Infernal Teddy
Explorer
I feel the games and add-ons are getting rather... repeatative...
Is it just me, or are the Munchkin card games rather lame?
- Thread starter Cowpie Zombie
- Start date
Agamon
Adventurer
The idea is to pull it out one in a while for giggles. Soemtimes we pull out Puerto Rico, Power Grid or Caylus. Sometimes it's Munchkin, Guillotine or Once Upon a Time. A game doesn't need to be a tactical wonder to be fun. I'd say the people you play the game with matter more than the game when it comes to having fun.
Garnfellow
Explorer
Infernal Teddy said:
It does boggle the mind to think that this game alone is apparently keeping Steve Jackson Games afloat.
We have had great fun with the original set, though. I guess if I got 20+ fun sessions out of it, I'd consider that a rousing success.
Jürgen Hubert
First Post
Garnfellow said:
"Keeping SJG afloat" is perhaps the wrong term - it's not as if the other lines are unprofitable (or otherwise they would have been cut or reduced by now). But still, Munchkin accounts for 55% of their sales, and so it's not too surprising that they are producing more variants.
And it's not that surprising, all things considered. GURPS is only a niche RPG when compared to D&D, while the jokes in Munchkin have much more universal appeal in the gaming community.
Holy Bovine
First Post
It isn't just you. I've played Munchkin a half a dozen times now and it really is a boring game. The gags are kinda funny but the game play behind them is very weak. Not a game that makes any regular appearances at our Board Game Days that's for sure.
Last edited:
Silver Moon
Adventurer
When you're at a gaming con and the game you are in ends early it makes for a fun thing for the table to play while they wait for the other games to end.
If you over-analyze any game it starts to seem lame.
Now, for some games, random chance plays no part in the actual playing. Perfect play will result in a particular outcome. In which the (most likely) pure chance that determined who was "player one" & who was "player two" determined the outcome, so you can still call it a game of chance. (^_^)
Chess is kind of interesting in that it has managed to evolve a fairly simple set of rules that tend to evade analysis enough that perfect strategies haven't been discovered.
Anyway, this isn't meant to be a tretise on game theory--just to try to get the jist of my point across. Analyzing games tends to make you think they are all lame.
For a lot of games, however, the human factor is what makes it interesting. Sizing up your opponent. Manipulating them. Deceiving them. This is what makes Poker interesting. This is why they actually have RPS competitions. (Which seemed entirely pointless before I realized that.) I think this is much of what makes Munchkin fun too.
(BTW, when I think about it too much, I hesitate to consider most RPGs to be games.)
- Games of chance: Pure luck.
- Games of physical skill: Some games just depend upon who can run the fastest, throw the farthest/most accurately, react the quickest, &c., or some combo thereof. Given unequal participants, the game is boring. Give relatively equal participants, it is reduced to a game of chance.
- Trivia: See games of physical skill, but with memory & knowledge of the trivial instead of physical skill.
- Games of complexity: The player who knows the rules/strategies better wins. Which reduces to a game of trivia.
Now, for some games, random chance plays no part in the actual playing. Perfect play will result in a particular outcome. In which the (most likely) pure chance that determined who was "player one" & who was "player two" determined the outcome, so you can still call it a game of chance. (^_^)
Chess is kind of interesting in that it has managed to evolve a fairly simple set of rules that tend to evade analysis enough that perfect strategies haven't been discovered.
Anyway, this isn't meant to be a tretise on game theory--just to try to get the jist of my point across. Analyzing games tends to make you think they are all lame.
For a lot of games, however, the human factor is what makes it interesting. Sizing up your opponent. Manipulating them. Deceiving them. This is what makes Poker interesting. This is why they actually have RPS competitions. (Which seemed entirely pointless before I realized that.) I think this is much of what makes Munchkin fun too.
(BTW, when I think about it too much, I hesitate to consider most RPGs to be games.)
WizarDru
Adventurer
RFisher said:
I disagree. Many games stand up to analysis just fine. The fact that there are a LOT of games out there that don't stand up to scrutiny doesn't really translate into no games being able to do it.
