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

[Henry]

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.

Joshua, define "forced."

I have rarely played in high-level games simply because the games did not continue that long. Even in 3E, our characters get to 10th or 11th level before someone comes out with a "cooler" idea, or the DM starts to stagnate a bit, or get sidelined by real-world issues. Back in the old days, we barely got to 6th level before this happened. What I would like to see in our campaigns is goals that grow with the characters. There is nothing wrong with long-reaching goals, as long as they keep the players interested for 5 or 10 levels at a stretch.

What keeps a campaign going for a long time? Interesting goals, and interesting NPC's. if you have a game that people want to come back to, to see what Lord Borelia does after you reveal that his son-in-law is actually a murderer, or what Jasper the Merchant wants next from you in his ever-going quest for building a magical flying boat, or which mineral mine Patrick the Merchant wants you to invest with him in this week, then you've got them hooked, and they want to return.

 

[Psion]

As has been mentioned, a lot of people equate high level play to munchkinism. Which I agree is not invariably true.

But let's face it: it often is. In 3e, advancement is quite a bit brisker than previous editions. But still, if there exists a subset of players who seek/give out power on a silver platter, then it should be of little surprise to you that characters in these campaigns will quickly become the most common high level campaigns. Campaigns in which characters receive power more even handedly take quite a while to reach 20th level and beyond.

 

[Desdichado]

Define forced?

Generally I'm too polite to just walk away from people who are talking to me (and these folks would probably just follow me even if I did) or tell people to just shut up for no other reason than because I don't want to listen to them.

I guess I'm not forced, but it's close enough...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

For instance, I've been keeping up on a high-level Story Hour called "Lady Despina's Virtue" which is RIFE with role-playing, politics, and plotting, yet which so far hasn't involved a single combat. Now that's a high-level campaign done right!

Some DM's, however, just don't know how to handle intrigue or politics.

What do you mean that's a high level campaign done right? My players would be bored to tears!

 

[Valicor]

The problem with people saying they don't like high level playing, is there lack of understanding for the concept. Now before people slame me for that comment, I'l say there are those "few" who do understand high level play and simply dislike it. but for the most part, there is a lack of understanding. As stated earlier a player or DM will often jump into it and not understand everything that about the character.

Also as stated before another problem I agree with is just jumping into high level characters you will pick and choose equipment, unlike, the long drawn out character who will "get what he can get".

To me High level play is no different then low level play, the onyl difference is the stroies are greater, the rewards more plentifal, and the risks are higher.

 

[The Sigil]

Ah, the days of youth...

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).

Boy, that takes me back to my youth... I DM'd a campaign with six or seven players back in elementary school... we played every recess and every lunch period for three years (4th thru 6th grade)... let's see, at 180 school days per year times about one hour of breaks per day plus 90 summer days at 8 hours per day... that make about 900 hours per year or 2700 total campaign hours. If I assume I were to break that up into the chunks I do now (weekly sessions at five hours per session) that's 540 weeks or roughly 10 years.

Now, we were using the old boxed set rules (Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortals) and IIRC, all of the players started at first level and were at least 30th level (except the demihumans) by the time we finished, with three PCs managing to make it to the ranks of Immortality (as Initiates; their ascension was the crowning moment of the end of the campaign).

But with the equivalent of 10 years of weekly 5-hour sessions, would you call this munchkin? I didn't (then, I was the DM and a rather stingy one at that... the elf who made immortality was armed only with a +2 sword, for crying out loud).

Boy, I loved that campaign... a great group of players who were in the game for the right reasons (not one powermonger among them and all interested in great roleplaying... we had one character who sacrificed everything he owned - and this included lots of magic items since he was at a rather high level - for a gold dragon egg then spent the next two game years - several RL weeks - nuturing and protecting the egg and resultant hatchling - you might think he was munchkin, but he basically used the dragon as a flying carpet, nothing more - he didn't want the dragon to get hurt, so he didn't use it in combat - and IIRC died protecting the dragon, laying down his life as a "father" would for his "child" - never mind that the dragon was more powerful than he was at that point and could have handled the threat easily... the dragon subsequently had him raised, but he didn't expect that... he fully expected to have to roll a new character up).

Okay, reminiscing over.

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.

"Munchkin" has become the "Hitler" of the RPG world... all useful discussion on a thread in normal newsgroups is over as soon as someone compares another poster to Hitler. Similarly, as soon as someone cries "munchkin" on an RPG thread, all semblance of rational discussion is lost.

--The Sigil

 

[Desdichado]

Thanks, Valicor. After insulting me personally (since in my review of the thread I'm the only one who specifically said that I simply don't like high-level roleplaying) you proceeded to tell me exactly why that is so without any reference to who I am, what my experience is, or anything else. Glad to know that there are folks that know so much about me and what my "problem" is.

The fact of the matter is, playing high-level is more complicated, and IMO, the rewards are not greater (except in a mechanical sense: they aren't any more satisfying though...)

 

[Valicor]

Re: Ah, the days of youth...

"Munchkin" has become the "Hitler" of the RPG world... all useful discussion on a thread in normal newsgroups is over as soon as someone compares another poster to Hitler. Similarly, as soon as someone cries "munchkin" on an RPG thread, all semblance of rational discussion is lost.

--The Sigil

The problem with thinking of someone as a munckin is the fact that they are simply looked at by many with distain. Why because they push the rules to the limit? yes it can get very annoying to have this done, but unless DM's experience atleast one or two munckin players in a lifetime of DM'ing, There will be a lack of understanding for various impacts on a game world.

I personally don't support munckinism, but if you can handle it, you come away as a much better DM. Simply attacking the munckin player for his style of pushing the limits, closes the door without tryng to open it. To consider a Munckin the ultimate evil os alittle extreme. Running afew 1 shot sessions or 1-2 month campaigns here and there with munckin extremes, is a good way for a DM to gain valuable understanding of the game machanic's and what he/she wants from there players.

 

[Valicor]

Thanks, Valicor. After insulting me personally (since in my review of the thread I'm the only one who specifically said that I simply don't like high-level roleplaying) you proceeded to tell me exactly why that is so without any reference to who I am, what my experience is, or anything else. Glad to know that there are folks that know so much about me and what my "problem" is.

The fact of the matter is, playing high-level is more complicated, and IMO, the rewards are not greater (except in a mechanical sense: they aren't any more satisfying though...)

if I offended you' it was not my intention and apologize for it. But if you would read it again, you will see that my post states there are people who understand it, and simply don't like it. Did you miss that part?
I am not simply drawing upon references from this board of this thread, but references from my own personal gaming experience aswell.
Again if I offended you I apologize, I am simply stateing my oppinion.

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not really that sensitive to be offended, but it sure looked like you were trying to offend me!