them to describe a concept, and we try and find some rules that make it playable. I really hate games that are fudged for or against the players, so needed to nudge them a tad towards the "useful" end of the spectrum. This has helped keep the 2 players who understand d20 tactics from being bored, and the 3 newer players are catching up fast.
So I REALLY dont have to worry about anyone intentionally breaking the system. I have to worry more about people using weaposn they are proficient in, remembering that when I call for an attribute check they no longer try and roll under, etc.
I've been playing 3rd edition since it came out, and DMing about once a week.
One has played d20 a fair amount, and understands the rules well, and has been in my campaigns for years.
One hasnt played d20 before this, though has read the rulebooks and has a fairly good understanding of the game.
Two have never played before, but have a moderate understanding of the mechanics their characters use frequently.
One has no clue.
Most of us have been playing about 20 years, they just havent been in a 3rd edition game before. As such, they tend to randomly pick skills and feats... so I tend to nudge them in the right direction. One player thought she was good at disarming traps... we looked at her sheet one section, and she had 2 ranks at level 7, so I explained that disable device is one of those skills thats more useful if its at the max rank for your level (and that a +3 on disable device is really just going to get you into trouble). Other players took skill focus in skills they didnt have ranks in, etc. I've found the best way for them to survive is for them to describe a concept, and we try and find some rules that make it playable. I really hate games that are fudged for or against the players, so needed to nudge them a tad towards the "useful" end of the spectrum. This has helped keep the 2 players who understand d20 tactics from being bored, and the 3 newer players are catching up fast.
So I REALLY dont have to worry about anyone intentionally breaking the system. I have to worry more about people using weaposn they are proficient in, remembering that when I call for an attribute check they no longer try and roll under, etc.
Similar Threads
