Why do people think high-level play is munchkin? I've got a theory

[Tsyr]

As Vaxalon was getting at...

Basicly, the problem is there are people who thing munchkin = anything with power. I define munchkin as power that is out of place or out of scale for the rest of the game.

IE

If all players have the ability to kill anything with a thought, it's not really munchkin... they are balanced against each other just fine. It's a bit silly, but not munchkin.

 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I think Green knight is pretty close to the mark with his theories, at least from what i can tell from various descusions/arguements on this subject and the Epic lvl book. My group recently put our D&D campaign on hiatus entill the ELH comes out and i can tell you high level does not = munchkin, as evidenced by my characters small number of magic items and his 600 gp bank account. He's tough but far from invincible and i look forward to continue playing well over 20th level.

 

[Desdichado]

Maybe it has to do with all the times we've been forced to listen to some moron brag for hours about all the *kEwL* things his character could do. Blech! I don't necessarily think high level is munchkin, but then again, I don't like it much either.

 

[MaxKaladin]

How about this:

Under previous editions, the amount of experience required to be high-level was staggering. For those of you who only have experienced 3e, the tables were much more steep than the 3e ones. So much so that XP that would make you a 20th level character today would only make you about 9th or 10th in previous editions.

At the rate most 'normal' groups earned experience, it would take years of weekly game sessions to earn that amount of XP. Knowing this, many people were naturally skeptical when people started talking about their high level characters. Sure, it was possible people played legitimately that long or that they played more often (the marathon D&D sessions school kids have come to mind). The thing was that when you started digging, you started to find problems like ignoring the rule that you can only go up one level at a time and then having a 'lucky' break that gave you 10 levels. Other favorite were things like 'Well, Thor decided to lend my character Mjolnir when he was 1st level and that made leveling pretty easy' or discovering the DM is either easily fast-talked/bullied by his players or just plain incompetent at running the game. And all of this is assuming that they didn't just decide they didn't like low levels and started at 10th level.

In a nutshell, it was very hard to get high levels 'legitimately' under previous editions and most people really didn't have much, if any, respect for those who took those shortcuts. As we know, its not too long before anything someone dislikes gets the lable 'munchkin' attached to it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

As Vaxalon was getting at...

Basicly, the problem is there are people who thing munchkin = anything with power. I define munchkin as power that is out of place or out of scale for the rest of the game.

Awww...Tsyr...you took the words right from my keyboard
I´d just add that munchkin players have no scruples in attaining that kind of power.

 

[Ron]

Green Knight,

I don't buy your assumptions. My fist AD&D character started in the 1st level and I played it up to the 18th level. Also, I have endured very good adventures with this character by two fine DMs. Even so, I really dislike high-level adventures. I'm not sure if the world munchism apply, although I like the definition that munchism is a kind of player attitude to get powerful enough characters that would prevent any really challenge. The problem is, at high-levels, only very though monsters can provide enough challenge to such characters, to a point that it became ridiculous. High-level characters doesn't look like people, they are more kin to superheroes and thus it becames difficult to relate them to the commoners at the campaign world. Once we were taken for some villains in a village. What the villagers could do about it? Nothing! They aimed their crossbows at us but we knew that we could ignore it. Our characters were in fact living in a diferent world that those people. Our characters weren't afraind of the same hazards, they didn't shared their problems, they weren't human anymore. I don't think it's necessary to say that we dropped that campaign and we never crossed the 10th level anymore.

 

[Codragon]

It is about relative power

To me, munchkinism has nothing to do with PC level or amount of magic items. You can't look at an individual character sheet and call it munchkin.

It has everything to do with relative power level. The main villains/enemies/monsters have to be as powerful or more powerful than the PCs. Are the PCs being challenged? Are their lives at risk at least once in a while? Are they heroes???

Heroes need to be challenged. If you always seem to waltz through adventures with nary a scratch, whether you're level 2 or 22, you are a munchkin.

Since it is the DM who sets the bar for the PCs, it is the DM who is at fault if his game becomes munchkin.

PS: That said, I rarely use the word "munchkin".
A. It has no universally agreed upon definition
B. It is usually used in a derogatory context.

IMO, a very bad combo

 

[Codragon]

we're all agreed

It took me some time to write my post, so I missed a few others. Looks like I basically restated what everyone else already said. Sorry guys!.

 

[Desdichado]

Codragon, I disagree. To me a munchkin has always been about power-grubbing. It's not the DMs fault if a player is constantly grubbing for ways to put his character above the dangers he faces, or above those with whom he plays. It's an attitude about players, not a DM failing that makes a munchkin.

 

[Henry]

It could be witches,
Some evil witches.
Which is rediculous. The witches were all persecuted, wicked good and love the earth and women power, I'll be over here...

*Ahem*
Actually,
It could be witches,
Some evil witches -
-which is ridiculous cause witches, they were persecuted and wicca good and love the earth and woman power and I'll be over here...

Seriously, even some of the responses in this thread show the pervasiveness of the assumptions that high-level games devolve into power grabs. I still assert that most people who toss out that most digusting of phrases (A) do not know what the term actually means, and (B) do not WANT to learn its meaning or origins.

The term "munchkin" (as most of us know) originally referred to the type of game run by young players - they go not to rescue the damsel, but to kill the evil orcs in their lair and gain the piles of magic and loot contained therein. It's play with material goals only designed to advance the PC's physical power status.

The story hours (Despina's Virtue, Knights of the Silver Quill, Defenders of Daybreak, etc.) prove how non-material goal-oriented that high-level games can be. Do you think that the Defenders of Daybreak go questing just for that nifty new +5 sword? Or to gain more gold than the gods? No, they go questing to help diplomatic relations between their home and foreign countries; they go to break the backs of the white kingdom; they go to rescue family and friends. After a certain point, the goals WILL change in order to make a fun, challenging game, or it will stagnate and die of its own accord.

So "munchkinism" is an odd term indeed to apply to high-level games with epic quests and high-minded goals. It is a totally different arena of play from low-level play and requires a larger-reaching mindset from both DM and players.