Games like Checkers, Chess and Go have absolutely no randomness about them (with the exception of determining who plays first) and have remained in play for centuries. Other games, like Dominoes, Poker and Yahtzee are VERY random, but still include strategic choices and have also lasted. They feature simple rulesets with varying levels of complexity and strategy. As time has passed, more recent game theory has expanded on not only what makes a good game, but what makes a good game for specific audiences and parameters.
In a game like Chess or Go, skill stands side-by-side with strategy. Chess and Go's deep strategies involve a great deal of psychological analysis that has nothing to do with the game itself, but are part of the metagame. Is he using this stratagem or that one? Does he have the Queen of Spades? Is he luring me into a vulnerable capture?
Many games use the random element to level the playing field, particularly with respect to things like rules mastery or unequal player skill. It also adds a level of excitement and unpredictability, that most people feel makes the game play differently each time. When you play Catan, the board layout is different each time and the dice can't be expected to behave exactly the same way...so you have to adapt to win.
The problem with Munchkin is that most of the game is going through the motions: you don't really have deep strategies or a lot of control over the game. Most of your turn's outcome is determined by the luck of the draw or other player's cards. Most people I know who've played the game get bored of it after a number of plays, while a game like Catan or Alhambra stays strong years after we first played it. A lot of Munchkin's fun comes from experiencing funny new cards for the first time. Once that fades, you're left with just the game...and the game is merely OK. That's one reason the supplements sell so well: it refreshes the game for a while.
Understand that I'm not saying that Munchkin isn't fun; I just don't think it holds up after repeated play the way other games do. It easy to play and has an appeal amongst RPGers, but when the end-game comes down to a lucky draw for one player (as it can), then it ends up lossing it's appeal to some folks.
blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
Ninja Giant!
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
The problem with Munchkin, IMO, boils down to the size of the card pool. The randomness is much, much greater than in most other games.
In a game like, say, Hearts, there is a strictly limited number of potential hands your opponent can have; your knowledge of the cards in your hand and those already played, as well as how other players appear to have played, help you figure out what plays your opponent can make - and this informs your own play.
A game like Magic is more complicated because it has a much larger card pool (and is more interactive), but if you're aware of the 'good decks' in a format, you can usually guess what your opponent will have in hand and in his deck. You can't card count, but you can still get a very clear picture of the *potential* plays your opponent could make; Magic also has an interactive element with cards already on the table - you often have to prioritize targets among multiple creatures, lands, etc.
Also, most decent or better Magic decks have only 60 cards, of which a large number are identical lands, and most of the other cards are usually 4-ofs. If an opponent has four Llanowar Elves in his graveyard, you know he won't be playing a fifth. While the potential card pool is huge, the actual card pool in a given game is often more limited than in a game of poker.
The trouble with Munchkin is that even a basic deck has almost no duplicate cards, and it has a LOT of cards. It's almost impossible to read an opponent's hand and base a strategy on that - and adding more expansions makes this worse.
In a game like, say, Hearts, there is a strictly limited number of potential hands your opponent can have; your knowledge of the cards in your hand and those already played, as well as how other players appear to have played, help you figure out what plays your opponent can make - and this informs your own play.
A game like Magic is more complicated because it has a much larger card pool (and is more interactive), but if you're aware of the 'good decks' in a format, you can usually guess what your opponent will have in hand and in his deck. You can't card count, but you can still get a very clear picture of the *potential* plays your opponent could make; Magic also has an interactive element with cards already on the table - you often have to prioritize targets among multiple creatures, lands, etc.
Also, most decent or better Magic decks have only 60 cards, of which a large number are identical lands, and most of the other cards are usually 4-ofs. If an opponent has four Llanowar Elves in his graveyard, you know he won't be playing a fifth. While the potential card pool is huge, the actual card pool in a given game is often more limited than in a game of poker.
The trouble with Munchkin is that even a basic deck has almost no duplicate cards, and it has a LOT of cards. It's almost impossible to read an opponent's hand and base a strategy on that - and adding more expansions makes this worse.
Similar Threads
